Printable View
All the jock bullies in my school are now doing things like managing McDonalds are selling used cars. While I am playing Command and Conquer 3 in my kick ass office. :D Becasue its Friday and I am drained. Tiberium has turned me into a scrin...Quote:
#4 tells me it was not some poor little wimps bullied by jocks?
I just thought I would bring this into the discussion, the following snippet was just posted on CNN. It's an editorial comment made by Ted Nugent, who I am sure some of you know is an big gun right's activist and a member of the board for the NRA.
Quote:
WACO, Texas (CNN) -- Zero tolerance, huh? Gun-free zones, huh? Try this on for size: Columbine gun-free zone, New York City pizza shop gun-free zone, Luby's Cafeteria gun-free zone, Amish school in Pennsylvania gun-free zone and now Virginia Tech gun-free zone.
Anybody see what theevil Brady Campaign and other anti-gun cults have created? I personally have zero tolerance for evil and denial. And America had best wake up real fast that the brain-dead celebration of unarmed helplessness will get you killed every time, and I've about had enough of it.
Nearly a decade ago, a Springfield, Oregon, high schooler, a hunter familiar with firearms, was able to bring an unfolding rampage to an abrupt end when he identified a gunman attempting to reload his .22-caliber rifle, made the tactical decision to make a move and tackled the shooter.
A few years back, an assistant principal at Pearl High School in Mississippi, which was a gun-free zone, retrieved his legally owned Colt .45 from his car and stopped a Columbine wannabe from continuing his massacre at another school after he had killed two and wounded more at Pearl.
At an eighth-grade school dance in Pennsylvania, a boy fatally shot a teacher and wounded two students before the owner of the dance hall brought the killing to a halt with his own gun.
More recently, just a few miles up the road from Virginia Tech, two law school students ran to fetch their legally owned firearm to stop a madman from slaughtering anybody and everybody he pleased. These brave, average, armed citizens neutralized him pronto.
Full Story posted at: http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/19/com...ent/index.html
Cheers:
I agree gun free zones are a total waste of time since it only takes one person to bring in a gun and make a mess.
However, I still stand by the point that if guns were less available less people would have them. Yes the bank robbers would have them, yes the terrorists would have them. No, school students generally wouldn't have them.
England has been a "gun free zone" for many years.
1. You are not permitted to carry a loaded firearm in ANY PUBLIC PLACE.
2. You cannot discharge a firearm within "x" feet of a public right of way.
3. You are not permitted to own a firearm for self or property protection.
These regulations are not reflected in our crime statistics. The crime statistics simply show changes in our society, namely drugs and street gangs (who do not use legally owned weapons anyway).
Obtaining a firearm in England is quite easy. You have to prove that:
1. You are a suitable person.
2. You have a good reason for possession.
3. You have somewhere safe to keep it.
4. You have somewhere safe to use it.
These regulations ensure (as far as is possible) that criminal activities involving legally owned firearms is kept to a minimum. In fact, apart from suicides, I cannot recall of even one incident in recent years.
In the case of the UK's school shooting (Dunblane, Scotland) the perp failed on #s 1,2 and 4.
A local police sergeant had filed a report that the guy was no longer fit to possess, but was overruled by his police chief.
What is required are:
1. Adequate regulations.
2. Consistent regulations.
3. Enforced regulations.
Incidentally, the perp at VT was 23 years old............ he wasn't a kid, and he started planning the event at least a month in advance. My advice to American gun enthusiasts is participate in controlling what you have, before you loose the lot.;)
this is one key problem with legally owned guns. There is the mandatory waiting period on guns. IE - if you loose your last marble and want to go on a shooting spree you need to wait 3 days. Seems like a good idea but of course that waiting period is useless if you already own a gun and loose your last marble, see what I mean?
I agree. The bullies are way out of control. When I was in school, we got spanked when we acted up. It makes everyone think before they act like a fool. They don't want to look bad in front of their peers by getting spanked, so they seldom went over the line.Quote:
Originally Posted by gore
My mother is a retired teacher. She taught before and after spankings where banned in public schools. She decided to retire when retirement was available to her because the students where out of control. She only stayed retired for about a year, then went back to teach a younger age group of students.
Children that ridicule other children deserve to have their asses busted. None of them are any better than the other. There is no respect for others, and it shows. We need to get this problem under control and fast. No one deserves that crap!
First off, my family and I have prayed for the VT victims, their families and the community every day since it happened.
I thought I would post this, it is kind of the anti-gun free zone.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1818862/posts
Hows that for a STAT?
I guess you can all guess where I stand on this issue
Gump > More reliable stats than yours show that:
- The US homicide rate is higher than any other industrialized country's because of the easy access to guns (Mark Duggan, "More Guns, More Crime", Journal of Political Economy 109, no.5 (2001), pp. 1086-1114).
- Guns aren't the whole story: in Switzerland, for example, there are WAY more guns per capita than in any other country, including the US (because of the rule that an adult male keeps his weapon after military duty).
- The main problem - one you don't seem to understand; if you did, you wouldn't post an article that only links "number of weapons" to "number of crimes" - is that the US has a retarded policy on who gets the weapons. It's not about getting weapons to those who need them (like they do in Switzerland); it's about keeping them out of the hands of those who are retarded (at which the US miserably fails).
In other words: linking the mandatory ownership of guns to crime rates plummeting is a STAT, indeed; unfortunately, there is no positive correlation between the two. What you're looking for in an argument is a statistic that has a positive or negative correlation (as in "There is a negative correlation between the number of guns owned and the number of violent crimes" - unfortunately for you, there isn't), not just a "STAT" (I have stats that say that my computer goes down every month or so, and I have stats that say that there's a full moon every month or so; your "STAT" would conclude that the full moon causes my computer to go down - How's that for a STAT?).
I won't even go into DjM's posting of Nugent's "arguments" - I was wondering why it took so long for somebody to post Nugent's illogical ramblings (I was expecting the Texan, though; not DjM!)
as I recall those guns in Switzerland are to be kept locked up at all times. (With 3 clips of ammo, or am I making that part up?) More to the point, every single person that has one has been well trained with it. They have not just walked into a shop and bought it, they have spent months practising with it, how to use it, how to use it SAFELY. Big difference.
Ard~,
I shall correct you.............. as a Swiss light machine gun champion...........
You have to have a nuclear fallout room/bunker in new and detached properties. You are supplied with steel cabinets to store the munitions you are supposed to have.......this is typically in the fallout shelter, which is a secure room anyways. I don't know how much in total............but far more than "three clips".......... you may only be issued with three magazines to fit the weapon, but that is only 60 rounds............. nothing like what you are issued in combat.
I would guess 500, as that is an "outer".
No, I am not Swiss, but I have been over there target shooting often enough;)
Of course Switzerland has a lower crime rate, look at the Chocolate they make!
Neg, I posted as a point of discussion, I in no way agree with Nugent's comments only I do recognize his right to say them. You must have known that it was only a mater of time before someone from the gun activist community was going to mouth off on the subject.Quote:
Originally Posted by Negative
Cheers:
http://washtimes.com/commentary/2007...0540-3374r.htmQuote:
A few years back, a couple of alienated loser teens from a small Vermont town decided they were going to kill somebody, steal his ATM cards, and go to Australia. So they went to a remote house in the woods a couple of towns away, knocked on the door, and said their car had broken down. The guy thought their story smelled funny so he picked up his Glock and told 'em to get lost. So they concocted a better story, and pretended to be students doing an environmental survey. Unfortunately, the next old coot in the woods was sick of environmentalists and chased 'em away.
Eventually they figured they could spend months knocking on doors in rural Vermont and New Hampshire and seeing nothing for their pains but cranky guys in plaid leveling both barrels through the screen door. So even these idiots worked it out: Where's the nearest place around here where you're most likely to encounter gullible defenseless types who have forsworn all means of resistance? Answer: Dartmouth College. So they drove over the Connecticut River, rang the doorbell, and brutally murdered a couple of well-meaning liberal professors.
BTW, the murder was not done with guns. Hunting knives were sufficient, since the
victims were unarmed.
I won't quote statistics because "The figures don't lie, but liars can figure" I am
not a mathematician or a scientist, and I don't think they should rule the world.
This is an issue of constitutional law. In my opinion "the right of the people
to keep and bear arms" is a reference to "the people" and not the "army" or
the "police" to bear arms, since the authorities always had the right
to bear arms, it was not necessary to enable them to do so by constitutional
amendment.
I predict that, within twenty years, all firearms will be banned in the USA.
Many of us will live to see that day. Maybe we can agree to get together
at that time over a pint, and discuss whether it has become a better world,
if they haven't banned beer as well.
:cool:
They already tried banning beer, the guns reminded them it was a bad idea. One of many reasons I'm against prohibition of substances. They can take away guns, won't stop anyone from using explosives, they can take away those too, and then someone would invent a new way to kill people.
Any evidence you need of that, just watch a special on Prisons in America. They have caught inmates with guns that would fire a 9MM bullet made out of PLUMBING.
Take both away and people will find another way to kill or go back to knives and arrows. Take those away they'll make spears, take those away and they'll still find a way and the only solution would be to kill everyone on the planet and then what would the point be? Who is anyone protecting if they're dead?
If we go down the list of things you can make a weapon from there isn't much left. Hell we'd even need special shoes, even gaurds in jail know a shoe string is all it takes, that's why inmates can't have those either.
Well then lets level the playing field and ensure all US citizens have a firearm, that would work out to approx 300 Million (with the exception of Illegal Aliens of course), and lets factor in the cost of keeping those firearms with a steady supply of bullets, should keep the arms manufacturer's in enough dough to make it through the next couple of generations.
As I read somewhere else, it is incumbent for the NRA to help get a grip on the control side of this issue or they very well may lose the opportunity to keep their weapons.
As long as the NRA are seen to side with the gun nuts then the tax paying public are soon going to start demanding tighter controls, and before you know it the "right" will be amended right out of the consititution, nothing is ever ingrained in stone.:rolleyes:
This would not have helped in the case of the Virgina Tech shooter however the problem with violence is the crime and punishment issue. Our justice system is broken.
We have countless politicians from both sides of the aisle talking about cracking down and zero tolerance but our prison system is a revolving door. instead of rehabilitating it is training prisoners to be worse.
When we have a violent person running amok at some point the common good of society has to outweigh this person's extended rights.
I am a pro gun person. I've had no problem with 5 day waiting periods, if indeed they were doing background checks.
The VT shooter fired over 100+ rounds. I haven't read what types of clips he was using but if he was using stock clips that would mean at least 10 reloads. With two pistols and only two hands that's a lot of work. Someone couldn't have smashed a chair over his head?
Right, but once again two key points spring to mind:Quote:
Originally Posted by gore
1) Average Joe needs his laces to keep his shoes on, the fact it can be used as a weapon is incidental.
2) You are Billy Everyteen sat in your college classroom minding your own business, defenseless. A maniac bursts through the door threatening to kill you. Would you prefer him to be holding:
a) his shoelaces
OR
b) an assault rifle.
The Assault Rifle. If he came in with shoe laces I'd be laughing to hard to defend myself and I'd get strangled laughing. At least with an AK I'd be seriouse enough to try SOMETHING. Like for example if they had the safety on though however unlikely it was, or if they aimed at the kid next to me or had his back turned to spray rounds, a quickie bottom of a chair where the base of the steel is to the the back of the head where that little indent is generally takes down anyone for at least an hour.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aardpsymon
And being one person here who's actually wrestled an AK out of someones hands before I know how to do it. (Best friend was going to kill himself, I prevented it).
A couple of problems with this reaction gore, is 1) whatever action you take may have dire consequences for those other's who are in the room with you, on your own go for it and good luck, but if you miss and he kills everyone else, better hope he takes you out last, cause someone's parent will do it for them. 2) It is 100% different to disarm a buddy then one who is trying to put a bullet into your brain cavity.Quote:
Originally Posted by gore
Suffice to say, I would be hard pressed to believe that a person placed in that situation would have the cojones to actually carry it out, even police officers in the line of fire, sometimes hesitate to pull their weapons, unfortunately to their demise, but a split second reaction in the wrong direction can be disastrous, doesn't matter how many times you have recreated the scenario in training, nothing can ever prepare you for that showdown.;)
Dalek:
I know, I wasn't pretending to say I'd be sitting there pumping with testosterone and ripping his head off, I was just trying to add a more humor based outlook on it to a very VERY serious situation because well, to many people in serious times get angry over small things and take it out on the ones around them, and I try to find humor where others don't see it.
Believe me, I really have no idea if I'd do something if I didn't know who the trigger was. But if I DID, I really wouldn't be abel to live with myself if I missed and they fired and hit someone aiming for me.
However with the plane crashes of 9/11 and now this shoot up. I think most people are starting to realize that if you do nothing you will probably die, if you do something you'll probably die but you may be able to stop it and save others.
The professor that stood in the door taking the "heat" preventing the nut from entering the classroom. The senior who took charge and used furniture to barricade a classroom. Action = saved lives.
The nut had to reload. He'd have to had pocketed one pistol and then unclip then reclip the other. That would be 5 to 10 seconds at a range when calm
OK I understand about learning, drilling and actually having to do something in a crisis. I'm a CPR professional rescuer instructor. I also wrestled my daughter with a 10'' knife when she tried to kill herself. (why I don't own guns, still believe in the right to have them) Unarming a suicidal person that you care about and don't want to physically hurt or kill can be challenging, Gore you have my sympathies, that was probably as emotional for you as it was for your friend.
However are we all to be "lambs for the slaughter" because someone's parents or lawyers are going to make whatever life we have left afterwards miserable?
That's really all most of us are saying. Everyone just gets bent up on emotions.Quote:
What is required are:
1. Adequate regulations.
2. Consistent regulations.
3. Enforced regulations.
Thanks. It's the only time I've ever delt with someone trying it in front of me like that and I generally don't have a problem openly discussing things because, well, I don't think anyone here wonders what's on my mind because I usually just say it. In other words I agree that keeping things bottled up is usually a bad idea.