• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Gunman kills 30 at US university - time to review gun laws?

Should US gunlaws be reviewed?


  • Total voters
    45
Like I've said before, I support the right to bear arms. But this particular argument never made much sense to me, and it always seemed a little...well...weird.

If the government becomes oppressive, do you really think you're going to be able to stop their tanks with a gun?

I think they have the "If Madmax can do it - So can we" idea.
 
I think they have the "If Madmax can do it - So can we" idea.

you shoot the people who order the oppression, not their pawns in the tanks
 
if not it should be
or are you asking me to back up what i have heard in the story?

Wait so I don't get it...this kid who was clearly mentally ill...was allowed to legally purchase guns. Does this work for the benefit of people who think there should be little or not restriction on firearms? I could see it as being :spin: by both sides really easily.
 
you shoot the people who order the oppression, not their pawns in the tanks

:rofl . I don't know whether to laugh or cry. So you think the army would just let you go and shoot the politicians? Must I remind you that a government can't be oppressive without support from the military? If the government ever becomes oppressive in this country it will be with the support of the military. Not without it. So alright. Say the government does become oppressive. Do you think the army will just let you go by and kill every politician? Come on Turtle. What oppressive regime do you know about doesn't have military support?
 
:rofl . I don't know whether to laugh or cry. So you think the army would just let you go and shoot the politicians? Must I remind you that a government can't be oppressive without support from the military? If the government ever becomes oppressive in this country it will be with the support of the military. Not without it. So alright. Say the government does become oppressive. Do you think the army will just let you go by and kill every politician? Come on Turtle. What oppressive regime do you know about doesn't have military support?


that is why your hypothetical is a joke. anyone can be killed but I don't believe the military would support such nonsense as a massive gun grab. do you know what happened to Hughey Long?
 
that is why your hypothetical is a joke. anyone can be killed but I don't believe the military would support such nonsense as a massive gun grab. do you know what happened to Hughey Long?

My hypothetical is a joke...hmmm

Your argument : We should take have weapons in case the government becomes oppressive.

My argument : The government would not be able to become oppressive without support from the army. If the army is(This is the most likely of possibilities) involved there is little you can do to stop tanks, helicopters and battle ships.

Your 2nd argument : This would not happen.

My 2nd argument : Then why would you make the 1st argument? :|

Adding : ...Wtf is a gun grab?
 
My hypothetical is a joke...hmmm

Your argument : We should take have weapons in case the government becomes oppressive.

My argument : The government would not be able to become oppressive without support from the army. If the army is(This is the most likely of possibilities) involved there is little you can do to stop tanks, helicopters and battle ships.

Your 2nd argument : This would not happen.

My 2nd argument : Then why would you make the 1st argument? :|

Adding : ...Wtf is a gun grab?

it won't happen because most politicians don't want to die. I am curious, your profile has you at 21 years old. how many members of the military or law enforcement do you know
 
it won't happen because most politicians don't want to die. I am curious, your profile has you at 21 years old. how many members of the military or law enforcement do you know

How many members of the military? Personally? I'm related to 8. 5 of which are currently serving. Why?
 
it won't happen because most politicians don't want to die. I am curious, your profile has you at 21 years old. how many members of the military or law enforcement do you know

Again. How does this help the argument that we must take up arms in case the government becomes a regime?
 
Like I've said before, I support the right to bear arms. But this particular argument never made much sense to me, and it always seemed a little...well...weird.

If the government becomes oppressive, do you really think you're going to be able to stop their tanks with a gun?
your point only makes sense if the majority of the population buys intoi the garbage you are spewing
while i guess it is opinion, I find a hard to believe that the military and police (avg joes) will be part of this oppressive regime
if an overreaching leadership comes to power, the People surely will not stand for it, and they will certainly be members of teh military and police
Put aside the F'tards who claim every election is rigged
and realize if a Undemocratic govt comes to power, they will be toppled
Wait so I don't get it...this kid who was clearly mentally ill...was allowed to legally purchase guns. Does this work for the benefit of people who think there should be little or not restriction on firearms? I could see it as being :spin: by both sides really easily.
That is one of the main reports about the shooter I have heard since the day after
If the claim is untrue it will take a few days before the whole truth is revealed
Until than, I stand by what I ahve read and heard
but I do look forward to the true story regarding the f'tard
but if you ahve proof he was not as is claimed in reports, feel free to report it
 
your point only makes sense if the majority of the population buys intoi the garbage you are spewing
while i guess it is opinion, I find a hard to believe that the military and police (avg joes) will be part of this oppressive regime
if an overreaching leadership comes to power, the People surely will not stand for it, and they will certainly be members of teh military and police
Put aside the F'tards who claim every election is rigged
and realize if a Undemocratic govt comes to power, they will be toppled

That is one of the main reports about the shooter I have heard since the day after
If the claim is untrue it will take a few days before the whole truth is revealed
Until than, I stand by what I ahve read and heard
but I do look forward to the true story regarding the f'tard
but if you ahve proof he was not as is claimed in reports, feel free to report it

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0419071cho1.html

It's true, you can look at the paperwork right there. On page 5 is where it's checked that he "presents an imminent danger to himself as a result of mental illness."
 
That is one of the main reports about the shooter I have heard since the day after
If the claim is untrue it will take a few days before the whole truth is revealed
Until than, I stand by what I ahve read and heard
but I do look forward to the true story regarding the f'tard
but if you ahve proof he was not as is claimed in reports, feel free to report it

...I feel bad for the pro-gun crowd. I mean most NRA members I know are normal people. These *******s screw it up for them. They're just folks who love their guns. Nothing wrong there. However there is something wrong when we allow people who have been deemed dangers to society to purchase guns. When those NRA members I know refuse to acknowledge that some rules and restrictions must be placed to prevent people like Mr. Cho from going on murderous rampages. Then we have an obvious disagreement.
 
Again. How does this help the argument that we must take up arms in case the government becomes a regime?

let me tell you a little story-it happened a year before you were born. I was living in another state-I was a graduate student and varsity coach. I had a permit and one day two malcontents decided to rob me. they lost. the next day the DA announced that in that town HALF the population had CCW permits

guess what, there was not another attempted mugging for a YEAR.

why-and no one ever had to shoot someone after I did

there are 80-120 million people with legal firearms in the country. (Lots of people I know-I was general counsel for a gun club of 4000 members-never admit to owning guns because they know there are people out there who want confiscate guns). their very existence is all that is needed to serve as a check on a government gone amok
 
...I feel bad for the pro-gun crowd. I mean most NRA members I know are normal people. These *******s screw it up for them. They're just folks who love their guns. Nothing wrong there. However there is something wrong when we allow people who have been deemed dangers to society to purchase guns. When those NRA members I know refuse to acknowledge that some rules and restrictions must be placed to prevent people like Mr. Cho from going on murderous rampages. Then we have an obvious disagreement.


ah contraire-its not the NRA that blocked mental records being part of the data base.
 
your point only makes sense if the majority of the population buys intoi the garbage you are spewing

A little defensive?

DeeJayH said:
while i guess it is opinion, I find a hard to believe that the military and police (avg joes) will be part of this oppressive regime

Umm
Then how will this oppressive regime become oppressive in the first place?

DeeJayH said:
if an overreaching leadership comes to power, the People surely will not stand for it, and they will certainly be members of teh military and police

Then the point about using guns to overthrow the government is moot anyway.
 
let me tell you a little story-it happened a year before you were born. I was living in another state-I was a graduate student and varsity coach. I had a permit and one day two malcontents decided to rob me. they lost. the next day the DA announced that in that town HALF the population had CCW permits

guess what, there was not another attempted mugging for a YEAR.

why-and no one ever had to shoot someone after I did

there are 80-120 million people with legal firearms in the country. (Lots of people I know-I was general counsel for a gun club of 4000 members-never admit to owning guns because they know there are people out there who want confiscate guns). their very existence is all that is needed to serve as a check on a government gone amok

Sigh. So does this mean you think those guns would help against tanks? :|
 
ah contraire-its not the NRA that blocked mental records being part of the data base.

Is this what I claimed? No. I said that if you're the type that wants little or no restriction on firearms. Then situations such as this one do not help your case.
 
No, a person moving his finger without a gun dont kill anyone when he points at them.
Guns in the hands of people kill people. Guns used by people kill people. The alternative to killing someone with a gun is many but often much harder and more notable.
I guess you've never heard of the meridian system of the body used in many martial arts, yes, you can easily kill with a well placed strike of the finger, the human body ain't that durable. Any weapons, used in a homicide make the act much easier, hence the use of weapons, a knife works just as well, as does a baseball bat, and even a pencil, all much more painful than a well placed shot in a vital area.

You could use a chainsaw, knife, beat someone to death.
Some of which are MORE prevalent choices for murder than guns in Europe, guess you can't change human nature.

Sometimes guns alone kill people, if a loaded gun falls it may trigger and kill someone.
I guess if someone is stupid enough to leave one in a position to where it can fall AND they are in the path of a bullet it's possible, but about as likely as getting struck more than twice by lightning, depending on proximity.

The point is that guns kill people. But its people who take the ultimate decision usually, a decision they would most likly not take without a gun.
Nope, a gun has never killed a single person, considering it's an inanimate object. Misuse of guns, sure, but guns don't just up and decide to commit a murder, or accidental shooting, or suicide. When you get a news story of that by all means, let me know so I know to stay away from all those nasty guns.

I guess the real points here are:
a) What business is it of yours, or the EU's, or Australia's, or U.N. etc. to speak of U.S. domestic matters, especially or laws of the land such as the U.S. constitution.
b) How arrogant could non citizen's be to find any such interest in U.S. politics not affecting them.
and
c) What makes outsiders think we care about their opinions of the abovementioned and will tolerate interference in such matters.
 
Sigh. So does this mean you think those guns would help against tanks? :|


pistols easily kill any tank driver I have ever met-its merely a question of timing

if you think a pistol is the only weapons people could use in this doomsday scenario you are mistaken
 
How does having a gun make you free? Is an American any less free if he is not armed.
That depends on whether or not you are in a situation where being armed would be a good idea, such as an assualt, attempted murder, rape/murder, etc. these are all situations where one's liberty and safety is at the descretion of the attacker.

I respect the people that have died for my freedoms that I have today. The problem is people are STILL dying for your freedom of arms. Whats more disturbing, is that these "martyrs" to your "freedom" are not soldiers on a battlefield, but are innocent men, women and children who are just at the wrong place at the wrong time.
Being that you are of European origin and have not grown up in a gun friendly culture I can understand how this would translate as such to you. Here's where the difference is, people aren't dying because the right exists; moreso because someone armed does something horrible and not within their rights, such as murder, or other criminal activities. This could also be said for someone who creates a panic by using speech to incite, yes, there is a right to free speech, but misuse of such killed the innocents involved, not the right towards the speech.
 
...I feel bad for the pro-gun crowd. I mean most NRA members I know are normal people. These *******s screw it up for them. They're just folks who love their guns. Nothing wrong there. However there is something wrong when we allow people who have been deemed dangers to society to purchase guns. When those NRA members I know refuse to acknowledge that some rules and restrictions must be placed to prevent people like Mr. Cho from going on murderous rampages. Then we have an obvious disagreement.

But sure with the consitution he is allowed to purchase a gun.

A crazy person has the right to freedom of speech. Surely then a crazy person has right to a gun??
 
But sure with the consitution he is allowed to purchase a gun.

A crazy person has the right to freedom of speech. Surely then a crazy person has right to a gun??

A crazy person talking and using the 1st won't cause harms to others. A crazy person buying a gun might....
 
...I feel bad for the pro-gun crowd. I mean most NRA members I know are normal people. These *******s screw it up for them. They're just folks who love their guns. Nothing wrong there. However there is something wrong when we allow people who have been deemed dangers to society to purchase guns. When those NRA members I know refuse to acknowledge that some rules and restrictions must be placed to prevent people like Mr. Cho from going on murderous rampages. Then we have an obvious disagreement.

Yes, and the records should have been made available so that when his background check was done, guess what. The shop owner would have said.."Sorry, under the law I cannot sell you a gun". But, and here's the thing, the same people that are screaming for gun control, are the SAME people that swore there should be privacy for records. Hmmmmm so I'm guessing that one missing tidbit of information, the fact that the courts deemed him an imminent danger to himself, would have, again, probably not stopped him, but COULD have made it that much harder for him.
 
That depends on whether or not you are in a situation where being armed would be a good idea, such as an assualt, attempted murder, rape/murder, etc. these are all situations where one's liberty and safety is at the descretion of the attacker.


Fair enough. What works for you doesn't mean that it works for us etc.
Being that you are of European origin and have not grown up in a gun friendly culture I can understand how this would translate as such to you. Here's where the difference is, people aren't dying because the right exists; moreso because someone armed does something horrible and not within their rights, such as murder, or other criminal activities. This could also be said for someone who creates a panic by using speech to incite, yes, there is a right to free speech, but misuse of such killed the innocents involved, not the right towards the speech.

So if the US didn't have a gun culture, there would still be incidents like in Virginia?
I'm sorry but the price of the gun culture you have is what happened to those poor individuals. The 2nd amendment makes it far EASIER for the person to exercise something not within their rights, such as murder. If that kid had only a knife, would he have killed over 30 people in a single spree, not likely.

Look I'm never going to convince anyone here that owning guns is bad thing, over 200 years of guns being engrained in US culture, I can't compete with that.
But at least recognise the price your country pays for this, for the victims at least. If you recognise and accept the price, well then that is your choice.
 
A crazy person talking and using the 1st won't cause harms to others. A crazy person buying a gun might....

So then a man's rights IS subjectable and can be altered? That's not what I've been hearing. I don't think it says the the constitution, the right to bear arms....except for the crazies.

Another problem too. How do you know when a person is crazy or not. Sometimes you do sometimes you don't. The crazies you don't realise will always be able to get a gun.
 
Back
Top Bottom