# Dammit, people!



## noodles (Feb 14, 2008)

Reports: Several people shot at Northern Illinois University - CNN.com

Why are we fighting terrorists abroad when we have enough of them here? I'm sick of this shit, what's with all the damn shooting lately?


----------



## Abhorred (Feb 14, 2008)

Ah, shit. 

You're right, there's been way too many of these as of late..


----------



## GH0STrider (Feb 14, 2008)

I go to niu, it's so fucking sad.


----------



## Zepp88 (Feb 14, 2008)

This is terrible 

Hits very close to home for those with loved ones in college..


----------



## ohio_eric (Feb 14, 2008)




----------



## God Hand Apostle (Feb 14, 2008)

From my 2007 end of year awards:
Less of this, please: School shootingsIm bored of these A-Holes who cant deal with lifes disappointments, and go on a rampage. 

My Physics teacher showed up to class tonight and discussed with us (@ Illinois State University) his thoughts on the event, which turned into an anti-gun lecture. He is from Germany and told us how hard it is to get a gun there....then we had a pop quiz. 

Also, the worst part was when he said he was so upset by the NIU shootings that he had tears in his eyes watching it on the news, the girl behind me softly said, "then why don't you cancel class." I just had to shake my head..........fuckin' people.


----------



## Ojinomoto (Feb 15, 2008)

God Hand Apostle said:


> From my 2007 end of year awards:
> Less of this, please: School shootingsIm bored of these A-Holes who cant deal with lifes disappointments, and go on a rampage.
> 
> My Physics teacher showed up to class tonight and discussed with us (@ Illinois State University) his thoughts on the event, which turned into an anti-gun lecture. He is from Germany and told us how hard it is to get a gun there....then we had a pop quiz.
> ...



I heard the same thing from a German I work with.
Typical...

There was a shooting at a college in Baton Rouge Louisiana last week or the week before. A chick came in a room, shot two girls, and then shot herself. It was black folks so it didn't get much, if any, press. Go figure 

Hell, there was a kid who got arrested just the other day for having a gun on him at the high school I went to. What is wrong with these kids?


----------



## Popsyche (Feb 15, 2008)

That sucks! I was in the Convocation Center at NIU when I bought the GR from Metal Ken. That is such a nice campus with great kids(good bars, too). It doesn't seem like the kind of place you'd see this.


----------



## Ojinomoto (Feb 15, 2008)

^ Never does...


----------



## 777timesgod (Feb 15, 2008)

What drives these people to actions like this? If you have a problem solve it, don't take out your frustrations on others.


----------



## Groff (Feb 15, 2008)

I read this in the news this morning... It makes me sadder and sadder the more I read these stories... It's just so tragic. 



God Hand Apostle said:


> From my 2007 end of year awards:
> Less of this, please: School shootings&#8230;I&#8217;m bored of these A-Holes who can&#8217;t deal with life&#8217;s disappointments, and go on a rampage.



Most of the time the shooters were kids who were teased or shunned. And while I can't agree with them shooting anyone, I understand.

I was a kid who was teased and beat on from kindergarten until I graduated. Of course everyone's answer is to "Stand up for yourself" but that was never the person I was. Ok, I admit, I was scared, I had no courage... I was a pansy, so what? And yes, violent thoughts DID cross my mind at times, but I could NEVER hurt anyone. Of course that is absolutely NO excuse whatsoever for his actions. Killing people for ANY reason is bad, and it's such a tradgedy that so many times it has come to that.

So while I think resorting to shooting people is vile and wrong... I understand. I myself had to seek therapy (Which is the RIGHT thing to do in this case) to get over my past.

But of course it's only a matter of time before they blame music, or video games.

People are fucked up, but noone cares to fix problems on the homefront because they're not arabs.

(keep in mind this is all just my opinion from experience)



777timesgod said:


> What drives these people to actions like this? If you have a problem solve it, don't take out your frustrations on others.



 There are too many weak minded individuals who don't know how to seek help.


----------



## GH0STrider (Feb 15, 2008)

To be accurate- the gunman was not a student here at niu. He was a student and the university of Illinois. I can't tell you guys how heartbreaking this for all us niu students. Saying it seems like a bad dream doesn't sum it up. I just wish i was sitting in class right now and that this was a normal beautiful day at niu. I've called Niu home for 2 and a half years. The university is filled with amazing people, briliamnt minds, and an overall great learning atmosphere. I can't believe anyone would want to harm our beautiful campus and kill and injure our friends and peers.


----------



## Groff (Feb 15, 2008)

GH0STrider said:


> To be accurate- the gunman was not a student here at niu.



Didn't the article say he was a former student who graduated last year?


----------



## Groff (Feb 15, 2008)

NIU Gunman Stopped Taking Medication - Politics on The Huffington Post



> The gunman's father, Robert Kazmierczak, briefly came out of his single-story house in Lakeland, Fla., to talk to reporters.
> 
> "Please leave me alone. ... This is a very hard time for me," he said as he threw his arms up and wept.



This kinda makes me upset...

Now the press are harassing his father for an interview?
Can't they just leave the people alone while they mourne?! Can you imagine what he's going through right now? Being told his son went on a murderous rampage and then killed himself? Give me a break! 

Do they really _NEED_ to ask him how he feels???


----------



## ukfswmart (Feb 15, 2008)

Honestly, how many more times does this need to happen before calls for gun control reform are taken seriously?


----------



## Jeff (Feb 15, 2008)

Sorry Noodles, couldn't tell from the completely nondescript title of this thread. 



ukfswmart said:


> Honestly, how many more times does this need to happen before calls for gun control reform are taken seriously?



Do you honestly think that a guy who goes crazy (probably due to him deciding not to take his medication anymore) wouldn't find another way to get a gun to kill people? 

If you're willing to kill, you're willing to get a gun illegally. 

I'm not a huge gun advocate by any means, but the whole gun control argument really baffles me when people think stricter gun control is going to help keep an already law breaking individual from killing someone.


----------



## drshock (Feb 15, 2008)

Jeff said:


> Sorry Noodles, couldn't tell from the completely nondescript title of this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I agree, if you REALLY want to kill someone youre not going to not pull the trigger because thats what the law says.


----------



## ukfswmart (Feb 15, 2008)

Jeff said:


> Do you honestly think that a guy who goes crazy (probably due to him deciding not to take his medication anymore) wouldn't find another way to get a gun to kill people?
> 
> If you're willing to kill, you're willing to get a gun illegally.
> 
> I'm not a huge gun advocate by any means, but the whole gun control argument really baffles me when people think stricter gun control is going to help keep an already law breaking individual from killing someone.



Actually, I do think that. People who stop taking their medication and kill people as a result aren't with it and go off the rails by whatever means necessary; having guns freely available doesn't. Someone who's unfortunate enough to be in a confused state of mind won't premeditate this kind of act by illegally sourcing a firearm (I'm sure it goes without saying that you have to know people in order to acquire arms illegally)

If you want to kill someone with a gun, and obtain a gun for this purpose, you're making a conscious decision to go out and shoot people. The very fact that all of these people turn the gun on themselves is a _very_ clear indication that these are very angry people who are deeply unhappy with their lives, and who want to enact some form of revenge for whatever reason in their final moments. It's a great deal easier and quicker to kill a bunch of people from a relative distance that it would be to, say, knife several people to death. Take the guns away, and a number of these people would just kill themselves as the ability and means by which to go on a killing spree would be much more restricted

Here in the UK, the last major gun attack like this that I can recall was the Dunblane massacre in 1996. After that, handguns were banned in this country. Before that, the Hungerford massacre of 1987 resulted in the banning of all semi-automatic guns; in both cases, the gunmen killed themselves, furthering the point I made above about these crimes being committed by disturbed individuals. Both of these incidents caused gun laws to be reformed in this country and, to my mind, there hasn't been a repeat of such an attack since Dunblane. I don't understand how people can possibly think that restricting access to firearms won't reduce gun crime since if you make something much harder (or illegal) to obtain, fewer people will be able to perpetrate the crimes that these weapons are employed in; it boggles my mind that people can't understand such direct correlation between weapon availability and gun-based crime


----------



## GH0STrider (Feb 15, 2008)

TheMissing said:


> Didn't the article say he was a former student who graduated last year?



He was at one point. He currently was a student at the university of Illinois in champaine, IL


----------



## Jeff (Feb 15, 2008)

ukswmart, it boggles my mind that people continue to think it's difficult to obtain a gun illegally in the US. The gangs here are better armed than the police much of the time. Do you think they ran out and got a permit? 
If this guy was lucid enough to get a permit, then he was lucid enough to get a gun illegally as well. Furthermore, he worked at a prison. I bet he could have found a way to get a gun illegally through exposure to people there.
I'm glad things are sunshine and happiness in the UK, but severely crippling Americans' ability to get guns legally won't stop the criminals and nutjobs from getting illegally. 
If they're getting them illegally, exactly how are you "taking the guns away"? 
It's like the "war on drugs"; people who break the law will continue to break the law and not give a shit. 
You're not going to get rid of illegal gun trade any easier than illegal drug trade, even if the government said "that's it; no one can have guns".


----------



## Rick (Feb 15, 2008)

Holy hell.


----------



## JBroll (Feb 15, 2008)

Guys, just because something works in Europe doesn't mean it'll work here. 

Jeff


----------



## God Hand Apostle (Feb 16, 2008)

You know who these shooters remind me of..? 
Mike Tyson. Some of Iron Mikes famous quotes; 
I want to throw down your kid and stomp on his testicles, and then you will know what it is like to experience waking up everyday as me. And only then will you feel my pain. "Sometimes you guys have no pride, so no matter what I say, you guys ... it doesn't affect you because you don't care about nothing but money. So every now and then I kick your f**king ass and stomp on you and put some kind of pain and inflict some of the pain on you because you deserve to feel the pain that I feel." "I have some pain I'm gonna have for the rest of my life. So every now and then I kick your f**king ass." "I just want to conquer people and their souls." 

That about sums it up...

Here is a person, so miserable and in pain with themselves, and their own life that they want nothing more than for other people to hurt like them. I think that also explains the suicide ending.


----------



## stuz719 (Feb 16, 2008)

JBroll said:


> Guys, just because something works in Europe doesn't mean it'll work here.
> 
> Jeff



Someone should tell George W. that this reciprocal agreement doesn't work with the Middle East, either.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Feb 16, 2008)

It's so fucking easy to get a gun on the black market here in the US. It's about as hard to obtain as marijuana.

Which is to say, not hard at all.


----------



## DDDorian (Feb 16, 2008)

From what I've seen, for every school shooting commited by some angsty vindictive kid there's another one perpetrated by someone who's just gone off their meds or had a breakdown and does so almost on a whim. It's easy enough to pontificate on why gun control will or won't make a difference, but the fact of the matter is that these shootings are almost commonplace in the US these days and nothing is being done, so what have you got to lose by at least attempting to tighten gun control? In my opinion, most of the prminent voices in this debate have done nothing constructive and should forfeit their right to bitch and moan until they do. Oh well.


----------



## God Hand Apostle (Feb 16, 2008)

Illinois is one of the more strict states on gun control. Concealed carry is illegal. College campus is a gun free zone to everyone (except the killer). The dude stopped at one point, and fucking reloaded. I hate to be glib when talking about a situation like this, but how did that work out?


----------



## ukfswmart (Feb 16, 2008)

Jeff said:


> ukswmart, it boggles my mind that people continue to think it's difficult to obtain a gun illegally in the US. The gangs here are better armed than the police much of the time. Do you think they ran out and got a permit?
> If this guy was lucid enough to get a permit, then he was lucid enough to get a gun illegally as well. Furthermore, he worked at a prison. I bet he could have found a way to get a gun illegally through exposure to people there.
> I'm glad things are sunshine and happiness in the UK, but severely crippling Americans' ability to get guns legally won't stop the criminals and nutjobs from getting illegally.
> If they're getting them illegally, exactly how are you "taking the guns away"?
> ...



That is a ridiculous statement to make, quite frankly. Guns are legal and easily available in the US, so _of course_ it's easy to obtain one illegally. How difficult is it for underage kids to get their hands on alcohol or cigarettes? All you have to do is get someone who can legally obtain them for you (or at least looks looks old enough), give them the money for it and bang, you've circumvented the law. It's the same case with guns; if you can't legally acquire one, you can quite easily have somebody purchase one for you. Restricting these substances to minors makes it more difficult (not impossible) for them to be obtained; I'll allow you to extrapolate the rest from that

Still, that bears no relation to the fact _all of the people_ that commit these acts are mentally disturbed. You mention all the gangs with illegal weapons; do you see them capping themselves after they've killed someone? No, because they're using their weapons as a way of life; these people are using them as a way _out_ of life, and want to take a bunch of people with them. As DDDorian said, some of this is premeditated (and thus somewhat lucid), but other cases are down to someone losing control of their mind as a result of not taking their medication, or even from an undiagnosed mental condition. Sure, gun control will do little to prevent those who are determined to go out and shoot people, and at no point did I ever state that it would, but opportunist attacks like this would be reduced if access to legal firearms was not so widespread

Things aren't 'sunshine and happiness' over here man, don't be like that. The fact is that, since gun laws were tightened up, gun crime has dropped. What about that is so difficult to understand?


----------



## Hawksmoor (Feb 16, 2008)

ukfswmart said:


> That is a ridiculous statement to make, quite frankly. Guns are legal and easily available in the US, so _of course_ it's easy to obtain one illegally. How difficult is it for underage kids to get their hands on alcohol or cigarettes? All you have to do is get someone who can legally obtain them for you (or at least looks looks old enough), give them the money for it and bang, you've circumvented the law. It's the same case with guns; if you can't legally acquire one, you can quite easily have somebody purchase one for you. Restricting these substances to minors makes it more difficult (not impossible) for them to be obtained; I'll allow you to extrapolate the rest from that
> 
> Still, that bears no relation to the fact _all of the people_ that commit these acts are mentally disturbed. You mention all the gangs with illegal weapons; do you see them capping themselves after they've killed someone? No, because they're using their weapons as a way of life; these people are using them as a way _out_ of life, and want to take a bunch of people with them. As DDDorian said, some of this is premeditated (and thus somewhat lucid), but other cases are down to someone losing control of their mind as a result of not taking their medication, or even from an undiagnosed mental condition. Sure, gun control will do little to prevent those who are determined to go out and shoot people, and at no point did I ever state that it would, but opportunist attacks like this would be reduced if access to legal firearms was not so widespread
> 
> Things aren't 'sunshine and happiness' over here man, don't be like that. The fact is that, since gun laws were tightened up, gun crime has dropped. What about that is so difficult to understand?



There are no miracle solutions. I remember that in the UK a couple of years back gun controll was being questioned, as gangs appeared to have armed themselves with submachine guns such as the H&K mp 5. Over here in Belgium firearms are legal, up to 5 per permit after psych tests and vetting... But a reporter prooved that you could buy a perfectly fuctioning Tsjech AKM ( Kalasjnikov) for 100. Guns are, however, unpopular as the political current mainstream is pacifist. 
The US on the other hand have a whole gun-culture, that borders on gun-religion for some. It's different... It's also how society regards violence as a means to an end... If violence is considered as viable troubleshooting mechanism, violence will be used more often. With the violent tools that come with it.
These are depressing times for a lot of people, there's not a lot of hope around. Maybe that, should be adressed too?


----------



## Jeff (Feb 16, 2008)

Ukfswmart, we're going to have to agree to disagree here. With all due respect, you have absolutely no idea how easy it is to get completely illegal substances or weapons in this country. We can't even keep out entire human beings from coming into the country.
Furthermore, there are 3 cops in my wife's family, and my best friend has run security for malls across the country. the number of gun crimes where the perp has obtained the weapon legally in their experience is extremely small.
Also, my best friend now is head of security for Arizona, Texas, and Illinois. Guess which ones have the lower crimes? The states where you can carry concealed.
Let me repeat; I am not a "gun guy". I don't like guns, don't want one now or ever. But just as you can argue your point, it can be argued the other way too, as it applies to the US. The answer in these circumstances isn't the guns, but why someone so disturbed isn't hospitalized before he hurts someone. 
Would it have been less tragic if he walked in with a homemade bomb strapped to his chest and blew up the whole classroom? Hey, at least it wouldn't have been those evil guns, right?

Also, This was not an "opportunist" attack; he had planned it for at least 5 days. He was quite lucid enough to obtain a gun in advance, legally or illegally.


----------



## drshock (Feb 16, 2008)

God Hand Apostle said:


> Illinois is one of the more strict states on gun control. Concealed carry is illegal. College campus is a gun free zone to everyone (except the killer). The dude stopped at one point, and fucking reloaded. I hate to be glib when talking about a situation like this, but how did that work out?



Exactly, no one else is allowed to carry a gun. So who is gonna stop him?

It's like putting a angry-steriod injected pitbull into a cage full of poodles. Who do you think will win?


----------



## JBroll (Feb 16, 2008)

ukfswmart said:


> That is a ridiculous statement to make, quite frankly. Guns are legal and easily available in the US, so _of course_ it's easy to obtain one illegally. How difficult is it for underage kids to get their hands on alcohol or cigarettes? All you have to do is get someone who can legally obtain them for you (or at least looks looks old enough), give them the money for it and bang, you've circumvented the law. It's the same case with guns; if you can't legally acquire one, you can quite easily have somebody purchase one for you. Restricting these substances to minors makes it more difficult (not impossible) for them to be obtained; I'll allow you to extrapolate the rest from that



This is where you're just dead wrong. The only thing that's even remotely less easy is that you have to meet someone behind the gas station *parking lot* instead of behind the counter. Guns also have more of a paper trail going, so it's a different issue... that motivates even some otherwise perfectly law-abiding citizens to get guns 'semi-legally' to avoid bureaucratic bullshit and being a suspect of every crime in an area thanks to gun-control evangelists.

EDIT: I'll add a bit more detail. Since Clinton tightened the restrictions on interactions with Cuba, nobody has been able to legally bring Cuban cigars into the country. For obvious enough reasons the supply of cigars brought in before then is decreasing in size every day, and products of Cuba are the most highly prized cigars in existence - so much so that 'Cuban-seed' leaves wrapped by families that left Cuba fetch prices well above and beyond other cigars and regions that produce tobacco even 'similar' to Cuban tobacco sell for higher prices than other cigars regardless of actual quality - 'Cuban' is the 'vintage' here. Even going to several other countries to attempt to mask the final destination of Cuba gets people arrested. However, there is too much demand for these cigars - they're the best of the best, so people smuggle these cigars - completely illegal - from any other country they come to before the States. End result? Although they're not all that hard to find, the price is greatly increased, so we're encouraging the people who smuggle them to continue smuggling them in with several hundred percent markups. 

To summarize... Cuban cigars are illegal. Cuban cigars are not hard to obtain at the right price. Cuban cigars can not be bought through an 'old enough' or 'not batshit insane enough' middleman; clearly the law - which is still well-enforced and which lands many people in jail - is not helping the problem. 

Again, just because something works across the pond doesn't mean it'll work well here. I know you mean well and all that, and I know you're not stupid, but there's just simply no way to curb the high demand for some items, and guns will be among those items for as long as they're restricted. END EDIT.

FURTHER EDIT: No matter how many things we make illegal - even if we were to assume that bans would be effective - the simple problem is that America has deeper problems than having guns available. Pretending that banning guns will stop issues like this is just avoiding the issue entirely; people here are just fucked up and no amount of banthisbanthat legislation is going to fix that. END FURTHER EDIT.

Jeff


----------



## Ojinomoto (Feb 17, 2008)

Hawksmoor said:


> It's different... It's also how society regards violence as a means to an end... If violence is considered as viable troubleshooting mechanism, violence will be used more often. With the violent tools that come with it.
> These are depressing times for a lot of people, there's not a lot of hope around. Maybe that, should be adressed too?



Could you (USA) guys say this though?
Since this country was "founded" and "grown" upon the aspect of "take your best guns, destroy the enemy, get (whatever outcome one wants,) and bask in the glory of having conquered, could you say that using guns as a means to an end is woven in our culture's DNA? I mean, since we were founded after the sword and ax days of the middle ages, look at all the wars we've fought that used guns. And look how we've become the "Strongest, most powerful nation in the world" (some proclaim.) Hell, even the founding fathers have even put it specifically in the Constitution. Granted, I don't like violence since we are humans, not animals, who can communicate our problem and solutions, I DO agree with myself carrying a nice 9mm on me for the fact that there are fucked up people in this world who would like to take what I (we) have. The thought of it is as normal as life, death, sex and, hunger. 

I like this thread. Keep going.


----------



## El Caco (Feb 17, 2008)

Fuck another one 

I am not sure that making guns illegal is the answer, guns are practically illegal over here and it is still easy to buy an illegal firearm, gun violence is also still a problem.


----------



## Metal Ken (Feb 17, 2008)

JBroll said:


> T
> FURTHER EDIT: No matter how many things we make illegal - even if we were to assume that bans would be effective - the simple problem is that America has deeper problems than having guns available. Pretending that banning guns will stop issues like this is just avoiding the issue entirely; people here are just fucked up and no amount of banthisbanthat legislation is going to fix that. END FURTHER EDIT.



Exactly. If someone REALLY wants to kill someone, they'll do it with whatever they have to do to kill someone. beat them to death if they have to. Will we ban baseball bats and 2x4's with nails in them? Really.


----------



## Zepp88 (Feb 17, 2008)

It would be nice if killing people wasn't so efficient though...


----------



## Metal Ken (Feb 17, 2008)

We cant not make it efficent. there's just too many easy ways to do it, even without guns.


----------



## JBroll (Feb 17, 2008)

We also have cars, electricity, food, books, doors, fire, and large pieces of metal at our disposal even if we ban guns, knives, violent video games, evil atheistic violent Marilyn Manson satanist heavy metal music, and everything else that's designed to only bring evil into existence.

Jef


----------



## ukfswmart (Feb 17, 2008)

JBroll said:


> This is where you're just dead wrong. The only thing that's even remotely less easy is that you have to meet someone behind the gas station *parking lot* instead of behind the counter. Guns also have more of a paper trail going, so it's a different issue... that motivates even some otherwise perfectly law-abiding citizens to get guns 'semi-legally' to avoid bureaucratic bullshit and being a suspect of every crime in an area thanks to gun-control evangelists.
> 
> EDIT: I'll add a bit more detail. Since Clinton tightened the restrictions on interactions with Cuba, nobody has been able to legally bring Cuban cigars into the country. For obvious enough reasons the supply of cigars brought in before then is decreasing in size every day, and products of Cuba are the most highly prized cigars in existence - so much so that 'Cuban-seed' leaves wrapped by families that left Cuba fetch prices well above and beyond other cigars and regions that produce tobacco even 'similar' to Cuban tobacco sell for higher prices than other cigars regardless of actual quality - 'Cuban' is the 'vintage' here. Even going to several other countries to attempt to mask the final destination of Cuba gets people arrested. However, there is too much demand for these cigars - they're the best of the best, so people smuggle these cigars - completely illegal - from any other country they come to before the States. End result? Although they're not all that hard to find, the price is greatly increased, so we're encouraging the people who smuggle them to continue smuggling them in with several hundred percent markups.
> 
> ...



I completely get what you're saying man, and the cigar example was brilliant. I just don't see what harm would come from tightening gun control laws as it would involve some degree of reduction in weapon availability, that's all 

Maybe it's a cultural issue. Personally, I don't see the point in 'needing' to carry a firearm on you at all times, or what the purpose of civilian access to handguns serves. I guess I simply don't 'get' the fascination with guns that America generally has


----------



## Hawksmoor (Feb 17, 2008)

JBroll said:


> We also have cars, electricity, food, books, doors, fire, and large pieces of metal at our disposal even if we ban guns, knives, violent video games, evil atheistic violent Marilyn Manson satanist heavy metal music, and everything else that's designed to only bring evil into existence.
> 
> Jef



Michail Kalashnikov, designer of the famed AK47 ( probably the most ubiquitous weapon in the world, even more then a machete) was once asked if he felt guilty about designing a weapon that had killed so many people over the years.
His answer was: " No, I sered my country designing this weapon, and if I hadn't designed it it would probably be (his colleague designer) Simonov's design they would have used. Or wooden clubs... If they wanted to."

Albert Einstein made a remark at the height of the cold war in the 50's: " I cannot predit what weapons will be used in World War III, but Iam pretty sure that I can predict the most used weapon in world war IV: The Club."

Silk, a character played by DMX in the feature movie Romeo Must Die: " Guns don't kill people, people kill people"

It is a simple fact that in no field human creativity has developed somuch as in the field of weaponry, and finding means to destroy, maim, and kill other living beings. That is not a theory, that is a FACT.

Inmates in prisons make potenially deadly utencils from newspapers for example. It defies what we know about newspapers, and the fabric paper in general, but with some creative proces it is possible to turn a newspaper in a deadly weapon.

The logic that everything potentially lethal should be banned if guns were banned is not a valid one. There is a vast difference between some utencil that is potentially lethal if handled in a certain way, and a utencil that is designed for its lethallity. Guns and any other weapons belong in the latter contextual frame.
The fact that by their very nature guns are lethal, or maiming, makes them something that in the best case should be controlled or in the worst case forbidden.

Some of you will say that my argument isn't fair and that guns can be used for competitions such as benchresting, accuracy shooting, action shooting, biathlon and the like. Here too the fact remains that these competitions were first developed from military training practices designed to learn soldiers how to use their weapons in a lethal fashion. 

Conclusion, for now: there is a difference between potential lethality inherent to a utencil, and intended lethality inherent to a utencil. This rejects a large part of your statement, jeff.


----------



## JBroll (Feb 17, 2008)

ukfswmart said:


> I completely get what you're saying man, and the cigar example was brilliant. I just don't see what harm would come from tightening gun control laws as it would involve some degree of reduction in weapon availability, that's all
> 
> Maybe it's a cultural issue. Personally, I don't see the point in 'needing' to carry a firearm on you at all times, or what the purpose of civilian access to handguns serves. I guess I simply don't 'get' the fascination with guns that America generally has



It actually forces more gun purchases underground - even purchases not intended for criminal activity - and doesn't seem to stop our gun problems. Again, the real issue lies well away from the fact that guns are available.



Hawksmoor said:


> The logic that everything potentially lethal should be banned if guns were banned is not a valid one. There is a vast difference between some utencil that is potentially lethal if handled in a certain way, and a utencil that is designed for its lethallity. Guns and any other weapons belong in the latter contextual frame.



As do knives and clubs. You've missed my point completely - I'm arguing that violence will continue well after gun bans, even if the bans are successful, and what are we going to do after them? Arguments like yours COMPLETELY skip the point that underlying issues far beyond firearms are really responsible for violence in the country, and you'd no more easily stop violence with gun bans than you would stop improper grammar with pen bans.



Hawksmoor said:


> The fact that by their very nature guns are lethal, or maiming, makes them something that in the best case should be controlled or in the worst case forbidden.



And again you've missed my point entirely. I'm not defending them because they have nonlethal uses; I'm defending the right to own firearms because (1) it is an unfair and ineffective way to try and avoid a real problem by picking a scapegoat and pretending that the world will be safer without it, (2) it is ineffective, and (3) it only helps the people who ALREADY BREAK THE LAW by getting firearms illegally. Everyone has heard this same argument countless times - "Oh, well, they're designed only to be lethal, so they shouldn't exist!"... but this has nothing whatsoever to do with my arguments. Congratulations, you've stated the obvious - now you just have to refute the points I ACTUALLY made.



Hawksmoor said:


> Conclusion, for now: there is a difference between potential lethality inherent to a utencil, and intended lethality inherent to a utencil. This rejects a large part of your statement, jeff.



Wow, you've debunked sarcasm and completely missed the real point. Want a cookie?

Jeff


----------



## oompa (Feb 17, 2008)

saying that its easy to get a hold of an illegal gun anyway its pretty crappy logic to me, then you might as well just legalize all drugs for example, by that logic not a single user that doesnt already use would start using.

and saying that you should allow guns cus if someone wants to kill someone they'd use a knife anyway is also pretty crappy logic to me  guns, vegetable peelers and hands are all used to kill people. but there is a difference in how hard it is and what it takes to do it, and that difference limits or expands alot of the damage done, dont you think?

and if america has deeper problems and you are "fucked up", isn't that a pretty splendid reason right there to limit firearms? its not only to remove the weapon of choice, its also about getting some of the violence out of the everyday life. of course more people get shot to death when you show people getting shot on tv all the time, be it 6yo kids shooting eachother or students planning it for 5 days, its as obvious as day and night to me.

but i guess i dont really 'get' your culture with guns either, and most people i have talked to seems to think that having guns isn't the problem so i guess there is something i have missed somewhere


----------



## Hawksmoor (Feb 17, 2008)

JBroll said:


> As do knives and clubs. You've missed my point completely - I'm arguing that violence will continue well after gun bans, even if the bans are successful, and what are we going to do after them? Arguments like yours COMPLETELY skip the point that underlying issues far beyond firearms are really responsible for violence in the country, and you'd no more easily stop violence with gun bans than you would stop improper grammar with pen bans.



As you might not have noticed, my feelings towards guns are mixed. I actually agreed with you up to a certain point. But while you seem to advocate absolute freedom in armament, I choose controll. There are certain types of weapons that needn't be in private hands.
It seems to me though, that as I cannot see how my argument supports bans, you absolutely misunderstood me. Reread my post, and you will see that AT NO POINT in my exposé I advocated a ban.




JBroll said:


> And again you've missed my point entirely. I'm not defending them because they have nonlethal uses; I'm defending the right to own firearms because (1) it is an unfair and ineffective way to try and avoid a real problem by picking a scapegoat and pretending that the world will be safer without it, (2) it is ineffective, and (3) it only helps the people who ALREADY BREAK THE LAW by getting firearms illegally. Everyone has heard this same argument countless times - "Oh, well, they're designed only to be lethal, so they shouldn't exist!"... but this has nothing whatsoever to do with my arguments. Congratulations, you've stated the obvious - now you just have to refute the points I ACTUALLY made.



Overreaction, again I should say my dear Jeff. While I started my post inspired by yours, I obviously threw in some personal views. Why not? No need to soil yer knickers over such a thing.
And again, control is not banning. I see no point in particular ownership of fully automatic or heavy ( + .300 Winchester Magnum or + .338 Lapua Magnum) firearms. A Barret .50 counter sniper rifle, or any supermagnum handgun calibre, is useless in defense and almost useless in hunting. It's absurd. Adressing the fact that most gun related crimes are commited by relatively low powered weapons, preferably of the automatic kind, there is no way to prctically enforce a ban. i've seen what the an in great britain has done. But a limitation on what can be owned by civilians makes it easier to locate potentially dangerous weapons. banning submachine guns and assault rifles will in no way infringe the potential defensive power of a civilian, for example, but a total ban would, That's why I also called a ban ( ie to forbid) "a worst case "( scenario). 
I just thought of something. Are there figures relating to gun accidents ( not crimes) in states where concealed carry is permitted? I imagine that, statisticly, there is a bigger chance of accidents if guns are carried concealed by untrained civilians. I should dig into that. While not necessarly opposed to the concealed carriage of guns, I think that should go with a permit and tests that proove you understand the basic maintaining, handling, and security skills. 




JBroll said:


> Wow, you've debunked sarcasm and completely missed the real point. Want a cookie?
> 
> Jeff



Caramel and pistache ,yes please, read more carefully before you react in annoyment.


----------



## ukfswmart (Feb 17, 2008)

JBroll said:


> It actually forces more gun purchases underground - even purchases not intended for criminal activity - and doesn't seem to stop our gun problems. Again, the real issue lies well away from the fact that guns are available.
> 
> As do knives and clubs. You've missed my point completely - I'm arguing that violence will continue well after gun bans, even if the bans are successful, and what are we going to do after them? Arguments like yours COMPLETELY skip the point that underlying issues far beyond firearms are really responsible for violence in the country, and you'd no more easily stop violence with gun bans than you would stop improper grammar with pen bans.



It seems to be that you're beginning to clutch at straws with analogies like that, man; pens do not propagate improper grammar as language is based in the head, not in the tools that you use to communicate

To be quite honest Jeff, the 'there's no point in banning guns because people will just find other methods to kill' is a pretty pathetic one. Yes, people who are determined to murder another human being would find another way because there's no limit to human determination and perseverance. However, those opportunist, heat-of-the-moment and even accidental gun-related fatalities would be reduced if not everybody and their dog was able to acquire one in a legal capacity, so where's the harm in limiting access to firearms. That, and the attitudes of rap music and gang culture (amongst other media) serving to dehumanise the act of 'popping a cap' et al and removing the foresight of real consequences in the glorification of murdering someone, it's not hard to envisage the very real risk of some poor sod pulling the trigger in a moment of ill-judgement due to a lack of societal emphasis on the repercussions of such an act. I think you'll agree with me that it's a lot harder to accidentally club or stab someone to death under such circumstances than it is to squeeze a trigger



JBroll said:


> And again you've missed my point entirely. I'm not defending them because they have nonlethal uses; I'm defending the right to own firearms because (1) it is an unfair and ineffective way to try and avoid a real problem by picking a scapegoat and pretending that the world will be safer without it, (2) it is ineffective, and (3) it only helps the people who ALREADY BREAK THE LAW by getting firearms illegally. Everyone has heard this same argument countless times - "Oh, well, they're designed only to be lethal, so they shouldn't exist!"... but this has nothing whatsoever to do with my arguments. Congratulations, you've stated the obvious - now you just have to refute the points I ACTUALLY made



So you've identified that their primary purpose is to harm people, so why _are_ you defending your right to bear arms? If people who are going to buy a gun for the sole use of killing someone, and they source that illegally, I really don't understand why controlling the legal supply of guns is so pointless. A criminal determined to use a gun for criminal purposes will go underground for it, but for a normal civilian (or a very stupid criminal) who buys a gun legitimately and then kills someone with it, to argue a case that supports this is something I don't get. I guess what I'm trying to say is 'what's the point in standing up for the right to own something that is primarily designed for killing, when you don't ever intend to use it for that purpose?'

Also, regarding point 2; what on earth led you to believe that gun control is 'ineffective'? I already cited the UK's reaction to this level of gun crime as it's what I know best, and it has proved effective in the scenario outlined above; yes, there is still gun crime but my argument doesn't extend into that arena as, which you've rightly pointed out, people who source guns illegally will always find a way to do just that. In a society where guns are legal, someone can say 'I'd like to own a gun', go out and buy one, and then they are bound only by their own morality in the way in which they choose to use it; in a society where they are illegal, someone can say 'I'd like to own a gun', but not go out and buy one unless they're planning on using it in some manner for which its primary use is employed. Can you see the point I'm trying to make, now?



JBroll said:


> Wow, you've debunked sarcasm and completely missed the real point. Want a cookie?



Rather than react in a condescending manner, if you argue my points with what you claim to be fact, please cite some examples. You said that gun control forces more purchases underground but, to my knowledge, there's no proof of this. I have no idea what gun laws and gun crime figures are from state to state and before / after any firearms control measures, so please take my ignorance into account before lowering yourself to snide remarks such as the one above; it does little to endear people to you and, as you're clearly not an idiotic sort of person, I'd actually quite like to get along with you


----------



## JBroll (Feb 17, 2008)

oompa said:


> saying that its easy to get a hold of an illegal gun anyway its pretty crappy logic to me, then you might as well just legalize all drugs for example, by that logic not a single user that doesnt already use would start using.
> 
> and saying that you should allow guns cus if someone wants to kill someone they'd use a knife anyway is also pretty crappy logic to me  guns, vegetable peelers and hands are all used to kill people. but there is a difference in how hard it is and what it takes to do it, and that difference limits or expands alot of the damage done, dont you think?
> 
> ...



As for the drug thing, I'm pro-legalization too because that's another scenario where the law only breeds a black market that's much more dangerous than its products... but that's yet another discussion.

Again, my argument isn't 'might as well, we're going to kill anyway', it's 'that hasn't worked, and even if it did we still have other problems' and I don't think that's a good way to go about fixing problems.

I don't 'get' the gun culture myself, and if anyone had an excuse to 'get it' I would. Then again, I prefer to be armed because I'm surrounded by fucking Texans, so that's a different issue.



Hawksmoor said:


> As you might not have noticed, my feelings towards guns are mixed. I actually agreed with you up to a certain point. But while you seem to advocate absolute freedom in armament, I choose controll. There are certain types of weapons that needn't be in private hands.
> It seems to me though, that as I cannot see how my argument supports bans, you absolutely misunderstood me. Reread my post, and you will see that AT NO POINT in my exposé I advocated a ban.



I know, and I strongly dislike the whole 'they're designed only to kill' argument because it's sidestepping the issue, and that's what I went after.



Hawksmoor said:


> Caramel and pistache ,yes please, read more carefully before you react in annoyment.



I'm not annoyed, but when we can't hear the text things can be problematic. One cookie shall be in your mailbox shortly, assuming it doesn't get eaten by those bastard customs officers.



ukfswmart said:


> It seems to be that you're beginning to clutch at straws with analogies like that, man; pens do not propagate improper grammar as language is based in the head, not in the tools that you use to communicate



What kills people is the intent to kill people first and *then* the ability to kill people. That's what I was saying.



ukfswmart said:


> To be quite honest Jeff, the 'there's no point in banning guns because people will just find other methods to kill' is a pretty pathetic one. Yes, people who are determined to murder another human being would find another way because there's no limit to human determination and perseverance. However, those opportunist, heat-of-the-moment and even accidental gun-related fatalities would be reduced if not everybody and their dog was able to acquire one in a legal capacity, so where's the harm in limiting access to firearms. That, and the attitudes of rap music and gang culture (amongst other media) serving to dehumanise the act of 'popping a cap' et al and removing the foresight of real consequences in the glorification of murdering someone, it's not hard to envisage the very real risk of some poor sod pulling the trigger in a moment of ill-judgement due to a lack of societal emphasis on the repercussions of such an act. I think you'll agree with me that it's a lot harder to accidentally club or stab someone to death under such circumstances than it is to squeeze a trigger



That's a problem with stupid people and not with guns themselves. I say we fix the stupid people and quit blaming guns for their problems.



ukfswmart said:


> So you've identified that their primary purpose is to harm people, so why _are_ you defending your right to bear arms?



Because sometimes that's necessary. It's not pleasant, but self-defense is a very important motivation and I'm not sacrificing it because someone thinks that disarming people who follow the law and giving criminals a slap across the wrists is a good idea.



ukfswmart said:


> If people who are going to buy a gun for the sole use of killing someone, and they source that illegally, I really don't understand why controlling the legal supply of guns is so pointless. A criminal determined to use a gun for criminal purposes will go underground for it, but for a normal civilian (or a very stupid criminal) who buys a gun legitimately and then kills someone with it, to argue a case that supports this is something I don't get. I guess what I'm trying to say is 'what's the point in standing up for the right to own something that is primarily designed for killing, when you don't ever intend to use it for that purpose?'



Again, sometimes you have to use it for that purpose - and even then, it works quite well as a deterrent. Numbers are on both sides, because lying with statistics takes very little work, but it's not like a case can't be made for not banning guns.



ukfswmart said:


> Also, regarding point 2; what on earth led you to believe that gun control is 'ineffective'? I already cited the UK's reaction to this level of gun crime as it's what I know best, and it has proved effective in the scenario outlined above; yes, there is still gun crime but my argument doesn't extend into that arena as, which you've rightly pointed out, people who source guns illegally will always find a way to do just that. In a society where guns are legal, someone can say 'I'd like to own a gun', go out and buy one, and then they are bound only by their own morality in the way in which they choose to use it; in a society where they are illegal, someone can say 'I'd like to own a gun', but not go out and buy one unless they're planning on using it in some manner for which its primary use is employed. Can you see the point I'm trying to make, now?



I have to repeat that the UK is not the US. On top of that the people who wouldn't be affected are the very people we're trying to defend ourselves against with measures like this, and the mindset over here is much different when it comes to taking advantage of such things. I see the point, but in practice things work out much differently.



ukfswmart said:


> Rather than react in a condescending manner, if you argue my points with what you claim to be fact, please cite some examples. You said that gun control forces more purchases underground but, to my knowledge, there's no proof of this. I have no idea what gun laws and gun crime figures are from state to state and before / after any firearms control measures, so please take my ignorance into account before lowering yourself to snide remarks such as the one above; it does little to endear people to you and, as you're clearly not an idiotic sort of person, I'd actually quite like to get along with you



The sarcasm isn't meant to drive people away; again, missing tone of voice is annoying. I'm almost hesitant to bring up figures because gun statistics wars go on forever, but I can at the very least pull up some other posts I made that had more of them.

Speaking from personal experience, though, just dealing with road rage is a bitch over here - hardly a month goes by when someone pulls in front of me with maybe six inches to spare (and I drive a CRV so it's not like I'm hard to notice), gets a quick honk to be made aware of my presence, and promptly slams the brakes and jumps out of the car. Have to say, that FUBAR is a handy handy thing to wave around until the fucker comes to his senses, but I'm lucky to only piss off unarmed drivers. Maybe you just have to stay in the bowels of hell sometime to get into the mindset and see why restricting tools doesn't restrict crimes.

Jeff


----------



## Clydefrog (Feb 17, 2008)

I think it comes down to this:

How often do you ever hear of kids who have been raised around guns, taught to respect them, taught their uses and limitations, etc., go on a shooting rampage?

Generally never. They're usually the most responsible with guns.

It's the crazy people who just pick it up and start shooting that do the damage. What we need is not to ban them, that's outright stupid. Gun education needs to be just as prominent in society as sex education. Get rid of the taboo, get rid of the problem.


----------



## GH0STrider (Feb 17, 2008)

It's really this simple. Unless you are a law enforcement officer of some type or defending this country in some form you don't need a gun. It's that fucking simple. There is no reason for it. Protection? Without guns being so freely distributed there might not be so much to worry about. Bottom line the nra and guns laws have made it to easy. This guy was licensed despite suffering serious depression and spending time in a nut house. It's easy for people to fight for gun rights and all that bullshit when it doesn't directly affect them like it has me and the rest of the niu family. I'm sick to death of hearing the nra and all their bullshit. Every year there is a fucking school shooting and I'm telling you unless you are a member of that school or univeristy or you have family or friend there you don't know how it feels. You can go on and shake your head and say," well that's a tragedy". But people like me and the vitims and their family's will have to live with the fact that they will be a part of it forever. I know some of the people that were shot. I knew some of the people who died. I had met the shooter on a few occations. It's going to take more and more school shootings till people get the point. Fuck guns. People have abused that privledge. As usual in this world, a few bad people have ruined it for everyone. But I would rather be in a mostly gun free world than watch the university that I take so much pride in being a part of get shot up for no fucking reason. People died for the dream I and my niu peers go after everyday. the dream to be great. the dream to be something more. It's a shame that these people will never realize that dream.


----------



## Clydefrog (Feb 17, 2008)

GH0STrider said:


> It's really this simple. Unless you are a law enforcement officer of some type or defending this country in some form you don't need a gun.



Utterly ridiculous. I have every right in this country to own a gun and protect my home, my family, and myself.

Do you really trust the police to be the only ones with guns? Yeah, THAT'D turn out so fantastic...


----------



## JBroll (Feb 17, 2008)

GH0STrider said:


> It's really this simple. Unless you are a law enforcement officer of some type or defending this country in some form you don't need a gun. It's that fucking simple. There is no reason for it. Protection? Without guns being so freely distributed there might not be so much to worry about. Bottom line the nra and guns laws have made it to easy. This guy was licensed despite suffering serious depression and spending time in a nut house. It's easy for people to fight for gun rights and all that bullshit when it doesn't directly affect them like it has me and the rest of the niu family. I'm sick to death of hearing the nra and all their bullshit. Every year there is a fucking school shooting and I'm telling you unless you are a member of that school or univeristy or you have family or friend there you don't know how it feels. You can go on and shake your head and say," well that's a tragedy". But people like me and the vitims and their family's will have to live with the fact that they will be a part of it forever. I know some of the people that were shot. I knew some of the people who died. I had met the shooter on a few occations. It's going to take more and more school shootings till people get the point. Fuck guns. People have abused that privledge. As usual in this world, a few bad people have ruined it for everyone. But I would rather be in a mostly gun free world than watch the university that I take so much pride in being a part of get shot up for no fucking reason. People died for the dream I and my niu peers go after everyday. the dream to be great. the dream to be something more. It's a shame that these people will never realize that dream.



Now, tell me something... what kind of gun rules did the campus have? What kind of regulations on weapons did they share with Virginia Tech and Louisiana Tech, and countless other school tragedies?

Jeff


----------



## GH0STrider (Feb 18, 2008)

Clydefrog said:


> Utterly ridiculous. I have every right in this country to own a gun and protect my home, my family, and myself.
> 
> Do you really trust the police to be the only ones with guns? Yeah, THAT'D turn out so fantastic...



Have your friends shot at and killed and tell me there is not a problem. How many campus shootings and unneeded lose of lives do you need to see? What are you protecting against? Another nutjub running around with a gun? Try having some sympathy for this school and the people affected by it. If you don't trust the police and the people who are put in place to protect you in this country then that is another issue. 

On another note. I am not going to sit here and argue gunrights with anyone. I have stated my peace. This has affect me firsthand as a student here. I wanted to share with you how someone actually involved felt. If you can't respect that and want to start a fight take it elsewhere. If you talk to students here at NIU you will find many feel the same. We want to go to class and live a normal life without the threat of being killed because apprently gun safety is out of control.



JBroll said:


> Now, tell me something... what kind of gun rules did the campus have? What kind of regulations on weapons did they share with Virginia Tech and Louisiana Tech, and countless other school tragedies?
> 
> Jeff



Jeff,
NIU obviously does not allow any firearms on the campus. I can't speak for other schools, I am not framiliar with their polices. However, I would imagine they would be the same.


----------



## Clydefrog (Feb 18, 2008)

GH0STrider said:


> Have your friends shot at and killed and tell me there is not a problem. How many campus shootings and unneeded lose of lives do you need to see?
> .




Knee-jerk emotional response that has no business in any discussion or debate. Appealing to ones emotions like that does nothing to further your cause, it just makes you look like you're reaching.


----------



## GH0STrider (Feb 18, 2008)

Apparently it is going to take individuals such as yourself to experience lose because of a firearm firsthand before you get it, and that is really fucking sad.

Your no safer with your gun that you are without it.



Clydefrog said:


> Knee-jerk emotional response that has no business in any discussion or debate. Appealing to ones emotions like that does nothing to further your cause, it just makes you look like you're reaching.



And since we are the topic of debate- since when did a thread about a targic school shooting become a NRA rally? Try and use this thread to honor the victims and take your gun toting views to another one.


----------



## Metal Ken (Feb 18, 2008)

GH0STrider said:


> . If you don't trust the police and the people who are put in place to protect you in this country then that is another issue.



Why should we? How many news stories have we seen with cops not doing their jobs, abusing people, etc?

It'd be a grand world if we COULD rely on cops and stuff for everything, but we can't.


----------



## Clydefrog (Feb 18, 2008)

You seem to be placing the blame squarely on the gun instead of the person who chose to do this. I put forth to you that this person could have gone and done the exact same thing with a weapon other than a gun; a knife would suffice. Should we ban knives?

You say I am no safer with a gun than without it, but really, stop and think about that. If I had a gun with me when there was a school shooting, and I was in the opposite end of the room of the shooter, are you saying I would not be any safer? That I would not have a chance to save the many victims that died?

The problem here isn't guns. It's the irresponsible attitude that society puts towards them, including the "BAN ALL GUNS" ideology. The proper way to stop this scourge of gun abuse is to put forth the proper education about them. Again, I offer to you the example of people raised to respect guns as a tool of survival (hunting for ones own food), and to respect them and their destructive capabilities. How many of those people are going on the shooting rampages? None.


----------



## GH0STrider (Feb 18, 2008)

Metal Ken said:


> Why should we? How many news stories have we seen with cops not doing their jobs, abusing people, etc?
> 
> It'd be a grand world if we COULD rely on cops and stuff for everything, but we can't.



So what? Let allow anyone who wants a gun to police the nation themselves? That has worked out so well... 

Seriously fuck this thread. It has been taken way out of context.


----------



## Clydefrog (Feb 18, 2008)

GH0STrider said:


> So what? Let allow anyone who wants a gun to police the nation themselves? That has worked out so well...
> 
> Seriously fuck this thread. It has been taken way out of context.



No, you've taken it out of context by taking what someone says and then spinning it out of its original meaning entirely. When did anyone say that everyone should get a gun and police the nation themselves?


----------



## GH0STrider (Feb 18, 2008)

Clydefrog said:


> No, you've taken it out of context by taking what someone says and then spinning it out of its original meaning entirely. When did anyone say that everyone should get a gun and police the nation themselves?



Ha. I've taken it out of context. Your no better than the asshole NRA members running around our campus as we speak spreading bullshit about gun rights. that is not what it is about. This thread should be showing support and respect to the people that lost their lives, not a call to arms for gun rights.


----------



## Clydefrog (Feb 18, 2008)

GH0STrider said:


> Ha. I've taken it out of context. Your no better than the asshole NRA members running around our campus as we speak spreading bullshit about gun rights. that is not what it is about. This thread should be showing support and respect to the people that lost their lives, not a call to arms for gun rights.



First of all, I'm not in the NRA. Second of all, I don't own a gun. Third, I've never touched a gun, nor do I have any desire to. Fourth, you're way out of line here, and need to seriously reign in the emotion because it's uncalled for and I certainly don't appreciate being called an "asshole" simply because I hold an opinion different from yours (that you have yet to actually counter with a reasoned debate).

Also, go ahead and read the thread. This didn't start out as a "call to arms" for gun support. The first post of this nature was about gun control reform, actually; from your own side. Try and keep it straight.


----------



## Metal Ken (Feb 18, 2008)

GH0STrider said:


> Ha. I've taken it out of context. Your no better than the asshole NRA members running around our campus as we speak spreading bullshit about gun rights. that is not what it is about. This thread should be showing support and respect to the people that lost their lives, not a call to arms for gun rights.



Its not a call to arms for gun rights, its WAS A civil discssion about the merits of gun control and its effectiveness. You're going around calling people assholes, making stupid accusations and taking people's arguments out of context. Have a nice little nap.


----------



## Clydefrog (Feb 18, 2008)

You know what really sucks?

Jack Thompson jumping on the issue and immediately blaming violent video games for this, because the perpetrator MAY have played Counter-Strike at some point in his life.

I mean, the fact that he wasn't taking his medication at the time of the incident had NOTHING to do with it, right Jack?


----------



## Metal Ken (Feb 18, 2008)

Clydefrog said:


> You know what really sucks?
> 
> Jack Thompson jumping on the issue and immediately blaming violent video games for this, because the perpetrator MAY have played Counter-Strike at some point in his life.
> 
> I mean, the fact that he wasn't taking his medication at the time of the incident had NOTHING to do with it, right Jack?



Hey, at least they're not blaming the shit on DOOM anymore. I hate that shit. How many people who play these games do this kind of shit? Whats the percentage? It has to be less than a thousandth of a percent. People are just looking for something to blame it on aside from the obvious.


----------



## JBroll (Feb 18, 2008)

GH0STrider said:


> Jeff,
> NIU obviously does not allow any firearms on the campus. I can't speak for other schools, I am not framiliar with their polices. However, I would imagine they would be the same.



Hmm, if only they had implemented stronger gun control polic- oh, whoops... that's not really possible, now, is it? No biscuit for emotional arguments.

Jeff


----------



## God Hand Apostle (Feb 18, 2008)

JB, you seriously represented Texas hardcore in this thread!


----------



## JBroll (Feb 18, 2008)

American culture doesn't exist in the same way European cultures do. It's like a pissed-off bunch of high school cliques on a good day.

I don't do drugs either - I don't even think a lot of them should be used - but I'm pro-legalization on all counts, for what that's worth.

Jeff


----------



## Groff (Feb 18, 2008)

Clydefrog said:


> You know what really sucks?
> 
> Jack Thompson jumping on the issue and immediately blaming violent video games for this, because the perpetrator MAY have played Counter-Strike at some point in his life.
> 
> I mean, the fact that he wasn't taking his medication at the time of the incident had NOTHING to do with it, right Jack?



Reminds me of this kid, who in a cocain and weed fueled *drug induced psycosis*, killed his mother. But they also found Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas in his room. Which do you think the media blamed?



God Hand Apostle said:


> My deal with stricter gun control legislature is this; Law abiding citizens follow the law, not criminals. Control what? Control whom?



 Making guns harder to get legally doesn't make it any harder to get them illigally.


----------



## Hawksmoor (Feb 18, 2008)

JBroll said:


> American culture doesn't exist in the same way European cultures do. It's like a pissed-off bunch of high school cliques on a good day.
> 
> I don't do drugs either - I don't even think a lot of them should be used - but I'm pro-legalization on all counts, for what that's worth.
> 
> Jeff



Something we agree on


----------



## 7 Dying Trees (Feb 18, 2008)

jeez... anyway, i can't see the point of firearms, can't see the point of owning large weapons either...

I'll state my peace which is that, yes, I am from the UK, and yes, I really do believe that gun control works. You can have firearms over here at gun shooting clubs, however, you need to prove mental well being to be allowed to shoot.

I think the problem of guns in the US is that, well, it'd take generations for a change in attitude, and at the same time the massive availability means there's a larger black market.

However, in the case of any abiding citizen, why not have compulsory psychological testing? If you are a nut job you really shouldn't be allowed to have one. Kind of like when your driving licence gets revoked. People will still drive without a licence. 

I'd think you'd want psychological profiling and licencing on a regular basis, I mean, everyone is still going to want their guns, just keep them out of the hands of people who have issues and aren't stable.

And if they buy on the black market, well, as said before, that takes way more premeditation. You can, if you want, get a gun in the UK (silly as it sounds) and they generally aren't expensive. However, they are harder to find and get and you have to know people, hence, it stops people getting one on a whim, i mjean, you really have to try hard.

Also, I see no point in even selling large automatic weapons that are useless for self defense or hunting, i mean, at least be sensible and realise some weapons should really just not be sold. You'd not sell people grenades now would you? I mean, noone can claim a mortar, RPG and a set of greneades is used for hunting.

So I see it more as make a few changes at a time, and see what happens. Make it harder for fruitcakes to get a weapon that takes little skill to kill with, get rid of the ludicrous notion that a sub machine gun should be used by a civilian for self defense. Sure, there'll be some around, but this is a long term thing, not overnight.

I mean, it seems to me like gun control is a dirty word, whereas, to be honest, if you are responsible and not mentally on a different planet, then you really should have little to fear.

Also, don't forget, you are more likely by a significant factor to get shot if you are actually brandishing a gun in the first place.

And gangs, yes, they'll still have their black market firearms, and they'll go on killing each o0ther with them. Gang violence is mostly inter gang and very very rarely targets outsiders. Mostly turf war related or whatever. And as far as I am concerned they can quite happily try to keep wiping each other out.


----------



## JBroll (Feb 18, 2008)

Your assumption on 'impulse-buying' on the gun market doesn't hold in the States, sadly.

As for mental stability tests... a good idea in principle, but implementation over here would be a problem. Just look at how many people buy bullshit like creationism, homeopathy, Kevin Trudeau's 'natural cures for everything' and other such frauds... the people who can be trusted with guns, the people who aren't 'average Americans', are going to be labeled the crazy ones. Don't ever - EVER - expect an American to give a good definition of sanity. 

Jeff


----------



## MorbidTravis (Feb 18, 2008)

hopefully there isnt a band thats pointed out that he listened to alot, "[insert band nam ehere] influenced him to kill"


----------



## GH0STrider (Feb 21, 2008)

JBroll said:


> Hmm, if only they had implemented stronger gun control polic- oh, whoops... that's not really possible, now, is it? No biscuit for emotional arguments.
> 
> Jeff



NO it's not possible to implement stronger control over guns on campus, I agree. It's something that really can't be planned to prevent. Better gun control is the best bet. Not looking for emotion or sympathy either, thanks. I just think it is easier to say what some of you are saying here when it is far away. All you have to do is change the channel. People here have to deal with what has happened and however you look at it- its very dificult. I think a world with limited access to guns would be a better and safer place. that is all I am saying. At the very minimum background checks need to be much much better. Handing firearms over to someone who was on 3 seperate medications and had spent time in a mental institution doesn't show me that background checks are being taken very seriously.


----------



## JBroll (Feb 21, 2008)

Why, of course... because it worked so well before. Are you seriously going to believe that keeping the *sane* people on campus helpless and defenseless is going to make psychotics decide 'Nope, I'm going to follow the rules and not shoot the fuck out of people' more often? If they don't want to die, they won't shoot up an armed campus. If they do want to die, nothing's stopping them anyway so at least maybe a competent gun owner can slow or stop the spree - and if they can't, there's no loss anyway.

Jeff


----------



## GH0STrider (Feb 21, 2008)

JBroll said:


> Why, of course... because it worked so well before. Are you seriously going to believe that keeping the *sane* people on campus helpless and defenseless is going to make psychotics decide 'Nope, I'm going to follow the rules and not shoot the fuck out of people' more often? If they don't want to die, they won't shoot up an armed campus. If they do want to die, nothing's stopping them anyway so at least maybe a competent gun owner can slow or stop the spree - and if they can't, there's no loss anyway.
> 
> Jeff



So your suggesting we all walk around campus with guns? Dude... Just clarify that for me please.


----------



## Clydefrog (Feb 21, 2008)

GH0STrider said:


> So your suggesting we all walk around campus with guns? Dude... Just clarify that for me please.



Maybe not everyone. But if a psycho has to sit back and think for just a second, "hey... someone in this crowd might be armed... maybe a few... maybe more...", they're quite less likely to go on a shooting rampage. Wouldn't you think?

I'd feel safer surrounded by people who were sane with guns, and the proper training to use them. That would keep so many of these freaks from just busting out and going at it.


----------



## GH0STrider (Feb 21, 2008)

Honestly man... who is to say when someone might lose it, or when someone might threaten someone with the gun. Or what if it acidently goes off? Guns have no place on a college campus or any school for that matter. There is no purpose for them being there. Clearly background checks aren't telling the whole story. You want to just allow people to run around with guns... I can see the death toll rising as we speak. Keep in mind techincally speaking the NIU gunman was "sane". He was also regarded as a great student and described by the people who knew him as very caring. I met him a few times myself. He used to come party at his girlfriend's dorm which my gf also lived on. He was very calm, soft spoken, and nice. He had a good sense of humor, and was very polite. I garuntee you he would pass as sane 10/10. I think the best thing to do is just keep guns of campus all together. It's a tough situation because that is nearly impossible to prevent. I just think the fight fire with fire method you guys are suggesting would cause more deaths than it would prevent.


----------



## Clydefrog (Feb 21, 2008)

It's simple. If you have to take pills to be required "sane" (as the gunman did), you do not get a gun. Legally.


----------



## GH0STrider (Feb 21, 2008)

Clydefrog said:


> It's simple. If you have to take pills to be required "sane" (as the gunman did), you do not get a gun. Legally.



there are many people that are considered sane and don't take pills yet are still capable of doing something like this. It's not that simple. Arming students on campus is just insane. Your asking for more deaths and campus shootings.


----------



## Clydefrog (Feb 21, 2008)

No one's calling for mandatory arming of students. I guarantee you that the number of bodies would drop if people were allowed to have a concealed firearm on their persons on school campus. No one would take that shit lightly if properly educated in what a firearm can and cannot do.

And douchebags who decide to shoot up schools like this would certainly think twice if they knew that they might have to contend with someone standing up to them and firing back, as opposed to gleefully watching them all run from him as an egostroke.


----------



## God Hand Apostle (Feb 21, 2008)

I may be one of the few people here who has guns, and I even thought the FOID card application was such a joke.

Here's what I'm talking about;
1.) Just asks why you are filling out the application?
2.) Have you ever been convicted of a felony?
3.) In the past 5 years, have you been a patient any medical facility or part of any medical facility used for the care or treatment of persons for mental illness?
4.) Are you addicted to narcotics?
5.) Are you mentally retarded?
6.) Are you subject to an existing order of protection which prohibits you from possessing a firearm?
7.) Within the past 5 years, have you been convicted of battery, assualt, aggravated assault, violation of an order of protection, or substantially similar offense in which a firearm was used or posessed?
8.) Have you ever been convicted of domestic battery or substantially similar offense (misdemeanor or felony)?
9.) Have you ever been adjudicated a delinquent minor for the commission of an offense that if committed by an adult would be a felony?
10.) Are you an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States?

You have to fill out more personal info, add a recent (within last 6 months) photo of head and shoulders from front, and $5.00.

It's easier than signing up for college classes, and applying for fanancial aid.


----------



## distressed_romeo (Feb 21, 2008)

Clydefrog said:


> And douchebags who decide to shoot up schools like this would certainly think twice if they knew that they might have to contend with someone standing up to them and firing back, as opposed to gleefully watching them all run from him as an egostroke.



I don't think that would be the case at all. You're assuming that the people who go on these sprees are thinking logically about it to begin with. Even if they've planned it all well in advance they're usually planning on killing themselves at the end of it anyway, so the thought of somebody shooting back isn't likely to be a huge deterent.
You'd be more likely to end up with a slew of cases like the ones described in this article, which wouldn't be a massive improvement...

Suicide by cop - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Incidentally, I do actually question, like a lot of people in this thread, how much difference gun control really makes, as (again like others have said) it's more a case of people's attitude to guns that needs ammending (there's a similar problem in the UK with knife-crime incidentally). Despite that though, I'd still rather there be at least some method of making it a harder for the kid with 'issues' to get hold of a firearm, even if (as is likely to happen unfortunately) he just gets it illegally anyway. 
That form GHA described is absolutely laughable. If you're going to have forms like that in place then they should at least serve their intended purpose, or it's just giving credence to the belief that gun control is pointless. If this is how stringently it's enforced, then I whole-heartedly agree, it'll make fuck-all difference.


----------



## JBroll (Feb 21, 2008)

GH0STrider said:


> Honestly man... who is to say when someone might lose it, or when someone might threaten someone with the gun. Or what if it acidently goes off? Guns have no place on a college campus or any school for that matter. There is no purpose for them being there. Clearly background checks aren't telling the whole story. You want to just allow people to run around with guns... I can see the death toll rising as we speak. Keep in mind techincally speaking the NIU gunman was "sane". He was also regarded as a great student and described by the people who knew him as very caring. I met him a few times myself. He used to come party at his girlfriend's dorm which my gf also lived on. He was very calm, soft spoken, and nice. He had a good sense of humor, and was very polite. I garuntee you he would pass as sane 10/10. I think the best thing to do is just keep guns of campus all together. It's a tough situation because that is nearly impossible to prevent. I just think the fight fire with fire method you guys are suggesting would cause more deaths than it would prevent.



I don't suggest that *everyone* be armed, just those that are responsible and that choose to be armed.

As for your first statement... you're just restating THE SAME ARGUMENT that you haven't even defended all that well in order to prove that argument. As far as keeping guns off campus all together... why can't you see that doing that is clearly not possible? Hard to keep them off campus any more than not allowing them at all. And while I agree that guns shouldn't be necessary... psychotics don't belong on campus, so until we can keep them out with perfect consistency we need some way of taking care of them that doesn't leave that many people dead.

As for your argument that more people would wind up dead, Switzerland and England have the same homicide rates... and in Switzerland adult males must keep fully automatic rifles and be competent with them. In 1988 a well-known sociologist studied DoJ reports and came to the conclusions that



Gary Kleck said:


> "Victims who used guns for protection were less likely either to be attacked or injured than victims who responded in any other way, including those who did not resist at all,"
> 
> ...
> 
> "When victims use guns to resist crimes, the crimes usually are disrupted and the victims are not injured."



and a study at St. Louis University found that in cases of defense (like this could have been) only 2% of innocent bystanders are misidentified and harmed - compared to 11% for the police. Oops.

Finally, the US News and World Report numbers (admittedly old, but not much has changed) found that 2.45 million crimes a year are stopped by private gun ownership.

Too many people have been put in danger by being forced into defenselessness for me to think this is a good idea. In ideal settings we wouldn't need this, but unfortunately we aren't often in ideal settings. Gun bans have already been at least partially responsible for dozens of deaths that could have been prevented at schools... how many more need to die before you come to the conclusion that your policy doesn't work?

Jeff


----------



## GH0STrider (Feb 21, 2008)

And what defines who is "responsible"? Apparently according to background checks it is responsible to hand firearms over to a former mental patient on 3 seperate meds for anxiety and depression. That sounds real responsible. Guns laws felt the niu shooter was responsible enough to own guns, how do you define who is responisble? Because the people making those decisions aren't putting much thought into it. 

I have said keeping guns off campus is not possible. But just cause we can't keep them off doesn't mean we should just allow them all together. that is just stupid. Having people running around with guns doesn't make for a good enviornment in any context. It doesn't make us any safer either. Arguments happen everyday, how long till a select few take it too far and the whole campus is shooting each other? It's just a bad idea


----------



## Clydefrog (Feb 21, 2008)

GH0STrider said:


> I have said keeping guns off campus is not possible. But just cause we can't keep them off doesn't mean we should just allow them all together. that is just stupid. Having people running around with guns doesn't make for a good enviornment in any context. It doesn't make us any safer either. Arguments happen everyday, how long till a select few take it too far and the whole campus is shooting each other? It's just a bad idea



There was a study in this very thread that proves you wrong on this point.


----------



## JBroll (Feb 21, 2008)

Keep in mind that in the figures I posted 'irresponsible' people were counted as well; if someone does magically find a way to keep guns only in the hands of people who can be trusted as much as you want, they'll only improve.

Also, I'm in Texas. Everyone has a fucking gun. More specifically, I'm in a college and military town - arguments happen. Arguments + guns =/= OK Corral... hate to break it to you, but the Wild West is dead and things like that don't happen in the real world.

Jeff


----------



## GH0STrider (Feb 21, 2008)

I never called this the wild wild west. I'm not going to agree with any of this so whatever.


----------



## JBroll (Feb 21, 2008)

GH0STrider said:


> Arguments happen everyday, how long till a select few take it too far and the whole campus is shooting each other? It's just a bad idea



That's what I was referring to. If it happened, it would happen here, and it doesn't. That was my point.

Jeff


----------



## GH0STrider (Feb 21, 2008)

never say never. Just cause it has not happened yet does not mean it won't. That is my point.


----------



## JBroll (Feb 21, 2008)

Now, put that back in context and look at the big picture: does that cancel out the MILLIONS of crimes stopped each year?

Jeff


----------



## GH0STrider (Feb 21, 2008)

your claiming that "if it were to happen, it would happen here". Every campus is a target. Again your not safe. It could happen there tomorrow. This is really getting pointless. so whatever


----------



## JBroll (Feb 21, 2008)

You're misinterpreting me and, you're right, this isn't going anywhere. Done until something more interesting pops up.

Jeff


----------



## GH0STrider (Feb 21, 2008)

I've pretty much been misinterpreted this whole thread so the feeling is mutual. I too am done.


----------

