Teens With Access To 'Arsenal' Intended To Use Legal Cache For Columine-like Killing

It is a little tough to compare numbers when this one groups murder and non negligent manslaughter into one category.

 

That is why I made the distinction in my post.

 

Wrong. People are the problem.

The answer is in education & parenting.

Guns used to be respected as the deadly TOOLS - yes, they are tools - that they are. They were seen as tools for hunting, defending your home, and target shooting.

Now movies & songs make it seem like it's cool to go ride around w/ them, fire a few caps off into your enemies, etc. Mtv, Hollywoood, rappers etc. have glorified guns - yet when push comes to shove the inanimate object gets blamed. Mtv will have a freaking afterschool special about "gun violence," and then show a video w/ people bradishing AKs & handguns as they drive Escalades & party w/ their "Murda Inc." crew. Sick hypocrites.

Now while kids may be influenced by this, it seems that back in the day, parents & teachers were around to counter this. This no longer seems to be true. The fabric of American society has changed. You need to look at that first to understand why gun violence has increased.

Why did the gun control movement spring up so recently, ask yourself this? Was there such a push to ban guns "for the children" even 20 years ago?

No. Our culture has changed. We've become a "me, me, me" culture that blames everything & everyone but ourselves for our problems. This includes blaming pieces of steel & wood for the actions that result from the sheer stupidity, sickness, & apathy that characterizes today's Mtv generation...

 

deleted

 

This argument of citizens being able to stop the government because they own guns doesn't pan out. If every citizen owned a gun, they could not stop the govt. The govt. has tanks, airpower, artillery. They wouldn't have to ever even come in range of a citizens gun to wipe them out.

I agree we dont' want our govt. going crazy, but armed citizens isn't what will stop them.

As far as an openly armed society, we had that in the Western states and territories during the second half of the 1800's. It wasn't exactly the most structured law abiding society ever produced. It's true that it was nowhere near the daily shootouts that hollywood shows, but it was still a violent time.

 

Guns being legal or illegal is not the problem...if someone has the will to kill they will. If guns all of a sudden become illegal...don't tell me that people won't be dying. These kids would be able to get guns from any "source" they want...they just happened to use the easiest in this case, they're parents.

If gun regulations are changed so that it is illegal to have a gun period...then there would be absolutely no way of defending yourself when a dude comes in with an illegal rifle...i mean, you think calling them illegal will stop it...hell, isn't murder illegal??? is that stopped??? no.

I don't necessarily think having guns in your home is a good thing...i personally think it just enters a weapon into a house...whatever that means to you.

the problem is poor parenting or teaching. i mean, there are many ways to kill, this is just one example of them trying to kill with guns. if the will to kill is there -- that is the problem.

 

Well, it was an important enough reason for the framers to consider it...

Besides, "the government" is made up of people like you & me, not some nefarious masonic, bilburger evildoers. Gun ownership is just one small aspect of our system's numerous checks on government actions.

 

First of all, I'm glad I do not feel the need to own a gun. I hope I never do. Also, I will keep to my stance that prohibition is not an answer. If we got rid of all the guns in the world, the roots of violence would still be here, in our hearts and minds, and sooner or later, we would make new ones. But the reality of guns being mass produced by robot factories is a vision straight out of hell. It is one of the worse reflections of mankind.

Why havent' there been many posts about what is wrong with these kids? Why is this happening? Until the underlying problem is addressed, guns or not, bad things will happen.

 

Hey, I agree with you to an extent. I grew up in the country. People out there actually hunt with their guns. Last I checked though, they aren't using handguns and automatic weapons. In the city, they seem to hunt people instead of animals.

Whatever happened to the days when rivals would just beat the **** out of each other with thier hands.

I don't blame the guns. The problem i have with guns is the widespread availability of guns that have no other purpose than to kill.

 

See my post above.

Lack of responsibility in media + impressionable, income poor (or just deranged) kids + lack of parenting/teaching = bad news.

 

Handguns are ideal for home/close quarters defense & concealed carry, automatic weapons are illegal to own unless you jump through a million hoops & are very rich. Illegal guns are easily available b/c police do not enforce the myriad existing laws to their fullest extent.

When was the last time you saw a video, show, or movie where a fight is settled honorably w/ fists only? That doesn't "sell" these days so we need to show people settling arguments by wielding two pistols at a time as the flip through the air - mall ninja style.

 

Jackie Chan doesn't use guns.

 

Macbeth,

We don't have to use ID4 scenarios to gauge the practical effects of denying legal firearm use. Look at the UK - it's been an unmitigated disaster. The guns, like drugs, are easily available through illegal means.

Maybe baning them would prevent a few deaths in situations where the would-be killer couldn't realize his goal b/c he doesn't know where to turn to get a "hot" gun. How many deaths though would then result from those now unable to defend themselves from the people who CAN get them illegally?

It balances out I think.

Again, in a perfect world, where ALL guns legal & illegal can be banned maybe that would work. That can never happen though, & even if it could, in whose hands would our safety & freedom be? The politicans with the means to control the military? maybe you feel safe enough w/ the American political/military system watching over you, but does a Liberian feel the same way? An Afghan? An Iraqi?

 

But how is that untrue? A tank is conceptualized by man, built by man, and used by man. It is an extension of ourselves. The problem is that we feel the need to make such things exist. (and other people profit from that need).

 

How then would that explain how states w/ concealed carry laws have seen a decrease in gun related violence, while the UK has seen an appreciable increase?

Canada doesn't count. Canadians are an aberration, a pseudo-french-american-anglo mix of snowbound hockey nuts & fur trappers.

So I hear, anyway.

 

**** you

 

There is no more powerful force in the world than a well-armed and motivated guerrilla force, just like the Viet Cong that kicked the crap out of us in Vietnam. We won every battle, but lost a war of attrition because of a hostile news media, a downright stupid, clueless and wasteful (of both lives and equipment) prosecution of the war and lastly, our conventional Cold War military was ill-equipped to fight a few armed peasants. A Hellfire missile is kind of expensive (at over 500 grand a pop) to lob at a couple of guerrillas. Trust me, the great tanks and airplanes of our military could easily be defeated by RPGs and Stinger manpack SAMs, the same kind of which defeated the Soviets in Afghanistan. A well-motivated guerrilla force can harass supply lines and hang around with little pinprick attacks until they achieve victory in the court of public opinion, when they've sent home too many of their enemies home in body bags. And with all of the former vets out there, the armed populace would be as well-trained as any of our soldiers today. If we (the Americans in the Revolution) did so against the British military, the most powerful in the world at that time, what makes you think we couldn't do it against our own government, if heaven forbid need be? Lastly, think about who would own the guns if they were banned?
1. the government
2. criminals

Frankly I don't see much different between 1 and 2. They both use force to confiscate property.

 

Viet Nam was different because we were a force on foreign soil.

Again during the revolution we were a colony cut off from the country that was involved in the fight.

To actually start a revolt against an out of control govt. within the country is a totally different scenario. Citizens having guns would mean nothing. Maybe some govt. soldiers would be killed or injured, that's the only good it would do. It would not stop any kind of oppression of abuse of power.

For the record I'm totally in favor of banning guns. It's just the argument that we need armed citizens to keep an eye on the government doesn't hold water, as much as various militias and survivalists want it to.

The other argument about who would have guns is true.

1. The govt. already does own guns and much more. Citizens having guns would do little to stop the U.S. govt.

2.Criminals. True, but they would still be harder even for criminals to get.

Again I'm not in favor of banning all guns, but I'm also in favor more control.