gun control?

[Buffalohed 10+ year member]

ps, first amendment says nothing about the right to life.
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Yeah you are right, I don't know why I was quoting the 1st Amendment. The right to life liberty and the pursuit is in the Constitution though.

 

[ravendarat 10+ year member]

Well why not force people with sports cars to leave them garaged at the race track?

Many sports cars arent allowed on a race track as they are designed for use on public roads and not on race tracks. Either way, trying defend yourself by simply redirecting the conversasion to a different topic is a sign of weekness in a debate.

 

[PollyCranopolis 10+ year member]

What would be your purpose to owning this automatic fire arm. Keep in mind here, im not looking for you to jump down my throat. Im just asking what the purpose is of you owning an automatic fire arm is?

Thats the thing. I don't NEED a purpose. It's my right. I could buy it to hang on my wall, or because it looks shiny, or because I like to go out back and shred trees, and no one should be able to question, or care otherwise.

 

[ravendarat 10+ year member]

If there are more reason to keep them out of residential areas than there are for them to exist in residential areas, esspecially where they are designed as wepons first and decorations second, than I absolutly think you should have to defend your right to have them, and if you cant than it only goes to further my point that the 2nd is out dated. For someone to truly feel that they have the RIGHT to something, than they should be able to defend that right with something more than "cause a piece of paper says I can"

 

[ravendarat 10+ year member]

Thats the thing. I don't NEED a purpose. It's my right. I could buy it to hang on my wall, or because it looks shiny, or because I like to go out back and shred trees, and no one should be able to question, or care otherwise.

On subjects like this that can get quite heated and are heavily debated, be ready to defend your side as well as oppose the other side.

 

[PollyCranopolis 10+ year member]

If there are more reason to keep them out of residential areas than there are for them to exist in residential areas, esspecially where they are designed as wepons first and decorations second, than I absolutly think you should have to defend your right to have them, and if you cant than it only goes to further my point that the 2nd is out dated. For someone to truly feel that they have the RIGHT to something, than they should be able to defend that right with something more than "cause a piece of paper says I can"

I'm an American. I don't need a specific reason to own a automatic rifle, wear a mohawk, or buy 20 pounds of taffy. I'm an American, and it is my constitutional right.n Got a problem with it? Pass a bill. Until then, I'll shine up my AK, and make my weekly trips to the firing range. Why would there be a reason to keep them out of residential areas? Some of the largest suburbs of major cities have the highest private ownership rates of automatic rifles, and have lower crime rates to boot, with almost no crime associated with the firearms in question.

 

[ravendarat 10+ year member]

I'm an American. I don't need a specific reason to own a automatic rifle, wear a mohawk, or buy 20 pounds of taffy. I'm an American, and it is my constitutional right.

Thats the kind of unintelligent argument I wont even bother with. Have a good night.

 

[PollyCranopolis 10+ year member]

Thats the kind of unintelligent argument I wont even bother with. Have a good night.

Why would there be a reason to keep them out of residential areas? Some of the largest suburbs of major cities (New York, Atlanta, etc) have the highest private ownership rates of automatic rifles, and have lower crime rates to boot, with almost no crime associated with the firearms in question.

And BTW, why do you even give a crap? Your a Canadian.

 

[ravendarat 10+ year member]

Why would there be a reason to keep them out of residential areas? Some of the largest suburbs of major cities (New York, Atlanta, etc) have the highest private ownership rates of automatic rifles, and have lower crime rates to boot, with almost no crime associated with the firearms in question.And BTW, why do you even give a crap? Your a Canadian.

Is that number of guns per homes or over all number of guns? Im just asking because I dont want to say anything about that statement without understanding it completly and knowing the numbers. As for your last question, why do I care, Im Canadian. I am still concerned for human life regardless of where it is. I am of the opinion that more guns does not help preserve life. I understand the argument that says more guns helps preserve life, I just dont agree with it.

 

[PollyCranopolis 10+ year member]

Is that number of guns per homes or over all number of guns? Im just asking because I dont want to say anything about that statement without understanding it completly and knowing the numbers. As for your last question, why do I care, Im Canadian. I am still concerned for human life regardless of where it is. I am of the opinion that more guns does not help preserve life. I understand the argument that says more guns helps preserve life, I just dont agree with it.

Maybe if a student or teacher had a weapon, they would have been able to shoot Mr. Cho before he killed 30+ people?

 

[PollyCranopolis 10+ year member]

Earlier this year the Virginia General Assembly failed to act on House Bill 1572. The citizens of Virginia are permitted to carry concealed weapons if they get a proper permit from the state government, unless you are on a college campus. This bill would have allowed college students and employees to carry handguns on campus with appropriate permits, of course. It died in subcommittee. After the bill was thrown out up steps Larry Hincker, a spokesman for Virginia Tech, the site of today's carnage, who says "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."

So .. how safe did these students and faculty in Norris Hall feel the other day?

 

[ravendarat 10+ year member]

Maybe if a student or teacher had a weapon, they would have been able to shoot Mr. Cho before he killed 30+ people?

I dont really know how that answers my question about your previous statement about automatic wepon ownership, but either way.

Sure if a student or a teacher had a gun its POSSIBLE that they could have taken him out, or as I said earlier, its also possible that someone could have pulled a gun, missed and shot someone else who was innoccent, also making themselves an instant target. This is all what ifs and cant be proved either way so its really of no benifit to either side of the arguement. Its like he said/she said in court, it doesnt get you anywhere.

 

[PollyCranopolis 10+ year member]

Let's set up a hypothetical situation. You're in a class full of people at a university. Let's say that there are 30 people in that room. A predator with a gun walks through the door. He shoots the professor, kills him. He then takes the remainder of the people in the room and lines them up against a wall. He then walks up to the first person and shots them in the head. Now ... let me allow you to change the scenario. We can freeze-frame this situation while you make a decision. Your decision is this: You can put a gun into the hands of one student or a professor in that room, or you can leave things exactly the way they are. What are you going to do? Come on now, let's have it. Which way do you want it? Do you want the predator to be the only one in the room with a gun? Or would you like to have at least the fighting chance that would result if one, maybe two of your classmates had a firearm.

"Oh no, I don't want anyone else to have a gun! They might try to shoot the killer and innocent people might get caught in the crossfire!" Well you can try to find a rational basis for that argument from now until pigs fly, and you will fail. There is no rationality in that argument. It's an argument based in mindless hysteria.

 

[ravendarat 10+ year member]

Earlier this year the Virginia General Assembly failed to act on House Bill 1572. The citizens of Virginia are permitted to carry concealed weapons if they get a proper permit from the state government, unless you are on a college campus. This bill would have allowed college students and employees to carry handguns on campus with appropriate permits, of course. It died in subcommittee. After the bill was thrown out up steps Larry Hincker, a spokesman for Virginia Tech, the site of today's carnage, who says "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."
So .. how safe did these students and faculty in Norris Hall feel the other day?

Now obviously my next point cant be proven so take it with a grain of salt. Is it safe to say that if you add up all the deaths on campus's in the united states caused by guns that it would probally not total more than 50 deaths on school property? I dont believe these large scale masacures happen too often and I dont hear of single ones to often either. Now lets say we introduce an influx of guns, not everyone oviously but mabye say 1-20 or 1-30? Now take into account that we have teenage or early twenty teens that are experementing with drugs and alcohol and now have guns in dorm rooms. We are talking hundreds of thousands, if not millions of school kids. I would tend to believe that we would see a larger number of deaths related to guns with the influence of drugs or alcohol in that situation as opposed to the current situation. But as I said that is strictly speculation and certainly open to disagreement. I cant prove it, it is simply my opinion.

 

[ravendarat 10+ year member]

Let's set up a hypothetical situation. You're in a class full of people at a university. Let's say that there are 30 people in that room. A predator with a gun walks through the door. He shoots the professor, kills him. He then takes the remainder of the people in the room and lines them up against a wall. He then walks up to the first person and shots them in the head. Now ... let me allow you to change the scenario. We can freeze-frame this situation while you make a decision. Your decision is this: You can put a gun into the hands of one student or a professor in that room, or you can leave things exactly the way they are. What are you going to do? Come on now, let's have it. Which way do you want it? Do you want the predator to be the only one in the room with a gun? Or would you like to have at least the fighting chance that would result if one, maybe two of your classmates had a firearm.
"Oh no, I don't want anyone else to have a gun! They might try to shoot the killer and innocent people might get caught in the crossfire!" Well you can try to find a rational basis for that argument from now until pigs fly, and you will fail. There is no rationality in that argument. It's an argument based in mindless hysteria.

OK Gunman had a gun that held ten bullets, he used one on the prof, and one on the first student. Im number ten in line. Guy beside me has a gun, draws, fires, misses and gets shot dead. The gunman has used three shots, but now has another gun with 9 more bullets in it. Before he would have ran out of bullets before he got to me, now he has more ammo and Im now ****ed.

You see this is all hear say. Hypothetical situations dont really prove anything. They stimulate conversation but thats really it. Honestly in your above situation, I wanna be number two in line, cause as soon as that guy pulls his gun and has it trained on that first guy, Im going for his arm. I may get shot in the end, I may break his arm and get his gun, but either way I am not setting him up to shoot more people than he could before.