Shootings in US schools (2 Viewers)

[Pauldohert]

I still want to know if I should get a gun for my holidays?? Seriously - I'm off to Denver and Washington to see a mate - sometime next year.

 

[Bodisathva]

I still want to know if I should get a gun for my holidays?? Seriously - I'm off to Denver and Washington to see a mate - sometime next year.

If you stay away from the crack houses in DC and the Bronco's linemen, you should be fine...

 

[Brianwarnock]

I still want to know if I should get a gun for my holidays?? Seriously - I'm off to Denver and Washington to see a mate - sometime next year.

I've visited the States 8 times including places mentioned and never felt threatened.

Brian

 

[Pauldohert]

If you stay away from the crack houses in DC and the Bronco's linemen, you should be fine...

I've visited the States 8 times including places mentioned and never felt threatened.

I thought the argument was guns were needed for protection? Why will I be differant?

Brian have you ever been the Grafton on a Saturday night?

 

[Brianwarnock]

There was a report sometime last year , sorry cannot be more specific, which showed that "hot" buglaries in the US were lower than in Europe, a "hot" burlary is when the premises is occupied, the "experts" thought that this was because the US homeowner might be armed. Perhaps it is not the owning of guns that is the problem , but the carrying of them, and the way they are stored.

Bit simplistic maybe,

Thought Len's post was good, as usual.

Brian

 

[Brianwarnock]

I thought the argument was guns were needed for protection? Why will I be differant?

Brian have you ever been the Grafton on a Saturday night?

Not for 40 years or there abouts.

You will be different because you will be sensible and not visit certain areas, just as back home.
Of cause you could visit an Irish bar and shout "death to the IRA" or something similar.

Brian

 

[MrsGorilla]

I understand your point of view about the right to have a gun. But it shouldn't be for everyone. My uncle doesn't have the right to drive a car because they caught him drunk at the wheel. Why can't they make psychologic tests to those asking for guns.

I am not against guns, I am against giving them to anybody without proper inspections. Having a green card, that guy didn't have the right to vote, but had the right to buy a gun? I think something is wrong there. And it was proven that the police had arrested that guy earlier for harassing two girls and a teacher. Why didn't they take its guns away from him?

I agree with you on that wholeheartedly.

 

[Pauldohert]

You will be different because you will be sensible and not visit certain areas, just as back home.

So you only need a gun in certain areas to protect yourself - Can the US posters who have a gun for protection tell me where you are so I know where the dodgy places not to visit are?

Thanks

 

[ColinEssex]

On the news last night, the reporter said he could buy a machine gun legitimately. This was from a legit arms dealer at his house - not a High St shop.

Why would anyone want a machine gun?

Perhaps limiting the type of gun available may be possible.

Col

 

[dan-cat]

Remember that a Gun is not dangerous in itself.

Leave a gun alone and it will not harm anybody

Its only when it gets into the hands of a person that the danger potential exist

Personally I don't agree with the 'gun as insentient object' approach to the issue. Insentient objects can cause an emotional response to a sentient being. The Grand Canyon causes vertigo every day. Why? because it possesses properties that can cause harm to a sentient being.

Same thing with a gun. The gun holds these dangerous properties, IMHO, independant of any sentient being observing it. It's a philosophical issue which, of course, is completely debatable.

 

[Brianwarnock]

On the news last night, the reporter said he could buy a machine gun legitimately. This was from a legit arms dealer at his house - not a High St shop.

Why would anyone want a machine gun?

Col

Well you are going to need something extra if you want to beat the current record of 32.

Brian

 

[ColinEssex]

Well you are going to need something extra if you want to beat the current record of 32.

Brian

nice one Bri. I like it.

Col

 

[Bodisathva]

Perhaps limiting the type of gun available may be possible.

For once (ok, maybe twice ) we agree on something. The NRA got all huffy when the whole ban on assault weapons went into effect and unleashed the lobbyists. The argument being that they don't need to own an assault weapon or hunt with a fully automatic, but they might feel the desire to... and banning the weapon would infringe upon their rights. Therein lies the argument.


I don't need an AK-47, or an M16, or a 50mm gatling cannon, hell, I don't even want a Glock. I must admit, though, I'm pretty sure that some part of my psyche would experience a testosterone induced fit of giddiness at throwing a couple hundred rounds in rapid succession (and, no, that doesn't mean at a living target, either)

 

[Brianwarnock]

.........to own an assault weapon or hunt with a fully automatic, but they might feel the desire to... and banning the weapon would infringe upon their rights. Therein lies the argument.

Isn't the problem here that these people only quote the second part of the second amendment.

Brian

 

[MrsGorilla]

Well you are going to need something extra if you want to beat the current record of 32.

Brian

That's terrible.

I thought Len's post was quite good too. I also agree with the sentiment of banning certain types of weapons.

As far as the general gun ban goes, I really don't think it would accomplish anything. When you live on an island, maybe it's easier to keep control (somewhat) of what comes into your borders. But what makes any of us think that we'll be more successful at keeping guns from coming in from Mexico than we are drugs? A ban on guns would mostly affect the 99% of us that are law-abiding.

 

[Brianwarnock]

That's terrible.

I thought Len's post was quite good too. I also agree with the sentiment of banning certain types of weapons.

As far as the general gun ban goes, I really don't think it would accomplish anything. When you live on an island, maybe it's easier to keep control (somewhat) of what comes into your borders. But what makes any of us think that we'll be more successful at keeping guns from coming in from Mexico than we are drugs? A ban on guns would mostly affect the 99% of us that are law-abiding.

You are absolutely correct, there is no quick fix, and one has to remember where you are starting from, but start you must or it will only get worse.

Brian

 

[Bodisathva]

Isn't the problem here that these people only quote the second part of the second amendment.

There is precedent which establishes that Madison did not invent the "right to bear arms" by Amending the Constitution, but that it was a derivative of common law established in England:

In 1738, an English defendant was convicted of illegally "keeping a gun" in violation of the Game Act of 1706. Upon appeal in Rex v. Gardner, a higher court quashed that ruling, noting that "..it is an instrument proper, and frequently necessary to be kept and used for other purposes.." [1] Similarly, in Malloch v. Eastly a later court held "a man may keep a gun for the defense of his house and family". [2]

Apparently, that part of your judicial system, we kept

 

[Alc]

I've been reading through the threads. The Americans are grasping at straws to protect their gun loving life, by equating it to radical acts of terrorism etc.

Not all Americans. Dan-Cat is maing some good points.

 

[Bodisathva]

Dan-Cat is maing some good points.

Yeah, but his points all come from a Sociological instead of a Psychological point of view so we ignore him

 

[Brianwarnock]

Quote from Bodi

There is precedent which establishes that Madison did not invent the "right to bear arms" by Amending the Constitution, but that it was a derivative of common law established in England:
Quote:
In 1738, an English defendant was convicted of illegally "keeping a gun" in violation of the Game Act of 1706. Upon appeal in Rex v. Gardner, a higher court quashed that ruling, noting that "..it is an instrument proper, and frequently necessary to be kept and used for other purposes.." [1] Similarly, in Malloch v. Eastly a later court held "a man may keep a gun for the defense of his house and family". [2]

Apparently, that part of your judicial system, we kept

I wonder if that could still be used but I did think that the NRA quoted the 2nd amendment, or part thereof not English Law.

Brian