Fighting words

[ryyannon]

I took exception to an historical inanity, but it's OT, so quote and my comment deleted.

Carry on.

[narikaa]

OH NO !

NOT ANOTHER

SEPTICS & THIER GUNS THREAD!!!!

Lets have a raffle - I'll start.... My guess 6 more pages to 'LOCKED'

[Pugwash]

SEPTICS & THIER GUNS THREAD!!!!

I love 'em, me.

[narikaa]

OK

Then

Stir the pot...............

.

[capt_cope]

I'm only being foolish in trying to fix stupid....!

I never stated that you NEEDED a gun...in fact it was YOU who stated that you didn't need one....my contention was that YOU have them because you desire them.....not that YOU need them......I asked you to give a good reason for the NEED to have a gun.....and good reasons for you to have a WMD are not that you like shooting at paper targets.....and the assertion that YOU would NEVER become angry at anyone.......I told my first g/f that I wouldn't tell anyone.....know what...I lied...... .!

Your logic and ability to write are so poor it hurts sometimes. Correct, you never stated I need a gun. Correct I stated I don't need a gun. But both un-related. You seem to be stringing together stupidly obvious sentences that don't belong. Oh and I never stated I never would become angry, I get angry all the time, it's how I act upon the anger that sets me apart from you. Based on your showing here I'd say you still get on the floor and kick your feet in the air when you get angry.

Oh yeah and here's my attempt at your logic, hopefully you understand: The elephant is grey.....I'm eating breakfast....YOU never said anything about eating breakfast./

1. You don't need a gun to repel foreign invaders ....you have an army for that purpose.

Un-related, I don't need a gun because the sky is blue. You aren't making me think too highly of you here neil. Perhaps you should have stuck to insults, at least you sounded good when you did that.

2. You don't need a gun to hunt.....the requirement for people to put food on their table passed a long time ago.....!

I do in fact need a gun to hunt... I'm not too skilled in the art of stalking grouse with a knife. Oh and congrats you managed to toss in an unrelated bit there. You'd be hard-pressed to find a hunter who honestly claims it's to put food on the table.

3. You don't need a gun to defend yourself against personal attack.......there are many alternatives.....not the least of which is if you ban guns and prevent them from falling into the hands of irresponsible people.....then you'll have nothing to worry about.....!

Hmm... Nope you're wrong. Man you're shooting an 0 for three here. Best to keep your mouth shut, since it seems to be doing a fair bit of talking that the brain can't backup. If someone is in my house with a knife, with the intent to kill me, the only real option I can see that greatly reduces my chances of harm is the use of a firearm. Perhaps there are alternatives, but none quite as nice as a firearm. And as to banning guns and preventing them from falling into the hands of irresponsible people... THE IRRESPONSIBLE PEOPLE ALREADY OWN THEM. Not to mention they are breaking the law by doing such, so do you think they will bat an eye at another law?

4. You don't need them to prevent tyrannical government....your Gubbamint is way smarter than you are......they can impose tyranny without recourse to violence.....look at your Patriot Act....and the way that government is eroding your civil liberties......classic example......find your way onto a Jetblue airliner.....then find that there's a holdup......2 hours which then escalates into a 10 hour holdup......Jetblue can hold YOU hostage.....yet if you want to express your right not to conduct business with that airline and cancle the contract that you paid for......and not to be held against your will.....by a COMMERCIAL enterprise......YOUR Federal government will put you in jail for up to 20 years ...for trying to leave a plane....or go buy up a smallholding somewhere......and then watch your Gubbamint exercise eminent domain......and deprive you of your CHOICE......so that a COMMERCIAL enterprise can enlarge it's portfolio......at the expense of your choice..... .!

Ahh we get down to the real meat. You just hate the US. Clearly because my government is tyrannical in your foolish little eyes (but more experienced, hell you've got 35 years on me. Must know allot about the US in that time. Funny I didn't see you stationed here)I don't need to own guns. You haven't come up with a single good reason why I need to get rid of my guns. This drivel you wrote sounds pathetic, is it the best you can come up with?

So give me a good reason for you to OWN a gun.....!

It's my right to do so. I enjoy excercising my rights daily.

If you want to shoot at paper targets.....join a club that rents you the gun for the duration of your visit....or buy a pellet gun.....!

Because I don't have to rent a gun, I own them. How's that for a good reason?

If you want to do clay pigeon shooting.....join a club that rents you the gun for the duration of your visit....!

But no....none of those are acceptable are they....'cos they're no substitute for having a small penis.....!

Ahh back in poor taste and form I see. No, the last I checked renting a gun will not, in fact, increase penis size. Damn shame isn't it?

Wrong....you can't see the logic because of your bias.....I can give you 32 reasons ( plus all the ripples that emanate form those 32....Mothers / Fathers / Sisters / Brothers / friends.....society as a whole.....what if one of those killed was destined to discover the cure for the common cold....HIV.....cancer ..we'll never know will we...)....... for the need to get rid of firearms.......and another 12......and another 4.......

Ah there we go, you still fail to grasp even the most basic of concepts. The gun didn't walk in there and kill people. Even if guns didn't exist, he would have found another way. Bomb? Fire? Forks? Bricks? I don't know and I don't care, but your argument is severly flawed.

ALL of which are more grave than your argument that you like to shoot at paper tragets and KILL small animals......serial killers are often found to be fascinated with the killing of small animals....makes you wonder about the mentality of people who still think they're pioneers by killing unecessarily... for the table....get real.....!

I've heard idiots type to hear their own voice. Do you fall into that category? Oh God no, I've KILLed small animals, I must be a serial killer. I stalk grouse! Jesus lock me up today.

BTW...you're arguing from one standpoint....I argue from two standpoints......

And you claim I'm unstable. I don't wake up and say good morning to myselfs.

I've been where you are.......and where you haven't......

I'm not where I am. Got it

I've been obsessed with guns......but when I surrendered them...I quickly realised that I didn't need them....I found plenty of alternatives....

Why didn't you just say you've been brainwashed to be stupid?

gun nuts are just like alcoholics......

My liver is fine thanks.

they are in denial.....until they get on the wagon....and realisation hits them.... .so don't lecture me about foolish.....!

Listen until you can form a decent argument I'll lecture you on your own stupidity with great enjoyment.

BTW ...any insults I've hurled your way ...are just my way of saying.....you're a dolt.....a dangerous one with a BIG arsenal.....I wouldn't want to live next door to you......!

I wouldn't want you there either.

You've a long way to go son.....and a lot to learn on the way....!

And YOU'RE the one to be saying this? I mean it's true, but please.

[cornerstone]

Lets have a raffle - I'll start.... My guess 6 more pages to 'LOCKED'

My guess is 4 more pages.

Mods don't get to play.

[Polynomial]

OH NO !

NOT ANOTHER

SEPTICS & THIER GUNS THREAD!!!!

Lets have a raffle - I'll start.... My guess 6 more pages to 'LOCKED'

Naa, it's been moved to off topic, the other one started earlier would but, not this one, so let's [censored] our hearts out, enjoy.

[olivia]

[FxrAndy]

I have to agree with Capt_Cope, Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

How hard is it to kill 33 people in two hours with out a gun, give me a scalpel and an airline ticket, or niXrXgXn rich fertiliser fuel oil and a coffee grinder, im sure TTK knows what i mean and where i learned it.

What we need is a robust system of punishment to keep crime down, all crime not just gun crime and if that entails corporal punishment so be it.

I know it would not stop what has happened, and i dont know what would have. But i don't believe banning guns is the answer. If i had to i could kill with a tea spoon or a pair of sun glasses and so could every one given the right motivation.

@ Capt Cope, keep going i just put some pop corn in!

[Guest TTK]

@Polynomial........don't know what thread you've been reading.....but it's obviously not this one....!

I am addressing only the "guns are made for killing" and "killing is bad",

So what are you saying.....that guns are NOT made for killing......and that KILLING is good........!

@Cap'n.....!

I'm not going to drag this out any further....mainly because I have other things to do....like packing a whole lot of MBW's......beside which you're boring me now......logic is a concept that you obvioulsy haven't embraced...!

So I'm not going to be drawn into a tirade against the US.......suffice to say that you have your POV ......which is distorted.....I have mine.....which is steeped in clarity......let it be said.....most members know me here.....and know that I speak my mind.......they also know that I don't mince my words and that I tell the truth......your problem is that you can't see the truth.....your a product of a society that embraces violence in every arena.....and hasn't found a way to cope with it......but there are movements that will eventually take you in the right direction.....it's called progress......after all you've only had 200+ years to develop as a nation...a bastardised nation at that....a melting pot of different races and cultures that make a stew that just hasn't got the right flavour yet......and you're just part of that stew......the greasy part that floats on the surface....!

My proposition is presented from a standpoint that you will never understand.....it's from the standpoint of altruism......you are 21 years old.....believe me.....you have NO idea what may transpire over the course of your coming years.....from the possibility of alcoholism to psychosis.....to changing circumstances that alter your perspective on things......it's all in your future.....and none of us have the ability to predict it.......all I'll say is that if the day comes along when you lose your job on the line......given over to cheaper labour countries.....or your health deteriorates to the extent where you're not capable of dealing with life on it;s most basic terms.....or when your wife has the affair......that drives you over the edge.......as it stands at present.....in any of those or a myriad of other circumstances....... should your circuitry go awry.......I'd rather society dealt with you on my terms than yours.......you possess the potential at present to infict serious damage on society....with your macho 'assault' rifles.......by virtue of the fact that your society has handed you the means...........in my scenario......you still posess the potential to damage society.....but society won't have condoned it by providing you with the means to do it.......you'll have to commit to another method to do it....as Timothy McVeigh did......!

Another reason I won't carry on this debate with you.......i've just noticed your signature........and that tells me all I need to know about you.....so these are my last words on it........as I said all along ....stupid is as stupid does.......happy hunting.....Cap'n....give my regards to the grouse and tell him I wish him luck......!

Fire away......oops.....sorry.....I mean carry on.....!

Edited April 18, 2007 by TTK

[Craytonic]

I'm not too skilled in the art of stalking grouse with a knife.

Let me tip my hat to a great post; that line almost made me [censored] myself. Those and quail are fast little buggers.

[Tim]

@Tim.....please don't ascribe to the view that fundamentalist Muslims have been driven to jihad by virtue of Imperialstic alignment of Middle Eastern countries......and that Jihad is a modern trend in fundamental Islam.....it's not....it's been there since the birth of Mohammed.....and his abrogated / perverse religion......!

I do ascribe to that view. And you have an example right in your own homeland of the same forces at work as those suffered in the Middle East. Northern Ireland. While certainly there had been a great deal of tension in Northern Ireland since the Plantation of Ulster, it didn't harden until all the mucking around with nations that occurred at the end of WWI. No, the industrialized world has never had any problems like what those the ignorant Muslims have created with their cretinish religion.... Christianity would never cause such strife.

-T

[Guest TTK]

@Tim.....I won't brook any argument with that POV....I'm no supporter of any of the Abrahamic faiths......to me they're all tarred with the same brush.....!

What I was seeking to emphasise is that our perception of Islam and it's underlying problems with the west.....are not confined to any specific historical period....!

As for N.I. ......I have a dfferent POV.......the vast majority of people in N.I. and Eire......have absolutely no desire to be embroiled in conflict....the vast majority of the trouble is and was caused once again by fundamentalists....with varying agenda.......and believe me.....the vast majority of it was 'criminal' in nature and not political.....there was a constant campaign amongst factions to determine just who was entitled to the reins when the vacuum was created by the Brits leaving N.I.......believe me it goes a lot deeper than just politics....!

Edited April 18, 2007 by TTK

[Tim]

@Tim.....I won't brook any argument with that POV....I'm no supporter of any of the Abrahamic faiths......to me they're all tarred with the same brush.....!

What I was seeking to emphasise is that our perception of Islam and it's underlying problems with the west.....are not confined to any specific historical period....!

As for N.I. ......I have a dfferent POV.......the vast majority of people in N.I. and Eire......have absolutely no desire to be embroiled in conflict....the vast majority of the trouble is and was caused once again by fundamentalists....with varying agenda.......and believe me.....the vast majority of it was 'criminal' in nature and not political.....there was a constant campaign amongst factions to determine just who was entitled to the reins when the vacuum was created by the Brits leaving N.I.......believe me it goes a lot deeper than just politics....!

So you are willing to be apologetic with Northern Ireland and say the situation is complicated, but not with the Middle East. I think the following rings very true:

As for [the Middles East]......I have a dfferent POV.......the vast majority of people in [the Middle East]......have absolutely no desire to be embroiled in conflict....the vast majority of the trouble is and was caused once again by fundamentalists....with varying agenda.......and believe me.....the vast majority of it was 'criminal' in nature and not political.....there was a constant campaign amongst factions to determine just who was entitled to the reins when the vacuum was created by the Brits leaving [the Middle East].......believe me it goes a lot deeper than just politics....!

The US should kick some ass in the Middle East. Someone should send Hezbollah back to Iran, lock the PLO and Israel into a room, and not open the door until they have an agreement signed. Then the UN should go in there, supported by the entire world, and enforce the agreement. The Saudi's can squish all the money needed into the Palestinian nation (we are paying for it anyhow at the pump) and the US can take care of Israel (we are paying for it anyhow with taxes). That one act all on its own would repair 80% of the problems going on now. The last 20% would be Iran and that would be a very difficult situation for the US to resolve since it is the Sunni that need to figure out how to live with the Shi'a.

-T

[eddhead]

As exemplified in this post, this is a very emotinal issue in the US. On one side we have Gun Owners who claim an absolute consitutional right to own fire arms based on the second amendment. On the other, are the gun control advocates who believe the context for the second amendment was to provide armed militia, a concept that has become obsolete with advent of the Federal Defence structure of the active armed forces and the reserve guard. This group tends to be as absolute in their convictions as the gun advocates are in theirs. In the interests of full disclosure, Ifall into the gun control bucket.

Nevertheless, irrespective of your position on this issue, I feel that generally, there is some middle position between the two extreme sides that can be arrived at if we can just take some of the emotion out of the discourse. For instance perhaps if gun control advocates like myself would give a bit on non-automatic personal weapons, and guns rights advocates would give on assault weapons and assault ammo. we can at least mitigate the potential for harm. Unfortunetly, I just do not see it happening.. .the NRA is too hardcore on their positon of absolute right to ownership and politically this is a non-starter for the left wing. In fact you could argue that the advocacy of stonger feder gun control laws cost Al Gore Virginia in the 2000 presidential race and by extension, cost him the presidency. The irony I am sure is not lost on people like me who support this initiative.

Some observations:

- Although I favor strong gun control laws, believe it or not, I at least try to be objective when discussing the issue with folks who have views that are different than those of my own. I know there are people out their who justify the right to own a personal firearm, and while I do not agree with them, i get their point and understand the position. I can understand why a single woman living alone, or a man with a family might want to purchase a weapon for personal or family protection. To me the compromise here might be more constraints around concealed weapons permist. If you can go along with that, I can agree to disagree with you nd still have a good day. But I do not get people who are so wrapped up in what they preceive to be their absolulte right to ownership that they decry ANY responible attempt to put up some restrictions around who can own a gun, what type of gun it can be, and where they can take. Let's face facts people.. The VA Tech assaulant went into a gun shop in the morning and walked out with an automatic weapon and assault amo less than an hour later. There are not a lot of places in the US other than Virginia where you can do that. No cooling down period, very limited background check. I mean, there just has to be someway we can prevent psycologically unbalanced people from getting their hands on guns... for the sake of the public good. It just strike me that any nut job with a license and no criminal record can get their hands on a gun in Virginia. It is not a conincidence that this happened in a state that has perhaps the least restrive gun control laws in the country, anymore than that "Beltway Sniper" incidents of 2002also occured in the Virginia area is.

-There are entirely too many incidents of mass, random muders occuring in recent years and by that I mean 20 years or so. UTEP, Columbine, Beltway, VA Tech... this is not something we can close our eyes to and do nothing about.

- Were we able to reach the middle ground decribed above, VA tech would have still had casualities... maybe 2 instead of 33. Hence my remarks about mitigating the loss.

- As I mentioned above, I may not agree with personal fire arms advocates, but I get it. For the life of me, I cannot understand the justification of owning assault weapons or assault ammo. If you are a collector, and are concerned about your hobby, I would put to you that the interests of public good FAR out weigh the personal satisfaction you get from persuing this hobby. If you do not see that, you are probably to far over the top to discuss this issue with.

- People who advocate arming the citizenry as a means to disincenting armed crimes scare the sh!t out of me. This is exactly why people who live overseas think the US is still like Dodge City in the late 1800's. If you are advocating frontier justice, or even suggesting that if everyone owned a gun we would experience LESS armed crime, please do not come near me, because I am frightened of you. Really.

- Of course I realize that tighter arms control does not prevent bad guys from hijacking planes and flying them into buildings. But that argument is a red herring.. it is irrelvent. The fact is, stricter guns control laws would prevent or at least mitiate the occurances of random mass murder in places like Columbine and UTEP and VA Teck. And that is the point.

- Politically, Federal gun control is dead in the water, period. I am sorry but that is just the way it is. the NRA is just too strong a lobby group, they spend too much money, and the political hacks on the left (and i am by the waya lefty but these people REALLY ARE HACKS) just do not have the guts to take a positon that is consistent with thier ideological views. . Democratic politicians have absolutely no courage to their convictions, and I say that as a registred democrat. It digusts me. Any chance the left had to inact federal gun control died with Clinton and Gore.

[omega1]

@TTK:

One person

[eddhead]

@TTK:

The simple fact is that I don't really have to justify to you or anyone else why I possess firearms. It is my RIGHT to do so, just as it is your RIGHT to own as many knives as you want. I don't see the logical argument for spending over a mil on a Ferrari Enzo either, but it is that persons RIGHT to do so

I think that is debatable. The historical context of the second amemdment was national and state defense. The Constitutional Congress' 's armed forces were chiefly comprised of individual state militia made up of personel who used their own weapons. This is why the amendment begins with a conditional preamble around the need to maintain an armed militia as a justitificaton for bearing arms.

As a gun owner, I agree that gun control needs to be made more strict. I think that much more investigation should be done on a person's background before giving them the green light to purchase. Perhaps even a psych evaluation. I would even venture to say that I would like to see some types of requirements as to how firearms are stored in the home (for the record, all my firearms an ammunition are locked away in a 1

[archibald]

Can I just interrupt this debate to offer a few thoughts about why this thread iexists at all?

In a country that's evenly devided, where information can be disseminated in real time, where grass roots organization is the order of the political day--"Debate" is the lifeblood of votes. Or at least of money, which is the lifeblood of votes. The medial loves, needs debate and so do political organizing groups--of which the NRA is one of the best.

The NRA is going to use this shooting in two ways. They can get Republicans, (which means, these days, the Prez runners) to get into a biddiing war over the gun voters. The winning bid will be the strongetst pro-gun statements. There will be many bidders seeing as 60% of the GOP primary field comprises moderates falling over themselves to look like a cross between Tom Delay and Pat Robertson. The NRA also wants Hillary and Obama to say something immoderate (which they may feel they may have to do, since they're fighting over the left of Dem Party) to be used to whip up the gun voters during the general election.

What about the anti gun crowd, arch? What are they doing? My answer--as a democratic operative--is "screaming loudly for handgun bans probably, but who gives a [censored]?"

Since manufactured debate is about votes, and reality is about laws here'w what's going to happen in real life: Nothing. No gun legislation. No big court cases. Just a bunch of people like us getting whipped up on the Internet, firming up our opinions of who we love and who we hate. Getting rared up to go vote for and against whomever. Guess what? There's no anti-gun movement. At least not in any way that has a 1% chance to affect gun ownership--an anti-gun bill wouldn't get enough Democrat votes to pass the house or even get a vote in the senate. Why? Because most realize that it's a losing and irrelevent issue: Talk too much about guns and you whip up a lot of freaks who are going to go out of therir way to vote against you. There are very few anti-gun single issue voters--not enough people have had their kids killed down at the college. Anyway, everyone knows that you can outlaw guns tomorrow and there will still be enough floating around to arm any crack pot hankering for a Glock.

What the NRA is really hoping for is that a few Dems do introduce some legislation--either to shore up the left for a bigger office run or to play to their urban constituancies--and that Pelosi and/or Reid are willing to let it come to floor debate. Mind you, that decision will not be based on any registration or background check bills chance of passing (it wont in a million decades) but the political juice to be gainded from the debate, but IMO unless someone like Hillary absolutely forces it, they should just let the NRA scream. The people they're screaming for won't vote for us anyway.

OK. Now back to the passionate "Debate" about GUN CONTROL.

[Tim]

@TTK:

One person

[omega1]

I think that is debatable. The historical context of the second amemdment was national and state defense. The Constitutional Congress' 's armed forces were chiefly comprised of individual state militia made up of personel who used their own weapons. This is why the amendment begins with a conditional preamble around the need to maintain an armed militia as a justitificaton for bearing arms.

My comment was more directed to TTK, as he was basically saying that one needed to give a reason for owning a firearm. My point was that I don

[rdorman]

Sorry for coming in so late!

This is an indication of a social/mental health issue, not a gun control issue. There are a number of countries with much higher per capita gun ownership yet lower gun violence rates.

Laws don't stop the crazies. Murder is against the law... that didn't stop him.

The 'if there are no legal guns then there can be no illegal guns' argument is rubish. Cocaine is illegal but you can get it any where.

Common misconception, you can own a gun in the UK.

A ban on them will not stop violence. After the 'ban' in 87 then Dunblane massacre of 96 happened. Which resulted in tougher laws but yet the number of crimes involving firearms in England/Wales went up 73% from 98/99 to 02/03.

Every effort must be made to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Who I define as any one who has been convicted of a felony. But if you review many of the shooters on both sides of the pond, how many where felons or even had a criminal record of violence of any kind? Look it up, the results are suprising.

The Virginia Tech insident, just like some of the others mentioned and many others not is not the place to work on gun control nor a platform for it advocacy. IF we where able to take this killers guns away, they would have used explosives. Take those away, chemicals, take those away they would have used knives/swords. Take that away...... Lack of a firearm has never stopped any one before. Sure, it makes it easier to kill.

If any thing, it is a great platform for mental health care, early recognition of the signs that are generally present and treatment.

[omega1]

@eddhead,

Just wanted to add one more thing. While you do not agree with my position, I am pleased to see that you are debating it in a professional manner, verses saying that

[HauteHippie]

Crossposting my thoughts originally posted in ken's thread....

Here in the US, the same people who think it's impossible to deport 11 million illegal Mexicans think that it's entirely plausible to confiscate 250 million firearms. Even if it were plausible, it won't prevent people apt to comitting heinous crimes from obtaining weapons to do so. No, gun control won't work and wouldn't have worked in this case (guns were already banned on campus as is), however a little psycho control would have gone a long way. Here you had an individual writing disturbingly violent papers and plays for class assignments, stalking multiple women, intimidating students AND teachers, setting fire in a dormitory, and being admitted for psychiatric evaulation. Based on what little we already know, this guy should have been long since prosecuted and expelled. But instead of addressing the facts, so many people want to use this tragedy to demonize guns yet again. The gun grabbers are single minded, waiting for moments like this to make emotional exploitations. And to top it off, what seemingly hasn't been covered are all the bills that went down which would have given these students a fighting chance by allowing them to carry on campus. If a fire had killed this many people because there were no fire extinguishers, that almost certainly would have been reported. Yet here you had a well documented psycho on campus who was brushed under the rug, while at the same time fellow students were denied their right to defend themselves against him. Terrible.

Oh and by the way, I have some advice for non-Americans who think they know best how to run our country. But since this is a family channel, I will decline to share it.

[robc_uk]

Captain (!)

You stated:

"You bring up other countries as "proof" that no one needs guns. Funny, the last time I looked at the statistics crime, murders, and even *gasp* gun violence INCREASED after firearms were banned or restricted. (UK... Australia...) But we all know that those stats are twisted depending on the author's bias, so it's a toss up. You certianly don't have any more proof than I on that count."

There are two main reasons that Gun Crime went UP after Handguns were banned:

1. Many,previously honest, handgun owners had mysterious burglaries just before the deadline and their handguns were stolen. The problem was when they had dug them up from the garden and they REALLY did get stolen they couldn't report them.

2. And, actually this is the main reason, the collapse of the Soviet Union left millions of weapons available in Eastern Europe,as their border controls are similar to that of Canada & the US they have flooded into Western Europe (THe UK is part of Europe !).

We have a problem in the UK,but it can be improved with compulsory life sentences for gun crimes,but with the way the Metropolitan Police's Armed Response Team react it's getting pretty dangerous to carry other items, such as a table leg or a face that looks a bit 'Arabic'.

Funny though, Everyone else can have a reasoned discussion but the Americans, It's in your Constitution you yell!, So? you can amend the Constitution when it suits you, so why can't you just act like adults and do it. Last year there were 30,000 gun related homicides in the US and 46 in the UK.

Don't shout, think

Rob

[eddhead]

IF we where able to take this killers guns away, they would have used explosives. Take those away, chemicals, take those away they would have used knives/swords. Take that away...... Lack of a firearm has never stopped any one before. Sure, it makes it easier to kill.

.. and kill with great efficency which is really the point. You could never do the amount of harm with a knife that you can do with an automatic weapon. I am not familiar with any instances where a knife wielding lunatic went nuts and stabbed 33 random people to death within the span of a couple of hours. And saying explosives would do the trick only means we need better control over explosives...

i am just sayyyyinnn'...

still i go back to my previous point about taking moderate stances to solution what is more and more becoming a really tragic societal issue. I am past the poing of trying to a make policy stance here.. there is too much at stake. At this point I would absolutly settle for having a well thought our national discourse with serious minded pragmatic moderates who are more focused on getting to a solution than they are with taking a stand.

If any thing, it is a great platform for mental health care, early recognition of the signs that are generally present and treatment.

Excellent point.