School shooting

[Diekan]

Alcohol is the enabler, the car is simply the means. The gun is the enabler, the person's motives are the means.

This country would not suddenly come to a crashing end if alcohol were banned - although it was tried once before a few decades ago. Alcohol serves no real or meaningful purpose. Unlike a gun that CAN be used for protection or hunting.

Alcohol is responsible for deaths in this country than guns - yet guns are the target for ban consideration.

[Gaazy]

key word: entertainment

Drunk people do destructive things too...

[araby]

Putting holes in a paper target is no more destructive than downing a beer in a plastic cup.

and you know what?? I am all FOR going to the shooting range to put holes in paper...ALL DAY LONG. In fact I might get my friend Jordan to let me shoot his gun soon. Just to get some of this angsty bullshit out of my system. but listen-there is no comparing alcohol to guns. you cannot take someone else's life with alcohol, unless you use it to poison them.

[araby]

Alcohol is the enabler, the car is simply the means. The gun is the enabler, the person's motives are the means.

This country would not suddenly come to a crashing end if alcohol were banned - although it was tried once before a few decades ago. Alcohol serves no real or meaningful purpose. Unlike a gun that CAN be used for protection or hunting.

Alcohol is responsible for deaths in this country than guns - yet guns are the target for ban consideration.

NO. You are wrong. Alcohol is legal, guns are legal. We reserve the right to make a choice, own a gun, drink a drink.

take a life-with a gun.
how do you take someone's life with a drink? You can't.

[Tuggan]

Putting holes in a paper target is no more destructive than downing a beer in a plastic cup.

and you know what?? I am all FOR going to the shooting range to put holes in paper...ALL DAY LONG. In fact I might get my friend Jordan to let me shoot his gun soon. Just to get some of this angsty bullshit out of my system. but listen-there is no comparing alcohol to guns. you cannot take someone else's life with alcohol, unless you use it to poison them.

like diekans post. alcohol is an enabler... say someone got really drunk and decided to go stab their boyfriend?

and to your last post. more kids drown, or drink bleach, or fall down the stairs and die than children that find daddy's 9mm and shoot themselves.

[Lyion]

You say guns have one purpose. Ok, fine. So tell me... what purpose does alcohol have?

Red herring alert. This thread is about guns, not alcohol, or drugs, or even food that makes one fat.

Alcohol is medicinal and recreational. Anyways, If I live a bottle of wine open and my kid nabs a drink, the effect is a little less severe then if he grabs my glock and starts playing. Ditto with that Big Mac. Or even that joint. The ususal biggest danger for a guy drinking is he'll end up with a fat chick. This isn't really comparative to accidently shooting someone in the head.

Guns make people dead. Fast. That's pretty much the whole point of this, and the simple common sense danger element that so many ignore in their zeal to declare their rights to own.

Should the government have the right to legislate any type of gun control in some of your minds?

[Gaazy]

People do stupid shit when they are drunk.

[Gypsiyee]

Alcohol is medicinal and recreational. Anyways, If I live a bottle of wine open and my kid nabs a drink, the effect is a little less severe then if he grabs my glock and starts playing. Ditto with that Big Mac. Or even that joint. The ususal biggest danger for a guy drinking is he'll end up with a fat chick. This isn't really comparative to accidently shooting someone in the head.

pretty good summary of what i meant there

[Diekan]

The bottom line is this:

If someone wants someone else dead bad enough - they're going to kill that person regardless if it's with a gun, a knife, a piano cord, a car, a hammer, mindia's head, or any other blunt and solid object.

The point I am trying to make is that we're being hypocritical in picking and choosing what we should and should not ban.

Just take a moment to think about what you're saying and look at the big picture for a moment.

Yes - driving a car while drunk is illegal. People still do it every hour of the day. People still die every hour of the day for the same reason.

Yes - shooting someone with a gun is illegal. People still shot each other every day. People still die every day because of it.

Now compare the numbers. Compare the number of deaths resulting from DUI's and from gun shots.

You know as well as I that alcohol is not a necessity. You know as well as I that it can does lead to destructive behavior. You know as well as I that it IS in fact for dangerous to your health than weed (which is illegal).

You SHOULD know, or at least have the intelligence to understand, that your chances of being killing in a DUI related accident are MUCH higher than being shot.

So, I ask again - why are many of you so selective on what you want banned?

Ahhh - because that which YOU enjoy can't be that bad and shouldn't be banned - but that which you don't like is game? Is that more or less the truth here?

You like getting toasted every Friday night and no-fucking-body is going to take the right away from you - BUT - sinse the media and Michael Moore tell you guns are bad ... and well sinse you don't actually own any guns... fuck it, let's ban 'em!!

So, the question is simple. Why do not support a ban on alcohol with all the destruction and death it causes year in and year out?

[Gaazy]

Wow, one of the first times Ive actually read a Dieken post and thought hell yeah!

[Tuggan]

I think Michigans gun control laws are adequate.

You must apply for a permit at your local police department to buy a hand gun, you must pass a background check, get finger printed and pass a safety test with 70% or higher. Then you go to the store/show, buy your handgun, pass another background check at the stores.. then register it at the same police station within I believe 7 days time.

Conceal and Carry you need to take a course from a trained professional. You must pass a range test on the same day. Then you apply for the application. Then you get your application reviewed by a panel of judges. Application usually is quite detailed (depending on the county), and you also need two letters of reference on your character. Then if there is a redflag of any type, you have to appear before the panel and explain why you feel the need for concealed weapon.

I think that is more than sufficient, and doesn't put any unnecessary strains on our "right" to own guns.

[Evermore]

Putting holes in a paper target is no more destructive than downing a beer in a plastic cup.

unless you get behind the wheel of a car. then again, shooting while drunk isnt so responsible.

[Lyion]

So, because people will still illegally have guns.. We shouldn't ban them, even though it'd make us safer and lower our medical and health costs and protect our kids... because in some completely unexplained way it's hypocritical?

My chances of dying in a nuclear bombing are lower than that of being shot. That doesn't mean I think the second amendment allows for Dweezil next door to legally own a Thermonuclear device because someone says it'd be hypocritical for us to legislate weaponry.

Tangenting personal killing devices to having a beer on friday night is about the worst analogy I can think of.

The media shouldn't tell one guns are bad. Simple common sense should enable most people to realize that having something that can insta kill you or your kids isn't the wisest thing in the world to not only allow, but promote in an inane manner as 'protection', even though the facts show it puts you at more of a risk.

[10sun]

For the record, dry counties suck balls.

Araby, you proved the point earlier when you said that you wanted to go to a range to blow off some angry bullshit stress. That is a valid purpose and use of a gun. Just as drinking a few beers after work. Or smoking a bowl.

A gun in inherently more dangerous as the primary design and intent is to kill.

There was a case in the 90s against Winchester because their bullets killed someone... guess what? They were designed to do that, the consumer determines how they will be used though.

In my hometown, we learned some sobering lessons in high school. My freshman year of high school, 5 seniors got drunk and drove around in the countryside, they got in a car wreck, 4 of them died. My sophomore year, troubled kid who wanted to be a bully was playing around with his father's gun in their house, he shot his kid brother in the face, he was even worse off than before. My junior year, nobody died. My senior year, drunk drivers claimed another 2. Less than a year after that, my friend's little brother got hit by a drunk driver coming home from my apartment a couple days before Christmas.

Deaths resulting from firearms? 1.
Deaths resulting from alcohol? 7.

Each of these were a result of mishandling. Firearms do not scare me near as much as drunks though.

-Adam

ps. I have no point, just writing to write.

[Diekan]

I'm trying, but Lyion isn't getting the point I'm trying to make here.

It's boiling down to death, bottom line.

John Boy your hillbilly neighbor gets pissed because you asked him to pick up the empty Bud cans, he left on your lawn, up. So, he goes inside his double wide, grabs his .357 and puts a hole in you. The result? You're dead.

John Boy gets off from a long day at work. He hits the bar and downs a 12 pack worth of Bud. Get's in his car and heads home. You're on your way to the grocery store when John Boy (because he's so drunk he can't see straight) plows into you head first, at 75 MPH. The result? You're dead.

So, you ban guns. Maybe ole John Boy doesn't have his .357 anymore, but if he's pissed enough - do you think that really matters? You don't think he's just as apt to grabbing is deer skinnen knife and kill you all the same?

You ban alcohol maybe John Boy drives straight home that night instead of getting drunk first and you live.

You keep making the argument that guns "insta kill" - and what? Driving head on into another car at 110 MPH isn't "inta kill?"

Please...

Even with all the guns out there... the chances of John Boy shooting you are MUCH LESS than John Boy killing you with his car.

[10sun]

I'd rather be dead than a vegetable on life support with a mangled body.

That is my living will guys, so if you ever see that I am on life support with limited brain wave activity, come pull the plug for me.

[Arlos]

In all honesty, I believe the intent of the founding fathers in the 2nd amendment was for people to have the right to bear arms as part of a militia, since that was a far more common method of creating an army back then, when national standing armies were the province of imperialistic European powers. Since the early US couldn't afford to keep such an army, militias were the only means by which the country could defend itself adequately were it to be attacked by one of those European powers. In any case, though, I am certainly not about to argue for the banning of citizens owning firearms, as I believe that in a broad reading of the constitution, it's certainly covered.

Remember, however, that at the time of the Founding Fathers, the only weapons available were single-shot muzzle loaders, that at best in the hands of a real professional might get off 4-6 shots a MINUTE. How they would have viewed guns akin to modern firearms, we have no way of knowing, as the lethality has increased radically.

However, just because I believe it is people's right to own guns, I do feel there is a marked difference between handguns and hunting weapons (rifles & shotguns). The sole purpose for a handgun is to kill people. Period. It has no other purpose whatsoever. Yes, I know some people hunt with them, but they are deliberately using a non-optimal tool in order to get added thrills. I could use the flat side of a crescent wrench to hammer nails with too, that doesn't mean that that's the purpose of the wrench.

While again, I am not going to advocate banning handguns, I am rabidly opposed to them being a commonly carried item by civilains in public. You want to own one, fine, keep it locked up at home. I have PERSONALLY known too many people who are fine when sober, but lose most of their judgement when drunk and develop hair-trigger tempers. Add firearms to such a mix, and you'll have a radical rise in the number of firearm incidents. Furthermore, I support required training classes and certifications to legally own a handgun, to make sure everyone who has one knows how to use it in a safe manner, AND how to store it in one.

Also, I firmly believe that anyone who has a handgun for "home defense" is an idiot. Shotguns are FAR superior for that purpose in every regard. 1) Handguns are inherently less accurate; a shotgun with an open choke you just have to be aiming near the person, a pistol has to be aimed precisely. 2) shotgun rounds of smaller pellets that miss arent' going to blow through even interior walls and risk harm to other family members or neighbors. Pistol rounds, especially high powered ones, go right through EXTERIOR walls without being even impeded overmuch, thus you risk missing your target and the bullet hitting a kid, neighbor, etc. as it blows through walls. 3) Shotguns have a much higher intimidation factor, just from the noise of the pump slide, and thus you increase the chance of the intruder just running away, and never having the conflict degenerate into a lethal one.

As for the person on the VT campus, yes, I think he would have eventually snapped and gone on a murderous rampage regardless of what weapon he chose. However, do think about this: If he didn't have access to a gun, could he have killed anywhere near as many people before he was stopped? Making explosives for non-chem-majors is NOT a trivial task no matter what you might see on TV. Untrained non-technical people trying are far more likely to blow themselves up than they are to create an effective weapon. Perhaps it would be wise to add "psychological instability" checks to the background checks for purchasing firearms. Everyone knew this guy was a nutter, and he'd been at at leat one mental institution. Had the background check looked for such things... Such a check wouldn't prevent legitimate sane owners from obtaining a firearm either.

-Arlos

[Zanchief]

You keep making the argument that guns "insta kill" - and what? Driving head on into another car at 110 MPH isn't "inta kill?"

That isn't the single only purpose to a car.

A gun is used for a single reason, to make things dead. If making things dead is illegal (which it is) what's the point of having something, promoting it in magazines and associations, that has the sole intent to commit a crime? Target shooting and all the rest is all just bullshit in my opinion. Get your kicks elsewhere.

[Lyion]

The problem with your analogy is driving drunk is ILLEGAL. As soon as he sat in the car, he was committing a felony.

John Boy getting his .357 out while mad is legal.

I'm not arguing about some sociopath or psychopath exception, but to the simple truth about handguns being killing devices. If someone wants to kill you bad enough, it's gonna happen. However, if we ban handguns, the many other people who accidently die or get shot, won't.

[araby]

I believe in guns because they are real. I do not believe in killing people. Guns are made to kill people. Therefore, I do not believe in owning guns. I do not believe in shooting people.

[Snero]

this is a retarded argument, the drinking comparison doesn't hold water one bit.

I can use stupid arguments and bad comparisons too, drinking a bit of alcohol does no damage, and can be helpful in some situations. Shooting somebody in the face, even just a little bit, not so much.

Using your example, so john boy decides to come at me with a knife, not only is that something I would be in a better position to defend myself from but it's also less likely to be fatal, and he would also be more likely to decide it's not worth the effort. Guns make killing "easy".

[Gaazy]

What?

[Gaazy]

To Araby, not you Snero ><

[araby]

Guns make killing "easy".

what are the odds of surviving a bullet wound?

[Snero]

I would think that depends on how quick you get help and where you get shot