School Shooting.

[lilro]

If a country deems fit for it's populace to have fire arms , then IMHO it should be for the purpose of sport only .
Thus the weapons will be of that class only , IE no magazine fed weapons , no handguns , single shot bolt action rifles only .
You see , a single shot rifle suits sport , every other class of weapon suits shooting at humans .

If it was up to me , I would ban all firearms outside police and military forces .

Yes I know that the reasons behind events such as this as essentially social and mental health , but for feks sake , you have more chance of getting the guns off the street than the money from corrupt politicians to sort social problems !

There's over 300 million guns in the US. You wouldn't be able to ban them all. And **** a police state. This ain't Nazi Germany.

And gun ownership is not some privilege the country "deems fit". It is a RIGHT. And the 2nd Amendment was written with the intention to fight OPPRESSION, both foreign and domestic (shoot at humans), not for hunting and target shooting.

You don't need a gun to protect yourself. Over here in England civillians don't have guns to protect themselves and these types of shootings are very rare here. Anyway what exactly does having a gun protect you from?

Yes you do. And that's exactly why you over there in England lost the Revolutionary War. The 2nd Amendment was written with YOU in mind. Having a gun protects you from multiple things. Criminals and animals most notably. And although England has lower gun crime, it has more violent crime per capita. And that violence spiked when they started gun-grabbing.

[KelevraOne]

There's over 300 million guns in the US. You wouldn't be able to ban them all. And **** a police state. This ain't Nazi Germany.

And gun ownership is not some privilege the country "deems fit". It is a RIGHT. And the 2nd Amendment was written with the intention to fight OPPRESSION, both foreign and domestic (shoot at humans), not for hunting and target shooting.



Yes you do. And that's exactly why you over there in England lost the Revolutionary War. The 2nd Amendment was written with YOU in mind. Having a gun protects you from multiple things. Criminals and animals most notably. And although England has lower gun crime, it has more violent crime per capita. And that violence spiked when they started gun-grabbing.

no guns means no need to worry about strays from gunfights. No mass murders like Columbine or VT. (try to go on a killing spree with a knife and see how far you'd go). And I'm not exactly sure how the lack of guns cost the English to lose the Revolutionary War.

Quite frankly though the 2nd Amendment is pretty out dated. It was written during and for a time when guns were much more needed. At the time it was written, most of the U.S. was unsettled, wild animals were often sighted near people, duels were still common and there wasn't a centralized police force. I say amend the 2nd amendment and make it so we only have guns for hunting usage

[lilro]

no guns means no need to worry about strays from gunfights. No mass murders like Columbine or VT. (try to go on a killing spree with a knife and see how far you'd go). And I'm not exactly sure how the lack of guns cost the English to lose the Revolutionary War.

Quite frankly though the 2nd Amendment is pretty out dated. It was written during and for a time when guns were much more needed. At the time it was written, most of the U.S. was unsettled, wild animals were often sighted near people, duels were still common and there wasn't a centralized police force. I say amend the 2nd amendment and make it so we only have guns for hunting usage

You aren't going to get rid of 300 million guns. And you'd have to ban steel, aluminum, and CNC mills to keep more guns from being made.

It's like trying to filter all the piss out of the ocean.

[deRaNged 4 Phuk'dup]

At this point the only person losing if you ban guns is the LAW ABIDING CITIZEN WHO SERVES AS NO THREAT. I'd lose my registered gun I'd only use to defend my family and call the police immediately after for a dirty throwaway I could freely use on the next guy to step on my shoes.

Or not have anything when the next guy who's shoe I step on happens to have a throwawy. lol.

[DjPolair]

I see no Hypocrisy. You can make that argument with almost any death or tragedy. "Oh your grandpa died well my grandpa died a month ago and not as many people mourned for him."

You see no hypocrisy in having a memorial service for 20 children when 16'000 are dying everyday when the problem could easily be solved by the united nations by stop spending all their money on military ?

hell, do you know that 80% of human population live on less than 10 ****ing dollars a day ?

You belong to a small group who lives in a ruled society with food and shelter, do you know that in Liberia 10 year old boys rape pregnant women and steal their money ? And that they eat dead people because they don't have any food ? And that's not even close to being one of the poorest countries, there's shit happening that no horror movie can show you right now, every 3 second a child dies

now...

now...

now...

This world is moving fast and cold, its us westerners that sit in our chairs all day and drink Pepsi while fantasizing over a more fun life

[hollandturbine]

no guns means no need to worry about strays from gunfights. No mass murders like Columbine or VT. (try to go on a killing spree with a knife and see how far you'd go). And I'm not exactly sure how the lack of guns cost the English to lose the Revolutionary War.

Quite frankly though the 2nd Amendment is pretty out dated. It was written during and for a time when guns were much more needed. At the time it was written, most of the U.S. was unsettled, wild animals were often sighted near people, duels were still common and there wasn't a centralized police force. I say amend the 2nd amendment and make it so we only have guns for hunting usage

I agree, back when the second amendment was written the firearms were so crude that in order to use them effectively it was necessary to form sizable groups and act as a unit, these days a single mental defective person can accurately fire more than three rounds per minute, in fact the firepower of a single person can be close to that of an entire platoon of militia men armed with flintlock firearms and I don't think that's something that was envisioned by those who wrote the second amendment.

The last time firearms were used collectivity to fight government oppression was in order to maintain an institution of oppression known as slavery, so thinking that the right to bear arms protects people from tyranny is pure bullshit because it can work the other way too.

[Afroman2010]

You aren't going to get rid of 300 million guns. And you'd have to ban steel, aluminum, and CNC mills to keep more guns from being made.

It's like trying to filter all the piss out of the ocean.

Even if you don't get rid of guns, you can stop manufacturing them. How many more of these massacres need to happen before people realise that the reason these massacres happen is because you can easily get a gun. While innocent people may lose out on guns for self defense, this movement would see a reduction in gun crime. Anyway have any of you guys ever had to pull a gun out on someone before?

[deRaNged 4 Phuk'dup]

^^^Have you? Not talking junk, ginuinely asking. As a kid I was throwing one in everyone's face. But not in years, never plan to again. Hope I never again have to.

See, it's an easy task to throw around a gun that does not legally belong to you, but once you've got one registered...no chance of being irresponsible with it...at least that's how I feel.

[Afroman2010]

No I haven't used a gun before or had one in my possession. I don't ever feel I will be in a situation to where I need to use a gun.

That's the thing out of all the responsible gun owners you get those few irresponsible ones who ruin it for everyone. I still don't think it's a good idea to let people own guns but I guess if americans are in favour of it I cant judge since I don't live there.

[KelevraOne]

You see no hypocrisy in having a memorial service for 20 children when 16'000 are dying everyday when the problem could easily be solved by the united nations by stop spending all their money on military ?

hell, do you know that 80% of human population live on less than 10 ****ing dollars a day ?

You belong to a small group who lives in a ruled society with food and shelter, do you know that in Liberia 10 year old boys rape pregnant women and steal their money ? And that they eat dead people because they don't have any food ? And that's not even close to being one of the poorest countries, there's shit happening that no horror movie can show you right now, every 3 second a child dies

now...

now...

now...

This world is moving fast and cold, its us westerners that sit in our chairs all day and drink Pepsi while fantasizing over a more fun life

Still I see no Hypocrisy in mourning something that's close to home. If I'm not supposed to mourn for Sandy Hook what should I do? say oh well and keep on moving? It's more relatable to mourn for the Sandy hook massacre if you live in the U.S. I went to elementary school, I have family who are in elementary school and it sends a shock down your spine that little kids aren't safe from a deranged gunman at school. I don't mourn for every African massacre because I know little of it and it's not as easy to relate to. Same in reverse too.

---------- Post added at 12:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:27 PM ----------

You aren't going to get rid of 300 million guns. And you'd have to ban steel, aluminum, and CNC mills to keep more guns from being made.

It's like trying to filter all the piss out of the ocean.

Not really too difficult to get rid of guns in the U.S. Offer gun turn in days where if you turn in guns you'll get paid for getting them scrapped. And then ban the manufacture and sales of semi-automatic and fully automatic guns in the U.S. It starts off with simple reduction of the number of guns