Police: Autistic teen With AK-47 Opened Fire

Post Reply New Topic

Bozewani wrote:

George Bush is too much of a moderate (and that’s being generous) to want a society like that. Nothing he has done or said indicates otherwise.
Just ask any real conservative.



Russia and Japan do have very strict gun laws because I’ve looked them up. However, guns are still legally obtainable with restrictions and a process to go through in order to procure and keep them. Even in the former Soviet Union there was legal but limited private firearm ownership. In both countries it’s easier to get permits for rifles and shotguns than handguns.
In Japan you could have the country awash in weapons and still have a low crime rate. It’s more a cultural thing for them than it is related to the legality of firearms. Russia is……… well…….. it’s Russia and it’s not going to change all that much regardless of the laws or who’s in power.

There’s more to crime than those where guns are used. Would you feel better being stabbed or beat to death instead? How about strangled?
Maybe it's just me but I think it would be much more gratifying to stove someones skull in with a 48 ounce ballpeen hammer than to shoot them.




Yeah, they do like their drink. Like I said above, Russia is Russia and I don’t see that changing very much.



A repeat of your first ill-founded statement on GWB. If he’s your idea of a typical conservative you’d crap your pants if you knew what my idea of conservativism is.

The incident with the kid and the AK was an unfortunate one but nothing can insure against further incidents like it. We cannot save everyone but we can save more lives by focusing our efforts on things that really cause unnecessary deaths than mere objects like guns.

Can't anyone come up with something to give some credit to the feeble anti-gun side of this argument?

This is too easy.

I'm glad people have guns. If the day comes where the government declares all high functioning autistics are dangerous people who do not belong in society, you may be glad that you, your family members or neighbors own guns. As a autistic adult and a Jew familiar with German history, I understand the need for well armed citizens. As someone who visited Atlanta and strolled through the bad neighborhoods, I also knew where to find a safe location very quickly. All I had to do was go into a small business and I would have been greeted by employees who were usually wearing guns on their belts. These employees had guns to protect themselves and their customers. I live in an area where it would take about 15 minutes for the police to reach me if I needed help. If someone was to try to break into my home, I would call my neighbor first and then dial 911. My neighbors are well armed, and I am glad.

I personally don't own firearms because I don't like them. However, I understand the intent of the founding fathers when they guaranteed that right to the people. They did so for several reasons. Some of these reasons include self defense against criminals, protection against foreign invasion, military service, and most of all, to give citizens the means of protecting themselves from tyranny and genocide. As much as I dislike guns, I am glad they are available. It is better to have a gun and not need it then to need a gun and not have one.

Even if guns and ammunition are completely and effectively banned, one would have to ban a bunch of other stuff to stop gun ownership. Decent quality gins can be made with a few hundred dollars worth of equipment. I know that one can manufacture a fully automatic weapon with a decent metal lathe and a welder. Gunpowder can be manufactured from simple and easily available substances. One can even manufacture a working firearm with about 8 dollars worth of materials.

Very well said!

Realize, though, that guns could never be effectively banned. Guns, including mine, will still be here where they belong.

Hell, I almost missed this!

slowmutant wrote:

Because cars are extremely dangerous, especially when found in Dad’s garage.

Let’s keep dads from owning cars. Think of the lives it would save.

Try harder slowmutant.

Next!

So this is the kind of garbage that is preached about us abroad. F--- the world news media and most of the human race including most NTs.

It's always bee a mean, vicious and dangerous world out there and if you want to continue living, you need to protect yourself and understand that there are many very bad people who want to harm, if not kill you.

If Jews, Gypsies and others had guns during WWII, the Nazis would have had a much more difficult time rounding people up. Part of the reason why America didn't fall to fascism was that people had guns en masse. Guns aren't the problem. It's people that are the problem and really it's the victim mentality. "Woe is me. I belong to group X. Therefore I'm a victim and society, community, etc. is my victimizer and for that reason and I can lash out against people and murder as many of them as possible."

Good book for the anti-gun people, "Inside the Minds of Mass Murders", by Katherine Ramsland. The victim mentality is the biggest reason for why mass murderers engage in these despicable acts compared to what anti-American bigoted morons think.

Would mass-murderes be as dangerous if they didn't have firearms? Could that Virginia Tech guy have killed all those kids if he'd had a slingshot or a a bunch of rocks to throw?

Guns don't kill people, that's right. People with guns kill people. Unfortunately for all of us, a gun doesn't have a conscience. It doesn't care who it shoots, or why.

A book about mass murderers isn't going to turn me into a firearm fetishist. If anything, it would only reinforce my position. I don't think I could ever empathize with a cold-blooded killer.

That's what Jim Jones' did with cool-aide, what female serial killers did with poisons in notorious cases, et al. http://www.crimelibrary.com

You'll see many killings done w/o guns.

Maybe, but that doesn't negate my point.

This is pretty blatant apologism.

Dox, Raptor, I have read through what both of you have posted here and appreciate what you had contributed here. Thank you.

Mass murders make up such a small percentage of murders that all the harping on them is completely out of proportion. The talking point of US murders is guns, but rednecks toting guns are not the actual cause. Regardless of ones moral stance on guns (although I am a libertarian, and I oppose the idea of "that which is not forbidden is compulsory" which seems to be taking root nowadays), the basic talking points are not a very good analysis of the problem.

Thank you for the kind words. Out of curiosity, did you come to this thread with a position on the issue, and if so, did reading some of our debating change your feelings? I'm just trying to combat the stereotype of the gun owner as an ignorant redneck, and crumple some fuzzy reasoning while I'm at it. Glad to hear that someone is getting something out of it.

See, this makes me scared that they will try and prevent people that suffer from such disorders from owning a gun. Sure, if it has been proved that individual person is violent to others and has had prior offences… then that person does not need a gun.

However I don’t want someone telling me I can’t obtain a gun simply because I have Aspergers.

If they do try and ban guns or do something equally stupid, the only ones that have them will be criminals. You think they will just go “Oh mmmmm gee…. guns are banned. Oh shucks.”

Now on the other hand I think there should be some precaution used. Such as locking up guns if you have small children in the house, or doing a background check to see if a person has been arrested/etc when buying certain weapons.

Still, I think every person, unless proved otherwise, should have a right to own a firearm. If I move out on my own I will make darn sure I have a gun to defend myself with.

If a person has a history of psychiatric problems, IMO they should be denied gun ownership. I'm out right there. I can understand why I might be a risk to others if I had access to a firearm. They should screen for psych histories as well as criminal records. Felony charges would be more of a concern, I think, than misdemeanours.

Gun ownership CAN be made safe, I think, but they must be aggressively regulated and legislated. Criminals will always have guns; that's why they're criminals. As long as guns exist, people will misuse them. There's no way around that.

I write this just to demonstrate how my views on this subject aren't completely polarized.

Slowmutant wrote:

Some of our most dangerous cities and states, violent crime wise, have those “aggressively regulated and legislated” gun laws you’re talking about. About all it serves to do is keep law abiding citizens from legally defending themselves.



So what’s the value added in gun laws, then? More of big brother looking over our shoulders and using up our tax dollars in the process?

Once again, look elsewhere for the answer to society’s problems than inanimate objects.

I knew you'd understand.

It might take me a few days to reply to this. I know what I want to say, but not how I want to write it yet. I like to take my time and think things out before I talk/type/etc.