Another rampage shooting

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Dari
Guns were taken from all civilians in England, including the criminal class? What else did this English anti-gun law mandate? What were the directives?

From CNN world 1997

The new law bans the possession of all handguns of .22 caliber and above and those able to fire more than one shot at a time.

Australia

Under the new legislation, all automatic and semi-automatic firearms, including .22 caliber semi-automatic rifles and pump-action shotguns are banned, except in special circumstances.

BTW how do you suggest we take the guns from the criminal class?

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Dari
Guns were taken from all civilians in England, including the criminal class? What else did this English anti-gun law mandate? What were the directives?

From CNN world 1997

The new law bans the possession of all handguns of .22 caliber and above and those able to fire more than one shot at a time.

Australia

Under the new legislation, all automatic and semi-automatic firearms, including .22 caliber semi-automatic rifles and pump-action shotguns are banned, except in special circumstances.

BTW how do you suggest we take the guns from the criminal class?

Don't forget to mention that we're talking about a VERY small island nation (England that is) with the most government intrusion into privacy on the planet. More cameras and regulation than any six nations you can name. And yet still they were unable to stop anything.

On top of that England never had the type of deep association with firearms that America has...the number of weapons or the entrenched mentality.

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: Dari
After arguing with his supervisor, he goes home, gets his gun, returns and starts shooting people dead. This is way too easy. I know guns are popular in the South and West but all these shootings ought to make it harder to get a gun rather than easier. If it was easier, incidents like these would be amplified, resulting in more deaths.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7472963.stm

US factory worker in gun rampage

Police in the US state of Kentucky say a member of staff at a plant shot four people dead and injured two others before killing himself.

The shooting in Henderson city happened after the Atlantis Plastics employee argued with a supervisor, police said.

The two other people shot were flown to hospitals in Evansville, Indiana, where one of the survivors was in a critical condition, police told the BBC.

The employee used a handgun he got from home during his break, police said.

A police spokeswoman told the BBC News website the shooting happened at just after midnight on Wednesday at 1218 (0418GMT).

It is not known if the supervisor with whom the employee had argued was among the victims.

The guns guys are willing to tolerate rampage shootings.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Dari
Guns were taken from all civilians in England, including the criminal class? What else did this English anti-gun law mandate? What were the directives?

From CNN world 1997

The new law bans the possession of all handguns of .22 caliber and above and those able to fire more than one shot at a time.

Australia

Under the new legislation, all automatic and semi-automatic firearms, including .22 caliber semi-automatic rifles and pump-action shotguns are banned, except in special circumstances.

BTW how do you suggest we take the guns from the criminal class?

What about gun stores? What incentives did the government offer to the populace? How pervasive was this law? What were the punishment if found with such a weapon?

Listen, if you want to cite examples, I can find other nations as well (such as Japan, S. Korea or Singapore) where gun ownership is severly limited and the people don't have gun-related crimes. People carrying around guns as a fashion statement shows that punishment isn't severe enough.

You have to offer carrot and sticks. Furthermore, if you're going to be taking guns away from people, you have to smooth that with an increase police enforcement.

You simply cannot ban guns and let that be the end of it.

 

[OFFascist]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
The guns guys are willing to tolerate rampage shootings.

Freedom can be dangerous that doesnt mean that we should give up freedom for safety. Benjamin Franklin has a quote about that.

Also while I dont now see the any need to overthrow my government its good that the option for armed revolt incase we need it in the future, or for our descendants.

 

[OFFascist]

Originally posted by: Dari
Listen, if you want to cite examples, I can find other nations as well (such as Japan, S. Korea or Singapore) where gun ownership is severly limited and the people don't have gun-related crimes. People carrying around guns as a fashion statement shows that punishment isn't severe enough.

Those nations are arguably police states to a degree that many Americans would not be comfortable with here in America. Their police have a much heavier hand when dealing with alleged criminals and dont respect the rights of individuals the way we do here in the US.

You have to offer carrot and sticks. Furthermore, if you're going to be taking guns away from people, you have to smooth that with an increase police enforcement.

You simply cannot ban guns and let that be the end of it.

So you want to turn America into more of a police state, where do you propose to get the money to fund all these new police?

 

[ScottMac]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Dari
Guns were taken from all civilians in England, including the criminal class? What else did this English anti-gun law mandate? What were the directives?

From CNN world 1997

The new law bans the possession of all handguns of .22 caliber and above and those able to fire more than one shot at a time.

Australia

Under the new legislation, all automatic and semi-automatic firearms, including .22 caliber semi-automatic rifles and pump-action shotguns are banned, except in special circumstances.

BTW how do you suggest we take the guns from the criminal class?

What about gun stores? What incentives did the government offer to the populace? How pervasive was this law? What were the punishment if found with such a weapon?

Listen, if you want to cite examples, I can find other nations as well (such as Japan, S. Korea or Singapore) where gun ownership is severly limited and the people don't have gun-related crimes. People carrying around guns as a fashion statement shows that punishment isn't severe enough.

You have to offer carrot and sticks. Furthermore, if you're going to be taking guns away from people, you have to smooth that with an increase police enforcement.

You simply cannot ban guns and let that be the end of it.

(re: the bolded text above)That would be wonderful. While you are checking all of that, also check out the rights of citizens vs government, like search & seizure laws.

The other issue that comes into play is the culture, as it relates to the individual versus the collective clan or local population versus the country's population.

It will never be as simple as ban the guns {knives, ball bats, golf clubs ...} and you'll eliminate violence. Violent people will find a way to hurt you (or kill you), if that's what they have a mind to do.

"God made man, but Sam Colt made 'em equal"

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: OFFascist

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
The guns guys are willing to tolerate rampage shootings.

Freedom can be dangerous that doesnt mean that we should give up freedom for safety. Benjamin Franklin has a quote about that.

Also while I dont now see the any need to overthrow my government its good that the option for armed revolt incase we need it in the future, or for our descendants.

Your point would be valid if the small arms that we have would be helpful in any revolt. Militaries have evolved to the point where handguns don't stand a chance against the arsenal militaries have. I noted earlier that the people in Afghanistan/NorthWest Pakistan make their own guns and there is at least one to a household. Yet these people have been invaded and conquered time and again. Your principals are in line with the founding fathers, but you simply don't stand a chance. In fact, our only chance when a rebellion would be our national guards. But they have been put under the tutelage of the President, which goes against everything they stand for: states' rights.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: OFFascist

Originally posted by: Dari
Listen, if you want to cite examples, I can find other nations as well (such as Japan, S. Korea or Singapore) where gun ownership is severly limited and the people don't have gun-related crimes. People carrying around guns as a fashion statement shows that punishment isn't severe enough.

Those nations are arguably police states to a degree that many Americans would not be comfortable with here in America. Their police have a much heavier hand when dealing with alleged criminals and dont respect the rights of individuals the way we do here in the US.

You have to offer carrot and sticks. Furthermore, if you're going to be taking guns away from people, you have to smooth that with an increase police enforcement.

You simply cannot ban guns and let that be the end of it.

So you want to turn America into more of a police state, where do you propose to get the money to fund all these new police?

Your use of "police state" is obviously meant to rile up emotions. Yet people like you have no problem expanding the military. It just doesn't make sense.

Efficient governments can always stretch their tax receipts.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: ScottMac

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Dari
Guns were taken from all civilians in England, including the criminal class? What else did this English anti-gun law mandate? What were the directives?

From CNN world 1997

The new law bans the possession of all handguns of .22 caliber and above and those able to fire more than one shot at a time.

Australia

Under the new legislation, all automatic and semi-automatic firearms, including .22 caliber semi-automatic rifles and pump-action shotguns are banned, except in special circumstances.

BTW how do you suggest we take the guns from the criminal class?

What about gun stores? What incentives did the government offer to the populace? How pervasive was this law? What were the punishment if found with such a weapon?

Listen, if you want to cite examples, I can find other nations as well (such as Japan, S. Korea or Singapore) where gun ownership is severly limited and the people don't have gun-related crimes. People carrying around guns as a fashion statement shows that punishment isn't severe enough.

You have to offer carrot and sticks. Furthermore, if you're going to be taking guns away from people, you have to smooth that with an increase police enforcement.

You simply cannot ban guns and let that be the end of it.

(re: the bolded text above)That would be wonderful. While you are checking all of that, also check out the rights of citizens vs government, like search & seizure laws.

The other issue that comes into play is the culture, as it relates to the individual versus the collective clan or local population versus the country's population.

It will never be as simple as ban the guns {knives, ball bats, golf clubs ...} and you'll eliminate violence. Violent people will find a way to hurt you (or kill you), if that's what they have a mind to do.

"God made man, but Sam Colt made 'em equal"

You are partly right about culture. But, face it, the rest of the world is heading that way (as evidenced by Britain and Australia). Their starts may be premature but they are heading that way nevertheless. What's even more astonishing is that these are Anglo-Saxon nations (your brothers) so as they continue to qualify their laws and learn from their past mistakes, they may make a success of their gun laws.

 

[lupi]

Increased police protection though doesn't cover the other basis behind the 2nd amendment; giving the We The People the ability with which to rebel against the government should their God given rights and liberty be oppressed by the government. The days of the founders was one of rebellion and they understood that the people must have true power to check the ambition and ego of those elected to serve as its leaders.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: lupi
Increased police protection though doesn't cover the other basis behind the 2nd amendment; giving the We The People the ability with which to rebel against the government should their God given rights and liberty be oppressed by the government. The days of the founders was one of rebellion and they understood that the people must have true power to check the ambition and ego of those elected to serve as its leaders.

I think they meant the Federal government. That's why states were giving such powerful rights and options to leave the union. This was mainly a state vs. federal issue rather than an individual issue. However, the rights of states have been emasculated over the centuries to the point where the Federal government has the majority of the rights now. People may not like it but it's good because it produces coherency.

People also seem to forget that the founding fathers wanted the constitution updated every 20 years or so to keep up with the times.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha

Originally posted by: Dari
After arguing with his supervisor, he goes home, gets his gun, returns and starts shooting people dead. This is way too easy. I know guns are popular in the South and West but all these shootings ought to make it harder to get a gun rather than easier. If it was easier, incidents like these would be amplified, resulting in more deaths.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7472963.stm

US factory worker in gun rampage

Police in the US state of Kentucky say a member of staff at a plant shot four people dead and injured two others before killing himself.

The shooting in Henderson city happened after the Atlantis Plastics employee argued with a supervisor, police said.

The two other people shot were flown to hospitals in Evansville, Indiana, where one of the survivors was in a critical condition, police told the BBC.

The employee used a handgun he got from home during his break, police said.

A police spokeswoman told the BBC News website the shooting happened at just after midnight on Wednesday at 1218 (0418GMT).

It is not known if the supervisor with whom the employee had argued was among the victims.

The guns guys are willing to tolerate rampage shootings.

Not at all, we just want to address the real issues, and not blame guns. We want to actually fix the problems, rather than cause more without doing any good.

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: lupi
Increased police protection though doesn't cover the other basis behind the 2nd amendment; giving the We The People the ability with which to rebel against the government should their God given rights and liberty be oppressed by the government. The days of the founders was one of rebellion and they understood that the people must have true power to check the ambition and ego of those elected to serve as its leaders.

I think they meant the Federal government. That's why states were giving such powerful rights and options to leave the union. This was mainly a state vs. federal issue rather than an individual issue. However, the rights of states have been emasculated over the centuries to the point where the Federal government has the majority of the rights now. People may not like it but it's good because it produces coherency.

People also seem to forget that the founding fathers wanted the constitution updated every 20 years or so to keep up with the times.

Can you show me a citation for this?

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: OFFascist

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
The guns guys are willing to tolerate rampage shootings.

Freedom can be dangerous that doesnt mean that we should give up freedom for safety. Benjamin Franklin has a quote about that.

Also while I dont now see the any need to overthrow my government its good that the option for armed revolt incase we need it in the future, or for our descendants.

Your point would be valid if the small arms that we have would be helpful in any revolt. Militaries have evolved to the point where handguns don't stand a chance against the arsenal militaries have. I noted earlier that the people in Afghanistan/NorthWest Pakistan make their own guns and there is at least one to a household. Yet these people have been invaded and conquered time and again. Your principals are in line with the founding fathers, but you simply don't stand a chance. In fact, our only chance when a rebellion would be our national guards. But they have been put under the tutelage of the President, which goes against everything they stand for: states' rights.

As I've stated many times, the point of personal arms in a revolution is to get to better weapons and assassinate targets of importance. Militaries cannot and would not use full force in a revolution as it would ensure total consolidation against them by the citizens. This brings it down to small units which are easily taken out one at a time.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: OS
story about england gun ban;

http://youtube.com/watch?v=qGVAQOUi6ec

There is a larger msg in that video. Apathy allows govt to do what it wants. I see that same apathy within the United States.

 

[Genx87]

btw I await the decision of the Supreme Court today. It should set the anti-gun whackjobs back about 100 years.

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

The decision is expected any minute now.

http://www.coveritlive.com/ind...ltcast_code=39aaa9e4d2

Davis vs. FEC was just rendered.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Genx87
btw I await the decision of the Supreme Court today. It should set the anti-gun whackjobs back about 100 years.

They overturned the DC anti-Americans.

Will DC return all the guns they confiscated?

 

[eleison]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Genx87
btw I await the decision of the Supreme Court today. It should set the anti-gun whackjobs back about 100 years.

They overturned the DC anti-Americans.

Will DC return all the guns they confiscated?

Yea!!! Sanity FTW!!!

 

[BladeVenom]

Originally posted by: OS
story about england gun ban;

http://youtube.com/watch?v=qGVAQOUi6ec

Good video.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: lupi
Increased police protection though doesn't cover the other basis behind the 2nd amendment; giving the We The People the ability with which to rebel against the government should their God given rights and liberty be oppressed by the government. The days of the founders was one of rebellion and they understood that the people must have true power to check the ambition and ego of those elected to serve as its leaders.

I think they meant the Federal government. That's why states were giving such powerful rights and options to leave the union. This was mainly a state vs. federal issue rather than an individual issue. However, the rights of states have been emasculated over the centuries to the point where the Federal government has the majority of the rights now. People may not like it but it's good because it produces coherency.

People also seem to forget that the founding fathers wanted the constitution updated every 20 years or so to keep up with the times.

Can you show me a citation for this?

A professor told me this in a law class. No citation. Sorry.

 

[Rhaze]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: ScottMac
It's too bad the other workers weren't carrying (concealed or otherwise). They could have clipped him before he killed so many people.

And what happens when they disagree with the supervisor? It'll be just another shooting. Besides, I rather be safe knowing that NO GUNS are allowed rather than having one on me (and everyone else) for protection. How can you do your job when you have to worry about somebody just shooting you with the gun on their waist or in their purse? It'll be a madhouse of tension.

Is this even a real train of thought... I... what the hell... The fact that... wow..

You really believe that the only reason I don't murder my boss is because I'm ill equiped at the exact moment the disagreement occurs?

How are you safe in a place that 'doesn't allow guns' ? Amazing ignorance. Simply amazing. People that seek to do criminal things with weapons are not only unconcerned with whether or not weapons are allowed on the premisis... they are in fact FAR more likely to choose such a location because they know the law abiding people won't be packing.

I really hate to be a dick.. but people that approach this issue from such a foolish, illogical direction are frightening to me.

 

[ScottMac]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: lupi
Increased police protection though doesn't cover the other basis behind the 2nd amendment; giving the We The People the ability with which to rebel against the government should their God given rights and liberty be oppressed by the government. The days of the founders was one of rebellion and they understood that the people must have true power to check the ambition and ego of those elected to serve as its leaders.

I think they meant the Federal government. That's why states were giving such powerful rights and options to leave the union. This was mainly a state vs. federal issue rather than an individual issue. However, the rights of states have been emasculated over the centuries to the point where the Federal government has the majority of the rights now. People may not like it but it's good because it produces coherency.

People also seem to forget that the founding fathers wanted the constitution updated every 20 years or so to keep up with the times.

Can you show me a citation for this?

A professor told me this in a law class. No citation. Sorry.

OH, easy then; your professor was wrong. It happens all the time, don't hate him for it. Professor types spend so much time on campus cultivating their tenure they are just out of touch with the real world.

It's difficult for student-types to realize that, because they are also frequently out of touch with the real world as well, mostly from listening to their professors and not having any real-world experience to draw from.

When you get a chance, go to a local gun dealer, one with a range and an NRA certified staff, and take some shooting lessons. Give it a shot (pardon the pun); I think you'll like it once you've tried it.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: ScottMac

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: lupi
Increased police protection though doesn't cover the other basis behind the 2nd amendment; giving the We The People the ability with which to rebel against the government should their God given rights and liberty be oppressed by the government. The days of the founders was one of rebellion and they understood that the people must have true power to check the ambition and ego of those elected to serve as its leaders.

I think they meant the Federal government. That's why states were giving such powerful rights and options to leave the union. This was mainly a state vs. federal issue rather than an individual issue. However, the rights of states have been emasculated over the centuries to the point where the Federal government has the majority of the rights now. People may not like it but it's good because it produces coherency.

People also seem to forget that the founding fathers wanted the constitution updated every 20 years or so to keep up with the times.

Can you show me a citation for this?

A professor told me this in a law class. No citation. Sorry.

OH, easy then; your professor was wrong. It happens all the time, don't hate him for it. Professor types spend so much time on campus cultivating their tenure they are just out of touch with the real world.

It's difficult for student-types to realize that, because they are also frequently out of touch with the real world as well, mostly from listening to their professors and not having any real-world experience to draw from.

When you get a chance, go to a local gun dealer, one with a range and an NRA certified staff, and take some shooting lessons. Give it a shot (pardon the pun); I think you'll like it once you've tried it.

I've been trying to get a gun license in NYC but you basically need a lawyer to get approval. It's very strict here.