another school shooting in U.S. of A. :(

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

19th December 2012, 20:08
nigelred5

Quote:

Originally Posted by henners88

Because you have far too many instances of people walking in to schools and executing children. People commit suicide in all countries, but rarely do we have someone take as many people with them as possible using a device that provides instance death, which is what it is designed to do after all. American isn't alone with this sort of killing I know, but it has an appalling record.

I can give my opinion on it because I live in a society where handguns were banned in 1997 after a nutter carried out a similar act of human destruction on a Primary School in Scotland. It wasn't popular to some at the time but people did it. It can be done as has been proven.

Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Just looking at the faces of the children at Sandy Hook who were cruelly taken should make every gun owning American ask the question; do I really need a gun?
The answer is so obvious to people from the outside, but we don't have the fear you guys do being pumped through our media.

Because the reason we feel we NEED a firearm for protection clearly isn't as obvious to you from the outside. The fear can be and is unquestionably exaggerated by the media, on both sides and by both political agandas, but it can be and is a VERY real threat in far too many places in this country. The cause of that fear is not firearms.
19th December 2012, 20:14
chuck34

Quote:

Originally Posted by henners88

Because you have far too many instances of people walking in to schools and executing children.

And there are even more instances every day of people being killed on highways by people that are traveling at a high rate of speed, and many of whom are over the legal limit of alcohol. So again, by your logic we should outlaw cars that can travel in excess of the posted speed limit, and let's bring back alcohol prohibition while we're at it.

People commit suicide in all countries, but rarely do we have someone take as many people with them as possible using a device that provides instance death, which is what it is designed to do after all. American isn't alone with this sort of killing I know, but it has an appalling record.

Quote:

Originally Posted by henners88

I can give my opinion on it because I live in a society where handguns were banned in 1997 after a nutter carried out a similar act of human destruction on a Primary School in Scotland. It wasn't popular to some at the time but people did it. It can be done as has been proven.

So that means that you are an expert on what is right for US citizens?

Quote:

Originally Posted by henners88

Just looking at the faces of the children at Sandy Hook who were cruelly taken should make every gun owning American ask the question; do I really need a gun?
The answer is so obvious to people from the outside, but we don't have the fear you guys do being pumped through our media.

Yes every citizen should ask THEMSELVES that question and decide for THEMSELVES. Why must the government decide?

Where does this "government deciding what's best for us" stop? At guns? How about cars? Smoking is no good, why not just outright ban that? Food? After-all obesity is a huge (pardon the pun) problem, that causes millions of deaths every year. New York city is trying to ban salt, why not just make it a Federal ban? What about speech? There are a lot of people out there saying all kinds of "crazy" thing, shouldn't we stop them? Where does government intrusion into our lives stop? Where is that line? Is there a line? Does the concept of personal responsibility even exist anymore?
19th December 2012, 20:18
chuck34

Quote:

Originally Posted by henners88

Is the risk of being attacked really that bad?

Maybe, maybe not. Why do YOU get to decide for ME?

Quote:

Originally Posted by henners88

Because we might not have guns readily available to us, but live in less fear than you do.

I personally live in no fear, and I own no guns. But I understand that some people do live in fear and do own guns. Why should they be denied that right? I also understand that some people just want to own guns for the sake of owning guns. Why should they be denied that right?

Quote:

Originally Posted by henners88

Its all well saying you have 'freedom', but if you live in a society where you feel you need to arm yourselves against the big bad world, its not exactly being free is it?

How is protecting yourself from a "big bad world" mean I don't have freedom? Taking rights away so I "feel safer" doesn't really make me any more free.
19th December 2012, 20:25
nigelred5

Quote:

Originally Posted by henners88

Is the risk of being attacked really that bad?

Because we might not have guns readily available to us, but live in less fear than you do. Its all well saying you have 'freedom', but if you live in a society where you feel you need to arm yourselves against the big bad world, its not exactly being free is it?

In some places, yes unfortunatley it is.
19th December 2012, 20:30
nigelred5

Quote:

Originally Posted by chuck34

Yes every citizen should ask THEMSELVES that question and decide for THEMSELVES. Why must the government decide?

Where does this "government deciding what's best for us" stop? At guns? How about cars? Smoking is no good, why not just outright ban that? Food? After-all obesity is a huge (pardon the pun) problem, that causes millions of deaths every year. New York city is trying to ban salt, why not just make it a Federal ban? What about speech? There are a lot of people out there saying all kinds of "crazy" thing, shouldn't we stop them? Where does government intrusion into our lives stop? Where is that line? Is there a line? Does the concept of personal responsibility even exist anymore?

+1. I decide what is best for me.
19th December 2012, 20:32
chuck34

Anyone here know what the worst murder of school children in the US is?

Bath School disaster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Better outlaw anything that can make a bomb too. You know, just to be "safe".
19th December 2012, 20:38
ioan

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rollo

This is true. However and this is just a few of the conditions from Swiss gun legislation:
- all automatic weapons banned.
- all semi-automatic weapons banned.
- all people must get a Weapons Purchasing Permit (and pass a criminal background and psychological test).
- to carry a gun on the street requires a Weapons Carrying Permit (they are normally only given to security and the police).
- all private weapons must be stored in a locked box.
- until 2007, government issued ammunition was kept in sealed boxes which was a criminal offence to open. Now ammunition is not kept at civilian premises.
SR 514.541 Verordnung ber Waffen, Waffenzubehr und Munition
SR 514.54 Bundesgesetz vom 20. Juni 1997 ber Waffen, Waffenzubehr und Munition (Waffengesetz, WG) (there is a PDF on this page which is quite extensive)

If America tried to enact similar legislation, all automatic and semi-automatic weapons would have to be seized immediately, as would virtually all ammunition, locked boxes would be required in people's houses that had guns and most people would be disallowed from carrying a gun outside.

It would however be closer to the actual wording of the second amendment:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Switzerland probably has the most highly regulated rules for gun ownership in the Western World. This point is almost always ignored by pro-gun people in the United States.

I like it how we can always count on you to give us the facts! Thanks! :up:
19th December 2012, 20:39
BDunnell

Quote:

Originally Posted by chuck34

Maybe, maybe not. Why do YOU get to decide for ME?

The sort of comment that almost suggests that the person making it is against the very concept of laws. An adult might want to have sex with a five-year-old. Who, according to your reasoning, is to say whether they should or shouldn't?

Quote:

Originally Posted by chuck34

I personally live in no fear, and I own no guns. But I understand that some people do live in fear and do own guns. Why should they be denied that right?

Those who live in fear should not be pandered to, for fear is a negative, often irrational thing and policy should be made on a rational basis.
19th December 2012, 20:41
BDunnell

Quote:

Originally Posted by nigelred5

Because the reason we feel we NEED a firearm for protection clearly isn't as obvious to you from the outside. The fear can be and is unquestionably exaggerated by the media, on both sides and by both political agandas, but it can be and is a VERY real threat in far too many places in this country. The cause of that fear is not firearms.

I would contest that the two things cannot simply be viewed in isolation. Do you not consider it deeply sad that anyone should feel the need to have a firearm for protection? I do. To me it's completely unimaginable that such a situation can be reached.
19th December 2012, 20:41
ioan

Quote:

Originally Posted by Starter

The freedoms we enjoy as part of our Bill of Rights does not contain anything about "some people" or "certain people" or "need special permission" or "only members of a certain group". It says "The people".
Interpret that yourself.

Yeah, right give a gun to every lunatic otherwise you will break a 200+ years old law! LOL and me thinking it is already 2012!

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page