Assault Weapon Ban

Archived discussion from Toril-2.
Mitharx
Sojourner
Posts: 475
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:01 am
Location: St. Louis, MO, 63129

Postby Mitharx » Wed Sep 15, 2004 8:32 pm

I would like to think our military would scare them some.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: i like guns

Postby Sarvis » Wed Sep 15, 2004 8:39 pm

Cordan wrote:ROFL. This reminds me of a debate my friends and I throw around sometimes.

If the U.S. were invaded by some outside force, who would give them a greater cause of fear? City thugs and gang bangers with hand guns and semi's? Or backwoods southern rednecks with rifles and shotguns? Think about territory too now!


Depends on if the invaders have seen Deliverence or not. ;)
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Artmar
Sojourner
Posts: 72
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Somewhere between yesterday and tomorrow

Postby Artmar » Wed Sep 15, 2004 9:27 pm

Cordan wrote:If they ban all guns, the machete wielding freaks are going to have a field day!

I could try to outrun a guy with a machete - I don't think I could manage to outrun a bullet though. Besides, machette freaks are less dangerous on the whole than gun psychos.

Some years ago there was an incident with an axe-wielding maniac in some school in my country - before he was overpowered, he managed to wound several people. Nobody died. If he'd been carrying a gun, there would have been lot of corpses in that school.


Oh, whatever. I've already gotten tired of this thread, so i guess i'll shut up for now and leave it alone. It's not my problem anyway.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Wed Sep 15, 2004 10:07 pm

Artmar wrote:Some years ago there was an incident with an axe-wielding maniac in some school in my country - before he was overpowered, he managed to wound several people. Nobody died. If he'd been carrying a gun, there would have been lot of corpses in that school.


If a teacher or a school security guard had been carrying a gun, perhaps fewer innocent people would have been wounded. :)

Corth
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth

Goddamned slippery mage.
oteb
Sojourner
Posts: 432
Joined: Mon May 27, 2002 5:01 am
Location: poland

Postby oteb » Wed Sep 15, 2004 10:38 pm

You mean like in Columbine?
You group-say 'who is da red shape?'
A red shape group-says 'I'm a shape'
Delmair Aamoren
Sojourner
Posts: 604
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Portland, OR, USA
Contact:

Postby Delmair Aamoren » Thu Sep 16, 2004 2:26 am

Artmar wrote:
Cordan wrote:If they ban all guns, the machete wielding freaks are going to have a field day!

I could try to outrun a guy with a machete - I don't think I could manage to outrun a bullet though. Besides, machette freaks are less dangerous on the whole than gun psychos.

Some years ago there was an incident with an axe-wielding maniac in some school in my country - before he was overpowered, he managed to wound several people. Nobody died. If he'd been carrying a gun, there would have been lot of corpses in that school.


Oh, whatever. I've already gotten tired of this thread, so i guess i'll shut up for now and leave it alone. It's not my problem anyway.


I think crazy is crazy. Less dangerous how? i think you might even have
to be MORE desperate to use a machete than a gun. Anyway, this has
gotten SO far off topic now... i give up.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Thu Sep 16, 2004 4:00 am

oteb wrote:You mean like in Columbine?


Exactly.

How many kids died because there weren't any responsible adults in the building with a gun?

The only people that are restricted by gun laws are people that obey the law.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Mitharx
Sojourner
Posts: 475
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:01 am
Location: St. Louis, MO, 63129

Postby Mitharx » Thu Sep 16, 2004 4:29 am

I just read that the guns were purchased legally at a gun show. A friend purchased them because they were minors (she was 18 and they were 17). If they had obeyed the law, they would have been restricted. That's a good thing.

On the other hand, non-restrictive gun laws helped them disobey the law.
ssar
Sojourner
Posts: 1446
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Contact:

Postby ssar » Thu Sep 16, 2004 7:35 am

Corth wrote:
Artmar wrote:Some years ago there was an incident with an axe-wielding maniac in some school in my country - before he was overpowered, he managed to wound several people. Nobody died. If he'd been carrying a gun, there would have been lot of corpses in that school.


If a teacher or a school security guard had been carrying a gun, perhaps fewer innocent people would have been wounded. :)

Corth


Or perhaps the guy would have stolen the teacher's or security guard's gun and then wreaked mulitple-corpse bloody havoc, and was more likely to do it because of possible access to a gun.

Artmar's point is the crux of the general gun debate - By and large, guns simply facilitate a too easy method of killing.

Back on topic - yeah, Governments need to work on detailed gun control laws, not just weak claims in the face of an upcoming election to try and win votes. Weak ammendments to previously instated legislation won't cut it. Modern society deserves much better.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Thu Sep 16, 2004 8:26 am

Would someone like to argue the point I made about guns being necessary for the survival of free government?

I think we all know what has always happened to the people of the world not allowed to have guns.

Oh, and by the way people that own guns are responsible enough to have them. The ones that aren't shoot themselves or shouldn't have children anyway.
Teflor does. Teflor does not.
Ambar
Sojourner
Posts: 2872
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Our House in Va.
Contact:

Postby Ambar » Thu Sep 16, 2004 9:02 am

Corth wrote:
oteb wrote:You mean like in Columbine?


Exactly.

How many kids died because there weren't any responsible adults in the building with a gun?

The only people that are restricted by gun laws are people that obey the law.


how true!

and keep in mind locks werent made for the honest either
muma
Sojourner
Posts: 681
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Seoul, South Korea

YEAH!!

Postby muma » Thu Sep 16, 2004 2:04 pm

teflor the ranger wrote:<B>Would someone like to argue the point I made about guns being necessary for the survival of free government?

I think we all know what has always happened to the people of the world not allowed to have guns.</B>

Oh, and by the way people that own guns are responsible enough to have them. The ones that aren't shoot themselves or shouldn't have children anyway.


AMEN times infinity!


and also i agree with Ambar and Corth on their posts.
Es gibt keinen Löffel!
Miax OOC: 'Your blood freezes as you hear the rattling death cry of Shevarash.'
Iaiken Toransier
Sojourner
Posts: 262
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Oakville, ON, CA
Contact:

Postby Iaiken Toransier » Thu Sep 16, 2004 3:28 pm

teflor the ranger wrote:Would someone like to argue the point I made about guns being necessary for the survival of free government?


Not necessarily in the hands of the nations civilians, guns are only a neccessity for law enforcement and military application.

Today, even hunting in North America is almost solely a passed time; whether they use the animal for food or not.

teflor the ranger wrote:I think we all know what has always happened to the people of the world not allowed to have guns.


Yeah, they get shot by idiots who DO have guns when they probably shouldn't.

teflor the ranger wrote:Oh, and by the way people that own guns are responsible enough to have them. The ones that aren't shoot themselves or shouldn't have children anyway.


Tell that to the criminals on the street brandishing Tec9's, Mach10's, Glock 9mm's (the three most popular guns among criminals). Or how about the parents of the 90,000 children and teens in America killed by gunfire between 1979 and 2001. Or how about the families and spouses of the 80+ americans that are shot and killed every day?

Give me a break.
Sesexe
Sojourner
Posts: 879
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2003 5:13 am

Postby Sesexe » Thu Sep 16, 2004 3:46 pm

Delmair Aamoren wrote:
Sesexe wrote:
Delmair Aamoren wrote:The criminals would have em, the law abiding citizens wouldn't.


Think you forgot to mention, the law abiding citizen's children wouldn't have them either.

Bowling anyone?


Del, you've always been a big supporter of how stupid most people are. Are you sure you want these types of people with access to assault weapons?


As i mentioned above, the parents are also an important part of the
solution. The weapons should definately be kept out of the hands of
children. Locked in safes with combinations, etc. always preferred.
If you can't prove you have a secure place to store the weapon, you
shouldn't have access to it. But good luck enforcing that one too...


The question Del, which you avoided, was : Are you sure you want these types of people with access to assault weapons?

There's no feasable way to prevent guns from getting into the hands of stupid people, but if there is a way to limit what kinds, wouldn't that be a good thing?
Asup group-says 'who needs sex ed when you got sesexe.'
Targsk group-says 'sexedse'
mount dragon
You climb on and ride Tocx'enth'orix, the elder black dragon.
You have learned something new about mount!
Mitharx
Sojourner
Posts: 475
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:01 am
Location: St. Louis, MO, 63129

Postby Mitharx » Thu Sep 16, 2004 6:35 pm

When you were talking before about Stalin and Hitler taking away the guns, I thought you were joking. Hitler and Stalin took away all rights through different methods. In each case, the taking away of rights was supported by the army. If our government really wants to take our a portion of our population, us having guns isn't gonna help. Hell, with our technology they wouldn't have to be in firing range to take us out. This is also assuming that our government is gonna insane at some point and start a political holocaust at some time in the near future.

A lot of peasants in Russia were allowed to keep their guns. It was generally considered a good thing to let them hunt so they wouldn't take too much from the crops they were growing for the state. This is why the officers that the communists sent down were often shot. Then, Stalin would send in special forces (part of the army) to investigate. If they couldn't figure out who it was, they'd use special methods. In no case did the guns the peasants had put them in any position to defend themselves against special army forces.

With this in mind, do you anticipate the United States being in the horrific political, sociological, and economic situation that helped bring Stalin and Hitler into power any time soon?
Abue
Sojourner
Posts: 123
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2001 5:01 am

Postby Abue » Thu Sep 16, 2004 7:02 pm

This is a stupid piece of legislation just like most. It did nothing to slow down gun ownership. It was just a toothpick size political bone tossed to the gun hating liberals. That being said, The only way your going to get my guns away from me is to pry them out of my cold dead hands.

As far as violence at schools (Columbine for example), good parenting might have been more affective in preventing situations like that then any gun ban.
Dlur
Sojourner
Posts: 379
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Minnesota
Contact:

Postby Dlur » Thu Sep 16, 2004 7:04 pm

Iaiken Toransier wrote:
teflor the ranger wrote:Would someone like to argue the point I made about guns being necessary for the survival of free government?


Not necessarily in the hands of the nations civilians, guns are only a neccessity for law enforcement and military application.

Today, even hunting in North America is almost solely a passed time; whether they use the animal for food or not.

teflor the ranger wrote:I think we all know what has always happened to the people of the world not allowed to have guns.


Yeah, they get shot by idiots who DO have guns when they probably shouldn't.

teflor the ranger wrote:Oh, and by the way people that own guns are responsible enough to have them. The ones that aren't shoot themselves or shouldn't have children anyway.


Tell that to the criminals on the street brandishing Tec9's, Mach10's, Glock 9mm's (the three most popular guns among criminals). Or how about the parents of the 90,000 children and teens in America killed by gunfire between 1979 and 2001. Or how about the families and spouses of the 80+ americans that are shot and killed every day?

Give me a break.


You canadians don't have to worry about stuff like Americans who are interested in this debate do. First of all there are still enough hunting rifles to overtake all 6 members of Canada's army with relative ease, so there's little or no worry of government oppresion of the people or the eruption of a police state.

Also saying that there are no uses for guns other than police or military is absolutely stupid. Firearms are a deeply rooted part of the american lifestyle and tradition. They are a source of protection, sport, and they make for a damn tasty way to put some venison steaks on the table to eat. I, for one, value my ability to protect myself and my family, not to mention the pleasure I derive from shooting sporting clays, target practice, or just plinking a few cans with a .22. I also was raised in a family with a deeply rooted hunting tradition that provided for one of the few ways I could spend time with my busy father when I was growing up, and it's still one of my favorite ways to spend time with my old man today. You, as a left-wing liberal hippy have no right to take that protection, sport, or family value away from me.

The US Constitution and Bill of Rights were drafted as such that there was no allowment for a standing army such as we have today. The standing army is explicetely forbidden in the US Constitution, and is only in existance today due to a Supreme Court ruling during the Eisenhower years that was to allow for handling of "threats" from other nations. The reasoning behind not having a standing army is that countries with standing armies tend to either become facist police states that opress their citizens, or they become superpowers that meddle in other country's affairs, much like Great Britain did at the time of our founding, and much like we do today. The founding fathers envisioned that we would have individual militias that would drill regularly, and if a need to protect our country arose, the militia could be called up and formed. The distribution of weaponry and firearms amongst the general populace is what won the US our independence from Great Britain in the first place, and that distribution of firearms is was also key to keep the government in check by the people. In a way the right to keep and bear arms was and should be a the 4th check and balance in our governmental proceedings, and only a court ruling that struck down part of our constitution and allowed for the creation of the world's largest standing army has destroyed that idealology. Perhaps if Canadians could still own firearms you wouldn't still be all suckling from the Queen Mother's teet to this day.

Also, to day that hunting is a dated practice is idiotic at best. As I mentioned earlier in my diatribe, hunting draws families together and is steeped in tradition and moral values. Certainly as with anything there are hunters who have no morals or values and are at the core of the debate as to whether hunting is to be allowed by society or not, but the VAST majority of hunters are fine, upstanding citizens of good moral character. Also, I must state that wild game is much, much healthier for you than store-bought meats, being much leaner by design. I also generally prefer the taste of wild game to that of any store-bought meats and I also eat everything that I shoot.

As for the street gangs that brandish their weapons with the intent of hurting others, they generally kill one another or rival gangs. These people are the dredge of society, with very few people of any value to society amongst them. And as I figure it, anyone stupid enough to be in a street gang is probably stupid enough to win a Darwin Award sooner or later, so let them kill themselves off, eventually the gene pool will be all the better for it. And certainly, you will say that people get in the crossfire and innocent bystanders get killed. If that's the case then I suggest you also call for the outlawing of all motor vehicles and sue McDonald's and Phillip Morris into oblivion as well as smoking(~450,000 deaths/yr), obesity (~400,000 deaths/yr), and motor vehicle accidents (~45,000 deaths/yr) EACH kill more people than firearms accidents (~1,500 deaths/yr) each year. Don't forget alcohol, which causes over 12,000 deaths a year just from cirhiosis of the liver alone, not to mention the traffice accidents it causes. Also if you look at the statistics from a death rate standpoint, homicide, which doesn't always necesarily mean a gun was involved (you can kill people with knives, axes, fire extinguishers, poison, cars, fists, strangulation, etc you know) the rate is approximately 8.5/100,000 for all ages. Compare this to heart disease: 276/100k, Cancer: ~250/100k, Motor Vehicle Accidents: 17/100k, Diabetes: 23/100k, HIV: 12/100k, Pnemonia and influenzia: 31/100k, Lung Disease: 40/100k. So basically, as I read the statistics, fewer people die of homicide or violent murder per year in the US than just about any other cause of death other than Atherosclerosis, whatever the hell that is.

So left wing-liberal hippy, I say STFU and go complain about fat people that eat too much, or people that smoke themselves to death or drink until their liver doesn't work anymore. Save them from themselves, but leave me and my guns alone.
Ghimok|Dlur|Emeslan|Ili|Zinse|Teniv
*~~~~~~~~~~*
"Censorship is telling a man he can't eat a steak just because a baby can't chew it." - Mark Twain
Dlur
Sojourner
Posts: 379
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Minnesota
Contact:

Postby Dlur » Thu Sep 16, 2004 7:19 pm

Sesexe wrote:

The question Del, which you avoided, was : Are you sure you want these types of people with access to assault weapons?

There's no feasable way to prevent guns from getting into the hands of stupid people, but if there is a way to limit what kinds, wouldn't that be a good thing?


A gun is a gun. What the anti-gun movement along with our nation's liberal media have labeled as "assault weapons" are no less or more dangerous than any other gun. Any gun can shoot you and any gun can kill you. A gun, in the hands of a law-abiding citizen, regardless of the type of gun is a tool. A gun, in the hands of a gang-banger, robber, murderer, or other <insert violent criminal here>, regardless of the type of gun is a tool.

The "assault weapons ban" that expired had absolutely nothing to do with keeping dangerous weapons off the streets and out of the hands of criminals. To remove weapons from the hands of criminals is a complete impossiblity. You can ask them nice all you want to hand them in and they'll just ignore you. You can confiscate a few here and there, but there's always more, and a vast, vast majority of the guns in criminal hands are obtained illegally in the first place. Think of it: if you are going to commit a crime using a gun are you going to go to your local firearms dealer to buy it? Hell no, you're going to steal it or trade drugs for it from someone else that stole it...
All the ban did was stop the import and manufacture of a very specific and small range of weapons that look scary. They might have a pistol grip along with a butt stock, or they might have a flash suppresor, or a bayonet lug, or a large capacity magazine. They _look_ military inspired, and that's about it. The fact is that none of these are military grade weapons, as military weapons such as AK-47s, M-16s, M-14s, Uzis, and other fully-automatic weapons have been illegal for the VAST majority of the population to own for many, many years. The only people that can own these types of weapons are federally registered collectors and firearms dealers, and it has been that way for many, many years.

The simple and very real reality of the situation is that I could, if I were so inclined to do so, kill a much larger amount of people with a bolt-action, single shot hunting rifle from a very long range than I could ever hope to kill by "spraying bullets" with an "assault weapon". For that matter, if I were to walk into a store with the intent of killing a large amount of persons at close range I certainly wouldn't bring a MAC-10 or Glock 9MM, I'd bring a trusty shotgun.
Ghimok|Dlur|Emeslan|Ili|Zinse|Teniv

*~~~~~~~~~~*

"Censorship is telling a man he can't eat a steak just because a baby can't chew it." - Mark Twain
Mitharx
Sojourner
Posts: 475
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:01 am
Location: St. Louis, MO, 63129

Postby Mitharx » Thu Sep 16, 2004 7:21 pm

Wow, stuff that aren't guns that are harmful to society have been brought up again. There is a difference in the things you listed and a gun. You can apply a basic criteria by finding a hidden place where you can view many people. Then take all those items you listed with you. If you can then kill many people very quickly without people knowing where you are, then those items are in line with guns.

But we'll take this the other way. Cars are dangerous and tanks are dangerous. Tanks for everyone. Smoking is dangerous and rocket launchers are dangerous. Rocket launchers for everyone. Fast food is dangerous and land mines are dangerous. Land mines for everyone. All the things you listed are dangerous and so are guns so they must be equal, but they're not. You can see a difference between items that are solely for the purpose of destruction and the other items listed. You can argue about how smoking is recreation and guns are recreation and they're borth harmful and therefore equal. Problem is that the way in which cigarettes kill and guns kill are dramatically different in terms of process and speed.

Still, I don't really care if people hunt as long as they keep their guns well secured when they're not using them. My basic point is that the comparisons don't work. Guns are different (as far as I can tell, if you see one that is so similar you can't tell the difference, please post it) from the other things that are harmful to society for various reasons. This doesn't make them better or worse, just differnet and so the comparisons are problematic.
Hyldryn
Sojourner
Posts: 399
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Maryland

Postby Hyldryn » Thu Sep 16, 2004 7:24 pm

I want a tank!
chandigar
Sojourner
Posts: 152
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Naperville, IL

Postby chandigar » Thu Sep 16, 2004 7:57 pm

Hyldryn wrote:I want a tank!


Why does a paladin need a tank?

Oh wait, answered my own question. ;)
muma
Sojourner
Posts: 681
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Seoul, South Korea

my god this is getting ridiculous

Postby muma » Thu Sep 16, 2004 9:20 pm

A few people have mentioned already that these guns cannot be kept out of the hands of criminals. Obviously, if all guns were banned, that would accomplish nothing.

This ban being lifted doesn't do much at all. It doesn't make our society
any more or less safe.

Also, Iaiken isn't a hippy. He's just canadian. That should explain a lot ;)
Es gibt keinen Löffel!
Miax OOC: 'Your blood freezes as you hear the rattling death cry of Shevarash.'
muma
Sojourner
Posts: 681
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Seoul, South Korea

:P: P :P :P

Postby muma » Thu Sep 16, 2004 9:22 pm

Dlur wrote:
A gun is a gun. What the anti-gun movement along with our nation's liberal media have labeled as "assault weapons" are no less or more dangerous than any other gun. Any gun can shoot you and any gun can kill you. A gun, in the hands of a law-abiding citizen, regardless of the type of gun is a tool. A gun, in the hands of a gang-banger, robber, murderer, or other <insert violent criminal here>, regardless of the type of gun is a tool.

<B>The "assault weapons ban" that expired had absolutely nothing to do with keeping dangerous weapons off the streets and out of the hands of criminals. To remove weapons from the hands of criminals is a complete impossiblity. You can ask them nice all you want to hand them in and they'll just ignore you. You can confiscate a few here and there, but there's always more, and a vast, vast majority of the guns in criminal hands are obtained illegally in the first place. Think of it: if you are going to commit a crime using a gun are you going to go to your local firearms dealer to buy it? Hell no, you're going to steal it or trade drugs for it from someone else that stole it... </B>
All the ban did was stop the import and manufacture of a very specific and small range of weapons that look scary. They might have a pistol grip along with a butt stock, or they might have a flash suppresor, or a bayonet lug, or a large capacity magazine. They _look_ military inspired, and that's about it. The fact is that none of these are military grade weapons, as military weapons such as AK-47s, M-16s, M-14s, Uzis, and other fully-automatic weapons have been illegal for the VAST majority of the population to own for many, many years. The only people that can own these types of weapons are federally registered collectors and firearms dealers, and it has been that way for many, many years.

The simple and very real reality of the situation is that I could, if I were so inclined to do so, kill a much larger amount of people with a bolt-action, single shot hunting rifle from a very long range than I could ever hope to kill by "spraying bullets" with an "assault weapon". For that matter, if I were to walk into a store with the intent of killing a large amount of persons at close range I certainly wouldn't bring a MAC-10 or Glock 9MM, I'd bring a trusty shotgun.


I think this thread should be locked because come on, you can't argue with that.
Es gibt keinen Löffel!
Miax OOC: 'Your blood freezes as you hear the rattling death cry of Shevarash.'
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Thu Sep 16, 2004 11:23 pm

Iaiken Toransier wrote:Not necessarily in the hands of the nations civilians, guns are only a neccessity for law enforcement and military application.


You mean like the SS and the Waffen SS? Or Russian secret police, the Cheka?

Iaiken Toransier wrote:Yeah, they get shot by idiots who DO have guns when they probably shouldn't.


Like the Boston massacre when a crowd stepped up to protect a boy from a tyrannical military force?

Iaiken Toransier wrote:Tell that to the criminals on the street brandishing Tec9's, Mach10's, Glock 9mm's (the three most popular guns among criminals). Or how about the parents of the 90,000 children and teens in America killed by gunfire between 1979 and 2001. Or how about the families and spouses of the 80+ americans that are shot and killed every day?


Tec9's and Mach10's are banned seperatly from the AWB. Glock 9mm's are the most popular guns among policemen. The parent's of the 90,000 children need to buy things called locking gun cabinets. Or raise less moronic teenagers. 80+ Americans are shot everyday because they do stupid shit like attack policemen.
Teflor does. Teflor does not.
Vorkul Tigerclaw
Sojourner
Posts: 79
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 10:55 pm

Postby Vorkul Tigerclaw » Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:22 am

ssar wrote:
Corth wrote:
Artmar wrote:Some years ago there was an incident with an axe-wielding maniac in some school in my country - before he was overpowered, he managed to wound several people. Nobody died. If he'd been carrying a gun, there would have been lot of corpses in that school.


If a teacher or a school security guard had been carrying a gun, perhaps fewer innocent people would have been wounded. :)

Corth


Or perhaps the guy would have stolen the teacher's or security guard's gun and then wreaked mulitple-corpse bloody havoc, and was more likely to do it because of possible access to a gun.

Artmar's point is the crux of the general gun debate - By and large, guns simply facilitate a too easy method of killing.
Back on topic - yeah, Governments need to work on detailed gun control laws, not just weak claims in the face of an upcoming election to try and win votes. Weak ammendments to previously instated legislation won't cut it. Modern society deserves much better.


Hell yea! lets go back to swords and bows and spells! Then rangers would get a little more useful! I don't think I'd agree to it til invokers got a serious downgrade though.....

But then area spells would get banned cuz of irresponsible people killing everyone....sigh.

Eat totem darts biatch!!!
/tog sarcasm

On a more serious note, I dont want guns banned, don't want a criminal to sneak up on me with a gun(gotten illegally of course), and all I can do is pull out a knife or a club or something. Or just look at him and utter 'spirit wrack' in an arcane tone, and hope for a stun :( err yeah tog darcasm =p
Nuada GCC: 'what the heck is a khanjari'
Dudle GCC: 'it's a new player class'
Azerost GCC: 'Imagine for a second that they jammed Drizzt into a dagger'
Mitharx
Sojourner
Posts: 475
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:01 am
Location: St. Louis, MO, 63129

Postby Mitharx » Fri Sep 17, 2004 4:23 am

Muma, we're all speculating (even you). The issue is not black and white or white and black. The conversation has, for the most part, been civilized and informative. There are emotional arguments involved and conversation helps better understand these emotional aspects. Why would you want to lock the thread? It's not a "It's been handled ' Kossuth kind of thing (unless you're just listening to one side).

I doubt conversation will get us much further because there are no more conclusive statements to be made, but it's been interesting. Locking doesn't really seem necessary. Just let it die.
muma
Sojourner
Posts: 681
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Seoul, South Korea

Postby muma » Fri Sep 17, 2004 11:46 am

LOl, i wasn't serious at all about locking the thread. I was just saying that i don't think anyone can argue with him about his statements. yes, it's true i'm just speculating as well. honestly, if i think a thread really needs to be locked it means i've stopped clicking on it because well why would i? i agree with you this conversation about guns will not get us much further too.
Mitharx wrote:Muma, we're all speculating (even you). The issue is not black and white or white and black. The conversation has, for the most part, been civilized and informative. There are emotional arguments involved and conversation helps better understand these emotional aspects. Why would you want to lock the thread? It's not a "It's been handled ' Kossuth kind of thing (unless you're just listening to one side).

I doubt conversation will get us much further because there are no more conclusive statements to be made, but it's been interesting. Locking doesn't really seem necessary. Just let it die.
Es gibt keinen Löffel!
Miax OOC: 'Your blood freezes as you hear the rattling death cry of Shevarash.'
Eilorn
Sojourner
Posts: 229
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Salt Lake City,UT,USA 84116
Contact:

Postby Eilorn » Tue Sep 21, 2004 1:11 am

I'm lucky enough to live in an area without a lot of gang violence. Or any other kind of violence, for that matter. I don't have a firearm of any kind, but, do not object to anyone else having one. I AM against banning them, however, for one simple reason: guns are easy, you don't have to think about them. And, contrary to the hysteria flogged by the media, the incidents hither-to-for have involved relatively few victims. What I AM worried about, is if guns are outlawed, people will have to get inventive when they want to go out with a bang. Guns are awfully hard to come by in Japan, so Aum Shinrikyo developed nerve gas (Sarin?) and deployed it to a Tokyo subway. Only 12 people died, though thousands were sickened, some still suffering to this day from lasting ill affects. It could have been MUCH worse. I worry about the INVENTIVE neer-do-wells.

Eilorn.(Aliyan/Tibor/Mirebas/Hilien/etc.)
Now, we can do this the hard way, or... well, actually there's just the hard way.
-- Buffy, "Buffy the Vampire Slayer"
Dlur
Sojourner
Posts: 379
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Minnesota
Contact:

Postby Dlur » Tue Sep 21, 2004 1:19 am

Eilorn wrote:I'm lucky enough to live in an area without a lot of gang violence. Or any other kind of violence, for that matter. I don't have a firearm of any kind, but, do not object to anyone else having one. I AM against banning them, however, for one simple reason: guns are easy, you don't have to think about them. And, contrary to the hysteria flogged by the media, the incidents hither-to-for have involved relatively few victims. What I AM worried about, is if guns are outlawed, people will have to get inventive when they want to go out with a bang. Guns are awfully hard to come by in Japan, so Aum Shinrikyo developed nerve gas (Sarin?) and deployed it to a Tokyo subway. Only 12 people died, though thousands were sickened, some still suffering to this day from lasting ill affects. It could have been MUCH worse. I worry about the INVENTIVE neer-do-wells.

Eilorn.(Aliyan/Tibor/Mirebas/Hilien/etc.)


Very true. A well placed ammonium nitrate bomb can take out way more people than a gun ever will. Remember Olklahoma City? If you think this couldn't happen again very easily then you are likely living in a cave and/or pretty dang stupid.
Ghimok|Dlur|Emeslan|Ili|Zinse|Teniv

*~~~~~~~~~~*

"Censorship is telling a man he can't eat a steak just because a baby can't chew it." - Mark Twain
Mitharx
Sojourner
Posts: 475
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:01 am
Location: St. Louis, MO, 63129

Postby Mitharx » Tue Sep 21, 2004 1:35 am

People here can get both. Guns being available didn't stop the nitrate bomb. If you think they lower the possibilities of them, then you're probably living in some cave.

But seriously, I think that's a tenuous connection at best. If people want to hurt or kill lots of other people, it seems that they'll find a way to do it. I'm not sure that we can say "If only they had guns, they would have just shot and/or injured a few people." They wanted to throw nerve gas into a place it could cause lots of damage and they succeeded.

An equally tenuous comment would be that only that many got hurt and/or sick and making guns easier to get would lead to much more violence than that act..
kwirl
Sojourner
Posts: 780
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Delaware
Contact:

Postby kwirl » Tue Sep 21, 2004 8:03 am

the governator has a tank

all else is moot.
Ensis
Sojourner
Posts: 629
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Portland, OR 97219
Contact:

Postby Ensis » Thu Sep 23, 2004 7:24 am

Vorkul Tigerclaw wrote:Hell yea! lets go back to swords and bows and spells!


Time to unplug.
Ashod
Sojourner
Posts: 138
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Sebring ,FL,US

Postby Ashod » Thu Sep 23, 2004 8:01 am

For those of you that haven't seen Bowling for Columbine... I strongly recommend you pick it up... I rented it at block buster this past weekend when i was browsing for something intresting to watch. It really gave me a new look at a few things. If you have seen this documentary then don't spoil it for those who haven't seen it.

Kinda funny how around the time that this post came out.. I happened to find this in a rental store.

Return to “General Discussion Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests