Six students dead after NIU shooting.
- Thread starter Max Powers
- 58 comments
- 2,060 views
- 10,309
- San Francisco, CA
- Vasco506
- Vasc0
1) Yeah I guess so, but you know it just seems a lot more dangerous (anyone could pull a gun on you at any time) than western Europe
2) I guess so, but there are a lot of unreported murders there each day. If someone is murdered here it's a huuuuggeee deal, but then again we only have 21 million people.
3) That's one more than I've heard
.I may well still end up going to the USA to study, but i'll probably just have that fear (which I'll agree is an overreaction) that I could be shot pretty easily by a random person.
- 5,603
- England, Warwickshire
- GTP_Sigma
1) Yeah I guess so, but you know it just seems a lot more dangerous (anyone could pull a gun on you at any time) than western Europe
2) I guess so, but there are a lot of unreported murders there each day. If someone is murdered here it's a huuuuggeee deal, but then again we only have 21 million people.
3) That's one more than I've heard
I may well still end up going to the USA to study, but i'll probably just have that fear (which I'll agree is an overreaction) that I could be shot pretty easily by a random person.
When I went to California for my holidays, I certainly wasn't walking round checking over my shoulder every 10 seconds, its really not quite like you may think. Admittedly over here I have never heard Anything bar shotguns from local farmers yet that doesn't happen anymore. I have yet to hear a gun fired in anger and I doubt I ever will yet there have been times where I have walked by myself at night in a local city and have felt occasionaly concerned about getting attacked, even though I know they won't have guns.
These news incidents are quite extensively reported and these particular murders appear to be happening at quite an alarming frequency, however America is a large place and in reality these inncidents are few and far between.
Max Powers
(Banned)
- 4,475
- XBL: MelBlount
- MelBlount
- 601
Oh nice blame the object, and not the person who did it. What an ignorant statement. First of all it's illegal to carry any firearm on federal property that includes schools, and colleges. He was also committed in a mental health hospital, and once a person has been committed they can't own, carry, and/or possess any type of firearm. The State of Illinois has really strict firearm restrictions so please don't post your ignorant progressive racist spew.
Oh you live in England where you have no right to defend yourself, and the criminals have more rights than you do. Hasn't the crime rates in the UK has gone up like 500% since the firearm banes?
Yes the I'm the crazy ginger that think "GUNS are COOL" who lives in the state of Arizona where it's still like the old west .... I think GUN CONTROL is pure evil, but hey at least I'm not like Hitler, Stalin, or any other power hungry progressive dictator who loves gun control. I'm also the youngest of my family so I have a gift of getting under people's skin at times. Obama, Hillary, and Mcain loves gun control so I'm not the happiest person in the world at this moment.
- 919
Yet he had one, didn't he? Purchased, according to the reports I read, online. Three cheers for a code of laws that allows handguns to be purchased via the most unsecure medium known to mankind. Anonymously purchased weaponry! HUZZAH!
Come on, man.
"Ignorant" and "progressive" go together about as well as a Ron Paul/Vladimir Putin ticket. Again, come on. And ... racist? What?
What?! Sorry, this just makes my brain hurt. Progressive - root word - progress. Progress is, by any standard, GOOD.
Also, triple posting isn't advisable. Let's keep this a rational discussion.
- 21,193
- United States
- nk4e
Not really Anonymously but through online,Gun dealer sold to 2 campus Killers
How would they figure it out?frestKid
Gun checks don't account for mental health
Are there metal detectors on the campus?
Its really sad what happened.
- 601
The Nazi party started out as the progressive socialist labor party after world war one. They blamed Jews on the problems of world during that time. Today's "Progressive Movement" blame inanimate objects for the world problems like small firearms. The power hungry hate an armed populous, free speech, and thinking like an individual not as a group. Today's Progressives want bigger government control over the populous. Control the information, make people believe guns are bad, and let the government take care of your health care instead of those evil capitalist pigs, because the progressives know better how to take care of you than yourself. Hmm sounds to me like a fascist, but in a group oh wait that would be socialist/communist way of thinking huh? In my opinion gun control is pure evil, when a government doesn't trust an armed populous, then the populous shouldn't trust the government. One more thing to think about when a Latino wearing a shirt that says "Brown Pride", or "Latino Pride" everyone looks at them as they're expressing their heritage. What happens when a white person wears a shirt that says "Anglo Pride" or "White Pride"?
AM I CLEAR OF WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET ACROSS YOU IGNORANT SHEEP PEOPLE? BAA BAA
Lets see how long I can stir this up ... I'm waiting for someone to post calling me a racist ... I hate stupidity, ignorance, and incompetence of people not the color of their skin. I'm a legend in my own mind!
Kristof
AM I CLEAR OF WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET ACROSS YOU IGNORANT SHEEP PEOPLE? BAA BAA
Lets see how long I can stir this up ... I'm waiting for someone to post calling me a racist ... I hate stupidity, ignorance, and incompetence of people not the color of their skin. I'm a legend in my own mind!
Kristof
- 5,603
- England, Warwickshire
- GTP_Sigma
Progressive? what do you mean by progressive I haven't heard that word used in this context before. Who is behind this progressive movement? And yes I have heard this mind control nonsense before, can you at least use a sensible argument. I suppose this mind control is affecting me
What on earth does this have to do with this topic whatsoever? Does it have something to do with progressive?
No not really, I still fail to see your point. Perhaps its because I am an Ignorant sheep person.
If you are expecting to stir things up then perhaps you should have a think about your posting style.
Irony?
I am sure you are.
- 919
It seems pointless to continue to respond...
But after being called an ignorant sheep person, how can I not?
First of all, you're coming at things from what could loosely be construed as a Libertarian standpoint. You favor limited government interference in private matters, in this case especially when it comes to the self-defense question? That's great, I tend to agree with you in a proper context. I even agree with you insofar as I don't believe a ban on the TYPE of weapons sold is legitimate.
That said, even under a system of minimized government interference, the government's primary responsibility is to protect its citizens' rights in an organized manner, as leaving defense to each individual citizen would obviously lead to chaos.
Doesn't it seem fairly obvious, even in that context, that the government should put measures in place to ensure that people who are known to be unstable and dangerous (yes I said PEOPLE, not inanimate objects) don't have access to deadly weaponry? I agree that any law-abiding citizen should be able to purchase any sort of firearm he or she desires, but I would be ashamed to live in a country where I knew that I'd be more likely to be forced to USE that firearm in defense because there were no measures in place to ensure that any violent paranoid schizophrenic couldn't arm himself with an arsenal of high-powered semi-automatic weaponry.
Simply put, measures like this wouldn't abrogate the rights of citizens to own weapons. It WOULD however be a morally upright attempt to keep them out of the hands of demonstrably volatile individuals. If you can't wait a week for a background check to buy a gun, I'm afraid I'm leaning towards believing that you fall into the "volatile" camp.
But after being called an ignorant sheep person, how can I not?
First of all, you're coming at things from what could loosely be construed as a Libertarian standpoint. You favor limited government interference in private matters, in this case especially when it comes to the self-defense question? That's great, I tend to agree with you in a proper context. I even agree with you insofar as I don't believe a ban on the TYPE of weapons sold is legitimate.
That said, even under a system of minimized government interference, the government's primary responsibility is to protect its citizens' rights in an organized manner, as leaving defense to each individual citizen would obviously lead to chaos.
Doesn't it seem fairly obvious, even in that context, that the government should put measures in place to ensure that people who are known to be unstable and dangerous (yes I said PEOPLE, not inanimate objects) don't have access to deadly weaponry? I agree that any law-abiding citizen should be able to purchase any sort of firearm he or she desires, but I would be ashamed to live in a country where I knew that I'd be more likely to be forced to USE that firearm in defense because there were no measures in place to ensure that any violent paranoid schizophrenic couldn't arm himself with an arsenal of high-powered semi-automatic weaponry.
Simply put, measures like this wouldn't abrogate the rights of citizens to own weapons. It WOULD however be a morally upright attempt to keep them out of the hands of demonstrably volatile individuals. If you can't wait a week for a background check to buy a gun, I'm afraid I'm leaning towards believing that you fall into the "volatile" camp.
- 601
It's funny when laws don't work on the insane, and criminals. They only work on the law abiding citizen. Don't blame the objects that criminals, and the insane use to kill people. I was pointing out that there's U.S. federal laws already on the books that restrict people from buying, owning, carrying guns when they're convicted felons, committed to a mental hospital, dishonorably discharged from the military, been convicted in domestic violence, and unless a person is a law enforcement officer, or military they can not carry any type of firearm on to U.S. federal property. Public schools of any type are viewed as U.S. federal property. In my mind people who hate guns are just as bad as people who hate other people who have different skin colors, religious practices, and sexual orientation. I also think that any type of armament control is pure evil. Throughout history millions of people have died, because they couldn't defend themselves from a tyrannical person. and/or group. The current progressive movement in the political world came from the modern liberals, socialists, and communists, because the words "liberal", "socialist", and "communist" are viewed as negatives in that fun world.
- 601
So in your eyes that I have violent tendencies, because I like guns, hunting, and going out to my local shooting range so I can shoot paper targets at 300 yards with my target rifle? Oh that's very anti-gun biased of you ... you do know that I love getting under people's skin, hehehe
It seems pointless to continue to respond...
But after being called an ignorant sheep person, how can I not?
First of all, you're coming at things from what could loosely be construed as a Libertarian standpoint. You favor limited government interference in private matters, in this case especially when it comes to the self-defense question? That's great, I tend to agree with you in a proper context. I even agree with you insofar as I don't believe a ban on the TYPE of weapons sold is legitimate.
That said, even under a system of minimized government interference, the government's primary responsibility is to protect its citizens' rights in an organized manner, as leaving defense to each individual citizen would obviously lead to chaos.
Doesn't it seem fairly obvious, even in that context, that the government should put measures in place to ensure that people who are known to be unstable and dangerous (yes I said PEOPLE, not inanimate objects) don't have access to deadly weaponry? I agree that any law-abiding citizen should be able to purchase any sort of firearm he or she desires, but I would be ashamed to live in a country where I knew that I'd be more likely to be forced to USE that firearm in defense because there were no measures in place to ensure that any violent paranoid schizophrenic couldn't arm himself with an arsenal of high-powered semi-automatic weaponry.
Simply put, measures like this wouldn't abrogate the rights of citizens to own weapons. It WOULD however be a morally upright attempt to keep them out of the hands of demonstrably volatile individuals. If you can't wait a week for a background check to buy a gun, I'm afraid I'm leaning towards believing that you fall into the "volatile" camp.
- 15,494
- UK
Comparing racists with those with anti-gun views, brilliant.
And if I quoted the amount who've died from a bullet wound, do you think it would be more or less than those who haven't been able to defend themselves. Because us Brits can't defend ourselves at all, we are just so weak.
And if I quoted the amount who've died from a bullet wound, do you think it would be more or less than those who haven't been able to defend themselves. Because us Brits can't defend ourselves at all, we are just so weak.
- 601
If it wasn't the for the United States, Great Britain, and all of Europe would be speaking German. How many people died in the Nazi death camps during World War 2? (20 million) How many people died during Stalin's purge in the former Soviet Union? (20 million) How many die every day in Burma, because they can't defend themselves against the tyrannical government there?
oh here's the link to enlighten you ...
http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm#dgc
Gun control is pure evil so have a nice day.
- 601
Just ignore me, it's easier to do that, because you can't change my views on gun control ... oh here's some good reading ...
http://www.jpfo.org/index.htm
http://www.gunowners.org/
http://rkba.org/
- 919
To be fair, Hitler did more to defeat the Nazis than anyone else, but that's neither here nor there
It doesn't change the fact that the respective strength of the militaries of the nations represented in this thread - 50 years ago - has no bearing on this discussion.Frestkd, The only thing that has bearing is what is morally right. If you can produce a logical, well-reasoned argument that suggests that the freedom for ANYBODY, regardless of criminal record or mental faculty, should be able to buy ANY weapon they want ANYTIME they want, then your position holds water.
Otherwise, your blanket statement that "Gun control is evil" is patently false. The reasonable debate to have here is this: to what degree and in what ways should a government protect its citizens from dangerous men with dangerous access to dangerous weapons?
And before you accuse me or anyone else here of blaming inanimate objects, please note the bolded phrase above.
- 601
- 601
Hmm I was pointing out there's law already on the books that makes illegal for criminals & the insane to own, carry, and buy guns and those laws didn't protect those people who were in the classroom who got injured and killed by an insane person. The insane, and criminals are not stupid they will go where it's easier for them to do harm onto others, and do illegal activity like stealing, rape, and other bad things. The police is not there to protect us, just to clean up the mess, and take down the information so they can then find the guilty person, or party.
To be fair, Hitler did more to defeat the Nazis than anyone else, but that's neither here nor there
Frestkd, The only thing that has bearing is what is morally right. If you can produce a logical, well-reasoned argument that suggests that the freedom for ANYBODY, regardless of criminal record or mental faculty, should be able to buy ANY weapon they want ANYTIME they want, then your position holds water.
Otherwise, your blanket statement that "Gun control is evil" is patently false. The reasonable debate to have here is this: to what degree and in what ways should a government protect its citizens from dangerous men with dangerous access to dangerous weapons?
And before you accuse me or anyone else here of blaming inanimate objects, please note the bolded phrase above.
Similar threads
