Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Shootings......WTF?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Willowfang View Post
    Another perspective, to try and say a gun if not a tool is taking/splitting focus away from what can be done in the education/upbringing of a society's citizens.
    If you take guns away, how does that change anything about teaching people ethics and morals? What is it about a gun, that is going to help the process of bringing people up good?

    If we had/one day have ethics/morality, fellow citizen appreciation classes in grades 1-12, do you not think that would make a huge difference in people lashing out?
    We're taught morals and ethics everyday. If you think your society needs a special "class", to help people understand right from wrong, that says a lot about your society.

    You really need to point out that murder is wrong?

    Removing deadly tools from general access is not without it's merits of course. That's why you can easily buy a pickax or rent a bulldozer and not buy dynamite to clear rocks or build a pool.
    If you can admit that, how is a gun any different? Explosives actually have a purpose, other than killing. Guns don't.

    But to ignore the citizens roll in this and outlaw just the guns/tools is to give free reign on their insanities.
    What does this even mean? Are you actually arguing things would get worse without guns? All these thrill killing cowards, who hid behind the power of a gun, would just change their plan to something more sinister? It's the simplicity of a gun, that makes it a weapon of choice for these guys. If the psycho who killed all these children, didn't have access to a gun, maybe he takes his frustrations out in other ways.


    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Heretic View Post
      We're taught morals and ethics everyday. If you think your society needs a special "class", to help people understand right from wrong, that says a lot about your society.
      If you go by that logic then you would have to understand, we as in you and me are on a forum/website that promotes horror movies that have EXTREME, BRUTAL, AWFUL MURDERS but does that make us want to go out and kill?

      For some seeing something like that WILL undoubtedly make them want to go out and kill someone or fantasize about it.

      If you ban guns the negative stereotypes are still right in front of everyones faces through MEDIA,FILM,INTERNET so should we ban HORROR movies ? Should we ban Guns in movies ? If guns become harder to obtain it still doesn't stop that sycophant from getting his kicks.

      The problem isn't the guns it's what people are watching and thinking and dreaming about and for most of us we know fantasy from reality and most of us are not on medication to try and stop us from living in la,la land.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Freddy_Lives View Post
        If you go by that logic then you would have to understand, we as in you and me are on a forum/website that promotes horror movies that have EXTREME, BRUTAL, AWFUL MURDERS but does that make us want to go out and kill?

        For some seeing something like that WILL undoubtedly make them want to go out and kill someone or fantasize about it.

        If you ban guns the negative stereotypes are still right in front of everyones faces through MEDIA,FILM,INTERNET so should we ban HORROR movies ? Should we ban Guns in movies ? If guns become harder to obtain it still doesn't stop that sycophant from getting his kicks.

        The problem isn't the guns it's what people are watching and thinking and dreaming about and for most of us we know fantasy from reality and most of us are not on medication to try and stop us from living in la,la land.
        Eliminate guns, and you limit people's options for mass murder. The media doesn't outright kill people.

        It's also naive to think it's all about what we watch, and that these events are thoroughly planned out ahead of time, by people who were pre-determined to do an evil act. Who's to say this guy didn't just snap, over some frivalous shit, and thought to himself "well fuck it", and went right for the gun?

        We can toss around these variables all day long, but the bottom line is, if that piece of shit doesn't have instant access to an assault rifle, and 100's of rounds of ammunition, 20+ people don't die in an instant by his hands.


        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Heretic View Post
          Eliminate guns, and you limit people's options for mass murder. The media doesn't outright kill people.

          It's also naive to think it's all about what we watch, and that these events are thoroughly planned out ahead of time, by people who were pre-determined to do an evil act. Who's to say this guy didn't just snap, over some frivalous shit, and thought to himself "well fuck it", and went right for the gun?

          We can toss around these variables all day long, but the bottom line is, if that piece of shit doesn't have instant access to an assault rifle, and 100's of rounds of ammunition, 20+ people don't die in an instant by his hands.
          The real Bottom line is it's wrong to take guns or ban guns from RESPONSIBLE gun owners WHICH IS THE MAJORITY not the minority.

          When people start saying you cannot have things it becomes a very slippery slope.

          Comment


          • #35
            I honestly don't think sharpy pointy hardware or bulldozers would have the desired effect that the killer would want to achieve, and bombs strike me as something a killer would use when the interest is in making a political statement or perpetrating an act of terror. No, there is something about a gun, something about that dark glamor that our culture has infused into it that makes it the only weapon conceivable when carrying out these kinds of killings. It's as if the gun gives it a particular flavor, and it is certainly the case that it is a hands on kind of killing with alot of power behind it. If people are feeling outraged, alienated and isolated, they reach for the gun as a means of inspecific revenge. If they are paranoid and politically motivated, they reach for the bomb. The bomb is less personal, the gun more intimate. The bomb is more interested in damage and destruction than it is in outright killing. it's indescriminate. The gun is more the direct extension of of the body and the individual will with more specific targets in mind. Though these targets are still generalized and nonspecific, there is still the sense that the carnage is expressive of an individual will. Bombs are used to disrupt the system, guns for nonspecific yet very personal revenge.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Freddy_Lives View Post
              The real Bottom line is it's wrong to take guns or ban guns from RESPONSIBLE gun owners WHICH IS THE MAJORITY not the minority.
              Yeah, well unfortunately the minority are destroying people's lives. I'd also argue that while the majority of gun owners are for the most part responsible, they sure as hell don't need them. Their lives aren't going to change much without a gun.

              When people start saying you cannot have things it becomes a very slippery slope.
              I'm not allowed to own a grizzly bear, because it's dangerous. I'm not allowed to own C-4, because it's dangerous. Ain't no slippery slope about it. It's perfectly logical. Guns are no different.


              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Jack the Pin View Post
                I honestly don't think sharpy pointy hardware or bulldozers would have the desired effect that the killer would want to achieve, and bombs strike me as something a killer would use when the interest is in making a political statement or perpetrating an act of terror. No, there is something about a gun, something about that dark glamor that our culture has infused into it that makes it the only weapon conceivable when carrying out these kinds of killings. It's as if the gun gives it a particular flavor, and it is certainly the case that it is a hands on kind of killing with alot of power behind it. If people are feeling outraged, alienated and isolated, they reach for the gun as a means of inspecific revenge. If they are paranoid and politically motivated, they reach for the bomb. The bomb is less personal, the gun more intimate. The bomb is more interested in damage and destruction than it is in outright killing. it's indescriminate. The gun is more the direct extension of of the body and the individual will with more specific targets in mind. Though these targets are still generalized and nonspecific, there is still the sense that the carnage is expressive of an individual will. Bombs are used to disrupt the system, guns for nonspecific yet very personal revenge.

                Killing is killing my friend even the Columbine tragedy had those boys using bombs.

                We can debate all day long on the topic but what it comes down to is Right and Wrong are just words what matters is what we do and taking from the majority because of the minority is not OK in any shape or form on this topic.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Heretic View Post
                  Yeah, well unfortunately the minority are destroying people's lives. I'd also argue that while the majority of gun owners are for the most part responsible, they sure as hell don't need them. Their lives aren't going to change much without a gun.
                  Their lives may not change it's the principal of the point it's wrong for the media/people to try and ban guns because of minority instances.

                  I live in missouri we have TONS AND TONS AND TONS of guns here on my block alone I have 6 neighbors and 6 shooting buddies not one single incident while shooting those guns have been negative.

                  It's not a matter of need it's a matter of want so I love guns just like some people like being pyrotechnics and if i'm not hurting anyone then I should be able to enjoy my HOBBY which for most semi-automatic owners it is.

                  Convicts can't own guns and responsible gun owners don't allow the chance for someone to steal or break into their guns without seeing the signs first.

                  It's a tragedy that this happened but the signs were there and no one helped the boy which IS FIRST AND FOREMOST.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Jack the Pin View Post
                    I honestly don't think sharpy pointy hardware or bulldozers would have the desired effect that the killer would want to achieve, and bombs strike me as something a killer would use when the interest is in making a political statement or perpetrating an act of terror. No, there is something about a gun, something about that dark glamor that our culture has infused into it that makes it the only weapon conceivable when carrying out these kinds of killings. It's as if the gun gives it a particular flavor, and it is certainly the case that it is a hands on kind of killing with alot of power behind it. If people are feeling outraged, alienated and isolated, they reach for the gun as a means of inspecific revenge. If they are paranoid and politically motivated, they reach for the bomb. The bomb is less personal, the gun more intimate. The bomb is more interested in damage and destruction than it is in outright killing. it's indescriminate. The gun is more the direct extension of of the body and the individual will with more specific targets in mind. Though these targets are still generalized and nonspecific, there is still the sense that the carnage is expressive of an individual will. Bombs are used to disrupt the system, guns for nonspecific yet very personal revenge.
                    I think it all comes down to the effort involved. A gun is just easiest option when it comes to killing. All you need are the basics. Making a bomb takes effort, a degree of planning, and has a certain amount of personal risk involved. At least as far as homemade bombs go. I won't get into grenades and shit, 'cause citizens shouldn't own them either.

                    Bombs are for the scheming, and planning killer. Guns are for any psycho within arms reach.


                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Guns don't kill people...people kill people. Banning guns is not gonna stop that, plain and simple.
                      Cinema Junkyard

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by floyd2006 View Post
                        Guns don't kill people...people kill people. Banning guns is not gonna stop that, plain and simple.
                        Exactly short and sweet.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Freddy_Lives View Post
                          Their lives may not change it's the principal of the point it's wrong for the media/people to try and ban guns because of minority instances.

                          I live in missouri we have TONS AND TONS AND TONS of guns here on my block alone I have 6 neighbors and 6 shooting buddies not one single incident while shooting those guns have been negative.
                          Yes, but the possibilty of something going very wrong, is always there. Who's to say one of your buddies gets in a messy divorce, and just completely fucking snaps one day? What do you think he'll reach for?

                          It's not a matter of need it's a matter of want so I love guns just like some people like being pyrotechnics and if i'm not hurting anyone then I should be able to enjoy my HOBBY which for most semi-automatic owners it is.
                          Your "hobby" has the potential to turn into a disaster. You've basically just cemented my argument that guns aren't necessary in our society. If your argument is "I likes to shoot ma gun! 'Murica!", it's not a very sound argument, when faced with a mass murder of children.

                          If potentially saving lives has to interfere with a hobby, so be it. I like Bangal Tigers, but I'm not allowed to own one. Ouch! Right in the manhood. Poor me.

                          It's a tragedy that this happened but the signs were there and no one helped the boy which IS FIRST AND FOREMOST.
                          What signs? He was quiet? A loner? Well fuck, we better start monitoring 25% of all high schools.

                          There is never a "sign" for someone who goes on a rampage like this. You will never peg any normal citizen as a potential mass murderer. All you can do is limit their options.


                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Heretic View Post
                            Yes, but the possibilty of something going very wrong, is always there. Who's to say one of your buddies gets in a messy divorce, and just completely fucking snaps one day? What do you think he'll reach for?
                            He could easily go on a rampage and run over someone with his car.

                            Any hobby has the possibility to be dangerous if there is any risk involved and bengal tigers are allowed to be owned if you have the proper permits yet we do hear on the news about them breaking out and MAULING and killing people so should we kill all bengal tigers or ban them in zoo's ?

                            Your logic is flawed you are trying to oppress people because of incidents that happen rarely not every day.

                            you have a higher chance of getting mauled at the zoo then being shot by some crazy gun toting guy and if you are threatened by someone with a gun it's a 90% chance that it's a handgun not a semi-automatic assault rifle.

                            Look at the stats of gun violence it's in ghetto areas and usually a violent gang related or dispute crime. NOT SOMEONE RANDOMLY GOING ON A KILLING SPREE.
                            Last edited by Freddy_Lives; 12-17-2012, 01:32 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Heretic View Post
                              Your "hobby" has the potential to turn into a disaster. You've basically just cemented my argument that guns aren't necessary in our society. If your argument is "I likes to shoot ma gun! 'Murica!", it's not a very sound argument, when faced with a mass murder of children.
                              Guns are definitely necessary in todays society btw our country is so divided that we are heading in a path that is unbeknownst to us and I would rather have than have not against a government heading in this direction.

                              Most people who are stockpiling are afraid of the government or the doomsday.

                              It's the 2nd amendment and as long as it's there by god I should have the right to have as many guns as I want to and guess what the majority will never go on a shooting killing spree.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by floyd2006 View Post
                                Guns don't kill people...people kill people. Banning guns is not gonna stop that, plain and simple.
                                Yep, and people with guns who kill people do it with guns and they do it more effectively with a much higher body count because they used guns. Regulate the guns, make it harder for the killers to get their hands on them, and you're a long way toward reducing gun violence.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X