Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Guns, Constitution, Rights, Bans Debate Thread

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 16 2007 @ 01:28 PM
link   
I thought I would start this thread because of the shooting that occurred at Virginia Tech. The original news thread is getting derailed by emotions and comments that are related to guns, constitutional rights, bans, etc., but not the issue at hand.

Maybe we can discuss it here instead of diluting the original thread.

[edit on 16-4-2007 by Realtruth]




posted on Apr, 16 2007 @ 01:33 PM
link   
As someone in the original thread pointed out, guns are tools. You can kill someone with a screwdriver, should we take those away too? I grew up playing Doom, and Duke Nukem, and all those other first person shooters, but have NEVER thought about picking up a gun and killing someone. You can't blame games and tv for something like this happening.

From initial reports he was looking for his girlfriend, and probably had a "If I can't have her, then no one can, and I can't live without her" mentality.



posted on Apr, 16 2007 @ 01:35 PM
link   
Guns should never be banned! Criminals will always find ways to get them and law-abiding citizens will not have the ability to protect themselves from the criminals - or the government! I exercise my right to bear arms and fully expect those self-deprecating, bloviating windbags in the government to honor that right! And rest asssured, when the time comes that they try to disarm the citizenry, they will experience one of the primary purposes that we were granted that right - to overthrow the tyrants that would disarm us and place us in unending indentured servitude to the elite ruling class.



posted on Apr, 16 2007 @ 01:37 PM
link   
If one person on campus had a gun, that was near the perp and knew how to use it, less people would have lost their lives.



posted on Apr, 16 2007 @ 01:38 PM
link   
I think that this has something to do with our mindset these days.Used to be just a few psychotic loners skulking around America looking for victims.....now it can be anyone that just decides to take out their frustrations in a massive rage of violence.I don't know what it is.....but it seems like whatever it is,it's a fatal wound on America that we keep hoping a band-aid will cure.We gotta figure out how to stop the bleeding altogether instead of hoping it'll just go away.



posted on Apr, 16 2007 @ 02:03 PM
link   
Seriously this was way too many deaths. This guy had an infinite amount of time because no student, no faculty and Im willing to bet the school security didnt even have a weapon.

He walked onto that campus and he knoew there wouldnt be any opposition whatsoever.

Whens the last time you heard of a gun shop being robbed? They have plenty of money, plenty of guns? Crooks want these, right? Anyone dumb enough to waltz into a gun shop and try to hold the place up will be dead before they can even consider pulling the trigger on the clerk.

There isnt any part of this event that stricter laws or outright bannings wouldve prevented. A criminal is a criminal and will do what he wants regardless of laws. Thats sort of the definition of criminals.

Look at all the drug laws and drug bannings. Sure keeps them off the streets, huh?

If even the faculty were allowed to carry this couldve been alot less horrible.

Was if Franklin who said something like democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting for what to have for dinner. Liberty is arming that lamb.



posted on Apr, 16 2007 @ 02:09 PM
link   
Remember we can not just erase gun technology and if good people don't have them, bad people know that guns control, create fear, give power.

What do you think that bad people or criminals will do with them?

I know for a fact that in the UK that the majority of guns crimes are committed by career criminals that have no regard for laws, so more laws to them mean nothing.

Guns, ammunition, firearms period are multi-billion dollar industry from the guns, to the judicial system, jails, rehab programs, to many people making billions. Someone or corporation will always produce them and there is people always willing to buy them legally or not.

In the end if it is all about control, greed and money the guns are just a powerful tool related to the chaos.



posted on Apr, 16 2007 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Watchful1

Originally posted by infinite

Originally posted by Watchful1
If we ban guns kids will just turn to explosives....


really? i don't follow the logic.

explosives are harder to get hold of, espeically the military type. plus the laws around the sale of certain chemicals are tight in the States now since 9/11.



Anarchist Cookbook...


Molotov Cocktails for lunch anyone?



Didnt someone eariler say that some kid in the eightys who was a physics major shoot professors? Wouldnt it follow that chemistry or even just highly motivated students bent on destrustion be very able to kill with explosives?



Oh yea... AND its soooo tough for thoes Iraq militants to devise SOME sort of IED, be it small or large...






The funny part about ALL of this is that eventually all guns must be taken. No one needs guns anymore to hunt for survival especially if this NWO world government is here. People with guns will only try to keep them and when the government comes to take them....long story short by violence we stop violence. This is why I lean towards a crazy information datamining 1984. The govenrmnet wont care how many times a day you wack it as long as you follow laws preventing death by arms or civil dissobediance.



posted on Apr, 16 2007 @ 03:02 PM
link   


posted by Realtruth
If one person on campus had a gun, was near the perp and knew how to use it, fewer people would have lost their lives.


Shucks, Mr R/T. Why not make it a reqirement that all students are carrying? Like that Jamica boy in NYC, a wrong doer would be mowed down by a fusillade of 43 shots to the heart!

Score 1 for students, 0 for perps!

Don't urge half measures when full measurse are available.

[edit on 4/16/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Apr, 16 2007 @ 03:21 PM
link   
Ridiculous DonWhite, and completely below your usual level of posting...

Regardless of what you feel about guns and the Second Amendment, the post was correct..

If I, a legal gun carrying citizen, had been within sight of the subject when it started, MANY, MANY that have died would in fact be alive...

That my friend is a FACT...

Indisputable and Historically Verifiable...

Postulate and maunder all that you want, there is no escaping the reality of realtruth's statement.

Semper



posted on Apr, 16 2007 @ 03:36 PM
link   


posted by Watchful1

The funny part about ALL this is that eventually all guns must be taken. No one needs guns anymore . . People with guns will try to keep them and when the government comes to take them . . long story short by violence we stop violence. The government wont care as long as you follow laws preventing death by arms or civil disobedience. [Edited by Don W[



The Supreme Court of the United States has never ruled that the Second Amendment grants unrestricted rights to anyone vis a vis firearms. See note below. There must be 100s of laws banning, qualifying, limiting or restricting the ownership, possession or use of firearms. There are more guns per capita in the US of A than ever before. I’m not sure if anyone knows how many guns there are in America. The biggest numbers I hear are 280 million guns owned by 80 million people. When people throw around those kinds of numbers, ordinary mortals like me cannot dispute with them.

By the very nature of the guns purpose - confining an explosion so it pushes a projectile down a barrel - makes the gun very durable. I’d have no hesitation shooting an ‘03 Springfield made in 1903, provided it was in good condition based on my operation and examination before hand. And with particular respect paid to the ammo I was about to use.

I suggest the best solution to the plethora of guns and recognizing there is a serious problem in the more than 20,000 people a year dead by gun shot, is the solution used by the US military. Enlisted men living on base (AF) must deposit all firearms in the local SS - Special Services - facility. The SS has such items as bats and balls, boats and etc. to loan rent to EM at very favorable rates. The gun owner is permitted to check out his firearms anytime and to clean it on the SS premises, or to go target shooting. Or hunting. But he cannot take the firearm into the barracks or living quarters. That’s a very strict No No. These restriction did not apply to officers. Similar plans are used in some foreign countries, I believe.

Notes: “ . . but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.” Article 6, Articles of Confederation. These Articles were our country's governing document until 1789 and the adoption of our current constitution.

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. Amendment Article 2, U.S. Constitution


[edit on 4/16/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Apr, 16 2007 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis

If I, a legal gun carrying citizen, had been within sight of the subject when it started, MANY, MANY that have died would in fact be alive...

No offence Semper but I find your statement disingenuous. You are not a ‘legal gun carrying citizen’ you are a cop.
As a cop Semper you have been trained how to handle your weapon and how to control your emotions in a situation like this one today. Most citizens that carry weapons legally or not do not have your training and would most likely be firing randomly in the general direction of the nut with the gun, due to their lack of training they would not be able to control them selves to aim correctly.
If someone was there with a gun to try and stop the gunman it could vary well have added to the body count.



posted on Apr, 16 2007 @ 03:40 PM
link   
donwhite,

The reason I say this is that I was in law enforcement for a number of years and although police do their best to thwart criminal behavior they can not be there 100% of the time and many times are there to take reports, rope off the scene, wait for their CO and then hand it over to the investisgators.

I don't think many people here and I hope that many people here will never experience the madness, illogical, irrational behavior of a criminal that is unpredictable.

I know this is a very insensitive term to be used now, but have you ever heard of "Shooting ducks in a barrel"? This is exactly what transpired today and like I said if one student or maybe, even an off duty officer would have been carrying and knew how to use their weapon, less live would have been lost.



posted on Apr, 16 2007 @ 03:49 PM
link   
Here is some interesting info. Semper correct me if I am wrong, but most of the altercations I have been in were within 5 to 10 feet. And that is generally the correct distance for most altercations, but I would have to agree with the poster that officers do have much, much more training and muscle memory response when it comes to confrontation.

Now as to control our emotions, that is another thing. Officers try to do their best, but they are human beings and a lot is going through your mind in a gun drawn situation.

semper, Are we on the same page here?

There are people that are not officers that I know that are not only a good shot, but very level headed people in panic situations. Medics, Doctors, firemen, etc...




Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk

No offence Semper but I find your statement disingenuous. You are not a ‘legal gun carrying citizen’ you are a cop.
As a cop Semper you have been trained how to handle your weapon and how to control your emotions in a situation like this one today. Most citizens that carry weapons legally or not do not have your training and would most likely be firing randomly in the general direction of the nut with the gun, due to their lack of training they would not be able to control them selves to aim correctly.
If someone was there with a gun to try and stop the gunman it could vary well have added to the body count.



posted on Apr, 16 2007 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk


Originally posted by semperfortis

If I, a legal gun carrying citizen, had been within sight of the subject when it started, MANY, MANY that have died would in fact be alive...

No offence Semper but I find your statement disingenuous. You are not a ‘legal gun carrying citizen’ you are a cop.
As a cop Semper you have been trained how to handle your weapon and how to control your emotions in a situation like this one today. Most citizens that carry weapons legally or not do not have your training and would most likely be firing randomly in the general direction of the nut with the gun, due to their lack of training they would not be able to control them selves to aim correctly.
If someone was there with a gun to try and stop the gunman it could vary well have added to the body count.


The police may be more effective at using a firearm than an average person, but you can't automatically assume that the average person would be ineffective at using one in such a situation. Although it can take years to become an excellent marksman, a person with no prior firearms experience can easily be taught basic proficiency with one in an afternoon.

I don't think the solution to these cases is increased gun control. These incidents almost invariably occur in areas where private citizens aren't allowed to carry weapons. There are two potential solutions: either allow concealed carry or significantly increase the security. IMO, the latter is the best solution. If these buildings had metal detectors and/or an armed security guard(s) at the entrance, I think these incidents would be much less frequent.



posted on Apr, 16 2007 @ 04:26 PM
link   

posted by Realtruth

donwhite, The reason I say this is that I was in law enforcement for a number of years . . police do their best to thwart criminal behavior they can not be there 100% of the time . . wait for their CO and hand it over to the investigators. I don't think many people here and I hope that many people here will never experience the madness, illogical, irrational behavior of a criminal that is unpredictable. I know this is a very insensitive term to be used now, but have you ever heard of "Shooting ducks in a barrel"? This is exactly what transpired today and like I said if one student or maybe, even an off duty officer would have been carrying and knew how to use their weapon, fewer lives would have been lost.

Here is some interesting info. Semper correct me if I am wrong, but most of the altercations I have been in were within 5 to 10 feet. And that is generally the correct distance for most altercations, but I would have to agree with the poster that officers do have much, much more training and muscle memory response when it comes to confrontation. Now as to control our emotions, that is another thing. Officers try to do their best, but they are human beings and a lot is going through your mind in a gun drawn situation. Semper, Are we on the same page here? There are people that are not officers that I know that are not only a good shot, but very level headed people in panic situations. Medics, Doctors, firemen, etc. [Edited by Don W]



I am frequently critical of the actions police take, but rarely am I critical of the policeman or policewoman. They are part of the same culture that brings on much of the lawlessness in our society. Wikipedia says Charles Whitman killed 15 or 17 people in 1966 at the UT Austin tower. The story goes on to say the autopsy revealed Whitman suffered from a brain tumor that some doctor’s said might have had some effect on his behavior.

I often refer to the Jamaican man in NYC shot multiple times by 4 NYPD. The psychological condition in the officers cases that causes any person to empty the repeating firearm even when he is not conscious of doing that, especially when the person firing is scared. The NYPD had 4 rookies new to the NARC business on a patrol in an unfamiliar neighborhood.

The great-grandmother in Atlanta and a roughly similar case here in Jax, an 80 year old man shot in his front yard by undercover NARC officers who were shooting back at him from behind cover. The investigating authority called that shooting “justified but unnecessary.” Isn’t that an oxymoron? it any wonder why ordinary blacks living in predominately black neighborhoods are as much scared of the police as of criminals. Street crime, like guerilla warfare, depends on co-operation of the local population. Or at least on non-co-operation of the population with the authorities.

In any case, I also accept this proposition: Every policeman has the right to go home safely to his family after each shirt.

[edit on 4/16/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Apr, 16 2007 @ 04:37 PM
link   
My point is less about marksmanship, I’ve been shooting and I’m an OK shot, at best.
But in a situation like this, although I’d like to live that Rambo fantasy were I was a perfect shot and I would nail the gunman right between the eyes and come out with some pithy comment, but chances are I would pull my gun in a panic and start blasting away at the gunman miss with most of my shots and likely hit someone else in his general direction.
When situation like this come up what do we always here from the officer, “my training kicked in” this is the type of training you can’t get in one afternoon. It’s something that has to get drilled into you over time.
Now I’m not against concealed carry permits, I just think that to get one you should have to go through a hell of a lot of training first.



posted on Apr, 16 2007 @ 04:39 PM
link   
Isn't there some sense in harmonising the laws between the various states?

From what I've read on here some states are close to the UK's requirements on storage / security and prohibiting some types of weapons while other states have an almost 'free for all / pick 'em up at Wal Mart' regime. As people can easily drive from state to state this does seem very silly.

I doubt you'll follow us down the road where you have to prove a need (not a want) for anything but a shotty but surely some increase in licencing and storage requirements has to be, at least, debated after so many tragic deaths?



posted on Apr, 16 2007 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
As someone in the original thread pointed out, guns are tools. You can kill someone with a screwdriver, should we take those away too? I grew up playing Doom, and Duke Nukem, and all those other first person shooters, but have NEVER thought about picking up a gun and killing someone. You can't blame games and tv for something like this happening.

From initial reports he was looking for his girlfriend, and probably had a "If I can't have her, then no one can, and I can't live without her" mentality.



You can't kill 32 people with screwdrivers, and also people can run, can fight.

You can control yourself, but not everybody can, especially those teenagers. When they get mad, they may want to kill other people.



posted on Apr, 16 2007 @ 04:51 PM
link   
Copy of my post from the 'news' thread.

Apologies; it's a related subsidiary argument about UK self-defence laws and my protaganist, losing the argument, is resorting to insults.

I've only moved it here to see if he follows and we can debate this (poltely!) without cluttering the other thread


Originally posted by Strangerous

Originally posted by eagle32


I was just throwing out a random situation.
I cant have a gun, i can NOT kill an intruder despite what you claim, if i did then i would be locked up.
There was a famous case here where a farmer shot an intruder with a shotgun (licensed) and was sent straight to jail.
I dont know what countries law you are thinking of but in Britain there is no justifying shooting anyone for any situation unless you are licensed to do so as an armed officer. (not including war situations).
This is simple fact.
If the saviour had a licensed gun he would still be at fault.
Unlike the U.S a guy like me cant go just get a gun license and have firearms, otherwise everyone would do it with half a chance.


You can't have a gun? Why what have you done in your past? Must be a bad lad, I know people with previous convictions for ABH who now hold guns. Only those who are unstable or have served 3 years in jail can never have a gun. Everyone else has just to meet the criteria.

The famous case you cite (incorrectly) involved a farmer with an unlicenced shotgun (also a section 5(?) weapon as it was 5 shot). He'd lost his licence for shooting at people's dogs previously. He booby trapped the house, lay in wait, shot twice, executing the burglar when he clearly posed no threat and couldn't prove self-defence - a bad example to choose.

Better example to cite

news.bbc.co.uk... - stabbing someone 7 times and cutting their throat CAN be justified

There was also the pensioner who shot dead a bloke who was banging on his door with an airgun (ie must be over-powered) and walked free, and the guy who shot & killed the guy on his doorstep with a spear gun, again acquitted - both these used and proved self-defence but I can't find those stories online.

Kenneth Noye stabbed and killed an undercover copper in his garden, claimed self-defence and was acquitted.

A friend of mine was sitting in his house with guns locked and loaded as a burglar 'had something long in his arm' while in his garden, phoned plod and only put the guns away when the blue lights showed up - again no issue.

There are loads more examples

The official line:

www.cps.gov.uk...

A legal interpretation:

www.bsdgb.co.uk...

Confirmation of what I said about reasonable force and what I say about Tony Martin:

ttp://www.medical-journals.com/r04_0911.htm

The use of force in self-defence in the UK is based on your perception of the threat at the time, if you can prove you believed at the time he was armed and you had access to a firearm then deadly force is justified as long as it can be considered 'reasonable'(assuming there's no alternative to prevent bodily harm).

If the perp has a knife or gun then an armed response certainly could be considered reasonable.

These rules apply to everyone: the police, the forces (HINT - that's why they say 'stop or you will be shot' it shows shooting was a last resort response to prevent harm) and householders .

The licenced-gun holder would not be 'at fault' unless the self-defence defence was proved to be false.

There is an issue with intent in that you'd need to unlock / load your gun (ie you could have used that time to escape) but that's a technicality and depends on the layout of the property etc

Those are the simple facts, mate.

You're just plain wrong as a short google search / those links will tell you.

Why don't you look into UK firearms law before posting?, this took me 10 minutes to put together.

A little research would help you understand your rights rather than just posting false info and thinking you have none





new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join