[QUOTE=Coventrysucks;695155]
Now all I've got as entertainment is looped clips of a very fat policeman "running" along with his M16 knock-off. He seems intent on hurting someone, it looks to be himself.[/QUOTE]
Yes I noticed that too...
Printable View
[QUOTE=Coventrysucks;695155]
Now all I've got as entertainment is looped clips of a very fat policeman "running" along with his M16 knock-off. He seems intent on hurting someone, it looks to be himself.[/QUOTE]
Yes I noticed that too...
[quote=Coventrysucks;695155]
Yes.
I [I]was[/I] hoping for a long drawn out-debate about how all Americans are ****s for, yet again, refusing to cooperate with an inquest into dead British soldiers caused by US pilots.
Now all I've got as entertainment is looped clips of a very fat policeman "running" along with his M16 knock-off. He seems intent on hurting someone; it looks to be himself.[/quote]
You love to play that card don't you? Why don't you take that up with BBC News or whatever your networks are instead of complaining on here that you didn't get to watch your programming.
In before this gets (really) ugly.
[QUOTE=fisetdavid26;695153]Speaking of New Jersey, I'll be spending a night there. I'm sleeping at a hotel in Morristown friday when I'll be back from Washington D.C. in part of my NYC/Washington D.C. trip with school. I already bought myself a kevlar bulletproof vest and two loaded Glocks. I'm set. Best part of the trip: we're 7 dudes and 47 chicks. Who said school trips sucked?[/QUOTE]
That's only about 20 miles from my hometown, and like a half hour from Rutgers. Maybe you'll notice the better side of Jersey and shut these haters up for good.
Now, on the matter of Virginia Tech. My condolences go out to the families of the victims and hope this matter gets resolved quickly. It's terribly sad to see such things happening in our country.
Second matter at hand is just as disturbing to me and it's happening right in this thread. Some of the posts from foreigners just disgust me, acting completely indifferent to such an issue because it wasn't confined to the borders of your country. Perhaps a headline about Peter Brock's death or an excerpt about Tiff Needle's silly accident would have warranted a better reaction.
This is whats going to happen:
Everyone will cry, cover up and blame everyone else. The NRA will say its not our fault it’s the shooter, the shooters family will say he bought the gun from a store and shouldn’t have been able to, the NRA will say ITS OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS! GWB will say its sad but guns get me votes. that’s all and in the end nothing will change except for a memorial at the college and an annual report on the news about it.
[QUOTE=Coventrysucks;695027] I really don't see why we, in the UK, need to be have up-to-the-second rolling news coverage of something that, actually, doesn't really affect more than a handful of people or so who might know someone in the region.
There are more important and relevant stories to cover, both nationally and internationally, but I suppose they don't involve shaky pictures of cops with guns hiding behind patrol cars. [/QUOTE]
What I really don't understand is why we in the rest of the world need to have an up to the second rolling news coverage of prince William's break up with his girl friend. Now that's a total waste of otherwise usefull news air time.
My prayers go out to all affected in this tragedy. :(
[QUOTE=Blue Supra;695169]This is whats going to happen:
Everyone will cry, cover up and blame everyone else. The NRA will say its not our fault it’s the shooter, the shooters family will say he bought the gun from a store and shouldn’t have been able to, the NRA will say ITS OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS! GWB will say its sad but guns get me votes. that’s all and in the end nothing will change except for a memorial at the college and an annual report on the news about it.[/QUOTE]
Hopefully some effort will be made to prevent things like this happening again. But so far they keep asking why the students wern't notifed about the earlier shootings and looking for people to blame.
Some effort will be the nearest gun dealers will be cracked down on for a week. :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=2ndclasscitizen;695147]If the guns are illegal it makes it hard for the bloke selling them out of his trunk to get them, and should also make that a more serious crime.
[/QUOTE]
Guns can be made illegal, but criminals don't follow the law anyway! The problem isn't guns, it's mentally unstable people. A gun is an inanimate object which doesn't hurt anyone; it's the nut behind the trigger who does.
Washington D.C. has the most strict gun control laws in the country, yet has the highest crime rate.
If guns were made illegal that means homeowner would have no way to defend themselves if a criminal broke into his house. And you can bet that the criminal would have some kind of gun. He would make one if he had to; banning guns doesn't mean criminals wouldn't have any. It just means the law-abiding citizens would be defenseless.
[QUOTE=Fleet 500;695184]Guns can be made illegal, but criminals don't follow the law anyway![/QUOTE]
But if there's less guns around they'll have less opportunity to get them. Have a buyback of illegal firearms and there'll be less on the street.
[QUOTE=Fleet 500;695184]If guns were made illegal that means homeowner would have no way to defend themselves if a criminal broke into his house. And you can bet that the criminal would have some kind of gun. He would make one if he had to; banning guns doesn't mean criminals wouldn't have any. It just means the law-abiding citizens would be defenseless.[/QUOTE]
Who's more likely to get shot: someone who confronts a robber with a gun with their own gun, or someone who just hands over whatever the criminal wants and doesn't give them any trouble?
[QUOTE=2ndclasscitizen;695185]But if there's less guns around they'll have less opportunity to get them. Have a buyback of illegal firearms and there'll be less on the street.
How's more likely to get shoot: someone who confronts a robber with a gun with their own gun, or someone who just hands over whatever the criminal wants and doesn't give them any trouble?[/QUOTE]
I can understand where Fleet is coming from. Guns are illegal to everyone here and criminals have no trouble getting them. To the point where Mexico has one of the highest violent crime rates in latin america.
I honestly don't know anymore what is better, allowing responsible citizens to own guns or banning them. Maybe what works in one part of the world, doesn't work somewhere else. :(
Where does it stop though?
Crims get hand guns, people buy handguns
Crims get rifles, people buy rifles,
Crims get sub machine guns, people buy...
Its stupid.
[QUOTE=Fleet 500;695184]Guns can be made illegal, but criminals don't follow the law anyway! The problem isn't guns, it's mentally unstable people.[/quote]
The problem isn't guns by themselves. Neither is it mentally unstable people by themselves. The problem is that under the current gun legislation any number of potentially mentally unstable, murderous lunatics have pretty much unhindered access to firearms. If they have the cash, they can legally buy themselves the ability to commit mass murder.
Remove the access to lethal weapons and you massively reduce the potential for incidents of this kind. It's a very simple equation.
[quote]A gun is an inanimate object which doesn't hurt anyone; it's the nut behind the trigger who does.[/quote]
Again, the problem is that your laws allow the nuts to get their fingers on the trigger in the first place.
[quote]
If guns were made illegal that means homeowner would have no way to defend themselves if a criminal broke into his house. And you can bet that the criminal would have some kind of gun.[/quote]
See, this is the bit of the gun lobby's argument that just staggers me. What you're saying is that every American should hold the right to turn into a gun toting vigilante in the face of a criminal. If every homeowner has a gun, and every criminal has a gun, then what? Criminal tries to enter house, homeowner brandishes firearm, criminal responds in kind shots are fired, everyone ends up severely injured/dead. Hurrah. Darwin wins again. :rolleyes:
It's the POLICE that should deal with dangerous, armed criminals. Not the average Joe.
[quote]He would make one if he had to; banning guns doesn't mean criminals wouldn't have any. It just means the law-abiding citizens would be defenseless.[/QUOTE]
Banning guns would mean that criminals, potential criminals, and the mentally unstable would have their access to firearms massively restricted. Would that mean all criminals couldn't get guns? No, of course not. There are criminals in every country who have firearms regardless of legislation. Would it mean that significantly LESS people with criminal or psychotic tendencies have the potential to purchase and use firearms against innocent civilians? Yes, undoubtedly. Isn't that worth striving for, and worth perhaps rethinking the hugely outdated and largely irrelevant 200+ year old amendment on which all this debate ultimately hangs?
[QUOTE=Jack_Bauer;695191]The problem isn't guns by themselves. Neither is it mentally unstable people by themselves. The problem is that under the current gun legislation any number of potentially mentally unstable, murderous lunatics have pretty much unhindered access to firearms. If they have the cash, they can legally buy themselves the ability to commit mass murder.[/QUOTE]
They don't need the cash, they can still the guns they need. Or, as I said before, even make one.
[QUOTE]Remove the access to lethal weapons and you massively reduce the potential for incidents of this kind. It's a very simple equation.[/QUOTE]
How do you remove access? Again, passing laws doesn't mean a thing to criminals- that's why they're criminals.
[QUOTE]Again, the problem is that your laws allow the nuts to get their fingers on the trigger in the first place. [/QUOTE]
They would get them with or without those laws.
[QUOTE]See, this is the bit of the gun lobby's argument that just staggers me. What you're saying is that every American should hold the right to turn into a gun toting vigilante in the face of a criminal. If every homeowner has a gun, and every criminal has a gun, then what? Criminal tries to enter house, homeowner brandishes firearm, criminal responds in kind shots are fired, everyone ends up severely injured/dead. Hurrah. Darwin wins again. :rolleyes: [/QUOTE]
What you call a "gun toting vigilante" I call a citizen exercising his right to protect himself and his family. How would you know that "everyone ends up dead?" Thousands of people have used guns in self-defense, meaning that the criminal was shot and they lived. Better than the alternative (the homeowner being killed). I have a .22 Remmington rifle (from the 1940s, but it is operational) in my house and you can bet if a violent criminal comes crashing into my house, I will certainly use it to protect myself and my mother. As the old saying goes, "Better to be judged by 12 than to be carried by 6."
[QUOTE]It's the POLICE that should deal with dangerous, armed criminals. Not the average Joe. [/QUOTE]
Yeah, right. By the time I call the police (if I can actually get through) and they pull up to my house, the criminal could probably kill me 5 times over!
[QUOTE]Banning guns would mean that criminals, potential criminals, and the mentally unstable would have their access to firearms massively restricted. Would that mean all criminals couldn't get guns? No, of course not. There are criminals in every country who have firearms regardless of legislation. Would it mean that significantly LESS people with criminal or psychotic tendencies have the potential to purchase and use firearms against innocent civilians? [/QUOTE]
Again, if the criminal really wants a gun, he can get it. No matter what the laws are or if there are 1 million gun laws.
[QUOTE]Isn't that worth striving for, and worth perhaps rethinking the hugely outdated and largely irrelevant 200+ year old amendment on which all this debate ultimately hangs?[/QUOTE]
It's not an outdated amendment. As I said above, thousands of citizens are alive today because of that amendment.
[QUOTE=LTT;695132]Yeah, god forbid they try and make the constitution relevant to today's world. Only the military should have the right to bare arms. And really, what does the average Joe need 9mm handgun for? Hunting? Not for wild animals, they're used for hunting humans.[/QUOTE]
That's ridiculous. I'm a proud gun owner myself, and shooting guns at shooting ranges (or hunting) is a form of recreation just like anything else. I think screaming to ban guns is the same as screaming to ban cars, and to date, I'm quite sure that cars kill more people daily. In both cases, the fault lies at the people operating them; in the right hands, they're safe and fun.