Jump to content
Eternal Lands Official Forums
Sign in to follow this  
sparhawk

School Shooting

Recommended Posts

but what use is pride to a dead man? better to be alive and lose your dignity than to be dead i think :D

 

Quite the opposite for me.

 

And what if it's a murderer breaking in the house instead of a robber, Mireille? You think his main goal is money and not to see your guts spilled?

Edited by Daxon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with the subservient attitude in a crime ("give them whatever they want") is that many times, people are not looking to take possessions - some people honestly hunt for blood. When it comes down to it then, it's your blood vs. theirs - so let's make the murder easier for them?

 

Granted, on the other hand, there's the cases where people resist in what should have been a robbery, and instead caused their own injury/death - but how do you know what's what, and when to fight or not?

 

Personally, my opinion is that you must be ready to defend yourself at a moment's notice. It's often what we don't plan for that kills us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And what if it's a murderer breaking in the house instead of a robber, Mireille? You think his main goal is money and not to see your guts spilled?

 

Murders "for fun" are extremely rare in my country. Rare enough for me to support the general ban on firearms.

Edited by Mireille

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And what if it's a murderer breaking in the house instead of a robber, Mireille? You think his main goal is money and not to see your guts spilled?

 

Murders "for fun" are extremely rare in my country. Rare enough for me to support the general ban on firearms.

 

Unfortunately for America, a country with a large gap between the meager and the rich, we do have to worry about armed robberies and 'murders for fun.' Some of our famous 'killers for fun':

 

Ted Bundy

Jeffrey Dahmer (I believe he's the perfect vision of how a cruel society can corrupt someone)

'The Zodiac Killer'

John Allen Muhammad

BTK

 

Maybe for your country, you would prefer not to have a means of effectively protecting yourself, but we do.

We have a far greater need for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Maybe for your country, you would prefer not to have a means of effectively protecting yourself, but we do.

We have a far greater need for it.

 

I'm aware of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately for America, a country with a large gap between the meager and the rich, we do have to worry about armed robberies and 'murders for fun.' Some of our famous 'killers for fun':

 

Ted Bundy

Jeffrey Dahmer (I believe he's the perfect vision of how a cruel society can corrupt someone)

'The Zodiac Killer'

John Allen Muhammad

BTK

 

You forgot the most prolific of them--the Green River Killer. I think he killed about 40-60 (I can't remember the exact number) women over about 20-30 years.

 

It's too bad humans have a need to hurt each other. It will never be solved, no matter how good our solutions are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dax, you missed "Son of Sam" too, I think.

It's too bad humans have a need to hurt each other. It will never be solved, no matter how good our solutions are.

honestly, it looks like Tanyia has said exactly what I wanted to. If we work at that, the number of guns, or knives, or whatever weapons you can think of won't matter anymore.

 

If people want to hurt people, the weapon they choose matters little. If people no longer care to hurt people, the availability of a weapon means nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't NEED guns to kill someone. Something is harmless as the keyboad i'm suing coulf theoretically be used someway

It shouldn't be illegal to own guns, in any country. Just to use them without cause

Think about it, illegal or not the ones who wanna use them for evil will get them. They are already contemplating breaking the law

If a guy broke in to my house now, and tried to rob me, I should be able to take up a weapon and rid the world of another criminal. Of course herein merry old england it'd mean ME getting arrested/and or sued

 

As long as the law works the way it does, it needn't exist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Dax, you missed "Son of Sam" too, I think."

 

No, I didn't forget him. I just simply didn't post him. I did forget the Green River Killer.

 

 

"If people want to hurt people, the weapon they choose matters little. If people no longer care to hurt people, the availability of a weapon means nothing."

 

Perfectly said.

 

If you're aware of this Mireille, you'd know that if you ban firearms, people will use knives (and guns will still be used!). Then you'll end up having to ban knives. Next comes fireworks. Then beachballs. Then slices of ham. Anything that can hurt a person would have to be banned (and since just about anything can be used against someone, it's a pointless fight).

 

There are several ways to kill a person. It just seems that cutting someone's throat or shooting them in the back of the head is a personal preference, so they get the worst spotlight.

Edited by Daxon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

because people can kill others, they will regrdless of how it's done? hardly.

okay for an example... you know there's a $100 bill (or whatever locally) you can legally have inside a building. there are two ways in. the front door, which is wide open, and the sewer system. we all know which people would chose

now say the door is taken away (not just locked; there's no way to use it)... would you still go to get the money considering the sewerage you have to wade through?

and no, it is a good analogy. having to get in close and kill someone in hand-to-hand is more dangerous, more work, and far more traumatic than pulling a trigger from a distance

 

back to the analogy... a few people (and very few... kinda like those who can't help but kill vs all those who will if it's easy enough) will go through the sewers... most people won't

 

those who think civilians have a decent reason to have automatic weapons may as well suggest that all citizens of a country be given access to fire nuclear weapons... it's just as stupid; they have no good reason for such access

 

and then there's the case of all the accidental and ''accidental'' firearms discharges...

 

and don't get me wrong, I enjoy target shooting... but you only need a non-automatic rifle for that... the military can justify using automatic weapons. no-one else can (in some cases the police special forces can as well... most cops will only have semi-automatic weapons)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're aware of this Mireille, you'd know that if you ban firearms, people will use knives (and guns will still be used!). Then you'll end up having to ban knives. Next comes fireworks. Then beachballs. Then slices of ham. Anything that can hurt a person would have to be banned (and since just about anything can be used against someone, it's a pointless fight).

 

Fireworks are used for fun, kitchen knives are used, well, in the kitchen, piano strings are designed to make sounds and so on and so on. You can kill (or harm) people with anything, but guns have no other purpose than wounding or killing people, which makes their case different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ttlanhil - your analogy proves one thing - if people want something bad enough, they WILL get it.

 

A.) Up the prize a bit here, to be fair. $100 is a bit arbitrary - and a theory states that you can convince anyone to do anything, if you can figure out their price.

 

B.) Now make it a multitude of possible entrances. So you bolt the door to stop them - fine, but say there's a window open they could get to. So you close that window. There's the sewer, so you close off the pipes. But now they're smacking themself in the wall so as to try and tear it down... Or, how about someone already in there with you grabs the money, and takes it out to them?

 

I'm not gonna say "common people" should have automatic weapons - indeed, what real purpose does a person have in one besides harm? HOWEVER (the issue anti-gun people do not address), the fact remains that laws only regulate the law-abiders, NOT the criminals.

 

For an appropriate analogy, try a watergun fight. Take a water pistol for yourself, and try to charge against someone with one of the more powerful supersoakers. Or, for the total anti-gun people, not just the gun control sect - go unarmed against a supersoaker.

 

Honestly, if a weapon exists, someone WILL try to obtain and use it. There is one thing to change that - and it has nothing to do with laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ttlanhil - your analogy proves one thing - if people want something bad enough, they WILL get it.

right. and if you go from 100 people who would do something easy to get it to 1 person who will do something hard(the person who wants it bad enough), the overall situation has changed a lot

A.) Up the prize a bit here, to be fair. $100 is a bit arbitrary - and a theory states that you can convince anyone to do anything, if you can figure out their price.

 

B.) Now make it a multitude of possible entrances. So you bolt the door to stop them - fine, but say there's a window open they could get to. So you close that window. There's the sewer, so you close off the pipes. But now they're smacking themself in the wall so as to try and tear it down... Or, how about someone already in there with you grabs the money, and takes it out to them?

sure, the $100 is less than you might get from robbing someone at gunpoint(at home or not). then again, maybe not. at the same time, the risks/downsides (having to walk through the sewers) is also less. in a robbery, they may fight back, or you may end up arrested. if you have gumboots on when going through sewers, you'll need a shower after and will have a legal $100

I'm not gonna say "common people" should have automatic weapons - indeed, what real purpose does a person have in one besides harm? HOWEVER (the issue anti-gun people do not address), the fact remains that laws only regulate the law-abiders, NOT the criminals.

no, it regulates the firearms. and that's a critical point. if the country has 1k automatic weapons, owned 90% by military and 10% by special tactics police, how many will become the property of criminals?

compare that to another 9k owned by private citizens who legally have the weapons. how hard is it then for criminals to get a hold of one?

 

I reckon the vast majority of firearms were originally legally purchased. if it's illegally owned, then somewhere after it as made it was sold/stolen illegally

Honestly, if a weapon exists, someone WILL try to obtain and use it. There is one thing to change that - and it has nothing to do with laws.

if there are a thousand weapons, owned by those who are well trained and know how to properly store and secure them, versus ten thousand mostly owned by people who don't have the same training(around here, if you have a bolt-action rifle, you're legally required to have the rifle and the bolt in seperate secured places. locked cabinets are an example. do you think everyone will do that?), what are the chances one goes missing?

it's not about if said weapon exists. it's about how likely someone nasty can get one. if only the people with good reason have them, and there's only a few of them, it's far harder for criminals to get (not only that, but the black-market price will go way up, and they're no longer viable for the common robbery situation)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You can kill (or harm) people with anything, but guns have no other purpose than wounding or killing people, which makes their case different.

 

I understood your meaning, but this statement was too broad and was therefore inaccurate.

 

Some guns are designed to shoot flares into the air, start races, secure wood to concrete, protect livestock from predators, or kill food for human consumption. And that doesn't even get into the recreational uses like target shooting.

 

I have however found little (what I would call) legitimate use for Assault riffles, hand grenades or tanks when owned by private citizens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then people will use nail guns. Or throw kitchen knives. Just because something has other uses doesn't excuse it from being an assault weapon, Mireille.

 

Car batteries. Use acid from it and burn someone to death within a matter of seconds.

 

Wrenches. Good hard blunt hit to the head. If the victim doesn't die, chances are they'll have irreparable brain damage.

 

Just two dangerous things to consider.

 

Because of someone not wanting to go hand-to-hand to kill somebody isn't entirely accurate. A robber will do anything if he is startled and scared by the person in a home. Then he may blindly charge and stab them mercilessly.

 

Please, do ban firearms. I'll be one of the startled ones when I read a headline 'Man killed in robbery by being impaled through the neck with a pen." <_<

Edited by Daxon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so it reducing the killings by 10 or 50 or whatever % doesn't make it worth while? it'd have to do away with violence entirely for it to be worth it? please.

 

there will likely always be people able to kill other people. it's not about stopping all killings, it's about reducing them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quick snapshot of US history:

 

During the creation of the Constitution of the United States of America and our Declaration of Independence for that matter, the creators were profoundly aware that government itself was dangerous. That it is within nature of government to is strip away the rights from its citizens. To limit this new governments ability to subjugate us, they added a few safeguards. One of those was how carefully and clearly they stated that this government was to serve the people and not the other way around.

 

Another was the right to keep arms. This right was not curtailed, so that if the need came we could exercise our right to overthrow our own tyrannical government.

 

To this day our armed forces do not take an oath to Congress, or the President, but rather to the documents that ensure that basic freedoms remain the citizen's and not the government's.

 

 

 

This is why you see such reluctance to many forms of gun control in the US. Once our government starts making rules regarding it, they will keep making rules until no one has the ability to stand against their government if the need arises.

 

Those of us who still feel the need to hold onto these rights, would rather see greater penalties for misuse than removing rights to ownership.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nice theory... pity it won't work. do you really think there's much chance of enough citizens of the US being ready to put their lives on the line over what the govt does that this would happen? (personal freedom was also supposed to be a basic right, aint it? yet freedoms are getting eroded... many in the name of security because of terrorism... though to paraphrase(can't be bothered getting the right words)... benjamin franklin, i think it was... "those who would give up freedom for security deserve neither")

 

once upon a time that reason to be able to have firearms may have had some merit. then again, back when that happened, did they have automatic weapons? so why not limit civilians to non-automatic weapons, and only after they've proven they're responsible enough to have one? (know how to properly and securely store it, that sort of thing)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I might personally support the limitation to non-automatic weapons... and I definitely would agree that owners of weapons secure them and know their proper handling procedures. I'm not sure that I would want the government to be the ones doing it (government has proved its incompetence too often).

 

I think that you will find that most people who hold the ability to bare arms as important are not big on the recent changes in our law enforcements powers after 9/11 (at least that is my experience).

 

I don't have a firearm, but I would fight against our government if it became tyrannical (I don't believe that it has.), even if it meant my life.

 

 

Still I feel that we are missing the major issue here. Why are some young people acting out with violence in ways that they didn't used to? And what can be done to heal the sick children out there before they take action?

 

I don't know any children who have done this, but it wouldn't suprise me to find out that they didn't feel loved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are some young people acting out with violence in ways that they didn't used to?

sure, I'll stir some more :) in part because of all the 'cool' people who are violent and use guns for the wrong things (usually semi-automatic pistols and automatic rifles). see movies/tv, and some poor excuses for 'musicians' for where this is getting really bad

 

was that sufficiently incendiary? ^_^

Edited by ttlanhil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are some young people acting out with violence in ways that they didn't used to?

sure, I'll stir some more :) in part because of all the 'cool' people who are violent and use guns for the wrong things (usually semi-automatic pistols and automatic rifles). see movies/tv, and some poor excuses for 'musicians' for where this is getting really bad

 

was that sufficiently incendiary? ^_^

 

You cant blame it all on the idols of children. Some can of course. Its like a Ford ad. If someone sees a ford ad do they buy a ford?No but some do, it all depends on the person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in part because of all the 'cool' people who are violent and

You cant blame it all on the idols of children. Some can of course. Its like a Ford ad. If someone sees a ford ad do they buy a ford?No but some do, it all depends on the person.

blame it all? no. but the exposure to violence as a cool thing, as a long-term effect, is probably a reasonable sized factor(as in, there's more to it. this is one part) in the increase in violence

Edited by ttlanhil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×