# GENERAL FORUM > IN THE NEWS >  Shooting at Va Tech

## StoneGRMI

At least 20 people have been killed in the shooting. Sad, sad day. 

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/16/vte...ing/index.html

----------


## idunk42

WOW! 

very sad indeed.  :Frown:

----------


## Mighty Joe

This world is going nuts.....

----------


## ALPHAMALE77

Man...this Is Right Up The Road From Me....scary....im With Mighty Joe...this World Is Going Crazy....the Effects Of This Will Be Far Reaching....all We Can Do Is Pray For The Families.....

----------


## Lexed

strange I would think this would be on breaking news and havent seen anything about this yet

----------


## goodcents

Fuk, now they will want more gun control. What we need is "crazy" control and more armed people like they have in israel. Over there all school bus drivers must be armed when they go on field trips and many idiots have been stopped by armed citizens :Smilie:

----------


## goodcents

Maybe they should of posted a "no weapons on campus" sign, that would of stopped it :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):   :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):  My bank has one of those stupid signs :0icon Pissedoff:  (like a fuking bank robber would not rob a place because of it :Shrug:

----------


## StoneGRMI

> strange I would think this would be on breaking news and havent seen anything about this yet



You gotta be kidding. It's on every single news outlet.

----------


## davedizzle

A very sad day. My thoughts go out to all the families...

----------


## goodcents

The families should sue the school because they should provide security for them and after 911 with all the crazy fuks running around they should of took steps to prevent this shlt! Probably some bastard that didn't get his nob polished by some chic so he blast everyone else :Frown:

----------


## goodcents

Armed teachers (like israel)=equal dead crazy bastard :Smilie:

----------


## UpstateTank

> The families should sue the school because they should provide security for them and after 911 with all the crazy fuks running around they should of took steps to prevent this shlt! Probably some bastard that didn't get his nob polished by some chic so he blast everyone else


ud be suprised at the lack of security on college campuses 2day

at my school, yea there are always a few on duty at the same time, but they have nothing in leiu of ne kind of weapon (cept for a stoopid flashlight) and they're all old out of shape men that couldnt do jackshit if something WERE to ever happen

kinda makes me think twice about goin to class 2day

----------


## goodcents

> ud be suprised at the lack of security on college campuses 2day
> 
> at my school, yea there are always a few on duty at the same time, but they have nothing in leiu of ne kind of weapon (cept for a stoopid flashlight) and they're all old out of shape men that couldnt do jackshit if something WERE to ever happen
> 
> kinda makes me think twice about goin to class 2day


Yeah the fuking terrorist would just love to pop a bunch of college kids and lets not forget the dude who's girl is fuking someone else so he kills every one else : 1106:

----------


## Lexed

wonder who is behind the killings

----------


## numbat

F^ckin cowards are what they are..Pussies gotta pack guns to make a statement.May the gunman burn in hell..  :Madd:

----------


## l2elapse

Very sad, what is the world coming to

----------


## Doc.Sust

takes zero guts to go shoot random people because your an angry troubled bastard. punk,

----------


## StoneGRMI

32 dead now. Sick people.

----------


## Lexed

im in college know we will prob be getting all of our class cancled for the day.

----------


## StoneGRMI

With 32 people dead it makes this shooting the worst shooting in United States history.

----------


## OPSTER

It's final season... 32? I heard 31 dead?
Anyways... turns out the dude started the shooting... then came back two hours later and did it again!

----------


## big L 17

i cant belive this my prayers go out to the familys

----------


## DNoMac

It is very tragic that with all thats going on in the world, someone would turn a gun against innocent unarmed civilians. I'm wondering what measures are gonna be taken at universities now. I remember after Columbine they stripped pretty much all rights from students. My prayers go out to the families.

----------


## mavsluva

Believe it or not folks, we are at war everyday that we wake up. That includes each and every one of us. Some lose the battle as this gunman did today. It's just very unfortunate that one man's cry for help resulted in the death of many.

----------


## ALPHAMALE77

Just A Rumor...i Got A Friend That Goes There And He Said...you Know How That Goes...but..the Shooters Gf Broke Up With Him....he Got Pissed Went And Killed Her First...then The Others..i Cant Confirm This But Its What Was Told To Me....

----------


## dhriscerr

Thank god I got my Concealed Weapons Permit in the mail on Saturday  :Big Grin:   :Big Grin:   :Big Grin:  to bad you can't carry on school grounds. But these are the kind of things that you throw in the face of the people against carrying guns, all the criminals get them easily so why not have a few of the good guys have some???

----------


## 1819

> Just A Rumor...i Got A Friend That Goes There And He Said...you Know How That Goes...but..the Shooters Gf Broke Up With Him....he Got Pissed Went And Killed Her First...then The Others..i Cant Confirm This But Its What Was Told To Me....


this would seem to be a very well planned, calculated act. hard to believe that the moron just "snapped". this idiot hit his marks. he knew exactly how to handle a firearm and no doubt, practiced long and hard. death was too good for this fool. he got off easy. best wishes for all the people affected. i hope none of the bro's on this board have friends or family affected.

----------


## chest6

31 + the shooter

Coward.

Anyone can pull a trigger and kill somebody.  :Icon Rolleyes:

----------


## Jakspro

33 total, with up to 29 injured. Its just sad that morning classes weren't cancled, I mean with a gun man at large. I wonder what that kid was thinking for two hours before he came back and shot over 60 people.

Sad day.

----------


## Kennedy

This is why everyone over 18 should be trained and carry a concealed weapon. Instead of 32 people dead, it would have been 1 or 2 plus the killer.

----------


## Vinlander

What a sad day, not only for those kids but for the fact that this will be utilized as a platform for pressure groups that have nothing to do with the event. Truly sad.

----------


## kihop

> This is why everyone over 18 should be trained and carry a concealed weapon. Instead of 32 people dead, it would have been 1 or 2 plus the killer.


Are you serious? I know way too many people +18 who i'd never trust with a gun.

----------


## Lexed

kids with guns would mean 100% more accidental deaths especailly in college where nothing but partying goes around

----------


## Lexed

im in penn state dont know about other college but if your not partying here then you prob dont go to penn state

----------


## Kennedy

> Are you serious? I know way too many people +18 who i'd never trust with a gun.



This is true

----------


## daytrader

> This is why everyone over 18 should be trained and carry a concealed weapon. Instead of 32 people dead, it would have been 1 or 2 plus the killer.


Dude, that would be the worst thing ever lol :Evil2:

----------


## daytrader

> im in penn state dont know about other college but if your not partying here then you prob dont go to penn state


partying? were your classes cancled tommrow?

----------


## Superhuman

I think the government was behind this, to enact stricter gun control laws.... it's gonna be a NWO with an APPROVAL for tracking chip for every civilian in america, look it up

----------


## Kennedy

^ At this point I'd believe anything

----------


## Hellmaskbanned

> I think the government was behind this, to enact stricter gun control laws.... it's gonna be a NWO with an APPROVAL for tracking chip for every civilian in america, look it up



It's Dale Gribble from King of the Hill!  :LOL:  

I like your _Deep_ Thinking.....I'm trying to get my next pistol as soon as possible now!....Me when I heard about this....."oh shit...Better get that gun fast!" :LOL:  

But on the topic. That's very sad someone would do that at a college...college is usually fun, and you have more freedom. I can see someone shooting up a shitty highschool faculty but not random students at college. Sickening really.

----------


## Superhuman

this is really terrible you're right, they still don't know who the shooter is or why he did it. I can't believe he managed to take out that many people with just a .22 and a 9mm

----------


## fLgAtOr

You know...

A little patience goes a long way.

As angered and saddened as I am, I can't help but wonder if this could of been prevented.

Makes you think how you treat the people you meet during the day.

----------


## dhriscerr

> this is really terrible you're right, they still don't know who the shooter is or why he did it. I can't believe he managed to take out that many people with just a .22 and a 9mm


Yeah I don't know how the hell he did that? I shot a guy in Iraq with a 9mm 6 times and he was still comming towards us. Probably on something, but still, I'd figure assult weapons or something. Makes you take a step back and think what could happen if a few people with a little knowlege could do. Scary stuff, but like I said earlier all the concealed weapons permits in the world wouldn't have stopped it, because you can't carry on school grounds. But the Media is all over the violence on tv and in video games now, Seriously, I've been exposed to so much real violence and tv and games, im not going around like a coward shooting innocent people. Its not the media its the parenting, and lack of good moral upbringing, and apparently that guy hadn't had Intro to Ethics yet.

----------


## Hellmaskbanned

> Yeah I don't know how the hell he did that? I shot a guy in Iraq with a 9mm 6 times and he was still comming towards us. Probably on something, but still, I'd figure assult weapons or something. Makes you take a step back and think what could happen if a few people with a little knowlege could do. Scary stuff, but like I said earlier all the concealed weapons permits in the world wouldn't have stopped it, because you can't carry on school grounds. But the Media is all over the violence on tv and in video games now, Seriously, I've been exposed to so much real violence and tv and games, im not going around like a coward shooting innocent people. Its not the media its the parenting, and lack of good moral upbringing, and apparently that guy hadn't had Intro to Ethics yet.




True bruda.

Thats crazy about the 6 shots to take him down with the 9. He must have been drugged up for the pain not to collapse him itself.

9mm goes completely through you right? So would one 45acp shot of knocked him off his feet do to the bigger surface area wound?

----------


## dhriscerr

It all ***ends on where it hits you, but service pistols all get ball rounds, so its harder to take someone down than if you were using hollow points. But I don't think he would have kept comming after 1 maybe 2 shots of a .45

----------


## mcpeepants

> Yeah I don't know how the hell he did that? I shot a guy in Iraq with a 9mm 6 times and he was still comming towards us. Probably on something, but still, I'd figure assult weapons or something. Makes you take a step back and think what could happen if a few people with a little knowlege could do. Scary stuff, but like I said earlier all the concealed weapons permits in the world wouldn't have stopped it, because you can't carry on school grounds. But the Media is all over the violence on tv and in video games now, Seriously, I've been exposed to so much real violence and tv and games, im not going around like a coward shooting innocent people. Its not the media its the parenting, and lack of good moral upbringing, and apparently that guy hadn't had Intro to Ethics yet.


all day on the news and I kept seeing pundits trying to blame tv, movies, and video games for the shooting instead of the guy who shot all the people.

----------


## RamyGras

It was definitely a planned event. He was fully prepared with plenty of ammo. He had time to chain lock the doors to the building, and he seemed to have precisely picked the room he would execute his plan. 

I don't know what this guy's beef was, but man do I wish he would have survived his suicide attempt. This terrorist deserved much worst than he got.

----------


## dhriscerr

Yeah the reason the number was so high, was becuase he walked into a 2nd story room, and shot 20 out of the 24 people in it, then went next door and started shooting the next class over, but some of the kids had already started jumping out of windows. All they keep doing is blaming gun control, violence on tv, and lack of security at colleges. Even with stricter gun control, less violence on tv, and armed security guards on college, Some people are just Animals, and you cant change that. Even with 20 armed security guards, whats the chance that one of them will be in the room??? Sorry to say but you can lessen the likely hood of something like this happening but you can't stop someone motivated enough to kill someone, if they want it done that bad, they will make it happen. Especially when they plan on taking there own life in the process, becuase then they have nothing to live for.

----------


## 1819

> Yeah the reason the number was so high, was becuase he walked into a 2nd story room, and shot 20 out of the 24 people in it, then went next door and started shooting the next class over, but some of the kids had already started jumping out of windows. All they keep doing is blaming gun control, violence on tv, and lack of security at colleges. Even with stricter gun control, less violence on tv, and armed security guards on college, Some people are just Animals, and you cant change that. Even with 20 armed security guards, whats the chance that one of them will be in the room??? Sorry to say but you can lessen the likely hood of something like this happening but you can't stop someone motivated enough to kill someone, if they want it done that bad, they will make it happen. Especially when they plan on taking there own life in the process, becuase then they have nothing to live for.


very wise words. i am sick of the gun control rant already in full swing this morning. if there were no guns in the world this moron would have found a way. poison, fire, a friggin golf club. he was determined to kill. the "point the finger society" we live in will not accept that as an answer.

----------


## singern

> very wise words. i am sick of the gun control rant already in full swing this morning. if there were no guns in the world this moron would have found a way. poison, fire, a friggin golf club. he was determined to kill. the "point the finger society" we live in will not accept that as an answer.


I dont think its quite that simple.
Its much easyer for a coward to point and shoot, VS approaching one on one and killing with a knife or other weapon. Other students would have jumped him, and if he only had a knife I doubt very much he would have successfully killed himself.
There are many logical and correct arguments on both sides of the gun control debate, dont dismiss them so easily.

And what bothers me is how the hell an exchange student from South Korea is able to purchase a gun. He was found with a receipt from March of 2007. We dont have enough home grown wackos waving guns, now we import them.

----------


## 1819

> I dont think its quite that simple.
> Its much easyer for a coward to point and shoot, VS approaching one on one and killing with a knife or other weapon. Other students would have jumped him, and if he only had a knife I doubt very much he would have successfully killed himself.
> There are many logical and correct arguments on both sides of the gun control debate, dont dismiss them so easily.


you too are correct to a degree. yes it is easier for someone to snap and shoot 20 people. that was not the case here. i think most will agree this was very well planned. i do not dismiss arguments for gun control. the problem is they are usually misguided. i am all for responsible gun ownership although i really dont know if that can exsist. common sense tells us not to give guys getting out of prison their gun card with cab fare. i think if the gun control people would accept the fact that you cannot stop people from killing no matter what then some reasonable measures can be taken. it is not realistic to take guns off the street. it is not realistic to keep them out of the hands of people who want to kill. personally i do not have an answer. i think we go about it all wrong. tougher background check? please. if a felon wants a gun he just wont purchase it legally. so now because you may have a record, totally unrelated to violence, you cant protect yourself legally? reminds me of the poor guy who hasnt had a ticket in 30 years but pays higher car insurance because he has poor credit. insane. learn how to use a gun responsibly from an early age and take your chances. i learned how to use a baseball bat when i was 4 and know that it is not intended for hittting people in the head. the fact is though some people still choose to do this. cant shut down the louisville slugger plant. what's a mother to do? :Wink/Grin:

----------


## singern

> you too are correct to a degree. yes it is easier for someone to snap and shoot 20 people. that was not the case here. i think most will agree this was very well planned. i do not dismiss arguments for gun control. the problem is they are usually misguided. i am all for responsible gun ownership although i really dont know if that can exsist. common sense tells us not to give guys getting out of prison their gun card with cab fare. i think if the gun control people would accept the fact that you cannot stop people from killing no matter what then some reasonable measures can be taken. it is not realistic to take guns off the street. it is not realistic to keep them out of the hands of people who want to kill. personally i do not have an answer. i think we go about it all wrong. tougher background check? please. if a felon wants a gun he just wont purchase it legally. so now because you may have a record, totally unrelated to violence, you cant protect yourself legally? reminds me of the poor guy who hasnt had a ticket in 30 years but pays higher car insurance because he has poor credit. insane. learn how to use a gun responsibly from an early age and take your chances. i learned how to use a baseball bat when i was 4 and know that it is not intended for hittting people in the head. the fact is though some people still choose to do this. cant shut down the louisville slugger plant. what's a mother to do?


Absolutely, there are many good arguments on both sides of this issue. But lets not hijack this thread.

----------


## Carlos_E

> I dont think its quite that simple.
> Its much easyer for a coward to point and shoot, VS approaching one on one and killing with a knife or other weapon. Other students would have jumped him, and if he only had a knife I doubt very much he would have successfully killed himself.
> There are many logical and correct arguments on both sides of the gun control debate, dont dismiss them so easily.
> 
> *And what bothers me is how the hell an exchange student from South Korea is able to purchase a gun. He was found with a receipt from March of 2007.* We dont have enough home grown wackos waving guns, now we import them.


Can resident aliens with a green card not buy a weapon? Is that against the law? Serious question.  :Shrug:

----------


## ironpumpindoc

Very sad day indeed, not sure about resident aliens and guns Carlos. Maybe some of the police officers on here could answer that question.

----------


## Snrf

I purchased a bunch of guns while on Holiday in the US.

you just find a gun trader magazine and purchase privately.

oh and with a green card you can purchase anything from a gunstore, I used to have a nice collection while I was resident.

----------


## dhriscerr

Im all for stricter gun control, but to say that we need to take them off the streets, or to make them illegal to have is rediculous. And even with stricter gun laws bad guys will still get them, ask some of the guys in the UK and Australia, they can't have guns, but I bet your left nut the bad guys somehow still get them, so why unarm law abiding citizens. Were getting away from what founded this country guns, and religion, and everyone is easy to push them out. People all over the world carried weapons for thousands of years, if you didn't have a gun in the 1800's you were crazy to go out, the fact of the matter is society has changed, and peoples ethics has changed. Maybe less violence on TV and video games will help, but lets face it, you can't stop it and they already have a parental rating in place, so besides parents, and respected family members and friends, children have no hope. If only you had to take some test to make sure you were a suitable parent before you had kids, that might help. Truthfully I don't know if there is a right answer? You say if he would have had a knife he wouldnt have done the damage he did? How do you then explane how a few box cutters were able to bring down the airplanes that hit the world trade center and the pentagon? Dont be to quick to judge the power of someones plan, and the power fear has on people.

----------


## Mogamedogz

There are places in Ohio (Gun conventions) where yu can walk right up and buy an automatic weapon, using ONLY a regular drivers license or ID card. So long as you are over 18 years old. 

I know because I have been to one, and watch a kid I know purchase an AK-47.

Very easy.

----------


## Carlos_E

> There are places in Ohio (Gun conventions) where yu can walk right up and buy an automatic weapon, using ONLY a regular drivers license or ID card. So long as you are over 18 years old. 
> 
> I know because I have been to one, and watch a kid I know purchase an AK-47.
> 
> Very easy.


Why the hell does a kid need a AK-47? Hunting? I doubt it.

----------


## singern

> Why the hell does a kid need a AK-47? Hunting? I doubt it.


I guess thats one good argument for gun control....

----------


## BITTAPART2

> takes zero guts to go shoot random people because your an angry troubled bastard. punk,


unfortuantaly I gotta disagree doc. It takes balls to go through with something like that. like the 911 hijackers, everyone said they were cowards but c'mon that took balls to hijack a plane and fly it into a building. its all just horrible that it happens and i will never understand how sick someone can be to take ones life from them especially unprovoked like this.

----------


## Carlos_E

It does not take balls. It takes a lack of respect for human life. People should have to take a thorough psych screening before allowing them to buy a gun. That would cut down on the crazies getting a hold of one.

----------


## Logan13

> *It does not take balls. It takes a lack of respect for human life. People should have to take a thorough psych screening before allowing them to buy a gun.* That would cut down on the crazies getting a hold of one.


Exactly! Everyone should not be afforded the right to own guns.

----------


## nalbano34

Could not agree more!!!!!!

----------


## 1819

> It does not take balls. It takes lack of respect for human life. People should have to take a thorough psych screening before allowing them to buy a gun. That would cut down on the crazies getting a hold of one.


true but the fact remains that people who want them will get them. hell, it's as easy as gettin some rec drugs. if i needed a gun illegally it is easier for me to get a handgun than it is to find a reliable source for gear!! when i'm down the boxing gym in newark, guns are everywhere. same in miami. cant tell ya how many guys have them in their gymbags. no one hiding the fact that they are for sale either. no too long ago a guy came in hustlin stuff. he had the usual stash of dope, a cordless drill, a gun, and a pipewrench that was taller than i was. (looked like it came from a shipyard) lol. i see dudes like that all the time. dont even have to seek them out. a criminal has no problem getting what he needs.

----------


## Mogamedogz

> Why the hell does a kid need a AK-47? Hunting? I doubt it.



He just thought it was cool. (He was in police academy at the time though). But still... He didnt have a gun permit (on him), or anything like that. He just bought it. Paid cash, wraped it up, and took it home.

----------


## RamyGras

How do you choose who gets to purchase a gun or not? I mean this prick had a clean record and seemed to be an educated guy. I'm all about gun control, but it seems like it would be impossible to pick and choose who gets to buy one. Whether it be disgruntled Americans walking our streets or terrorists from abroad, these animals will find the resources necessary if they feel compelled to take action. Let's not forget, much more people get killed every day in this country. EVERY DAY. This is not a new problem. They kill in all colors and they kill in all social statuses. Gun control is not really an option.

----------


## Logan13

> How do you choose who gets to purchase a gun or not? I mean this prick had a clean record and seemed to be an educated guy. I'm all about gun control, but it seems like it would be impossible to pick and choose who gets to buy one. Whether it be disgruntled Americans walking our streets or terrorists from abroad, these animals will find the resources necessary if they feel compelled to take action. Let's not forget, much more people get killed every day in this country. EVERY DAY. This is not a new problem. They kill in all colors and they kill in all social statuses. Gun control is not really an option.


Unfortunately it is easier to say that not everyone should have guns than it would be to enforce it. Even if guns were outlawed, which I would be against, people would still get them. Crack is illegal and it still manages to find a consumer base.

----------


## singern

Until people realise that the constitution and bill of rights written some 230 years ago, and as such some of the articles and laws on which we define ourselves no longer apply to society today. 

*Amendment II

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.* 


The ownership, use, and application of a musket cannot be compared to that of an automatic weapon, and certainly has nothing to do with Joe America walking through the mall with a 45 under his shirt. But the NRA lives and breaths by reciting the 2nd amendment every 30 minutes.

----------


## RamyGras

> Unfortunately it is easier to say that not everyone should have guns than it would be to enforce it. Even if guns were outlawed, which I would be against, people would still get them. Crack is illegal and it still manages to find a consumer base.


Yeah, that's what I meant. Obviously this is for the sake of discussion, as guns being outlawed is not really a possibility, and I wouldn't care one way or another about it. Bottom line, if you want a gun, you can get a gun. My roommate and another friend of mine went to a gun show not too long ago. My roommate, a member of the U.S. Armed Forces with no criminal record, easily was able to buy one. The other guy, one with a bit more extensive of a record, was denied. He has another option, if he so inclines, and that's to buy one from a dealer. Either way, there are plenty of options. I would imagine, and I don't know this as a fact, that most murders commited are from guns purchased underground.

----------


## Bojangles69

> It does not take balls. It takes a lack of respect for human life. *People should have to take a thorough psych screening before allowing them to buy a gun.* That would cut down on the crazies getting a hold of one.


I agree 1000%

----------


## singern

> I would imagine, and I don't know this as a fact, that most murders commited are from guns purchased underground.


My guess would be that gang member and drug dealers do get there weapons illegally, but domestic and premeditated crimes are done with legally obtained weapons.

----------


## singern

> It does not take balls. It takes a lack of respect for human life. People should have to take a thorough psych screening before allowing them to buy a gun. That would cut down on the crazies getting a hold of one.


I must disagree, I am a firm believer that any person of normal temperament would be more likely to shoot someone while in the heat of rage then stab or beat them to death.

----------


## Bojangles69

> I must disagree, I am a firm believer that any person of normal temperament would be more likely to shoot someone while in the heat of rage then stab or beat them to death.


How the hell is this relevant?

Carlos didnt say shit about whether someones more likely to stab or shoot someone and you totally veered off into a topic that had nothing to do with what he said. And *I BELIEVE* it doesnt matter. In the heat of rage ANYTHINGS a weapon, a banana, a lamp, a crow bar.. ANYTHING.

So disagree all you want with somethin that wasnt even said to begin lol.. lmfao!!

----------


## singern

> How the hell is this relevant?
> 
> Carlos didnt say shit about whether someones more likely to stab or shoot someone and you totally veered off into a topic that had nothing to do with what he said. And *I BELIEVE* it doesnt matter. In the heat of rage ANYTHINGS a weapon, a banana, a lamp, a crow bar.. ANYTHING.
> 
> So disagree all you want with somethin that wasnt even said to begin lol.. lmfao!!



Lighten up there Sparky. 
With just a small amount of thought you would have recognized I was disagreeing with Carlos thoughts that *" People should have to take a thorough psych screening before allowing them to buy a gun"*.Thankfully my opinions are no less valid then any other. It is my honest believe that most people who shoot in a moment of rage would not have the balls or the ability to kill or even attack if not for a gun. Guns allow people to disconnect and be remote from the act, WHile a knife or "fruit" requires one on one physical contact. 

And if I ever see you coming at me with a banana be sure I will stand my ground.

----------


## dhriscerr

Singern are you an anti-gun person? No doubt guns making killing easier, but guns have also stopped alot of crimes too. Anyway besides all that, Guns aren't the issue we should be fighting about, how about the issue that there are some crazy ass people in this world. Timothy Mcveigh didn't have a gun, the 9/11 terrorist didnt have a gun, jeffrey dommer didn't use a gun. BTK killer didn't use a gun. Guns aren't to blame PEOPLE and SOCIETY ARE!!! You are not going to stop someone that wants to kill! Period, besides taking there life, if someone is that set on killing, they will kill. Maybe he wouldn't have killed 32 people all at once. Maybe he would have gone around and random stalked women and stabbed them 1 at a time, maybe he would have looked on the internet and learned how to make a bomb and put it in the cafateria, Sky's the limit for someone that is duranged. You can buy a 30" Machette at Wal-mart in the hunting isle for $7 bucks. Dude's going to kill no matter what.

----------


## dhriscerr

> My guess would be that gang member and drug dealers do get there weapons illegally, but domestic and premeditated crimes are done with legally obtained weapons.


Whats your answer then? Ban guns? Not going to stop anything! Dudes will just stab there wives, or beat them to death with a hammer or strangle them. I think your vision is clouded a bit, you give people to much credit. Guns dont kill people, people kill people. I don't know if your religious and I know religion isn't talked about on the board, but Kane and Able, Murders happened long before guns becuase people are animals. Sadly enough, nothing will stop this kind of thing from happening.

----------


## singern

> Singern are you an anti-gun person? No doubt guns making killing easier, but guns have also stopped alot of crimes too. Anyway besides all that, Guns aren't the issue we should be fighting about, how about the issue that there are some crazy ass people in this world. Timothy Mcveigh didn't have a gun, the 9/11 terrorist didnt have a gun, jeffrey dommer didn't use a gun. BTK killer didn't use a gun. Guns aren't to blame PEOPLE and SOCIETY ARE!!! You are not going to stop someone that wants to kill! Period, besides taking there life, if someone is that set on killing, they will kill. Maybe he wouldn't have killed 32 people all at once. Maybe he would have gone around and random stalked women and stabbed them 1 at a time, maybe he would have looked on the internet and learned how to make a bomb and put it in the cafateria, Sky's the limit for someone that is duranged. You can buy a 30" Machette at Wal-mart in the hunting isle for $7 bucks. Dude's going to kill no matter what.


I dont pretend to have any answers, I only debate the topic. Im not entirely anti gun, As I have said there are pros and cons to the Gun control debate, all of wich are valid. 
I agree with your statement for the most part, yes people get stabbed and hurt by a variety of ways, but my point was that people who would normally not have what it takes to kill, are emboldened by the simplicity of "point and shoot".

I myself do not own a gun, because I have no need for it, I buy my beef at the grocery store, and to tell you the truth the thought of people walking around the mall where my kids hang out scares me.

But I do respect the need for some people to hunt, or shoot for recreation if they so desire.

----------


## Mike Dura

Let's transcend "common sense" and really get to the heart of the matter. This topic is well studied and I'm familiar with the research. In a cost versus benefit analysis of the presence or absence of a guns the absense of guns wins the day (thereby supporting anti-gun legislation). In addition to the fact that guns kill, the presence of guns increases agression because guns are a cue for violence. For example, in the Milgram study where subjects where instructed by an authority figure to "shock" a confederate (a person who seems like a research participant but they are actually a part of the research manipulation), the presence of guns was associated with confederates getting shocked for a longer period of time (by definition, increased aggression). 

Explanation? Guns are a symbol of (and a cue for) violence and the very presence of a gun can contribute towards creating a violent act. Similarly, the color black is a symbol for "bad" and it's noted that hockey teams with black uniforms have greater penalty minutes. Point being, the presence of negative symbols (gun, black color) can contribe toward violent behavior. We won't outlaw the color black but you can't kill a person with the color black. Guns kill. The point of me bringing up the color black is to make a general point towards subtle cues that influence behavior. Now consider the over-exposure to violent media today (e.g., video games, movies). Add to that a personality type or state of mind that makes one vulnerable to violence and we've got problems. 

In conclusion, overall, we're better not having the right to bear arms. The original law is outmoded anyway. The right to bear arms was based on our founding fathers wisdom that our goverment can become currupt and if they do, citezens should be able to engage them. If so, we should be up in arms right now. The Bush administration does not respect the system of checks and balances and the executive branch has way too much power. Yes, our system has broken down and this is the begining of the end for us. To be sure, Bush et al. are the enemies of democracy. 





> Singern are you an anti-gun person? No doubt guns making killing easier, but guns have also stopped alot of crimes too. Anyway besides all that, Guns aren't the issue we should be fighting about, how about the issue that there are some crazy ass people in this world. Timothy Mcveigh didn't have a gun, the 9/11 terrorist didnt have a gun, jeffrey dommer didn't use a gun. BTK killer didn't use a gun. Guns aren't to blame PEOPLE and SOCIETY ARE!!! You are not going to stop someone that wants to kill! Period, besides taking there life, if someone is that set on killing, they will kill. Maybe he wouldn't have killed 32 people all at once. Maybe he would have gone around and random stalked women and stabbed them 1 at a time, maybe he would have looked on the internet and learned how to make a bomb and put it in the cafateria, Sky's the limit for someone that is duranged. You can buy a 30" Machette at Wal-mart in the hunting isle for $7 bucks. Dude's going to kill no matter what.

----------


## dhriscerr

> I dont pretend to have any answers, I only debate the topic. Im not entirely anti gun, As I have said there are pros and cons to the Gun control debate, all of wich are valid. 
> I agree with your statement for the most part, yes people get stabbed and hurt by a variety of ways, but my point was that people who would normally not have what it takes to kill, are emboldened by the simplicity of "point and shoot".
> 
> I myself do not own a gun, because I have no need for it, I buy my beef at the grocery store, and to tell you the truth the thought of people walking around the mall where my kids hang out scares me.
> 
> But I do respect the need for some people to hunt, or shoot for recreation if they so desire.


Fair enough, Im an avid hunter, but I also have a 9mm for protection in my house and a Conceal weapons permit, I just keep it in my car, dont carry it on me. But I think store owners and people like Jewlery salesmen, and professions like that have a right to protect themselves. There were 10 women in my concealed weapons class, I think its great that they can walk to there cars at night, and live a life without being scared of being attacked, its there right as a human being, so i guess if a gun gives them that right, then who am I to tell them they arent afforded that right. I agree that guns are an easier way to kill, and SOME of the killings may not have happened without a gun. I just get agitated when people blame everything on something else instead of the person, Easy to point a finger at T.V. Violence, easy to point a finger at Video games, or music, or guns. Why arent any fingers being pointed at the parents??? Obviously something somewhere went wrong in the 23 years this person was raised, to give him the thought that it was ok to kill people. I know what kind of power a gun has, I know what things a baseball bat can do. I've seen what bombs can do. But somewhere along the lines, I was raised right, and know that I dont deserve to kill anyone for no reason. I was never told by my parents I couldnt watcha certain movie or play a video game becuase it had to much violence, I had my first gun at 12 years old. We use to go fishing and catch fish and torture them with firecrackers and stuff when I was younger, most people would look at that and think I was demented, and it would be easy to point to that as a sign of me being psycho, but it was just part of growing up in rural Iowa with all the farm kids. Even with all of that, I managed to turn out right and respect peoples lives. Millions of people own guns, listen to rap, play grand theft auto, and watch movies like the ***arted, heat, and die hard. There not going on a rampage killing tons of innocent people. Gangsters dont become gangsters because they watch rap movies, they become gangsters because they grow up in those kinds of places and its the life they know. Its how they are raised.

----------


## dhriscerr

> Let's transcend "common sense" and really get to the heart of the matter. This topic is well studied and I'm familiar with the research. In a cost versus benefit analysis of the presence or absence of a guns the absense of guns wins the day (thereby supporting anti-gun legislation). *Research shows that the presence of guns increases agression. For example, in the Milgram study where subjects where instructed by an authority figure to "shock" a confederate (a person who seems like a research participant but they are actually a part of the research manipulation), the presence of guns was associated with confederates getting shocked for a longer period of time (by definition, increased aggression).* 
> Explanation? Guns are a symbol of violence and there very presence can contribute towards creating a violent act. Along these lines, the color black is a symbol for "bad" and it's noted that hockey teams with black uniforms have greater penalty minutes. Point being, the presence of negative symbols (gun, black color) can contribe toward violent behavior. We won't outlaw the color black but you can't kill a person with the color black. Guns kill. The point of me bringing up the color black is to make a general point towards subtle cues that influence behavior. Now consider the over-exposure to violent media today (e.g., video games, movies). 
> 
> In conclusion, overall, we're better not having the right to bear arms. The original law is outmoded anyway. The right to bear arms was based on our founding fathers wisdom that our goverment can become currupt and if they do, citezens should be able to engage them. If so, we should be up in arms right now. The Bush administration does not respect the system of checks and balances and the executive branch has way too much power. Yes, our system has broken down and this is the begining of the end for us. To be sure, Bush et al. are the enemies of democracy.


Easy to say things like that, and anyone can do research and publish it how they want to. Did you know that during months that have above average sales of Ice cream, more children drowned in the United states than any other month??? Does that mean we outlaw ice cream to make our children safer?? Im not going to debate the fact that without guns society would have less killings, but the fact of the matter is, there are Millions upon Millions of guns in circulation, and millions more underground. To think that you were going to outlaw them is going to spread the violence alot further. You will have Ruby Ridge 1,000 fold. I hope and pray that I never have to use my gun, but why should I not be afford the right to protect myself to someone that does have a gun??? Do you watch GLEN BECK??? He said it best when he said, It doesn't matter if they crack down on guns, the school was a gun free zone, all the other kids died because they didn't have guns because they were following the law. I hope you never face someone breaking into your house with a gun, becuase I can garuntee unless you have the means of fighting back, the cops wont get there in time.

----------


## Carlos_E

> GLEN BECK??? He said it best when he said, It doesn't matter if they crack down on guns, the school was a gun free zone, all the other kids died because they didn't have guns because they were following the law.


What a load of bull. If every one walked down the street with a gun there would be more gun violence. Just because you have a gun it will not make some idiot who wants to kill you any less likely to try.

----------


## Mike Dura

True. Correlation is not causation. However, the research done on this does allow for causal statements with respect to the presence of violent cues and increased aggression. Bottom line: Less guns = less killing=antigunlaws. Punto! 




> Easy to say things like that, and anyone can do research and publish it how they want to. Did you know that during months that have above average sales of Ice cream, more children drowned in the United states than any other month??? Does that mean we outlaw ice cream to make our children safer?? Im not going to debate the fact that without guns society would have less killings, but the fact of the matter is, there are Millions upon Millions of guns in circulation, and millions more underground. To think that you were going to outlaw them is going to spread the violence alot further. You will have Ruby Ridge 1,000 fold. I hope and pray that I never have to use my gun, but why should I not be afford the right to protect myself to someone that does have a gun??? Do you watch GLEN BECK??? He said it best when he said, It doesn't matter if they crack down on guns, the school was a gun free zone, all the other kids died because they didn't have guns because they were following the law. I hope you never face someone breaking into your house with a gun, becuase I can garuntee unless you have the means of fighting back, the cops wont get there in time.

----------


## dhriscerr

THE SECOND AMENDMENT (Senate - June 06, 2000) 

[Page: S4521] 

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I appear on the floor to speak about a provision of the Constitution of our country that has been under nearly constant attack for 8 years. In fact, we heard on the floor this morning two Senators speak about provisions in law that would alter a constitutional right. 

The provision I am talking about is part of our Bill of Rights--the first 10 amendments to our Constitution--which protect our most basic rights from being stripped away by an overly zealous government, including rights that all Americans hold dear: 

The freedom to worship according to one's conscience; 

The freedom to speak or to write whatever we might think; 

The freedom to criticize our Government; 

And, the freedom to assemble peacefully. 

Among the safeguards of these fundamental rights, we find the Second Amendment . Let me read it clearly: 

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. 

I want to repeat that. 

The second amendment of our Constitution says very clearly that `A well regulated Militia' is `necessary' for the `security of a free State,' and that `the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.' 

What we heard this morning was an effort to infringe upon that right. 

Some--even of my colleagues--will read what I have just quoted from our Constitution quite differently. They might read `A well regulated Militia,' and stop there and declare that `the right of the people to keep and bear Arms' actually means that it is a right of our Government to keep and bear arms because they associate the militia with the government. Yet, under this standard, the Bill of Rights would protect only the right of a government to speak, or the right of a government to criticize itself, if you were taking that same argument and transposing it over the first amendment . In fact, the Bill of Rights protects the rights of people from being infringed upon by Government--not the other way around. 

Of course, we know that our Founding Fathers in their effort to ratify the Constitution could not convince the citizens to accept it until the Bill of Rights was established to assure the citizenry that we were protecting the citizens from Government instead of government from the citizens. 

Others say that the Second Amendment merely protects hunting and sport shooting. They see shooting competitions and hunting for food as the only legitimate uses of guns, and, therefore, conclude that the Second Amendment is no impediment to restricting gun use to those purposes. 

You can hear it in the way President Clinton assures hunters that his gun control proposals that will not trample on recreation--though his proposals certainly walk all over their rights. 

In fact, the Second Amendment does not merely protect sport shooting and hunting, though it certainly does that. 

Nor does the second amendment exist to protect the government's right to bear arms. 

The framers of our Constitution wrote the Second Amendment with a greater purpose. 

They made the Second Amendment the law of the land because it has something very particular to say about the rights of every man and every woman, and about the relationship of every man and every woman to his or her Government. 

*That is: The first right of every human being, the right of self-defense.* 

*Let me repeat that: The first right of every human being is the right of self-defense. Without that right, all other rights are meaningless. The right of self-defense is not something the government bestows upon its citizens. It is an inalienable right, older than the Constitution itself. It existed prior to government and prior to the social contract of our Constitution. It is the right that government did not create and therefore it is a right that under our Constitution the government simply cannot take away. The framers of our Constitution understood this clearly. Therefore, they did not merely acknowledge that the right exists. They denied Congress the power to infringe upon that right.* 
Under the social contract that is the Constitution of the United States, the American people have told Congress explicitly that we do not have the authority to abolish the American people's right to defend themselves. Further, the framers said not only does the Congress not have the power to abolish that right, but Congress may not even infringe upon that right. That is what our Constitution says. That is what the Second Amendment clearly lays out. Our Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment to tell us that a free state cannot exist if the people are denied the right or the means to defend themselves. 

Let me repeat that because it is so fundamental to our freedom. A free state cannot exist, our free state of the United States collectively, cannot exist without the right of the people to defend themselves. This is the meaning of the Second Amendment . Over the years a lot of our citizens and many politicians have tried to nudge that definition around. But contrary to what the media and the President say, the right to keep and bear arms is as important today as it was 200 years ago. 

*Every day in this country thousands of peaceful, law-abiding Americans use guns to defend themselves, their families, and their property. Oftentimes, complete strangers are protected by that citizen who steps up and stops the thief or the stalker or the rapist or the murderer from going at that citizen.* 
*According to the FBI, criminals used guns in 1998 380,000 times across America.* Yet research indicates that *peaceful, law-abiding Americans, using their constitutional right, used a gun to prevent 2.5 million crimes in America that year and nearly every year.* In fact, I believe the benefits of protecting the people's right to keep and bear arms far outweighs the destruction wrought by criminals and firearms accidents. *The Centers for Disease Control report 32,000 Americans died from firearm injuries in 1997; under any estimate, that is a tragedy. Unfortunately, the Centers for Disease Control do not keep data on the number of lives that were saved when guns were used in a defensive manner.* 
*Yet if we were to survey the public every year, we would find 400,000 Americans report they used a gun in a way that almost certainly saved either their life or someone else's. Is that estimate too high? Perhaps. I hope it is, because every time a life is saved from violence, that means that someone was threatening a life with violence. But that number would have to be over 13 times too high for our opponents to be correct when they say that guns are used to kill more often than they are used to protect. What they have been saying here and across America simply isn't true and the facts bear that out.* 
*We are not debating the tragedy. We are debating facts at this moment. They cannot come up with 2.5 million gun crimes. But clearly, through surveys, we can come up with 2.5 million crimes thwarted every year when someone used a gun in defense of themselves or their property. In many cases, armed citizens not only thwarted crime, but they held the suspect until the authorities arrived and placed that person in custody.* Stories of people defending themselves with guns do not make the nightly news. It just simply isn't news in America. It isn't hot. It isn't exciting. It is American. Sometimes when people act in an American way, it simply isn't reportable in our country anymore. So the national news media doesn't follow it. 

*Yet two of the school shootings that have brought gun issues to the forefront in the last year, in Pearl, MS, and Edinboro, PA, were stopped by peaceful gun owners using their weapons to subdue the killer until the police arrived. How did that get missed in the story? It was mentioned once, in passing, and then ignored as people ran to the floor of the Senate to talk about the tragedy of the killing. Of course the killing was a tragedy, but it was also heroic that someone used their constitutional right to save lives in the process.* 
A third school shooting in Springfield, OR, was stopped because some parents took time to teach their child the wise use of guns. So when that young man heard a particular sound coming from the gun, he was able to rush the shooter, because he knew that gun had run out of ammunition. He was used to guns. He was around them. He subdued the shooter and saved potentially many other lives. We have recognized him nationally for that heroic act, that young high school student of Springfield, OR. 

For some reason, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle never want to tell these stories. They only want to say, after a crisis such as this, `Pass a new gun control law and call 9-1-1.' Yet these stories are essential to our understanding of the right of people to keep and bear arms. 

I will share a few of these stories right now. Shawnra Pence, a 29-year-old mother from Sequim, WA, home alone with one of her children, heard an intruder break into the house. She took her .9 mm, took her child to the bedroom, and when the 18-year-old criminal broke into the bedroom, she said, `Get out of my house, I have a gun, get out now.' He left and the police caught him. She saved her life and her child's life. It made one brief story in the Peninsula Daily news in Sequim, WA. 

We have to talk about these stories because it is time America heard the other side of this debate. There are 2.5 million Americans out there defending themselves and their property by the use of their constitutional right. 

In Cumberland, TN, a 28-year-old Jason McCulley broke into the home of Stanley Horn and his wife, tied up the couple at knife-point, and demanded to know where the couple kept some cash. While Mrs. Horn was directing the robber, Mr. Horn wriggled free from his restraints, retrieved his handgun, shot the intruder, and then called the police. The intruder, Jason McCulley, subsequently died. If some Senators on the other side of the aisle had their way, perhaps the Horns would have been killed and Jason McCulley would have walked away. 

Earlier today, we heard the Senator from Illinios and the Senator from California read the names people killed by guns in America. Some day they may read the name Jason McCulley. I doubt they will tell you how he died, however, because it doesn't advance their goal of destroying the Second Amendment . But As Paul Harvey might say: Now you know the rest of the story. 

*Every 13 seconds this story is repeated across America. Every 13 seconds in America someone uses a gun to stop a crime. Why do our opponents never tell these stories? Why do the enemies of the right to keep and bear arms ignore this reality that is relived by 2.5 million Americans every year? Why is it that all we hear from them is, `Pass a new gun control law, and, by the way, call 9-1-1.'* 
I encourage all listening today, if you have heard of someone using their Second Amendment rights to prevent a crime, to save a life, to protect another life, then send us your story. There are people here who desperately need to hear this in Washington, right here on Capitol Hill. This is a story that should be played out every day in the press but isn't. 

So let's play it out, right here on the floor of the Senate. Send me those stories from your local newspapers about that law-abiding citizen who used his constitutional right of self-defense. Send that story to me, Senator Larry Craig, Washington, DC, 20510, or send it to your own Senator. Let him or her know the rest of the story of America's constitutional rights. 

I ask unanimous consent to proceed for one more moment. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. 

[Page: S4523] 

*Mr. CRAIG. Having said all of this, let there be no mistake. Guns are not for everyone. We restrict children's access to guns and we restrict criminals' access to guns, but we must not tolerate politicians who tell us that the Second Amendment only protects the right to hunt. We must not tolerate politicians who infringe upon our right to defend ourselves from thieves and stalkers and rapists and murderers. And we must not tolerate the politician who simply says: `Pass another gun control law and call 9-1-1.'* I yield the floor.

----------


## dhriscerr

> What a load of bull. If every one walked down the street with a gun there would be more gun violence. Just because you have a gun it will not make some idiot who wants to kill you any less likely to try.


Im not saying it will make him less likely to try, but maybe it will keep you from dying. Im also not saying hand guns out to everyone, but every law abiding citizen should have the right to protect himself. Remember a few weeks ago when that one member posted that his girlfriend worked at a convienience store and was robbed at gun point. Luckily thank god she wasn't shot, but why should she not have the right to protect herself if so chosen??? I think the gun battle will rage on for along time, and I see it getting changed many times, between different politicians. Im also not saying that some arguments on the other side of the fence aren't valid. I just think if your a law abiding citizen you should have the right to defend yourself.

----------


## dhriscerr

Here's a perfect example to our argument, that both sides have very valid points. Look at the arguments below in the post under the article. It's true we don't know what will happen if we were to arm teachers, but we do know what happens if we dont. Again im not saying we should or shouldn't, but its food for thought. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...n2096721.shtml

----------


## Vinlander

I find it bizarre how people have this unshakable faith in our government's ability to discern right from wrong, believing honestly that everything it does it in the peoples' best interests.

Seeing the last elections especially, where the people elected one official and another was placed into office, thereby rendering the popular vote invalid altogether, as well as other voting invalidations (Californians voted for Prop. 187 to stem illegal immigration 10 years ago which was disallowed by the courts) I can't see why this faith exists. It is clear that our government has its own agenda and it's a scary proposition to let an issue such as a school shooting become the catalyst for liberal gun-grabbers to say "let's allow our government to be the only ones with firearms, since they do such a wonderful job with that responsibility these days!"

Perhaps you feel safe with this proposition, but in other parts of the world (South Africa for instance), it's become a nightmare for the citizenry.

----------


## Logan13

> Let's transcend "common sense" and really get to the heart of the matter. This topic is well studied and I'm familiar with the research. In a cost versus benefit analysis of the presence or absence of a guns the absense of guns wins the day (thereby supporting anti-gun legislation). In addition to the fact that guns kill, the presence of guns increases agression because guns are a cue for violence. For example, in the Milgram study where subjects where instructed by an authority figure to "shock" a confederate (a person who seems like a research participant but they are actually a part of the research manipulation), the presence of guns was associated with confederates getting shocked for a longer period of time (by definition, increased aggression). 
> 
> Explanation? Guns are a symbol of (and a cue for) violence and the very presence of a gun can contribute towards creating a violent act. Similarly, the color black is a symbol for "bad" and it's noted that hockey teams with black uniforms have greater penalty minutes. Point being, the presence of negative symbols (gun, black color) can contribe toward violent behavior. We won't outlaw the color black but you can't kill a person with the color black. Guns kill. The point of me bringing up the color black is to make a general point towards subtle cues that influence behavior. Now consider the over-exposure to violent media today (e.g., video games, movies). Add to that a personality type or state of mind that makes one vulnerable to violence and we've got problems. 
> 
> In conclusion, overall, we're better not having the right to bear arms. The original law is outmoded anyway. The right to bear arms was based on our founding fathers wisdom that our goverment can become currupt and if they do, citezens should be able to engage them. If so, we should be up in arms right now. The Bush administration does not respect the system of checks and balances and the executive branch has way too much power. Yes, our system has broken down and this is the begining of the end for us. To be sure, Bush et al. are the enemies of democracy.


Your thought process is based on the idea that making guns illegal would remove them from society. This is obviously wrong, since the "bad guys" will still get them through the black market, just as crack is illegal but still easily obtained. The only result of outlawing guns from everyday citizens is that they will be at the mercy of those who get them through other means. In the end, what does this accomplish?

----------


## dhriscerr

Im very glad that there are others that see my point of view! I do see others points about not having guns period. That would be great!!! Then no one would need one to defend themselves, except that little lady, (she needs a means to keep her self as safe as a big man could) But either way its not possible so why take them from the good guys?

----------


## Mike Dura

It's the "every day people" who end up killing because they have guns (domestic violence). 

I see what you're doing here. Like most people would, you're trying to use common sense to think about what is the best course of action. And what you're saying doesn't sound unreasonable at all. But when it comes to very important issues such as this one, you really have to go beyond common sense and look into the research and put away any rigid preconceptions and do some "on-line information processing." Why? The conclusions based on research are not always aligned with common sense. If it were, what would be the point of research? The research supports and the researchers conclude that overall, there would be less murder if access to guns is limited. And they are right. Most of the murders by guns, I believe is domestic in nature and not premeditated.

In addition, and as I mentioned in a post below, there is evidence that the very presence of a gun can contribute toward aggression (i.e., it's a cue for violence). Although there may be isolated cases where a gun could have saved the day, overall, better off without them and when our laws put us in harmony with what the research supports, these kind of things are less likely to happen. 





> Your thought process is based on the idea that making guns illegal would remove them from society. This is obviously wrong, since the "bad guys" will still get them through the black market, just as crack is illegal but still easily obtained. The only result of outlawing guns from everyday citizens is that they will be at the mercy of those who get them through other means. In the end, what does this accomplish?

----------


## dhriscerr

> It's the "every day people" who end up killing because they have guns (domestic violence). 
> 
> I see what you're doing here. Like most people would, you're trying to use common sense to think about what is the best course of action. And what you're saying doesn't sound unreasonable at all. But when it comes to very important issues such as this one, you really have to *go beyond common sense and look into the research and put away any rigid preconceptions and do some "on-line information processing.*" Why? The conclusions based on research are not always aligned with common sense. If it were, what would be the point of research? *The research supports and the researchers conclude that overall, there would be less murder if access to guns is limited.* And they are right. Most of the murders by guns, I believe is domestic in nature and not premeditated.
> 
> In addition, and as I mentioned in a post below, there is evidence that the very presence of a gun can contribute toward aggression (i.e., it's a cue for violence). *Although there may be isolated cases where a gun could have saved the da*y, overall, better off without them and when our laws put us in harmony with what the research supports, these kind of things are less likely to happen.


Every day in this country thousands of peaceful, law-abiding Americans use guns to defend themselves, their families, and their property. Oftentimes, complete strangers are protected by that citizen who steps up and stops the thief or the stalker or the rapist or the murderer from going at that citizen. 
According to the FBI, criminals used guns in 1998 380,000 times across America. Yet research indicates that peaceful, law-abiding Americans, using their constitutional right, used a gun to prevent 2.5 million crimes in America that year and nearly every year

Disease Control report 32,000 Americans died from firearm injuries in 1997; under any estimate, that is a tragedy. Unfortunately, the Centers for Disease Control do not keep data on the number of lives that were saved when guns were used in a defensive manner. 
Yet if we were to survey the public every year, we would find 400,000 Americans report they used a gun in a way that almost certainly saved either their life or someone else's. Is that estimate too high? Perhaps. I hope it is, because every time a life is saved from violence, that means that someone was threatening a life with violence. But that number would have to be over 13 times too high for our opponents to be correct when they say that guns are used to kill more often than they are used to protect. What they have been saying here and across America simply isn't true and the facts bear that out. 
We are not debating the tragedy. We are debating facts at this moment. They cannot come up with 2.5 million gun crimes. But clearly, through surveys, we can come up with 2.5 million crimes thwarted every year when someone used a gun in defense of themselves or their property. In many cases, armed citizens not only thwarted crime, but they held the suspect until the authorities arrived and placed that person in custody

Thats what my researchers say! So its really all about how you want to twist it and what you want to believe, unfortunately we will never know unless they get rid of guns.

----------


## Mike Dura

The right to bear arms is really an antiquated law set by our founding fathers.
They knew that people are not angels and governments turn corrupt. Arms would be our way of protecting ourselves against a currupt government. Checks and balances, is a system that should safe-guard against that curruption but the current administration has basically turned it's nose up at it (i.e., the executive branch has too much power) thereby endangering the fundamental values our country was built on. We should be up in arms and seventy percent of the population is finally smelling the "stink."

This "right to bear arms" is more than just an antiquated law. It's become a value. But like many values, it does more harm than good as research supports. 

Another example of that is the fact that we fail to systematically measure reaction times of older motorists. This is based on the value of "rugged-individualism" and the dignity of in***endance. Naturally, with age, the nervous system degenerates and reaction times slow. This puts life in danger. It's illegal to drive while intoxicated because alcohol slows reaction time. But the old man is out there driving along "in***endant and proud." Last year, my nephew was playing out on a dirt road barely visited by cars. One day, there was a car driven by an old timer who ran my nephew over and didn't even know it. My nephew was dragged for about two miles before the car stopped and most of my nephew was smeared on miles of dirt road. We couldn't even have an open casket. 

I think it's important to go beyond established values and ask some good questions that require some data-driven answers. Whether with gun laws or other traditional values.

----------


## Mike Dura

You write really well. Self-reports get little respect. But what you're saying raises questions about what I'm saying and it seems that we need that particular data. 




> Every day in this country thousands of peaceful, law-abiding Americans use guns to defend themselves, their families, and their property. Oftentimes, complete strangers are protected by that citizen who steps up and stops the thief or the stalker or the rapist or the murderer from going at that citizen. 
> According to the FBI, criminals used guns in 1998 380,000 times across America. Yet research indicates that peaceful, law-abiding Americans, using their constitutional right, used a gun to prevent 2.5 million crimes in America that year and nearly every year
> 
> Disease Control report 32,000 Americans died from firearm injuries in 1997; under any estimate, that is a tragedy. Unfortunately, the Centers for Disease Control do not keep data on the number of lives that were saved when guns were used in a defensive manner. 
> Yet if we were to survey the public every year, we would find 400,000 Americans report they used a gun in a way that almost certainly saved either their life or someone else's. Is that estimate too high? Perhaps. I hope it is, because every time a life is saved from violence, that means that someone was threatening a life with violence. But that number would have to be over 13 times too high for our opponents to be correct when they say that guns are used to kill more often than they are used to protect. What they have been saying here and across America simply isn't true and the facts bear that out. 
> We are not debating the tragedy. We are debating facts at this moment. They cannot come up with 2.5 million gun crimes. But clearly, through surveys, we can come up with 2.5 million crimes thwarted every year when someone used a gun in defense of themselves or their property. In many cases, armed citizens not only thwarted crime, but they held the suspect until the authorities arrived and placed that person in custody
> 
> Thats what my researchers say! So its really all about how you want to twist it and what you want to believe, unfortunately we will never know unless they get rid of guns.

----------


## Logan13

> It's the "every day people" who end up killing because they have guns (domestic violence). 
> 
> I see what you're doing here. Like most people would, you're trying to use common sense to think about what is the best course of action. And what you're saying doesn't sound unreasonable at all. But when it comes to very important issues such as this one, you really have to go beyond common sense and look into the research and put away any rigid preconceptions and do some "on-line information processing." Why? The conclusions based on research are not always aligned with common sense. If it were, what would be the point of research? The research supports and the researchers conclude that overall, there would be less murder if access to guns is limited. And they are right. Most of the murders by guns, I believe is domestic in nature and not premeditated.
> 
> In addition, and as I mentioned in a post below, there is evidence that the very presence of a gun can contribute toward aggression (i.e., it's a cue for violence). Although there may be isolated cases where a gun could have saved the day, overall, better off without them and when our laws put us in harmony with what the research supports, these kind of things are less likely to happen.


You keep speaking of some "study", why not post a link to it.
Anyway. what's your point? There would be fewer traffic accidents if automobiles were made illegal. There would be fewer on-line sexual predators if the internet was made illegal as well. No one will be tearing the 
2nd amendment out of the Constitution any time soon to appease you.

----------


## Lexed

glen beck is the man I agree with almost all his thoughts about this issue

----------


## 1819

> You keep speaking of some "study", why not post a link to it.
> Anyway. what's your point? There would be fewer traffic accidents if automobiles were made illegal. There would be fewer on-line sexual predators if the internet was made illegal as well. No one will be tearing the 
> 2nd amendment out of the Constitution any time soon to appease you.


i agree. 3 million people die of aids a year. about a half million are kids who's parents couldnt keep a damn needle out of their arm. that's a friggin tragedy! take the needles away and you save a few million lives a year. wonder why we put needles in the hands of "killers"? sounds kinda silly when you think about it but it's the same as trying to take guns away. take the beer for that matter. drunk driving fatalities are around 20,000 a year. cant be done. cant disarm the public. it will never happen. people can quote statistics all day but reality is what it is.

----------


## dhriscerr

> You write really well. Self-reports get little respect. But what you're saying raises questions about what I'm saying and it seems that we need that particular data.


Ha ha I dont write that well, I wish I did. That is what someone I believe a senator said at a Senate hearing on June 6th 2006 scroll up the page for the whole article.

----------


## dhriscerr

> i agree. 3 million people die of aids a year. about a half million are kids who's parents couldnt keep a damn needle out of their arm. that's a friggin tragedy! take the needles away and you save a few million lives a year. wonder why we put needles in the hands of "killers"? sounds kinda silly when you think about it but it's the same as trying to take guns away. take the beer for that matter. drunk driving fatalities are around 20,000 a year. cant be done. cant disarm the public. it will never happen. people can quote statistics all day but reality is what it is.



Thats nothing, Cigarettes kill thousands, and not only is it perfectly legal, but the government flourishes off it!!!

----------


## BITTAPART2

its too late to talk gun control, there are too many out there already and unlike drugs they dont get smoked or snorted they go around and around like a bad whore. so even if we stopped selling guns it would take an eternity to eliminate gun violence at this point. i remember in my early days being offered guns stolen from the military! what are we supposed to stop issuing our military guns. and BTW carlos..it did take balls to do this. all be it stupid and senseless and very very horrible it took guts bro.

----------


## alphaman

> it did take balls to do this. all be it stupid and senseless and very very horrible it took guts bro.



That is a ridiculous statement. 

It would have taken guts to actually deal with his problems. A crazed introvert killing 31 people -- randomly -- did not take guts. It took someone that was an incredible coward that couldn't deal with his owns issues, snapping and doing something maniacal.

Plus -- he killed himself. People with balls don't kill themselves.

----------


## BITTAPART2

uh dude just punch yourself as hard as you can in the nose, can you get yourself to do it? or will it take some getting physched up to do it? could you if paid 1million dollars shoot yourself in the foot w/o preparing for it? are you a coward if you do it? no you got balls if you can do that. i agree dealing w/ your problems also takes balls, im not discrediting that but regardless it takes balls to carry out what he id. it took balls to do what the hijackers did on 9/11 as well. These little wormy guys decided to take on a whole airplane w/ just box cutters and then forcefuly raid the cockpit and then drive a plane into a damn building. this stuff is easily called cowardly acts by angry people but if you disect it, it takes guts to do.

----------


## Carlos_E

> That is a ridiculous statement. 
> 
> It would have taken guts to actually deal with his problems. A crazed introvert killing 31 people -- randomly -- did not take guts. It took someone that was an incredible coward that couldn't deal with his owns issues, snapping and doing something maniacal.
> 
> Plus -- he killed himself. People with balls don't kill themselves.


For once we agree.

----------


## Carlos_E

> uh dude just punch yourself as hard as you can in the nose, can you get yourself to do it? or will it take some getting physched up to do it? could you if paid 1million dollars shoot yourself in the foot w/o preparing for it? are you a coward if you do it? no you got balls if you can do that. i agree dealing w/ your problems also takes balls, im not discrediting that but regardless it takes balls to carry out what he id. it took balls to do what the hijackers did on 9/11 as well. These little wormy guys decided to take on a whole airplane w/ just box cutters and then forcefuly raid the cockpit and then drive a plane into a damn building. this stuff is easily called cowardly acts by angry people but if you disect it, it takes guts to do.


It does not take balls. It takes no respect for human life and no understanding of right and wrong. He killed himself so he would not have to face the consequences of his actions. He is a coward. To afraid to face life and deal with it. "Boohoo, I'm poor and a loser and no one likes me. I'm going to kill myself and take people with me."

----------


## alphaman

> uh dude just punch yourself as hard as you can in the nose, can you get yourself to do it? or will it take some getting physched up to do it? could you if paid 1million dollars shoot yourself in the foot w/o preparing for it? are you a coward if you do it? no you got balls if you can do that. i agree dealing w/ your problems also takes balls, im not discrediting that but regardless it takes balls to carry out what he id. it took balls to do what the hijackers did on 9/11 as well. These little wormy guys decided to take on a whole airplane w/ just box cutters and then forcefuly raid the cockpit and then drive a plane into a damn building. this stuff is easily called cowardly acts by angry people but if you disect it, it takes guts to do.


I guess our definitions of "guts" and "balls" are different. 

As far as my definition goes -- Cho was a demon-possessed coward. You can jump on the bandwagon with the rest of the media by giving this animal credit where credit is certainly not due, but I will continue to oppose. I believe this type of mentality is the poisonous product of our hopelessly desensitized society. While you may think Steve-o and Party Boy are examples of courage -- I do not. I'll stick to people like Abraham Lincoln and the guy who brought flight 93 down.

----------


## alphaman

> For once we agree.



 :2offtopic:

----------


## Carlos_E

> 


 :LOL:  .

----------


## Snrf

> Plus -- he killed himself. People with balls don't kill themselves.


Bullshit, I know lots of people who've killed themselves who had a lot of balls. 

My father for one, he was ex-special forces, first man into the Iranian embassy siege, fought all over the world, falklands, northern ireland, Oman, sri lanka etc..also an SF close combat instructor, bodyguard to all sorts of people, mercenary and later a priest. I know 3 of the guys from his regiment who also killed themselves, you cannot tell me none of them had balls cuz anyone of those men had been through shit you cannot imagine. Killing yourself isn't an easy way out.

Maybe its the easy way out when you're facing life in prison or a death sentence like this guy, but for someone with a family, career etc it isn't an easy way out.

----------


## BITTAPART2

> I guess our definitions of "guts" and "balls" are different. 
> 
> As far as my definition goes -- Cho was a demon-possessed coward. You can jump on the bandwagon with the rest of the media by giving this animal credit where credit is certainly not due, but I will continue to oppose. * I believe this type of mentality is the poisonous product of our hopelessly desensitized society.* While you may think Steve-o and Party Boy are examples of courage -- I do not. I'll stick to people like Abraham Lincoln and the guy who brought flight 93 down.


im sorry you think my mentality is poisonous LOL

Im guessing your a republican right? 
i think stev-o and knoxville etc are friggin morons BUT woul you have the GUTS to fight butterbean ina boxing match? me niether. it is stupi but regardless it takes balls/guts to do it. you cant argue this

abraham lincoln demonstrated courage in his own ways as did the guys who defended themselves on flight 93. im not saying there is only one way to show you have courage, there are many ways.

----------


## alphaman

> Bullshit, I know lots of people who've killed themselves who had a lot of balls. 
> 
> My father for one, he was ex-special forces, first man into the Iranian embassy siege, fought all over the world, falklands, northern ireland, Oman, sri lanka etc..also an SF close combat instructor, bodyguard to all sorts of people, mercenary and later a priest. I know 3 of the guys from his regiment who also killed themselves, you cannot tell me none of them had balls cuz anyone of those men had been through shit you cannot imagine. Killing yourself isn't an easy way out.
> 
> Maybe its the easy way out when you're facing life in prison or a death sentence like this guy, but for someone with a family, career etc it isn't an easy way out.




I had a feeling something like this might come up. 

No disrespect to your father. It sounds like he did some great things. I apologize if you didn't like what I said.

----------


## alphaman

> im sorry you think my mentality is poisonous LOL
> 
> Im guessing your a republican right? 
> i think stev-o and knoxville etc are friggin morons BUT woul you have the GUTS to fight butterbean ina boxing match? me niether. it is stupi but regardless it takes balls/guts to do it. you cant argue this
> 
> abraham lincoln demonstrated courage in his own ways as did the guys who defended themselves on flight 93. im not saying there is only one way to show you have courage, there are many ways.



Like I said -- we have different definitions of courage. I think there's a difference between being courageous and being a jackass. No pun intended.

But yeah -- I'd fight Butterbean....  :LOL:

----------


## BITTAPART2

in all fairness i think alphaman meant to say that killing yourself isnt a couragous act, your father was a couragous honorable man that did something not in line of how he lived his life. sorry for your loss bro, he sounds like a good man

----------


## BITTAPART2

> Like I said -- we have different definitions of courage. I think there's a difference between being courageous and being a jackass. No pun intended.
> 
> But yeah -- I'd fight Butterbean....


youve got balls then LOL

----------


## alphaman

> youve got balls then LOL



I think so, but my wife would tell you I'm a jackass!! LOLOLOLOLOLL

----------


## Mike Dura

Doh! Lol! 





> Ha ha I dont write that well, I wish I did. That is what someone I believe a senator said at a Senate hearing on June 6th 2006 scroll up the page for the whole article.

----------


## Mike Dura

You agree with Logan and you think that taking needles away will help prevent aids. That doesn't bode well for you. Allowing IV drug users access to clean needles is quite different from allowing common citezens access to firearms. Allowing drug users access to clean needles is a way of preventing the spread of HIV (and other) diseases bro. It's a no-brainer. 

E=1819]i agree. 3 million people die of aids a year. about a half million are kids who's parents couldnt keep a damn needle out of their arm. that's a friggin tragedy! take the needles away and you save a few million lives a year. wonder why we put needles in the hands of "killers"? sounds kinda silly when you think about it but it's the same as trying to take guns away. take the beer for that matter. drunk driving fatalities are around 20,000 a year. cant be done. cant disarm the public. it will never happen. people can quote statistics all day but reality is what it is.[/QUOTE]

----------


## Snrf

I don't think thats how he meant the needles argument...

----------


## Mike Dura

Mr. Logan! LOL. Actually, I'm not making a reference to "some study." I'm making a reference to the corpus of research with supports anti-gun legistlation. The cost versus benefits of common citezens being armed amounts to too costly. That's crystal clear. 

Furthermore, there is quite a distinction to be made between common citezens owning firearms versus ownership of a computer or automobile. 

There are drawbacks to cars and computers but overall they serve us. Statistically, and when you consider the frequency of domestic violence, guns disserve us (with respect to common citezens being armed). That's the difference. Although most of the constitution is currently relevant, some of it can be "tweeked" in terms of current knowledge and history. 




> You keep speaking of some "study", why not post a link to it.
> Anyway. what's your point? There would be fewer traffic accidents if automobiles were made illegal. There would be fewer on-line sexual predators if the internet was made illegal as well. No one will be tearing the 
> 2nd amendment out of the Constitution any time soon to appease you.

----------


## alphaman

> Mr. Logan! LOL. Actually, I'm not making a reference to "some study." I'm making a reference to the corpus of research with supports anti-gun legistlation. The cost versus benefits of common citezens being armed amounts to too costly. That's crystal clear. 
> 
> Furthermore, there is quite a distinction to be made between common citezens owning firearms versus ownership of a computer or automobile. 
> 
> There are drawbacks to cars and computers but overall they serve us. Statistically, and when you consider the frequency of domestic violence, guns disserve us (with respect to common citezens being armed). That's the difference. Although most of the constitution is currently relevant, some of it can be "tweeked" in terms of current knowledge and history.



How about a link of a study that's just one small piece of this "corpus of research"?

----------


## SVTMuscle*

Or you can every single person a gun... so if someone pulls a stunt, everyone else shoots him!

----------


## Bojangles69

nothing ANYONE does will prevent SHIT.

you can debate this crap for the rest of your lives, like having more guns will protect people and not having guns will protect them blah blah blah.

If someone is willing to lose thier life, and he wants to take dozens of people with him, he WILL succeed. Great if you have a gun to defend yourself. (hypothetically speaking) Im the new wave of school "shooters", its 2020, but I dont use a gun anymore like the rest, because I realize other people will have guns too. (because gun laws have changed or w/e)
So I build a bomb. Walk into a dorm, dont say a word.. and BOOM 400 hundred people dead in the blink of an eye.

This debate seems to be centered largely on gun control. I wouldnt know nor do I give 2 shit where I can get a gun from. But I can build a bomb big enough to take out a sky scraper in about an hours time. And if I know some simple chemistry, this knowledge now becomes the weapon. So what are we gonna do? Ban knowledge now?
My whole point being, as long as we're human, things like this will happen and we will NEVER be able to prevent shit.

----------


## lacey231

If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. simple enough

----------


## dhriscerr

> nothing ANYONE does will prevent SHIT.
> 
> you can debate this crap for the rest of your lives, like having more guns will protect people and not having guns will protect them blah blah blah.
> 
> If someone is willing to lose thier life, and he wants to take dozens of people with him, he WILL succeed. Great if you have a gun to defend yourself. (hypothetically speaking) Im the new wave of school "shooters", its 2020, but I dont use a gun anymore like the rest, because I realize other people will have guns too. (because gun laws have changed or w/e)
> So I build a bomb. Walk into a dorm, dont say a word.. and BOOM 400 hundred people dead in the blink of an eye.
> 
> This debate seems to be centered largely on gun control. I wouldnt know nor do I give 2 shit where I can get a gun from. But I can build a bomb big enough to take out a sky scraper in about an hours time. And if I know some simple chemistry, this knowledge now becomes the weapon. So what are we gonna do? Ban knowledge now?
> My whole point being, as long as we're human, things like this will happen and we will NEVER be able to prevent shit.



You are 1 Million % right!!! So Im going to just keep carrying my gun, and hope that if someone wants to kill me its with a gun so I can defend myself.

----------


## Snrf

I'd like to see someone build a bomb that could take out a skyscraper in 1 hour. lol

----------


## Logan13

> Mr. Logan! LOL. Actually, I'm not making a reference to "some study." I'm making a reference to the corpus of research with supports anti-gun legistlation. The cost versus benefits of common citezens being armed amounts to too costly. That's crystal clear. 
> 
> Furthermore, there is quite a distinction to be made between common citezens owning firearms versus ownership of a computer or automobile.


I would still like to see the studies that you speak of.
I think that the only difference is that _you_ want your automobile and internet access, but not a gun. You have the right not to, that's your choice. But fatalities caused by automobiles is much higher than deaths caused by firerms in the US. 
"35 percent of trauma in the United States is caused by automobiles and 7 percent by motorcycles. (10% of trauma is from gunshots and another 10% is from stabbings." http://library.thinkquest.org/16665/aboutcauses.htm Notice how links are provided to support a claim?

----------


## SVTMuscle*

I really don't have an opinion either way but think of it this way

they outlawed steroids 

and look how easy they can be obtained.
if they outlaw guns, there are so many in circulation, i could probably get one under the counter at Wal Mart

----------


## Mike Dura

Reread what I already said below and you should find that again, it comes down to a benifit versus cost. The distinction between guns, computers, and cars were made clear below (although from your response, it seems that you didn't read it or didn't understand). If you can't see the point, I can't do anything more about it. 





> I would still like to see the studies that you speak of.
> I think that the only difference is that _you_ want your automobile and internet access, but not a gun. You have the right not to, that's your choice. But fatalities caused by automobiles is much higher than deaths caused by firerms in the US. 
> "35 percent of trauma in the United States is caused by automobiles and 7 percent by motorcycles. (10% of trauma is from gunshots and another 10% is from stabbings." http://library.thinkquest.org/16665/aboutcauses.htm Notice how links are provided to support a claim?

----------


## Mike Dura

I sense that you're a resourceful guy and I encourage you to research it yourself. You may be able to do that online but only take serious peer reviewed journals in a social science. I'd suggest that you jump on a data base such as Psychlit (maybe there's a more current system - a university librarian can help you). You can punch in terms like "gun laws" or legislation, etc, and the term REVIEW and you'll get the "body of research." The term "review" will help you find articles that survey the research - it gives an overview. 





> How about a link of a study that's just one small piece of this "corpus of research"?

----------


## alphaman

> I sense that you're a resourceful guy and I encourage you to research it yourself. You may be able to do that online but only take serious peer reviewed journals in a social science. I'd suggest that you jump on a data base such as Psychlit (maybe there's a more current system - a university librarian can help you). You can punch in terms like "gun laws" or legislation, etc, and the term REVIEW and you'll get the "body of research." The term "review" will help you find articles that survey the research - it gives an overview.



Yeah, whatever dude. If you claim "research has shown..." in this forum (just like any other), the burden of proof is on you -- post a source! If you want to be taken seriously here, it's up to you. 

Then on the other hand -- at this point, that's not very likely to happen -- so you might as well continue on as you have.

----------


## Mike Dura

Lol. Take it easy killer!




> Yeah, whatever dude. If you claim "research has shown..." in this forum (just like any other), the burden of proof is on you -- post a source! If you want to be taken seriously here, it's up to you. 
> 
> Then on the other hand -- at this point, that's not very likely to happen -- so you might as well continue on as you have.

----------


## Logan13

> Lol. Take it easy killer!


I take it that you have no such link, since you have avoided requests for it 3 times now......

----------


## Mike Dura

Hey "alpha" man, you think you're so cool but you're not!  :Owned:  




> Yeah, whatever dude. If you claim "research has shown..." in this forum (just like any other), the burden of proof is on you -- post a source! If you want to be taken seriously here, it's up to you. 
> 
> Then on the other hand -- at this point, that's not very likely to happen -- so you might as well continue on as you have.

----------


## 1819

> I don't think thats how he meant the needles argument...


correct. bottom line is if there were no needles period, then i.v. drug users could not shoot and could not infect/be infected. well that is not realistic. no one would be shot if there were no guns on the street. equally non realistic. like i stated before, i am all for a fair/safe way for people to posess firearms responsibly. i just dont think that is possibe. i view the subject the same way i view the failed "war" on drugs. people in our society have got to be more realistic when it comes to some things. we never want to hear that nothing can be done. the fact is though, there are some problems that cannot be fixed period.

----------


## alphaman

> I take it that you have no such link, since you have avoided requests for it 3 times now......


_Eggxactly._

----------


## alphaman

> Hey "alpha" man, you think you're so cool but you're not!



Thanks for the heads up.

I might seem a little frustrated by this one thing, but that's because this isn't the first time with you. You always have ridiculously long posts with flowery language, but you can never back-up anything you say!

----------


## Mike Dura

You're still not cool. 




> Thanks for the heads up.
> 
> I might seem a little frustrated by this one thing, but that's because this isn't the first time with you. You always have ridiculously long posts with flowery language, but you can never back-up anything you say!

----------


## alphaman

> You're still not cool.




Thanks for your concern.

----------


## Mike Dura

Uhm.......your welcome alpha. PS, you are cool! 





> Thanks for your concern.

----------


## Logan13

> Thanks for your concern.


He is just trying to deflect from the question that was posed.

----------


## Mike Dura

I'm with you but then again is a schizophrenic culpable? I don't think he can be interpreted in "rational" terms. 





> takes zero guts to go shoot random people because your an angry troubled bastard. punk,

----------


## Mike Dura

Leave it to Logan for the deep "insights." Damn! You're good! 




> He is just trying to deflect from the question that was posed.

----------


## Mike Dura

Hey Loganmister! Not to highjack the thread but do you shred up for the summers? Just curious. 





> He is just trying to deflect from the question that was posed.

----------


## Logan13

> Leave it to Logan for the deep "insights." Damn! You're good!


If I liked you, I would feel sorry for you.

How many people make themselves abstract to appear profound. The great part of abstract terms are shadows that hide a vacuum. 
- Joseph Joubert

By the way, we are still waiting for the link..........

----------


## Mike Dura

:LOL:  You got yourself a good stock line my boy! You seem powerful as you put me in my place! I'm disapointed that you don't like me! I do like you my little man! My little man grappling with the weighty events of the day! I clearly see you intellectual capacities and you have a better memory than my parrot! I'll give you that. Do you get ripped up for the summers? Did you ever post pics? 




> If I liked you, I would feel sorry for you.
> 
> “How many people make themselves abstract to appear profound. The great part of abstract terms are shadows that hide a vacuum.” 
> - Joseph Joubert
> 
> By the way, we are still waiting for the link..........

----------


## Information

*Closed*

----------

