General Chat / Student Goes Apeshit At Virginia Tech

hey petrov, don't blame the country if some parents are too fucking stupid to hide their guns well enough from their kids.

But the guns need to be close by, in case some towelhead comes barging into their house to steal their freedom.

that may happen!

regardless of whether owning a gun is necessary or not (unless you're a hunter or something i guess?) a person's right to own one shouldn't be taken away.

Edited by tracidEdge, 22 April 2007 - 07:59 PM.

lazy boy: corkscrewed did my work for me.

Look at the big picture: the more restrictions and prohibitions directed toward gun ownership, the lower the death toll, as only a small amount of the population will have them.

Less people dying = more humane. Oh, you don't feel safe unless you're packin' the heat? I don't fucking care. Your peace of mind doesn't take precedence over human lives, asshole.

Oh yeah, and restrictions on gun control make the police force's job easier. Maybe they don't have shit to do in your small-town, but in some places, their work never ever ends. Less guns makes it safer for them to do their job. With no gun laws or control, the police and the perpetrators of crimes will find themselves in an arms race that can escalate out of control and cause severe consequences, especially in densely populated regions.

And don't give me some childish bullshit about how the state is evil, and if you give them too much power, blahblah blahblah blahblah... such a fucking coward.

regardless of whether owning a gun is necessary or not (unless you're a hunter or something i guess?) a person's right to own one shouldn't be taken away.

By that logic I have the right to own a nuclear bomb don't I?

no you really don't, seeing as how most fucking countries can't own nuclear bombs. the bill of rights entails each person the right to own a gun, that's what i was talking about. don't bullshit me with these ridiculous stretches that you know don't make any fucking sense. and besides, it's not like some crazy can walk into a gun shop and say "well hey there good sir i would like a deadly weapon plzkthx" and they are given one. they do background checks and all sorts of other shit to make sure that they're not giving a gun to the wrong person who might potentially shoot up some place and kill thirty some people. because if a person really wanted to do that, they could buy a gun illegally thus making this entire argument moot so shut the fuck up please

no you really don't, seeing as how most fucking countries can't own nuclear bombs. the bill of rights entails each person the right to own a gun, that's what i was talking about. don't bullshit me with these ridiculous stretches that you know don't make any fucking sense. and besides, it's not like some crazy can walk into a gun shop and say "well hey there good sir i would like a deadly weapon plzkthx" and they are given one. they do background checks and all sorts of other shit to make sure that they're not giving a gun to the wrong person who might potentially shoot up some place and kill thirty some people. because if a person really wanted to do that, they could buy a gun illegally thus making this entire argument moot so shut the fuck up please

The Bill of Rights only says you have the right to own a gun if you interpret it that way. Look up "militia" some time. Also, the funny thing about the Bill of Rights is that they were changes to the Constitution. It was meant to be changed, that's why there's an amendment process.

Also, most people don't have the means to buy a gun illegaly. How many Brits do you see walking around with guns? Do you really expect every wannabe thug and theif running around with guns, because I don't see that happening at all.

and besides, it's not like some crazy can walk into a gun shop and say "well hey there good sir i would like a deadly weapon plzkthx" and they are given one.

Except that some crazy did get a deadly weapon, and then he shot 32 people dead about a week ago.

thanks for the reminder, chief.

anyway, basically what i am trying to say is that stricter gun laws aren't really going to do anything. if a person is as hell-bent on killing people as that kid was, he's going to get a gun, or something else. i mean hell, he could use a kitchen knife and stab a few bitches before he was taken out. does that mean we should restrict how many knives the average household should have?

and midnight aurora: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." people are allowed to have their gunz. if the congress decides to amend this amendment, then so be it. it's still not going to do anything.

Edited by tracidEdge, 23 April 2007 - 03:53 PM.

if a person is as hell-bent on killing people as that kid was, he's going to get a gun, or something else. i mean hell, he could use a kitchen knife and stab a few bitches before he was taken out. does that mean we should restrict how many knives the average household should have?

Yep but that would've meant a lot less people would've died and the police could've easilly overpowerd him. And I actually think more should be done to sort out knife crime.

it doesn't matter, he still would have killed a bunch of people. then everyone would have been "oh noez knives are bad IMO" which is completely ridiculous.

it doesn't matter, he still would have killed a bunch of people. then everyone would have been "oh noez knives are bad IMO" which is completely ridiculous.

Sorry but a fair few people get knived in the UK (well apparently anyway) and we don't run round shouting knives are bad. The fact is you need a knife for the kitchen you don't need a gun unless you are really into hunting or something.

thanks for the reminder, chief.

anyway, basically what i am trying to say is that stricter gun laws aren't really going to do anything. if a person is as hell-bent on killing people as that kid was, he's going to get a gun, or something else. i mean hell, he could use a kitchen knife and stab a few bitches before he was taken out. does that mean we should restrict how many knives the average household should have?

and midnight aurora: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." people are allowed to have their gunz. if the congress decides to amend this amendment, then so be it. it's still not going to do anything.

Are you honestly suggesting that he could have killed 32 people with a fucking kitchen knife?

Also, I can play this game, too. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." And let me repeat the part that you didn't address for my own personal amusement. Amendments, such as that little known 2nd one, can also be amended.

Less people dying = more humane. Oh, you don't feel safe unless you're packin' the heat? I don't fucking care. Your peace of mind doesn't take precedence over human lives, asshole.

I don't even own a gun.

Oh yeah, and restrictions on gun control make the police force's job easier. Maybe they don't have shit to do in your small-town, but in some places, their work never ever ends. Less guns makes it safer for them to do their job. With no gun laws or control, the police and the perpetrators of crimes will find themselves in an arms race that can escalate out of control and cause severe consequences, especially in densely populated regions.

Atlanta is a small town? The job of the police cannot be made easier by more regulation when most guns used by criminals are already illegal.

The Bill of Rights only says you have the right to own a gun if you interpret it that way. Look up "militia" some time. Also, the funny thing about the Bill of Rights is that they were changes to the Constitution. It was meant to be changed, that's why there's an amendment process.

So who here would be in favor of a Sedition Act if it was proven that it would reduce all crimes 60%?


Frankly, the best way to reduce crime would probably be to relax the enforcement and legality of drugs.

Edited by lazyboy97O, 23 April 2007 - 09:27 PM.

Frankly, the best way to reduce crime would probably be to relax the enforcement and legality of drugs.

Except that it is a moral issue to open pandora's box like that. You have no idea the kind of shit drugs do to your body and mind, and you have no idea how many more drug related accidents there would be.

Personally, I rather just take away the method of violence. Most people just turn into "That Guy" when they're stoned, anyway.

There's really nothing anyone can do about this.

Every suggestion I've heard so far has its obvious holes. But I mean, I have nothing better to say.

The restriction of guns from the common people really has no effect on the rate of crime within the gang/underground/whatever world.

^Agreed.

And Blitz, while you say that more restrictions on guns makes everyone safer based on the fact that humans are highly emotional and impulsive creatures, doing so can really start you going down that slippery slope of where the line of 'safety' really is. We live in a world of stimulants (legal or illeagal) that heighten our emotions and reactions sometimes to an extent to where we do things we wouldn't normally do.
You mention a prohibition of guns, well what if the real Prohibition was brought back into effect? For alcohol and (god for bid) even something like energy drinks and caffeine loaded soda. These are not essentials to your daily life (same as guns) and I'm sure as many or more needless deaths and crimes are directly caused by alcohol... drunk driving, beatings, rape and yes; shootings which could all be easily avoided with a simple restriction or two. And to those who enjoy alcohol, why should your self indulgance come before everyone's safety?

And no, I'm not saying I agree with the Prohibition (I'm firmly against it) but I'm just saying your questions can be applied to many things, things that lots of people may enjoy.

To me the solution is not ban guns, not to make them illegal but to make it harder to obtain them legally. In this instance i heard on the news that the kid purchased the gun and under the question ' do you have a mental illness' (words to that effect) he ticked the box 'no'.

That's too easy in my opinion, we are talking about guns here.

To me the solution is not ban guns, not to make them illegal but to make it harder to obtain them legally. In this instance i heard on the news that the kid purchased the gun and under the question ' do you have a mental illness' (words to that effect) he ticked the box 'no'.

That's too easy in my opinion, we are talking about guns here.

Except mental illness is a very vague term. I could be diagnosed with Major Depressive Disorder, Adult ADD, etc. Beyond that, diagnosis of mental illness isn't possible unless he sees a psychologist/psychiatrist, which most people won't voluntarily do. Are you suggesting that everyone that buys a gun should be put through psychoanalysis?

Except that it is a moral issue to open pandora's box like that. You have no idea the kind of shit drugs do to your body and mind, and you have no idea how many more drug related accidents there would be.

Personally, I rather just take away the method of violence. Most people just turn into "That Guy" when they're stoned, anyway.

The current state of drug laws in this country is ridiculous. A 90+ year old woman was shot by the police here in Atlanta a few weeks ago during a drug raid on her house. The cops went in shooting. The source for the information relating to this woman lied. She was killed over the belief that there was marijuana in her house. Treatment, not prosecution.

And Blitz, while you say that more restrictions on guns makes everyone safer based on the fact that humans are highly emotional and impulsive creatures, doing so can really start you going down that slippery slope of where the line of 'safety' really is.

Exactly. The government claims that the USA PATRIOT Act is making us all safer. Is it? Who here believes President Bush when he says that? The job of the police gets easier the more powers they have, but we know the police are human. That is why warrants and reading fo rights must take place.

To me the solution is not ban guns, not to make them illegal but to make it harder to obtain them legally. In this instance i heard on the news that the kid purchased the gun and under the question ' do you have a mental illness' (words to that effect) he ticked the box 'no'.

It appears this kid was known to have problem. The debate that needs to take place is at what point can a person be commited to a mental hospital against his will.

There is no conrete evidence that gun control reduces crime. Some places it works, other places gun related crime rises. What ever happened to all the shootings in Florida? Guns have become a scapegoat. It is easy to blame one item then look harder at what else is going on and doing something. Banning guns places responsibility in the hands of another and ignores so much more. Remember, the most famous gun fight of the old West, the Gunfight at the O.K. Corral, was to enforce gun control.

Edited by lazyboy97O, 24 April 2007 - 01:19 PM.

I dont think people like this can be locked up under the law, and i dont think that law is going to change anytime soon. But they probably could attach a so called "red flag" to mentally ill people, the way they do with sex offenders, so that anyone selling gun would know from a computer database who is not fit to own a gun.