what if you need to nail something through cement?Mekstizzle wrote:
Ban them. Use a hammer you lazy mofo's. That goes for guns for killing people too.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
what about nail guns?
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Shooting in Colorado at missionary school
...Stingray24 wrote:
Rumor is he was pissed off because he couldn't spend the night. Yes, I'm serious.
it's no rumor. According to CNN he wanted to force that church to let him stay there for the night. They couldn't let him, so he got out his gun and started shooting.
Did you watch bowling for columbine? Turns out Canada has more guns per capita than Americans do. What then? Could it be our violent nature?LaidBackNinja wrote:
What I've been trying to say for ever. QFT.PureFodder wrote:
Illegal sales of firearms on the streets, the gun being sold originally comes from...... a legal gun owner or a fraudulent firearms transaction that wouldn't be possible if there were no shops selling guns to the public in the first place. Legal gun owners are the reason that so many criminals in the US have guns, they provide both the supply and the reason for having one in the first place.
The DC stat is fairly pointless as there's absolutely nothing stopping anyone from taking a firearm from outside DC into DC making the law fairly idiotic.
The one point I will agree on is that the current situation regarding guns in America is stupid. The fact that so many people have guns means the illegal gun market is completely saturated with weapons. Increasing the number of legally owned guns wouldn't make any real difference as the criminals already have more than ample supply. Once you already have all the negative issues regarding criminal gun ownership then restricting the legal owners ability to defend themselves from the problem they've created doesn't make much sense.
BUT. The anti-gun groups are even more correct in that if you largely remove the guns in the first place you don;t have the problem to defend yourself against in the first place. It's better not to have a massacre in the first place than to stop it halfway through.
Also, the issue of proliferation you bring up of stolen guns being the cause of gun crime is more properly an issue of proper gun storage. Guns under matresses, on walls, on bookshelves, in drawers. This is a completely seperate issue than what I'm trying to say.
IN DC, when bad guys know that citizens do not carry a concealed weapon, they pounced. In precedence after precedence, it easily proven that where there's legal gun proliferation, there is actually LESS gun crime. Think about it for a second... You're a bad guy out to rape, pillage, plunder, and kill. You have a choice of cities to enter to do your work. Do you choose a city where the average homeowner does NOT own a handgun, or do you pick a city where the average homeowner may have a gun?
If you're a deranged youth who just lost your girlfriend and job and you feel like you need to shoot up and kill people to be heard and seen. DO you pick the mall where there's a sign saying "gun free zone" knowing there's no armed guards, and no CCW permit holders in there? Or do you pick a mall in Texas?
If ALL guns were removed from the earth, that'd be fine and dandy. But since reality suggests it would never happen, it never will. There will always be guns available to good and bad people in the USA. There will be ciites that permit handgun ownership and cities that don't allow it. I guarantee you that the cities without gun ownership will be hit the hardest with gun related crimes..especially armed robbery. There is no disputing that.
I Blame white people
Yeah they said it was the same guy. And it happens here in Colorado because all the fools here have no sense.Stingray24 wrote:
2 dead, 6 wounded in 2 separate shootings. Police are unsure of a link between the shooting in Arvada and Colorado Springs.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22168660/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22171718/
2 points, firstly it's flat out incorrect, the US has more firearms per capita than Canada, secondly the majority of Canadian firerarms are hunting rifles which are used to a much lesser extent in crime than handguns, which America has way more of than Canada.IRONCHEF wrote:
Did you watch bowling for columbine? Turns out Canada has more guns per capita than Americans do. What then? Could it be our violent nature?LaidBackNinja wrote:
What I've been trying to say for ever. QFT.PureFodder wrote:
Illegal sales of firearms on the streets, the gun being sold originally comes from...... a legal gun owner or a fraudulent firearms transaction that wouldn't be possible if there were no shops selling guns to the public in the first place. Legal gun owners are the reason that so many criminals in the US have guns, they provide both the supply and the reason for having one in the first place.
The DC stat is fairly pointless as there's absolutely nothing stopping anyone from taking a firearm from outside DC into DC making the law fairly idiotic.
The one point I will agree on is that the current situation regarding guns in America is stupid. The fact that so many people have guns means the illegal gun market is completely saturated with weapons. Increasing the number of legally owned guns wouldn't make any real difference as the criminals already have more than ample supply. Once you already have all the negative issues regarding criminal gun ownership then restricting the legal owners ability to defend themselves from the problem they've created doesn't make much sense.
BUT. The anti-gun groups are even more correct in that if you largely remove the guns in the first place you don;t have the problem to defend yourself against in the first place. It's better not to have a massacre in the first place than to stop it halfway through.
The issue is that lthe legal gun owners and legal gun sellers are the major source of illegal arms. You've got as much chance of convincing everyone in the country to properly secure their gun as you have of convincing the entire nation to just not be a criminal in the first place. Unless you can come up with a way of stopping people from being stupid idiots, then theft of guns will remain the main source illegal arms.IRONCHEF wrote:
Also, the issue of proliferation you bring up of stolen guns being the cause of gun crime is more properly an issue of proper gun storage. Guns under matresses, on walls, on bookshelves, in drawers. This is a completely seperate issue than what I'm trying to say.
The stats page you linked showed clearly that there was no correlation between the introduction of CCW permission and national gun crime rate, it's been following a steady downwards trend for ages. I'm not sure what your mental image of a criminal is, but the only criminals out to rape, pillage, plunder and kill are Mexican Bandidos in bad Western film. Your average American armed criminal is a pasty white boy, lives in the same city as they commit their crimes and is carrying a weapon to defend themselves against armed police/civillians/other criminals. They want money, they don't want to kill anyone.IRONCHEF wrote:
IN DC, when bad guys know that citizens do not carry a concealed weapon, they pounced. In precedence after precedence, it easily proven that where there's legal gun proliferation, there is actually LESS gun crime. Think about it for a second... You're a bad guy out to rape, pillage, plunder, and kill. You have a choice of cities to enter to do your work. Do you choose a city where the average homeowner does NOT own a handgun, or do you pick a city where the average homeowner may have a gun?
Or, if they didn't have access to a gun, they'd go listen to emo and cut themselves like good little depressed teenagers. As you read in my earlier post, I'm saying more CCWs is probably better than the current situation, but getting rid of the guns is even better than that. Which sounds better, a massacre that gets stopped halfway through or no massacre?IRONCHEF wrote:
If you're a deranged youth who just lost your girlfriend and job and you feel like you need to shoot up and kill people to be heard and seen. DO you pick the mall where there's a sign saying "gun free zone" knowing there's no armed guards, and no CCW permit holders in there? Or do you pick a mall in Texas?
Unless you did a slowly introduced country wide ban, which is possible and would vastly reduce the number of weapons in both criminal and civillian hands. Once the supply and main reason for criminals to be armed goes then the gun crimes would decline too.IRONCHEF wrote:
If ALL guns were removed from the earth, that'd be fine and dandy. But since reality suggests it would never happen, it never will. There will always be guns available to good and bad people in the USA. There will be ciites that permit handgun ownership and cities that don't allow it. I guarantee you that the cities without gun ownership will be hit the hardest with gun related crimes..especially armed robbery. There is no disputing that.
Ironchef, your argument holds up IN THE CASE OF ARMED PROFESSIONALS. The cases you poitned out are cases that could've been stopped by professionals who are trained in firearm use, so are not really covered by this debate.
We are talking about the ordinary man, who probably doesn't have that kind of professional training. Why he needs a gun does not make sense to mean. In the end, the facts speak for themselves in my opinion - few or no massacres in countries which have banned guns in comparison to U.S. figures.
We are talking about the ordinary man, who probably doesn't have that kind of professional training. Why he needs a gun does not make sense to mean. In the end, the facts speak for themselves in my opinion - few or no massacres in countries which have banned guns in comparison to U.S. figures.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
One does not have to be a “professional” or in law enforcement to be proficient with your weapon. Training by a weapons expert certainly would improve anyone’s skills, but the average person who regularly practices firing their weapon can be quite effective when confronted with a threat. If the woman who took down the gunman would not have been armed and they had waited for the “professionals” several hundred people would have been helpless. You guys are intelligent, surely you can acknowledge that her effective use of her weapon prevented a massacre. THAT is why the “average” person should be able to carry a weapon if they’ve passed the extensive background check and earned certification of proficiency with their weapon. The professionals come in after people are already dead and someone calls 911. I, for one, would rather have a way to defend myself and others instead of taking fire unarmed and being one of those dead before the police arrive.
Where all these gun thefts are occurring is what I’d like to know. I never, repeat never, see it reported in any of the news I listen to on the radio, see on tv, read on the net, or read in the national and local newspapers. I don’t know anyone that has had that occur, either. That leads me to believe it is mostly theft of weapons already illegally in criminal hands that are simply cycling through the criminal community.
Where all these gun thefts are occurring is what I’d like to know. I never, repeat never, see it reported in any of the news I listen to on the radio, see on tv, read on the net, or read in the national and local newspapers. I don’t know anyone that has had that occur, either. That leads me to believe it is mostly theft of weapons already illegally in criminal hands that are simply cycling through the criminal community.
Gun thefts were 300,000 per year about a decade ago when the Bureau of justice statistics last bother to update them they've been around the 200,000-300,000 mark for about 4 decades. I've hear it's around the 400,000 mark these days but I don't have proper evidence as the US govenment seemed to have gotten depressed about the whole thing and stopped reporting it. It doesn't make the news because it happens so often. (this is combined thefts from gun owners and gun sellers and they split the thefts about 50-50).Stingray24 wrote:
One does not have to be a “professional” or in law enforcement to be proficient with your weapon. Training by a weapons expert certainly would improve anyone’s skills, but the average person who regularly practices firing their weapon can be quite effective when confronted with a threat. If the woman who took down the gunman would not have been armed and they had waited for the “professionals” several hundred people would have been helpless. You guys are intelligent, surely you can acknowledge that her effective use of her weapon prevented a massacre. THAT is why the “average” person should be able to carry a weapon if they’ve passed the extensive background check and earned certification of proficiency with their weapon. The professionals come in after people are already dead and someone calls 911. I, for one, would rather have a way to defend myself and others instead of taking fire unarmed and being one of those dead before the police arrive.
Where all these gun thefts are occurring is what I’d like to know. I never, repeat never, see it reported in any of the news I listen to on the radio, see on tv, read on the net, or read in the national and local newspapers. I don’t know anyone that has had that occur, either. That leads me to believe it is mostly theft of weapons already illegally in criminal hands that are simply cycling through the criminal community.
I assume you're intelligent enough to admit that if the bloke in this case didn't have a gun the whole situation would have been a lot better.
OK we are having an argument that the US should ban and control the flow and use of Guns. Hell we can't control Drugs, Mexicans and morons behind the wheels of SUVs but some how we are going to stop the flow of guns into our country by passing a law. We have been trying to stop the flow of drugs for what - over 30 years. What has given any of you an indication we can stop the distribution of guns AND remove the ones that are already in circulation.
...much less considering how Americans value their firearms as a basic right (unlike drugs).
And for what it matters, I'm a better shot than my two friends who are 20 and 15 year veterans of a local PD force. And that was before I started doing action pistol events. now I can draw down on them, move, duck, go prone, run, and back up while shooting better than them.
Many people (gun enthusiasts) are much better trained than police who actually don't have very good training. People who get the CCWs are often those who've made the decision to carry along with improving their ability to use their concealed firearm often testing it with their preferred carry rounds at variable distances. I post with several message boards including xdtalk, the beretta forums, calguns, the mosin forums, and I'm in a gun club where it's a given that you don't get your CCW until you're proficient in using that firearm..at least as much as police are.
The people who suck at shooting are the badguys...especially the gay gangster dweebs who shoot like this. If I had to choose who to be in a shoot out with...
Anyway, as to my fellow debaters above...unfortunately I'm not as well versed as my peers..i'll just leave it at that...that and you're wrong. lol
This is the kind of guy who carries concealed weapons who would not let a crazed gunman shoot up a mall...
And here's me at 25 yards.
Many people (gun enthusiasts) are much better trained than police who actually don't have very good training. People who get the CCWs are often those who've made the decision to carry along with improving their ability to use their concealed firearm often testing it with their preferred carry rounds at variable distances. I post with several message boards including xdtalk, the beretta forums, calguns, the mosin forums, and I'm in a gun club where it's a given that you don't get your CCW until you're proficient in using that firearm..at least as much as police are.
The people who suck at shooting are the badguys...especially the gay gangster dweebs who shoot like this. If I had to choose who to be in a shoot out with...
Anyway, as to my fellow debaters above...unfortunately I'm not as well versed as my peers..i'll just leave it at that...that and you're wrong. lol
This is the kind of guy who carries concealed weapons who would not let a crazed gunman shoot up a mall...
And here's me at 25 yards.
Last edited by IRONCHEF (2007-12-11 12:54:44)
Not a fan of Blackberries, eh?
Frankly, I would trust some of my friends back home to shoot better than the majority of cadets here. I have several friends who can shoot nickel and dime sized groupings at 25 yards (with rifles), while I (the guy with military training) usually only shoot half-dollar sized groups...I need more practice!
CNN and FOX are now saying the security guard at New Life did not kill the shooter. She hit him multiple times and put him on the ground. Apparently, he shot himself before succumbing to his wounds. I guess that might be a burden off her shoulders.
Frankly, I would trust some of my friends back home to shoot better than the majority of cadets here. I have several friends who can shoot nickel and dime sized groupings at 25 yards (with rifles), while I (the guy with military training) usually only shoot half-dollar sized groups...I need more practice!
CNN and FOX are now saying the security guard at New Life did not kill the shooter. She hit him multiple times and put him on the ground. Apparently, he shot himself before succumbing to his wounds. I guess that might be a burden off her shoulders.
Last edited by RAIMIUS (2007-12-11 14:03:36)
Yeah, I just read that too, and that she was in a long corridor probably a good 100 yards long and the shoter was at one end, and she another, and people running all around throughout the hallway running from bullets. She took a knee behind an obstruction and waited for him to get closer, she said her prayer, felt accompanied from on high, then shot the dude several times.
Looks like he didn't want to survive the ordeal. It seems the missionary program rejected him a few years prior and he had been disgruntled ever since, sometimes sending threatening notes to the training school. Guess he wasn't christian missionary type material... Apparently he plagiarized much of Eric Harris' wording in his goodbye note he posted on a web page as well. Sounds like Colorado is the place to be if you're a homicidal youngster. Maybe Tom Tancredo should get back to work in his state before trying to be God's new president of the world.
Looks like he didn't want to survive the ordeal. It seems the missionary program rejected him a few years prior and he had been disgruntled ever since, sometimes sending threatening notes to the training school. Guess he wasn't christian missionary type material... Apparently he plagiarized much of Eric Harris' wording in his goodbye note he posted on a web page as well. Sounds like Colorado is the place to be if you're a homicidal youngster. Maybe Tom Tancredo should get back to work in his state before trying to be God's new president of the world.
But then if your average Joe can become procient with a gun then so can your "average" pissed off nerd off to commit a massacre.Stingray24 wrote:
One does not have to be a “professional” or in law enforcement to be proficient with your weapon. Training by a weapons expert certainly would improve anyone’s skills, but the average person who regularly practices firing their weapon can be quite effective when confronted with a threat.
Bit over dramatic, I'm not sure what gun he had but I'm guessing he didn't have enough bullets to kill "several hundred people". Besides if they are that many of them why don't they just rush him?Stingray24 wrote:
If the woman who took down the gunman would not have been armed and they had waited for the “professionals” several hundred people would have been helpless.
No she stopped a massacre in progress. An intelligent person would see that the only prevention would be to either stop the shooter's life from being shit or to stop him having a gun in the first place. We can argue about organised crime and gun all days but since the UK banned private gun ownership after Dunblane, we have had 0 massacres.Stingray24 wrote:
You guys are intelligent, surely you can acknowledge that her effective use of her weapon prevented a massacre.
But if everyone who bought a gun was trustworthy, you added a million saftey checks and somehow managed to ensure that no criminals or nutters got guns then there would be no need to defend yourself because all gun owners would be responsible. So you're basically getting a gun in case someone else who can get a gun just as easily goes a bit mental, can you not see it's easier just to allow no one to have guns?Stingray24 wrote:
THAT is why the “average” person should be able to carry a weapon if they’ve passed the extensive background check and earned certification of proficiency with their weapon.
Only on this massacre type of situation which don't happen in countries with strict gun control.Stingray24 wrote:
The professionals come in after people are already dead and someone calls 911. I, for one, would rather have a way to defend myself and others instead of taking fire unarmed and being one of those dead before the police arrive.
I don't here about muggings on my local news either but that doesn't mean they don't happen. Moreover it means it happens so often that it's not interesting anymore. Also your last sentence is a bit desperate, you seem to be suggesting that criminals just find their guns or magic them out of thin air instead of the obvious source which is stolen leagl guns.Stingray24 wrote:
Where all these gun thefts are occurring is what I’d like to know. I never, repeat never, see it reported in any of the news I listen to on the radio, see on tv, read on the net, or read in the national and local newspapers. I don’t know anyone that has had that occur, either. That leads me to believe it is mostly theft of weapons already illegally in criminal hands that are simply cycling through the criminal community.
Massacre's like this don't happen in countries with strict gun control, eh? I can't even begin to tell you how backwards that statement is. I fear that even showing you gobs of proof wouldn't change your opinion, so I'll leave it at "lolz."
Uh, yeah. Anyone can learn how to handle a gun. You don't even need a real gun to learn the basics.=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:
But then if your average Joe can become procient with a gun then so can your "average" pissed off nerd off to commit a massacre.Stingray24 wrote:
One does not have to be a “professional” or in law enforcement to be proficient with your weapon. Training by a weapons expert certainly would improve anyone’s skills, but the average person who regularly practices firing their weapon can be quite effective when confronted with a threat.
Reports indicate that he had several hundred rounds for 4 different weapons.=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:
Bit over dramatic, I'm not sure what gun he had but I'm guessing he didn't have enough bullets to kill "several hundred people". Besides if they are that many of them why don't they just rush him?Stingray24 wrote:
If the woman who took down the gunman would not have been armed and they had waited for the “professionals” several hundred people would have been helpless.
Group fear is powerful. How often do you see unarmed people rushing their attackers? The instinct to hide in the corner is usually more powerful than the thought of risking everything to rush the shooter.
...still plenty of violent crime.=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:
No she stopped a massacre in progress. An intelligent person would see that the only prevention would be to either stop the shooter's life from being shit or to stop him having a gun in the first place. We can argue about organised crime and gun all days but since the UK banned private gun ownership after Dunblane, we have had 0 massacres.Stingray24 wrote:
You guys are intelligent, surely you can acknowledge that her effective use of her weapon prevented a massacre.
In theory, yes. However, how many hardened criminals/psychos will just give up their guns? You could probably count them on one hand. You are also forgetting about when the attacker uses some other weapon. I would carry if I thought some BG with a knife, baseball bat, chain, etc. was a threat. Guns are not the only weapon used by attackers and victims. They are usually the most effective.=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:
But if everyone who bought a gun was trustworthy, you added a million saftey checks and somehow managed to ensure that no criminals or nutters got guns then there would be no need to defend yourself because all gun owners would be responsible. So you're basically getting a gun in case someone else who can get a gun just as easily goes a bit mental, can you not see it's easier just to allow no one to have guns?Stingray24 wrote:
THAT is why the “average” person should be able to carry a weapon if they’ve passed the extensive background check and earned certification of proficiency with their weapon.
BZZZ..try again. The police are not omnipresent. The only way police can act is when they see something or someone calls 911. That is why smart bank robbers act within 2-3 minutes. They know, statistically, they can leave before the police get there. If you are the victim of any kind of violence, how safe do you feel knowing that help is mere minutes away?=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:
Only on this massacre type of situation which don't happen in countries with strict gun control.Stingray24 wrote:
The professionals come in after people are already dead and someone calls 911. I, for one, would rather have a way to defend myself and others instead of taking fire unarmed and being one of those dead before the police arrive.
Guns do circulate amongst criminals. Ever heard of the black market? It is where many criminals get their weapons.=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:
I don't here about muggings on my local news either but that doesn't mean they don't happen. Moreover it means it happens so often that it's not interesting anymore. Also your last sentence is a bit desperate, you seem to be suggesting that criminals just find their guns or magic them out of thin air instead of the obvious source which is stolen leagl guns.Stingray24 wrote:
Where all these gun thefts are occurring is what I’d like to know. I never, repeat never, see it reported in any of the news I listen to on the radio, see on tv, read on the net, or read in the national and local newspapers. I don’t know anyone that has had that occur, either. That leads me to believe it is mostly theft of weapons already illegally in criminal hands that are simply cycling through the criminal community.
Last edited by RAIMIUS (2007-12-11 20:17:54)
If you count 'massacres like this' to mean either criminal or crazy person going on a shooting spree then America beats the entire rest of the industrial world put together and then some. Please provide the gobs of proof that indutrialised countries with strict gun control are awash with massacres.IRONCHEF wrote:
Massacre's like this don't happen in countries with strict gun control, eh? I can't even begin to tell you how backwards that statement is. I fear that even showing you gobs of proof wouldn't change your opinion, so I'll leave it at "lolz."
Absolutely right. These people are living in a fantasy world if they think guns will magically disappear from the USA if a ban is passed. Guns have been an integral part of this country since the beginning. Too many circulating around to totally control. Criminals either way will be able to get a gun hot of the street if they don't already have one.KnowMeByTrailOfDead wrote:
OK we are having an argument that the US should ban and control the flow and use of Guns. Hell we can't control Drugs, Mexicans and morons behind the wheels of SUVs but some how we are going to stop the flow of guns into our country by passing a law. We have been trying to stop the flow of drugs for what - over 30 years. What has given any of you an indication we can stop the distribution of guns AND remove the ones that are already in circulation.
So... it turns out that the killer was actually a 20 something atheist fan of Marilyn Manson.
Maybe the guy just snapped after he realized that he was a walking stereotype, and he decided to kill religious people to complete the image?
Whatever the case, I think this tragedy just supports the idea that we need to make sure unstable people don't get guns. The average person can handle a gun just fine, but there are a lot of unstable people out there that cannot be allowed to have guns.
Maybe the guy just snapped after he realized that he was a walking stereotype, and he decided to kill religious people to complete the image?
Whatever the case, I think this tragedy just supports the idea that we need to make sure unstable people don't get guns. The average person can handle a gun just fine, but there are a lot of unstable people out there that cannot be allowed to have guns.
Strict gun control wouldn't be enough to sort out America. It's a bigger problem than that for America at this stage. Many Americans are fed a visual feast of violence growing up via movies, TV and video games. The US government pursues one of the most aggressive foreign policies of all the Western world nations and allows heavy firepower to be owned by almost all it's own citizens. The US itself is a very divisive society in many ways because cut throat capitalism often creates a very large gulf between the rich and the poor, leaving a lot of room for people to fall through the cracks (people who often own heavy firepower). The US also has a difficult and dark history as regards it's own ethnic groups, which itself has led to much conflict. As a result of these and other contributing factors there seems to be an atmosphere of violence that bubbles just under the surface in the US. Banning guns would be like a band aid on a severed limb.IRONCHEF wrote:
Massacre's like this don't happen in countries with strict gun control, eh? I can't even begin to tell you how backwards that statement is. I fear that even showing you gobs of proof wouldn't change your opinion, so I'll leave it at "lolz."
...puts on flame proof jacket.
So, .22 caliber and 9mm pistols are heavy firepower? (I know you did not specifiy, Braddock, but that is what some gun-control advocates say.)
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Shooting in Colorado at missionary school