planetf1.com

It is currently Tue Sep 23, 2014 10:21 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 5:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009 6:51 am
Posts: 1049
Blake wrote:
I hate that a thread based on such a horrifying act of violence degenerates into yet another attack on the American people in general... And I hate that once again, I find myself defending my country and MOST of my fellow countrymen from people who sit on their asses and tell us what is wrong with Americans.

So what do you suggest our "immature society" do? Should we all be taken out behind the woodshed and whipped with willow branches until we mature? Is it something that will happen if we only but wait for another 100 or 200 years?

Just how does an "immature society" become a "mature society" according to those who lecture and generalize about us?

I think toilet already clarified that maturity wasn't quite was he was going for. For some reason, Americans use their guns to kill each other much more often than other countries with relaxed gun laws do. Maybe it's because there is a greater number of lonely people, maybe depression rates are higher among Americans, maybe income inequality is worse in America and so on. The point is, the lack of gun control is a much bigger problem in America compared to other countries where gun ownership is common. It's no shame to admit that and fix it, in the short term at least, with stricter gun laws.

Pointing out a real and deadly issue in American society isn't the same as an attack on the American people as you appear to believe. Every country has its problems. America does too and from time to time, it will be pointed out.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 6:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 3393
Location: Nebraska, USA
Sorry, phyz... It is an attack on the American society, what the hell else do you call it when we are being told what is wrong with us? Please tell me when you see other societies attacked with the frequency of the USA in this forum... What other country comes under the microscope in this forum like the USA does? What other country has so many experts on their faults, real or perceived? This is nothing new, I have this psycho-analysis of America in here for years...

What happened is a tragedy beyond comprehension. A horrifying accident that shakes people to their roots. As I said, as a parent myself, it brought me to tears to think of how those families must feel tonight. I don't need to read of people pointing out the faults of my country that made this possible as though it could not have happened elsewhere, which is exactly the tone that was being used by some.

I will leave this topic, as I often tend to do when it turns ugly, as it distracts from what I believe was an honest show of compassion by the OP, and I regret the the discussion moved away from that.

good night

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 7:48 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 10:02 am
Posts: 234
It is a nations society that determines the policies of their democratically elected government.

If enough US citizens demanded that gun laws be tightened then it would happen virtually overnight. The US has so much to be proud of & have led the way in so many just & righteous causes but unfortunately hiding behind an outdated section of their constitution to justify their ownership of weapons is not one if them.

Who in the bloody hell can justify owning a semi automatic assault weapon in small town USA?

It's absolutely absurd.

How in the hell can organisations such as the NRA look America in the face & attempt to justify why John Q Citizen should have the right to own a small arsenal of fire arms ( including assault rifles)?

This was no accident. The senseless murder of 20 defencless innocents, as with every other massacre in the US, is a culmination of that nations society's determination to hold on to an archaic law that willfully supports this kind of action by its inaction.

You've done it before. The civil rights movement back in the 60's. In a great democratic society such as the US, people power is real power.

If the US doesn't act now, this will happen again & again & again.

Maybe it needs to go the other way. Maybe it should be law that every school is supplied with an adequate supply of weapons should this happen again.

At least then 5 year old kids wot be sitting ducks.

_________________
Never judge a man until you have walked a mile in their shoes. That way when you do judge them, you are a mile away, and you have their shoes.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 9:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2012 6:53 pm
Posts: 409
Jesus, Blake. Try reading my posts from an objective standpoint.

I'm more than aware that every society has lots of problems. I am not attacking the US. I myself, long before you decided to jump in, stated that the vast majority of the population aren't like this. I myself stated that such things do happen elsewhere. Imyself stated I was generalising. Basically all your criticisms I'd already stated.

But the disproportionate propensity for, and prevalence of, people shooting each other, and the general desire for owning so many guns is an issue that needs addressing, and that "could quite justifiably be deemed an indication so societal immaturity".

_________________
"you can never be too paranoid"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 10:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 12:11 pm
Posts: 3029
Blake wrote:
toilet wrote:

To have such a disproportionate prevalence of an inclination towards shooting another human being could quite justifiably be deemed an indication so societal immaturity.


I hate that a thread based on such a horrifying act of violence degenerates into yet another attack on the American people in general... And I hate that once again, I find myself defending my country and MOST of my fellow countrymen from people who sit on their asses and tell us what is wrong with Americans.

So what do you suggest our "immature society" do? Should we all be taken out behind the woodshed and whipped with willow branches until we mature? Is it something that will happen if we only but wait for another 100 or 200 years?

Just how does an "immature society" become a "mature society" according to those who lecture and generalize about us?

By raising children with a sense of personal responsibility and the ability to be content with what you have. "Pull yourself up by your bootstraps" might be the American way, but its morphed into wanting more than you need to be happy, and with a sliding scale nobody is ever happy. Further, our schools now endeavor to protect children from "losing" at anything. No more dodgeball, no bullying, no calling children out for underperformance in academics, etc. All that does is hide them from the real world - they're massively unprepared for life when they get to it. So you've got kids who don't know what its like to be beaten (i dont mean physically) by anyone or what it means to be held accountable, and all they know is that they want what they don't have, and that they couldn't possibly be happy without it. That's a recipe for some unhappy people. Unhappy people with no sense of responsibility do crazy things like shooting up schools. Add in overmedication, under medication, absentee parents, no money in schools for the arts, horrendous hollywood role models in a setting that is increasingly so close to "reality" that kids can't separate it from ACTUAL reality, they only play games on their video systems or internet where you don't ever have to actually face an opponent, or lose in front of anyone....what ISN'T wrong with our society? Then you let them buy AR15's.

I teach kids. In recent years I've had 80 or so students (age 7-18) over a few seasons, and I can't say I've ever liked more than maybe 10 of them enough to want to even talk to them outside their lessons. They're all rotten little things with no respect for anyone or anything, no drive to achieve, no will to persevere, and they don't THINK. If they don't know something, they either pretend they don't need to or they just say "I don't know" or ask. They never try to figure anything out on their own, even when I know they know the answer or know how to do something, its always the easy route. The equivalent of googling something instead of just thinking about it. There were some kids like that that I knew growing up, but it wasn't the majority. And I'm not that old!

Okay, rant about kids over.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 5:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 6:08 pm
Posts: 1509
Reports are indicating that there has been a significant increase in gun sales across the US and in particular the area around the school shooting since the tragedy. Unbelievable.....

_________________
Going to Spa? Check out my site. http://visit-spa-francorchamps.page.tl/
My own Google Earth Motor Sport file. http://www.mediafire.com/?jzm1ieatytv
Follow me @asphalt_world
Oh and Bernie, National flags should be raised not flipped. Sort it!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 5:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 1:59 pm
Posts: 3360
Asphalt_World wrote:
Reports are indicating that there has been a significant increase in gun sales across the US and in particular the area around the school shooting since the tragedy. Unbelievable.....

yes, its the obvious solution isn't it? Kill everything but your family then no one can hurt them!

also related, have any of you read about the teacher who hid her pupils in the class storeroom upon hearing gunfire, then lied to the gunman of there whereabouts, got gunned down herself but saved the lives of all her pupils. I hope she gets the recognition she deserves for such an act. If she was military, I'd go as far as saying she deserves a purple heart presented to her family by the president himself. I don't know if there is a non military alternative to such an award, but if there is, she deserves it.

edit: this is just 1 link I found quickly http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2012/dec/17/sandy-hook-shooting-teacher-hid-pupils-video but there a fair bit out there about this.

_________________
There is no theory of evolution, just a list of animals that Chuck Norris allows to live.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 5:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 6:08 pm
Posts: 1509
Yes that is an amazing story.

Her family should be awarded the highest honour the US can give imo.

_________________
Going to Spa? Check out my site. http://visit-spa-francorchamps.page.tl/
My own Google Earth Motor Sport file. http://www.mediafire.com/?jzm1ieatytv
Follow me @asphalt_world
Oh and Bernie, National flags should be raised not flipped. Sort it!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 6:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 1:23 pm
Posts: 1296
rumours were the the westboro baptist church were meant to picket the funeral,

did that happen?

i hope for their sake it didn't!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 6:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 12:11 pm
Posts: 3029
Anonymous is making life difficult for WBC over this. Those people are all nuts.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 8:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2007 8:14 pm
Posts: 1548
Ban guns in America!

Seriously, how ****ing hard is it?

_________________
Lewis Hamilton Fan's Mood Race by Race: :( 8) 8) 8) 8) :evil: :-(( :) :D :proud: ;) x( 8) 8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 9:11 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 1991
f1madman wrote:
Ban guns in America!

Seriously, how ****ing hard is it?

Impossible. There are 300 million guns in America, and the majority of Americans oppose gun control, it's going from 80% in favour of gun control 20 years ago to around 40% today, even in light of the two mass killings this year. If a ban on guns was put in place, with the majority of people (including 99.9% of legal gun owners) how would these guns be taken out of circulation? The police would be out gunned and out manned, and if the army was called in (as well as being unconstitutional) it would lend credibility to the argument that the only reason a government would want to take away the guns is because they want to start a dictatorship.

However - there is no reason that gun control could not be tightened. Certainly the sale of military grade weaponry could be outlawed and most people would probably be in favour of this. Even if it would be impossible to take the existing guns out of circulation by making it illegal for them to be sold or for them to be in public then it would make it more difficult for someone to take them somewhere they shouldn't be.

Gun control only works in the UK because nearly everyone is in favour of it. In the US this is not the case, and probably never will be, but in order to get anywhere near the situation we have in the UK it will take time and certainly can't be done in one go.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 9:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 6:41 pm
Posts: 6587
f1madman wrote:
Ban guns in America!

Seriously, how ****ing hard is it?



How many shootings are done with legal guns?

How does banning guns stop people using illegal ones?

_________________
Disclaimer: The above post maybe tongue in cheek.

"I thought I'd get your theories, mock them, then embrace my own. The usual."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 9:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 4:07 pm
Posts: 5519
Johnston wrote:
f1madman wrote:
Ban guns in America!

Seriously, how ****ing hard is it?



How many shootings are done with legal guns?

How does banning guns stop people using illegal ones?

Do you know? I know that in neighbor city near me, yesterday someone showed a gun to other person in bus and police was called. It was found that that gun was illegal and that person can face up to 8 years in prison. Do you know that homicide (with and without guns) rates are 2x higher in USA than in my country?

_________________
..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 9:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 6:08 pm
Posts: 1509
Whilst I'm not saying a ban on guns in the US is the answer, I don't buy this, 'how would you enforce it', ' thousands already own guns' etc. A current situation should never totally influence a possible future situation.

If significant gun control was brought in, nobody expects it to have much of an effect in a short time. You have to look forward, quite possibly a number of generations. Surely that's got to be worth trying?

Us humans are often too short sighted in life and I think people are being very short sighted if they are ruling out significant rule changes on guns because they think there are too many guns out on the street already.

_________________
Going to Spa? Check out my site. http://visit-spa-francorchamps.page.tl/
My own Google Earth Motor Sport file. http://www.mediafire.com/?jzm1ieatytv
Follow me @asphalt_world
Oh and Bernie, National flags should be raised not flipped. Sort it!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 9:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 1:38 pm
Posts: 2046
Have no idea if these facts are correct but I found this regarding gun control:
Quote:
data from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime shows the United States is far from being “particularly violent.” In fact, the 2010 murder rate in the United States was 4.9 per 100,000 residents. What are the homicide rates in some other countries with much more restrictive gun control? Honduras: 91.6, El Salvador: 69.2, Jamaica: 40.9, Venezuela: 45.1, and Mexico: 22.7. Note that the homicide rates of these unarguably violent countries are between 4 and 18 times that of the United States.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 9:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 6:41 pm
Posts: 6587
dizlexik wrote:
Do you know?



The last I read after one of the other shootings was, very few were done with legally held guns.

So if the guns being used are illegal, banning legal ones won't do much. It's like over here, we had tight gun controls for years. But yet people used to be on the street with sniper rifles. Having tight gun controls did nothing from stopping the headcases from obtaining guns and as anyone who knows the NI conflict there was some serious machinery being used.

The other side to the argument is, with illegal guns so easy to get. Would banning guns actually stop some nutcase who has used legal guns from obtaining some if he really wanted them?

_________________
Disclaimer: The above post maybe tongue in cheek.

"I thought I'd get your theories, mock them, then embrace my own. The usual."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 9:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 4:07 pm
Posts: 5519
Johnston wrote:
dizlexik wrote:
Do you know?



The last I read after one of the other shootings was, very few were done with legally held guns.

So if the guns being used are illegal, banning legal ones won't do much. It's like over here, we had tight gun controls for years. But yet people used to be on the street with sniper rifles. Having tight gun controls did nothing from stopping the headcases from obtaining guns and as anyone who knows the NI conflict there was some serious machinery being used.

The other side to the argument is, with illegal guns so easy to get. Would banning guns actually stop some nutcase who has used legal guns from obtaining some if he really wanted them?

So it's not worth trying, because you make assumption that anyone who wants a gun will always get one or what? It's not that my Polish society is better than USA, it's because it's easier to kill with guns and Americans have 280 millions of guns with little control over them. From what I know the gun used in killing was bought legally. It was used illegally by wrong person, because you refuse to impose stricter control.

_________________
..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 9:46 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 1991
Johnston wrote:
dizlexik wrote:
Do you know?



The last I read after one of the other shootings was, very few were done with legally held guns.

So if the guns being used are illegal, banning legal ones won't do much. It's like over here, we had tight gun controls for years. But yet people used to be on the street with sniper rifles. Having tight gun controls did nothing from stopping the headcases from obtaining guns and as anyone who knows the NI conflict there was some serious machinery being used.

The other side to the argument is, with illegal guns so easy to get. Would banning guns actually stop some nutcase who has used legal guns from obtaining some if he really wanted them?

I read an article since the shooting that said of the last 70 or so shootings 50 of them were with legally owned weapons.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 10:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 6:41 pm
Posts: 6587
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
I read an article since the shooting that said of the last 70 or so shootings 50 of them were with legally owned weapons.



But were the shooters the legal owner?

It could also be a difference between the one using the massacre type and one using all shootings as their basis.

dizlexik wrote:
So it's not worth trying, because you make assumption that anyone who wants a gun will always get one or what? It's not that my Polish society is better than USA, it's because it's easier to kill with guns and Americans have 280 millions of guns with little control over them. From what I know the gun used in killing was bought legally. It was used illegally by wrong person, because you refuse to impose stricter control.


Not that everyone will get one. But if someone really wants to they will find a way.

Like I said look at the controls we had in NI. Did it stop any of the shootings over the troubles?

If it didn't stop our lot from having illegal guns, would it stop people in America having illegal guns? Probably not as America was supplying over here with them.

The only way to tackle it is to tackle the gun problem at the source and thats who ever is dealing in them. Not the folk who go and buy them legally and use them responsibly. What's the point in hurting them when they are being the responsible folk.

_________________
Disclaimer: The above post maybe tongue in cheek.

"I thought I'd get your theories, mock them, then embrace my own. The usual."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 10:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 6:08 pm
Posts: 1509
The point that people will find a gun to use regardless is a pathetic point of view. You could use that kind of analogy for any laws. It doesn't stop the law being correct.

Look further ahead than next year.

_________________
Going to Spa? Check out my site. http://visit-spa-francorchamps.page.tl/
My own Google Earth Motor Sport file. http://www.mediafire.com/?jzm1ieatytv
Follow me @asphalt_world
Oh and Bernie, National flags should be raised not flipped. Sort it!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 10:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 4:07 pm
Posts: 5519
Johnston wrote:
The only way to tackle it is to tackle the gun problem at the source and thats who ever is dealing in them. Not the folk who go and buy them legally and use them responsibly. What's the point in hurting them when they are being the responsible folk.

2 kids are playing football at home and break windows, glasses. Would you let them keep the ball and hope that you will educate kids before they destroy whole house or would you take the ball and give them back when they understand how to play with it?


Johnston wrote:
Not the folk who go and buy them legally and use them responsibly. What's the point in hurting them when they are being the responsible folk.

They can always store them in some safe at home and carry them only when they travel to visit some military facilities when they can use them. Make them responsible for 3rd party use too.

_________________
..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 10:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 6:41 pm
Posts: 6587
Asphalt_World wrote:
The point that people will find a gun to use regardless is a pathetic point of view. You could use that kind of analogy for any laws. It doesn't stop the law being correct.

Look further ahead than next year.


Why is it pathetic?



Do you honestly think that banning guns from responsible folk will keep them out of the hands of the irresponsible?

_________________
Disclaimer: The above post maybe tongue in cheek.

"I thought I'd get your theories, mock them, then embrace my own. The usual."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 10:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 6:41 pm
Posts: 6587
dizlexik wrote:
Johnston wrote:
The only way to tackle it is to tackle the gun problem at the source and thats who ever is dealing in them. Not the folk who go and buy them legally and use them responsibly. What's the point in hurting them when they are being the responsible folk.

2 kids are playing football at home and break windows, glasses. Would you let them keep the ball and hope that you will educate kids before they destroy whole house or would you take the ball and give them back when they understand how to play with it?


Johnston wrote:
Not the folk who go and buy them legally and use them responsibly. What's the point in hurting them when they are being the responsible folk.

They can always store them in some safe at home and carry them only when they travel to visit some military facilities when they can use them. Make them responsible for 3rd party use too.



Wouldn't you say the majority know how to "Play" with guns considering the vast amount of legal owners that don't shoot other people?

And how does limiting peoples use to military facilities despite the very big flaw in that plan, going to stop a nut job making a detour on they way to the military facility? Or indeed stop someone from using an illegal gun?

I don't know about anywhere else but as far as I am aware over here the license holder is responsible for 3rd party use.

_________________
Disclaimer: The above post maybe tongue in cheek.

"I thought I'd get your theories, mock them, then embrace my own. The usual."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 10:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 4:07 pm
Posts: 5519
Johnston wrote:
dizlexik wrote:
Johnston wrote:
The only way to tackle it is to tackle the gun problem at the source and thats who ever is dealing in them. Not the folk who go and buy them legally and use them responsibly. What's the point in hurting them when they are being the responsible folk.

2 kids are playing football at home and break windows, glasses. Would you let them keep the ball and hope that you will educate kids before they destroy whole house or would you take the ball and give them back when they understand how to play with it?


Johnston wrote:
Not the folk who go and buy them legally and use them responsibly. What's the point in hurting them when they are being the responsible folk.

They can always store them in some safe at home and carry them only when they travel to visit some military facilities when they can use them. Make them responsible for 3rd party use too.



Wouldn't you say the majority know how to "Play" with guns considering the vast amount of legal owners that don't shoot other people?

And how does limiting peoples use to military facilities despite the very big flaw in that plan, going to stop a nut job making a detour on they way to the military facility? Or indeed stop someone from using an illegal gun?

I don't know about anywhere else but as far as I am aware over here the license holder is responsible for 3rd party use.

You can accept that people and kids will die. They are the costs of current politics and "ill" libertarianism (why owning a gun is so important?).

_________________
..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 10:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 6:08 pm
Posts: 1509
Johnston wrote:
Asphalt_World wrote:
The point that people will find a gun to use regardless is a pathetic point of view. You could use that kind of analogy for any laws. It doesn't stop the law being correct.

Look further ahead than next year.


Why is it pathetic?



Do you honestly think that banning guns from responsible folk will keep them out of the hands of the irresponsible?


Do you honestly think that all laws that irresponsible people flaunt should be dropped?

_________________
Going to Spa? Check out my site. http://visit-spa-francorchamps.page.tl/
My own Google Earth Motor Sport file. http://www.mediafire.com/?jzm1ieatytv
Follow me @asphalt_world
Oh and Bernie, National flags should be raised not flipped. Sort it!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 10:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 6:41 pm
Posts: 6587
dizlexik wrote:
You can accept that people and kids will die. They are the costs of current politics and "ill" libertarianism (why owning a gun is so important?).



Will banning responsible people from owning guns stop that?

Will banning legal guns in the states take all the illegal ones of the streets?

I don't think so.

Do you not think that rather than taking it out on legal users and owners they would be better tackling the illegal guns that are usually held by scrotes and nutcases who don't really give a fairy cakes?

Quote:
Do you honestly think that all laws that irresponsible people flaunt should be dropped?


who said anything about dropping laws?

_________________
Disclaimer: The above post maybe tongue in cheek.

"I thought I'd get your theories, mock them, then embrace my own. The usual."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 10:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 4:07 pm
Posts: 5519
Johnston wrote:
Do you not think that rather than taking it out on legal users and owners they would be better tackling the illegal guns that are usually held by scrotes and nutcases who don't really give a fairy cakes?

Yes. It already happened in USA with allowing people over 21 year to drink alcohol.

_________________
..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 10:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 6:08 pm
Posts: 1509
I never said anyone did mention dropping laws. However, if your opinion is that bringing in a law will have no effect on those irresponsible people then the obvious link is to ask if it's worth policing a whole raft of laws that us responsible people live by but irresponsible people do not.

Personally, if bringing in a law stops one person committing a horrific crime then it's worth it.

_________________
Going to Spa? Check out my site. http://visit-spa-francorchamps.page.tl/
My own Google Earth Motor Sport file. http://www.mediafire.com/?jzm1ieatytv
Follow me @asphalt_world
Oh and Bernie, National flags should be raised not flipped. Sort it!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 11:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 6:41 pm
Posts: 6587
dizlexik wrote:
Johnston wrote:
Do you not think that rather than taking it out on legal users and owners they would be better tackling the illegal guns that are usually held by scrotes and nutcases who don't really give a fairy cakes?

Yes. It already happened in USA with allowing people over 21 year to drink alcohol.



You've lost me :? :?

_________________
Disclaimer: The above post maybe tongue in cheek.

"I thought I'd get your theories, mock them, then embrace my own. The usual."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 11:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 4:07 pm
Posts: 5519
Johnston wrote:
dizlexik wrote:
Johnston wrote:
Do you not think that rather than taking it out on legal users and owners they would be better tackling the illegal guns that are usually held by scrotes and nutcases who don't really give a fairy cakes?

Yes. It already happened in USA with allowing people over 21 year to drink alcohol.



You've lost me :? :?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mothers_Ag ... nk_Driving

Read the history part.

_________________
..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 12:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 12:11 pm
Posts: 3029
The number of guns already in the country is irrelevant. If you make the possession of something illegal with a SIGNIFICANT punishment, you make an impact. If the penalty for being caught in possession of bullets for example were 1 year per round, and the punishment for SELLING them were 5 years a piece, it would eventually get pretty damn hard for criminals to obtain ammunition. Get caught holding up a 7-11 with a loaded gun? Well in addition to the sentence for the attempted robbery, you're getting additional time for every bullet in the gun. If armed robbery becomes a crime you could get something like 20 years for...much fewer people are going to take the risk. What about the crazies you ask? Well who are they going to find to sell them bullets if the risk could be LIFE in prison?

The only reason the "war on drugs" doesn't work is because the punishment is weak. We need extremely harsh mandatory minimums if you want to scare people into compliance and make an impact.

I'm so serious about my bullet idea, even though everyone laughs :lol:

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 1:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010 3:07 pm
Posts: 510
My 16yr old step son was moaning that he could no longer buy a samurai sword legally in Ireland to put on his wall, followed by his adolescent arguments about how you couldn't rob a bank with one. My reply to him was that when he had kids of his own he'd be glad he lived in a country that acted responsibly with weapons.

My wife (from brasil, where shootings are a part of life) joined in the debate saying that I could easily buy a gun illegally here. The truth is, no I couldn't. I suppose I could start by asking who the biggest dealers in the city are but I'd probably have the snot kicked out of me just for asking questions.

If a society believes public gun ownership (and that is any society, not just USA) is the way to go then it isn't just immaturity it is bloody idiocy imo. Attitudes to drink driving only changed in Ireland when responsible people started using their voices. It took a few years but there was a complete turn around in general attitude. The sooner people stop worrying about causing offence and call it for what it is which is sheer and utter idiocy, the better.

_________________
Trying to use 'tongue in cheek' humour in a forum is like wearing a Borat t-shirt in Kazakhstan.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 3:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 9:06 am
Posts: 1998
Johnston wrote:
dizlexik wrote:
You can accept that people and kids will die. They are the costs of current politics and "ill" libertarianism (why owning a gun is so important?).



Will banning responsible people from owning guns stop that?

Will banning legal guns in the states take all the illegal ones of the streets?

I don't think so.

Do you not think that rather than taking it out on legal users and owners they would be better tackling the illegal guns that are usually held by scrotes and nutcases who don't really give a fairy cakes?

Quote:
Do you honestly think that all laws that irresponsible people flaunt should be dropped?


who said anything about dropping laws?

If you are a responsible gun owner then you shouldn't have anything to worry about. A lot of people throw around the term of banning guns very loosely, but what it really means is banning or restricting the use of certain types of guns from the market. These guns include fully automatic weapons and variants of semi automatic weapons, however these weapons can still be obtained but only with special licenses and thorough background searches.

A very rough outline of the gun laws where I live state that all firearms that are owned must be stored in a secure room inside a locked cabinet, ammunition for the weapon must be stored in a separate locked cabinet in a separate room. To obtain a license to own a firearm you must complete a firearm training and safety course and be approved as capable of handling and operating a firearm safely.
Does that really sound too hard if you are a responsible gun owner?

_________________
Danger is real, fear is choice.
PF1 Pick 10 Competition
Best Round Result: 1st (Monaco 2012, Silverstone 2014)
Podiums: 5
2014 Championship Standing: *mumble*


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 6:26 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 10:02 am
Posts: 234
specdecible wrote:
Johnston wrote:
dizlexik wrote:
You can accept that people and kids will die. They are the costs of current politics and "ill" libertarianism (why owning a gun is so important?).



Will banning responsible people from owning guns stop that?

Will banning legal guns in the states take all the illegal ones of the streets?

I don't think so.

Do you not think that rather than taking it out on legal users and owners they would be better tackling the illegal guns that are usually held by scrotes and nutcases who don't really give a fairy cakes?

Quote:
Do you honestly think that all laws that irresponsible people flaunt should be dropped?


who said anything about dropping laws?

If you are a responsible gun owner then you shouldn't have anything to worry about. A lot of people throw around the term of banning guns very loosely, but what it really means is banning or restricting the use of certain types of guns from the market. These guns include fully automatic weapons and variants of semi automatic weapons, however these weapons can still be obtained but only with special licenses and thorough background searches.

A very rough outline of the gun laws where I live state that all firearms that are owned must be stored in a secure room inside a locked cabinet, ammunition for the weapon must be stored in a separate locked cabinet in a separate room. To obtain a license to own a firearm you must complete a firearm training and safety course and be approved as capable of handling and operating a firearm safely.
Does that really sound too hard if you are a responsible gun owner?


Question: The semi automatic assault rifle & pistols used to gun down these children & teachers.Were these legally owned? AFAIK they were.

The kids mother owned them & from what I've read, took pride in showing her young son how to use them.

Question: If his mother didn't have the guns, & gun control was tight, could the kid have found these guns elsewhere? Maybe but maybe not.

He had easy access to these weapons. He knew where to find them & how to get them.

Question: Could those children & teachers be alive & happy today if his mother did not have those guns?

Maybe no but probably yes.

These guns were legally owned by a responsible gun owner. You can easily screen a gun owner for their responsibility, criminal, mental background, but how does any know about other family members who may gain access to those legally owned weapons.

After the Port Arthur massacre in Australia around 1996, the government introduced very tight gun laws. They outlawed many automatic & semi automatic weapons, introduced an amnesty & gun buy back scheme. Even slug guns (air rifles) were banned.

Thousands of guns were handed in and destroyed. These were formerly legal guns owned by responsible gun owners.

Unless you can jump through hoops proving why you need a gun at your house (farmers are pretty much the only ones who can) it must be stored at a registered gun club under tight lock & key.

You cannot walk into a Kmart and buy anything other than a bloody water pistol.

Yes, people still die in Australia at the end of a gun but a vast majority of those are underworld figures and are only really interested in killing others of their ilk.

If you can do anything to make it harder to gain possession of these pointless weapons in the face of this terrible event then bloody well do it.

In the face of this how can you just throw your arms in the air & say its too hard & too late.

Does that really sound too hard? You have to start somewhere.

_________________
Never judge a man until you have walked a mile in their shoes. That way when you do judge them, you are a mile away, and you have their shoes.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 2:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2007 8:14 pm
Posts: 1548
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
f1madman wrote:
Ban guns in America!

Seriously, how ****ing hard is it?

Impossible. There are 300 million guns in America, and the majority of Americans oppose gun control, it's going from 80% in favour of gun control 20 years ago to around 40% today, even in light of the two mass killings this year. If a ban on guns was put in place, with the majority of people (including 99.9% of legal gun owners) how would these guns be taken out of circulation? The police would be out gunned and out manned, and if the army was called in (as well as being unconstitutional) it would lend credibility to the argument that the only reason a government would want to take away the guns is because they want to start a dictatorship.

However - there is no reason that gun control could not be tightened. Certainly the sale of military grade weaponry could be outlawed and most people would probably be in favour of this. Even if it would be impossible to take the existing guns out of circulation by making it illegal for them to be sold or for them to be in public then it would make it more difficult for someone to take them somewhere they shouldn't be.

Gun control only works in the UK because nearly everyone is in favour of it. In the US this is not the case, and probably never will be, but in order to get anywhere near the situation we have in the UK it will take time and certainly can't be done in one go.


But wasn't there a minority against gun control in the UK? They still managed to confiscate (or handed in) most of the guns when the laws got stricter, admittedly before my time but I don't believe the police were ever worried about being "out gunned". The only difference I see with the US is a lot of people hold onto them religiously.

However simply because it may be more difficult to do, isn't a reason when it comes to public safety, surely? Look how much effort goes into terrorist control in the US yet there have been way more mass murder - gun crime (let alone smaller gun crimes) in the last decade. Surely some resources could be spared to properly get rid of gun crime in the US.

_________________
Lewis Hamilton Fan's Mood Race by Race: :( 8) 8) 8) 8) :evil: :-(( :) :D :proud: ;) x( 8) 8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 2:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 12:35 pm
Posts: 1075
so far we haven't witnessed yet any of those pro-gun guys stopping any mass shooting by taking out their own guns and killing a murderer.
it is always either police or suicide at the end.

don't get me wrong - I am not pro-ban person. There is probably no country in the world that has a complete ban on any guns. There will be always permission for hunters, at least.

I support the approach many European countries have: regulation and control. Like here in UK, for example.
Best evidence that this way works: people have guns, but in lesser quantities, of limited varieties (for sport and hunting, no handguns, no semi-automatic guns), they can't carry them everywhere (police will stop you), and the best one - mass shootings happen may be once in decade and there are less victims. Much, much less victims of the gun crimes.
and if it difficult to get it legally, as the result it is more difficult to get it illegally. So if nutcase wants to buy one on black market, there is a good chance he will be caught by police before he actually contacts proper gun dealers.

_________________
We are worse than animals, we hunger for the kill
We put our faith in maniacs the triumph of the will
We kill for money, wealth and lust, for this we should be damned
We are disease upon the world, brotherhood of man


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 2:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 12:11 pm
Posts: 3029
You guys talking about how surely just because it will be difficult doesn't mean you shouldn't do something forget how lazy we are over here ;) Truthfully, that's what its all about. Lazy in personal responsibility, lazy in legislating. Most gun owners don't want the right to keep their gun for sport, they want to be able to protect their home with it. A gun is just about the laziest way possible to protect one's home. Proper security, common sense safety practices and responsibility, fostering a sense of community with your neighbors, etc are all ways to avoid ever NEEDING a gun to stop a home intruder...but they require more time and work.

Personally, I'd want to do everything possible to avoid having a home invasion occur in the first place, and if it DID happen, I would hand over whatever the bad guy wants, or run, or hide, because I know if I had a weapon at my disposal I'd probably end up nervously dropping it or worse firing it errantly and killing myself or my family, or the bad guy would just punch me in the face when I hesitate to fire it, take it from me, and shoot me with it instead. Gun owners think they're all macho badasses and they're well trained - put them in a life or death situation, or a situation where they must think about TAKING a life - and most of them wouldn't be so strong and steadfast, which results in accidents and other unintended consequences.

I've never been more happy with my decision to vote for someone than I am with my second Obama vote. This is the first real opportunity to make changes on this issue, and imagine if Romney were about to take over? That would be the end of it.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 7:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 1:37 pm
Posts: 1737
Enter the six year old kid from Utah who turned up at school today with a gun so he could 'keep himself safe'. Or the four year old who shot himself in the head or the five year old who shot herself in the leg on Tuesday night playing at home. More guns is definitely the answer.....

_________________
If...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 7:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 6:41 pm
Posts: 6587
PzR Slim wrote:
Enter the six year old kid from Utah who turned up at school today with a gun so he could 'keep himself safe'. Or the four year old who shot himself in the head or the five year old who shot herself in the leg on Tuesday night playing at home. More guns is definitely the answer.....


Stupid question but who gave the kids the guns?

Stupid question 2. Are the majority of gun owners stupid enough to leave guns in reach of their kids?

To me the majority of legal owners are getting tarred with the same brush as a few donkey opening owners, illegal owners and crackpots.

Sure lets ban fire extinguishers. Nut jobs can turn them into flame throwers.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/flame ... 87302.html

_________________
Disclaimer: The above post maybe tongue in cheek.

"I thought I'd get your theories, mock them, then embrace my own. The usual."


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group