In case you aren't aware, there was a horrific scene at an Amish school in Pennsylvania where a guy went in armed to the teeth and then some, and killed 5 young girls ages 7 to 13.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061003/ap_on_re_us/amish_school_shooting
I was reading some of the points of discussion about this, and one person simply said -
We need stricter gun laws. <EOM>
Someone else replied with this - "How would more laws stop criminals, since criminals do not purchase there guns from a guns store, they buy them on the street from other criminals. In my NRA member opinion, I have no problem with a 24 hour waiting period and background check, but any law that prevents me from owning will not stand."
Sweet, ain't he?
They say this bastard who killed those 5 young girls didn't have a criminal record and bought his weapons legally. So... going according to the above guy's comment, I can't help but wonder what waiting 24 hours and submitting to a background check would have done for these kids.
Stricter guns laws? Outlaw guns completely? What? In your opinion, what's the answer here?
Thread
Posts in chronological order
George Harrison said something like : The world would be a better place if everyone who had a gun went and shot themselves.
It's like this..... I know a couple of people who own guns (in rural areas) and who have used 'em, and I certainly don't wish death on them. But - ol' George was pretty much right on the money with that statement. A little like that other one 'there will be world peace when all the humans are dead'.
There were massacres before guns were invented; but you know, that's got nothing to do with gun violence. The fact is, it's too fucking easy to get a gun. And the *kind* of guns they continue to manufacture, and to sell.... is just ridiculous. YOU DO NOT NEED THAT KIND OF FIREPOWER, for recreation, for hunting, or self defence. Isn't it enough to just put a really freakin' strong tranquiliser in the bullet?
It is absolutely foolish behaviour - and the worst proponents are those ones that live in bunkers and fly Confederacy flags... I think the bunker busters should be aimed at THESE guys instead.
Nah, live and let live.... I'm just absolutely sick to death of hearing that jackasses are robbing other people of their lives when they obviously haven't got a clue how to run their own. Couldn't they skip the senseless murder bit, and go straight to the suicide? It's a much nicer way to end things.
I did wonder actually - since it's a frugal Amish town, who phoned for help? My brother reminded me they only lived a mile out of town, so I suppose it was a fortunate case where they could just 'run' for help.
Jesus... fuck you, rifle association.
It's like this..... I know a couple of people who own guns (in rural areas) and who have used 'em, and I certainly don't wish death on them. But - ol' George was pretty much right on the money with that statement. A little like that other one 'there will be world peace when all the humans are dead'.
There were massacres before guns were invented; but you know, that's got nothing to do with gun violence. The fact is, it's too fucking easy to get a gun. And the *kind* of guns they continue to manufacture, and to sell.... is just ridiculous. YOU DO NOT NEED THAT KIND OF FIREPOWER, for recreation, for hunting, or self defence. Isn't it enough to just put a really freakin' strong tranquiliser in the bullet?
It is absolutely foolish behaviour - and the worst proponents are those ones that live in bunkers and fly Confederacy flags... I think the bunker busters should be aimed at THESE guys instead.
Nah, live and let live.... I'm just absolutely sick to death of hearing that jackasses are robbing other people of their lives when they obviously haven't got a clue how to run their own. Couldn't they skip the senseless murder bit, and go straight to the suicide? It's a much nicer way to end things.
I did wonder actually - since it's a frugal Amish town, who phoned for help? My brother reminded me they only lived a mile out of town, so I suppose it was a fortunate case where they could just 'run' for help.
Jesus... fuck you, rifle association.
I don't know what the solution is, but each day I hear about more children being raped/molested/brutally murdered my heart grows heavier and heavier. It makes me sick to my stomach to think of what a horrific world we live in. It saddens me to see more and more that the most innocent of all, children, are made the targets of such heinous crimes.
I wish that these crimes were merely a fad and that these "trends" would fade out quickly. Unfortunately, I don't think murderers of innocent children or sexual predators of innocent children are going to go away anytime soon.
I wish that these crimes were merely a fad and that these "trends" would fade out quickly. Unfortunately, I don't think murderers of innocent children or sexual predators of innocent children are going to go away anytime soon.
I'm not so sure that further restricting guns would have avoided this mans' venting. It's been reported that this was the result of a twenty year old gruge against girls stemming from a molestation incident of some sort. That would mean that the man was twelve y.o. or so, but nontheless. If the man wanted to take out a handfull of girls without a gun, he could have easily driven to Intercourse and mowed down a group of girls on a school trip with his pickup.
Except in very rare conditions, Amish schools are located within close proximity of a phone. Between English neighbors, businesses, or a passing motorist, it would take just a few minutes for a 911 call to be made. I would expect to hear of forthcoming legislation concerning the installation of an emergency phone in every school. I think the Amish religious leaders have enough sence to see the benifit of that kind of link to the outside.
Just for reference, I have lived near Amish country for my entire life. I now pass right through when driving between school and home. These events are quite shocking to me.
Mike
Except in very rare conditions, Amish schools are located within close proximity of a phone. Between English neighbors, businesses, or a passing motorist, it would take just a few minutes for a 911 call to be made. I would expect to hear of forthcoming legislation concerning the installation of an emergency phone in every school. I think the Amish religious leaders have enough sence to see the benifit of that kind of link to the outside.
Just for reference, I have lived near Amish country for my entire life. I now pass right through when driving between school and home. These events are quite shocking to me.
Mike
In our free liberal state, citizens should be granted full negative freedoms, and therefore government can only restrict actions which infringe upon the rights of others. Like gay marriage, owning a gun restricts the rights of no one.
It is not the government's responsibility to maximize safety at the expense of our freedoms. For instance, detaining suspected terrorists as prisoners at Guatanamo Bay without having charged them will likely marginally increase our security, however, I think most of you will agree that it is morally wrong to do that at the expense of our freedom.
Likewise, illegalizing automobile transportation would decrease the death toll considerably, however, we have the freedom to drive and be driven as it does not infringe upon the rights of anybody else.
Therefore, severe restrictions on guns does not make sense for the following reasons: (1) Only a small, small minority of gun owners have used their guns illegally to infringe upon the rights of others. (2) Casualties resulting from firearms is minimal at best, so much so that this should really be a non-issue.
A note on the severity of firepower: a derringer could cause the above mentioned tragedy just as an M16 could. In fact, so could a baseball bat or a knife. The only really important factor is the intent to do harm.
It is not the government's responsibility to maximize safety at the expense of our freedoms. For instance, detaining suspected terrorists as prisoners at Guatanamo Bay without having charged them will likely marginally increase our security, however, I think most of you will agree that it is morally wrong to do that at the expense of our freedom.
Likewise, illegalizing automobile transportation would decrease the death toll considerably, however, we have the freedom to drive and be driven as it does not infringe upon the rights of anybody else.
Therefore, severe restrictions on guns does not make sense for the following reasons: (1) Only a small, small minority of gun owners have used their guns illegally to infringe upon the rights of others. (2) Casualties resulting from firearms is minimal at best, so much so that this should really be a non-issue.
A note on the severity of firepower: a derringer could cause the above mentioned tragedy just as an M16 could. In fact, so could a baseball bat or a knife. The only really important factor is the intent to do harm.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME]In our free liberal state, citizens should be granted full negative freedoms, and therefore government can only restrict actions which infringe upon the rights of others. Like gay marriage, owning a gun restricts the rights of no one.
It is not the government's responsibility to maximize safety at the expense of our freedoms. For instance, detaining suspected terrorists as prisoners at Guatanamo Bay without having charged them will likely marginally increase our security, however, I think most of you will agree that it is morally wrong to do that at the expense of our freedom.
Likewise, illegalizing automobile transportation would decrease the death toll considerably, however, we have the freedom to drive and be driven as it does not infringe upon the rights of anybody else.
Therefore, severe restrictions on guns does not make sense for the following reasons: (1) Only a small, small minority of gun owners have used their guns illegally to infringe upon the rights of others. (2) Casualties resulting from firearms is minimal at best, so much so that this should really be a non-issue.
A note on the severity of firepower: a derringer could cause the above mentioned tragedy just as an M16 could. In fact, so could a baseball bat or a knife. The only really important factor is the intent to do harm.[/QUOTE]
I can't agree with you Musicman... I think your post is highly ignorant. The figures tell us that legalizing firearms causes thousands of deaths. In the US, 38.000 people die of murder, accidents or suicide with guns while 'only' a few thousand die of firearm accidents in Europe. And is Europe less liberal? I dare to say that we are even more liberal than the US.
You compare the use of firearms with driving cars. Well, we all know that some cars are important for the current economy. People need to be mobile. But what are the arguments for owning guns? I agree that a hunter should be able to have one, same as police officers. But people like you and me? You're probably going to say "self defence"... but realise that you need a gun for self defence, because your neighbour has one as well.
To come back to the question asked in the topic title. "Could better gun laws have prevented this?"... It's impossible to prevent these kind of idiots to do such terrible things. But you can make things harder for those idiots. So in the end I'm sure you save lives with it.
It is not the government's responsibility to maximize safety at the expense of our freedoms. For instance, detaining suspected terrorists as prisoners at Guatanamo Bay without having charged them will likely marginally increase our security, however, I think most of you will agree that it is morally wrong to do that at the expense of our freedom.
Likewise, illegalizing automobile transportation would decrease the death toll considerably, however, we have the freedom to drive and be driven as it does not infringe upon the rights of anybody else.
Therefore, severe restrictions on guns does not make sense for the following reasons: (1) Only a small, small minority of gun owners have used their guns illegally to infringe upon the rights of others. (2) Casualties resulting from firearms is minimal at best, so much so that this should really be a non-issue.
A note on the severity of firepower: a derringer could cause the above mentioned tragedy just as an M16 could. In fact, so could a baseball bat or a knife. The only really important factor is the intent to do harm.[/QUOTE]
I can't agree with you Musicman... I think your post is highly ignorant. The figures tell us that legalizing firearms causes thousands of deaths. In the US, 38.000 people die of murder, accidents or suicide with guns while 'only' a few thousand die of firearm accidents in Europe. And is Europe less liberal? I dare to say that we are even more liberal than the US.
You compare the use of firearms with driving cars. Well, we all know that some cars are important for the current economy. People need to be mobile. But what are the arguments for owning guns? I agree that a hunter should be able to have one, same as police officers. But people like you and me? You're probably going to say "self defence"... but realise that you need a gun for self defence, because your neighbour has one as well.
To come back to the question asked in the topic title. "Could better gun laws have prevented this?"... It's impossible to prevent these kind of idiots to do such terrible things. But you can make things harder for those idiots. So in the end I'm sure you save lives with it.
Watch Bowling for Columbine.
Can you explain why?
Lol, good one Burak! :D
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=#CC0066 face="Bradley Hand ITC"> The Mir@cle </font> wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Can you explain why?[/QUOTE]
It explains that there are countries where they also have legalized weapons (and easily available weapons) where they don't have like 2000 casualties by guns every year, and where they don't have shootings at school
It explains that there are countries where they also have legalized weapons (and easily available weapons) where they don't have like 2000 casualties by guns every year, and where they don't have shootings at school
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]FriedChicken<br><font size=1>The Almighty</font> wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=#CC0066 face="Bradley Hand ITC"> The Mir@cle </font> wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Can you explain why?[/QUOTE]
It explains that there are countries where they also have legalized weapons (and easily available weapons) where they don't have like 2000 casualties by guns every year, and where they don't have shootings at school[/QUOTE]
Well.. culture and history plays a big role as well. I mean, America has quite a violent history. Though I haven't seen the movie/documentary.. I guess I should do that.
It explains that there are countries where they also have legalized weapons (and easily available weapons) where they don't have like 2000 casualties by guns every year, and where they don't have shootings at school[/QUOTE]
Well.. culture and history plays a big role as well. I mean, America has quite a violent history. Though I haven't seen the movie/documentary.. I guess I should do that.
Do that The Miracle.
I think you will be surprised.
As for violent history
Germany - responsable for one of the largest genocides in history.
England/UK - held an empire at the point of a gun. watch Gandi for some of their graetest moments.
Violent history is no excuse or explanaition for this. The fact is that the US is the modern world country that counts the highest gun related deaths in a non war environment.
The reason ? In my opinion people in the US are used to shoot first ank ask questions later, and this is even suported by the actions of the US government (Iraq being the most recent example).
I think you will be surprised.
As for violent history
Germany - responsable for one of the largest genocides in history.
England/UK - held an empire at the point of a gun. watch Gandi for some of their graetest moments.
Violent history is no excuse or explanaition for this. The fact is that the US is the modern world country that counts the highest gun related deaths in a non war environment.
The reason ? In my opinion people in the US are used to shoot first ank ask questions later, and this is even suported by the actions of the US government (Iraq being the most recent example).
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]MDNA wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
In my opinion people in the US are used to shoot first ank ask questions later, and this is even suported by the actions of the US government (Iraq being the most recent example).[/QUOTE]
That's what I meant with culture.
In my opinion people in the US are used to shoot first ank ask questions later, and this is even suported by the actions of the US government (Iraq being the most recent example).[/QUOTE]
That's what I meant with culture.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]yamaha wrote: [/QUOTENAME] It's been reported that this was the result of a twenty year old gruge against girls stemming from a molestation incident of some sort. That would mean that the man was twelve y.o. or so, but nontheless. [/QUOTE]
Sad thing is, the twenty year old event that occurred was not him being molested but rather HIM molesting two young female family members.
His explanation for his current actions was that he'd had dreams recently, and the need to do it again was very strong. He went into that school with two tubes of KY lube, flex cuffs and 10" boards with I-bolts at the ends. You figure it out.
So in the end, he intended to kill them because... what? They tempted him? They MADE him do it? He couldn't live with himself and his thoughts so he tied up 10 young girls and shot them execution style? If he didn't have a gun and just plowed them down, it would have been anticlimactic for him. The guns gave him the courage. And he didn't have just one gun, he went in there prepared for a 'long siege'.
So, what's the point of owning a gun if not to kill a living thing?
Musicman - I understand your post and on the surface agree, but I cannot get the point or reason for the average person to own a gun. Why is that 'right' even still on the books, so to speak? It's an archaic right that no longer serves a legitimate purpose.
Sad thing is, the twenty year old event that occurred was not him being molested but rather HIM molesting two young female family members.
His explanation for his current actions was that he'd had dreams recently, and the need to do it again was very strong. He went into that school with two tubes of KY lube, flex cuffs and 10" boards with I-bolts at the ends. You figure it out.
So in the end, he intended to kill them because... what? They tempted him? They MADE him do it? He couldn't live with himself and his thoughts so he tied up 10 young girls and shot them execution style? If he didn't have a gun and just plowed them down, it would have been anticlimactic for him. The guns gave him the courage. And he didn't have just one gun, he went in there prepared for a 'long siege'.
So, what's the point of owning a gun if not to kill a living thing?
Musicman - I understand your post and on the surface agree, but I cannot get the point or reason for the average person to own a gun. Why is that 'right' even still on the books, so to speak? It's an archaic right that no longer serves a legitimate purpose.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]magicalfreddiemercury wrote: [/QUOTENAME] If he didn't have a gun and just plowed them down, it would have been anticlimactic for him. The guns gave him the courage. And he didn't have just one gun, he went in there prepared for a 'long siege'.
So, what's the point of owning a gun if not to kill a living thing?[/QUOTE]
Exactly... This is also why there are more suicides in the US. Killing yourself with a gun is easier than taking pills or jump in front of a train. It's fast, painless but also quite often impulsive.
That's why I stick with my point... I'm not sure if it would have prevented this case, but it will save many lives.
So, what's the point of owning a gun if not to kill a living thing?[/QUOTE]
Exactly... This is also why there are more suicides in the US. Killing yourself with a gun is easier than taking pills or jump in front of a train. It's fast, painless but also quite often impulsive.
That's why I stick with my point... I'm not sure if it would have prevented this case, but it will save many lives.