Register  |  Login Retro Game Room  |  Board  |  Downloads  |  Memberlist  |  Video Game Room Staff  |  About Us  |  Help Center  
  Views: 1,275,213,571     10-25-14 12:36 AM  

Man Open Fires in Courthouse




Thread closed

Man Open Fires in Courthouse
- Thoughts on gun control
Pages: 1 2 3 4 Add to favorites | "RSS" Feed | Next newer thread | Next older thread

Posted on 09-25-11 09:48 AM Sephitard9001 is Offline     Post: 110 words - (ID: 468715) - Post Rating: 0 - Report Abuse | Link
Sephitard9001
Level: 39


POSTS: 362/470
POST EXP: 27493
LVL EXP: 376218
CP: 451.0
VIZ: 38255
A man named James Palmer opened fire on a courthouse September 22nd. He tried to kill a judge who had handled his divorce/child custody case. He entered the building with an assault rifle and two handguns, and injured a few people. He was eventually taken down by police outside the courthouse in a shootout. Nobody was killed as the judge wasn't in his office that day.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2040230/James-Ray-Palmer-video-Gunman-hunt-judge-firing-shots-Arkansas-courtroom.html
 ^ May contain disturbing images ^

What do you think about this? Also, what does this mean for gun legislation and control? There is other examples that are more gruesome, but this recent shooting brought the issue to the front of my mind.

(last edited by Sephitard9001 on 10-03-11 06:01 PM)
Make love against the evils!
Affected by 'Laziness'

Position: Trusted
Since: 01-30-11
From: AMERICA
Last Post: 220 days
Last Active: 2 days

Sponsor

Posted on 09-25-11 09:56 AM thenumberone is Offline     Post: 8 words - (ID: 468719) - Post Rating: 0 - Report Abuse | Link
thenumberone
Level: 118


POSTS: 1565/6272
POST EXP: 356427
LVL EXP: 17995069
CP: 4410.2
VIZ: 293418
I think its proof gun legalisation is retarded


Bleeding Heart Liberal
Affected by 'Carpal Tunnel Syndrome'

Position: Elite
Since: 03-22-11
From:
Last Post: 5 hours
Last Active: 5 hours

Posted on 09-25-11 05:20 PM Sephitard9001 is Offline     Post: 64 words - Spell checked - (ID: 469014) - Post Rating: 0 - Report Abuse | Link
Sephitard9001
Level: 39


POSTS: 364/470
POST EXP: 27493
LVL EXP: 376218
CP: 451.0
VIZ: 38255
thenumberone : Ha ha, yep. Even with all these laws, seemingly normal people can get a hold of guns, assault rifles even! I don't think a person's going to care about buying illegal weapons if they plan on dying anyway. All the time it takes to vote, argue, and pass all these ridiculous laws is time that could be better spent on something productive.
(last edited by Sephitard9001 on 09-25-11 05:20 PM)
Make love against the evils!
Affected by 'Laziness'

Position: Trusted
Since: 01-30-11
From: AMERICA
Last Post: 220 days
Last Active: 2 days

Posted on 09-26-11 10:20 AM AuraBlaze is Offline     Post: 138 words - Spell checked - (ID: 469422) - Post Rating: 0 - Report Abuse | Link
AuraBlaze
Level: 86


POSTS: 1269/3010
POST EXP: 204423
LVL EXP: 6112676
CP: 569.2
VIZ: 78047
Sephitard9001 :
thenumberone :

I do not think that is the point of this article. If you read back through it, you may notice that they put emphasis on the lack of security. "With no metal detectors or guards at the building's six entrances --he was able to walk straight in." Also note this other sentence. "Palmer did not have a criminal history." With no criminal history, I see no reason not to trust him with such weapons. How were any of us to know he would snap and start this rampage? I am not trying to justify his acts -that much is obvious. But this violent act of his must have been completely out of character. There were no warning signs other than the text message he sent saying he was committing suicide. Your thoughts on this?

Hitmonlee
Beautiful Letdown
Affected by 'Laziness'

Position: Elite
Since: 01-23-11
Last Post: 5 days
Last Active: 3 days

Posted on 09-26-11 10:36 AM thenumberone is Offline     Post: 70 words - (ID: 469427) - Post Rating: 0 - Report Abuse | Link
thenumberone
Level: 118


POSTS: 1588/6272
POST EXP: 356427
LVL EXP: 17995069
CP: 4410.2
VIZ: 293418
AuraBlaze :
I really dont care what the scenario is,as long as morons like this exist,allowing anyone to have a gun is stupid.regardles of whether you have a criminal record or mental problems.
I see plenty reasons not to trust him with a gun,like the fact gun massacres are attempted every other day in the usa.
Guns=not for civilians,theyre not toys,and you dont get extra lives,its not a video game


Bleeding Heart Liberal
Affected by 'Carpal Tunnel Syndrome'

Position: Elite
Since: 03-22-11
From:
Last Post: 5 hours
Last Active: 5 hours

Posted on 09-27-11 03:50 PM JigSaw is Offline     Post: 15 words - (ID: 469967) - Post Rating: 0 - Report Abuse | Link
JigSaw
Level: 140


POSTS: 6149/7006
POST EXP: 446508
LVL EXP: 32771371
CP: 461.2
VIZ: 10351
How in the heck did that place not have security? Bad judgement I guess

Shao Kahn

Unknown
Affected by 'Laziness'

Position:
Since: 04-06-06
Last Post: 519 days
Last Active: 519 days

Posted on 09-27-11 06:19 PM Sephitard9001 is Offline     Post: 185 words - Spell checked - (ID: 470075) - Post Rating: 0 - Report Abuse | Link
Sephitard9001
Level: 39


POSTS: 365/470
POST EXP: 27493
LVL EXP: 376218
CP: 451.0
VIZ: 38255
AuraBlaze : I agree, there was no reason for this man to not be allowed to have a gun. I'm just stating that even with all the gun laws in affect, anyone could find illegal weapons if they wanted to. Gun control is a ridiculous gesture.



thenumberone : The 2nd Amendment clearly states that it is both legal and suggested that civilians obtain firearms. Trying to take away, or prevent citizens of the U.S. who pay taxes from purchasing or keeping firearms is wrong. Even if gun massacres happen frequently. For example, when the U.S. decided slavery was bad, they got rid of slaves, they didn't make everyone else slaves as well. Consider this as well, imagine that laws are in place that prevent people from owning firearms. If somebody makes their own firearm from scratch, is it okay to take it away from him?



JigSaw : I don't know. When I entered a courthouse, there was four security guards around me, and I had to walk through a metal detector. I guess it depends on the state whether or not their is high security.
Make love against the evils!
Affected by 'Laziness'

Position: Trusted
Since: 01-30-11
From: AMERICA
Last Post: 220 days
Last Active: 2 days

Posted on 09-27-11 07:03 PM thenumberone is Offline     Post: 256 words - (ID: 470112) - Post Rating: 0 - Report Abuse | Link
thenumberone
Level: 118


POSTS: 1626/6272
POST EXP: 356427
LVL EXP: 17995069
CP: 4410.2
VIZ: 293418
Sephitard9001 :
It was an AMENDMENT,it wasnt in the original constitution print,laws change,to just hold onto something because its always been there is stupid,without change there is no progress.law is not about tradition,its about whats best for the people.
There are areas in america where guns are banned,apparently not everyone agrees.
Paying taxes shouldnt mean get a gun,its not a special offer,spend $500 get a handgun,spend $1000 get an uzi.
Give me a reason why civilians need guns,one reason,and i will show statistics that prove countrys with guns banned are safer in that area.
"they didnt make everyone else slaves as well" what?i dont get what youre trying to say here.
If someone makes a time bomb from scratch is it ok to take it away from him?if someone makes a nuclear weapon is it ok to take it from them?yes.the fact is,they have made something they shouldnt have.something they dont need,thats sole purpose,is to kill.is that a good message,a good trait of a country?encourage ownership of weapons?i think that is a very, very, very, very stupid,iresponsible,and downright dangerous national policy.this trial shows how easy it is to take a life with one,and how hard it is to prevent.how many us presidents have been assasinated?
How many european leaders have been assasinated?and bearing in mind there are about 30 times more leaders to choose from.
Id remind you the original constitution was very different,for one thing,women were not allowed in office,to vote,to have any say in the running of the country,things change.

The prosecution rests.
XD

(last edited by thenumberone on 09-27-11 07:06 PM)


Bleeding Heart Liberal
Affected by 'Carpal Tunnel Syndrome'

Position: Elite
Since: 03-22-11
From:
Last Post: 5 hours
Last Active: 5 hours

Posted on 09-27-11 07:20 PM JigSaw is Offline     Post: 37 words - (ID: 470123) - Post Rating: 0 - Report Abuse | Link
JigSaw
Level: 140


POSTS: 6155/7006
POST EXP: 446508
LVL EXP: 32771371
CP: 461.2
VIZ: 10351
Sephitard9001 : If 2nd amendment is real why do they slap people with a felony if you are in possession of a deadly weapon without using it nor threatening anyone with it? Doesn't make sense to me.

Shao Kahn

Unknown
Affected by 'Laziness'

Position:
Since: 04-06-06
Last Post: 519 days
Last Active: 519 days

Posted on 09-27-11 07:27 PM thenumberone is Offline     Post: 16 words - (ID: 470126) - Post Rating: 0 - Report Abuse | Link
thenumberone
Level: 118


POSTS: 1628/6272
POST EXP: 356427
LVL EXP: 17995069
CP: 4410.2
VIZ: 293418
And that point sliped by me,thats a good point.shouldnt people be allowed rpg's and mortars then?


Bleeding Heart Liberal
Affected by 'Carpal Tunnel Syndrome'

Position: Elite
Since: 03-22-11
From:
Last Post: 5 hours
Last Active: 5 hours

Posted on 09-27-11 09:20 PM AuraBlaze is Offline     Post: 86 words - Spell checked - (ID: 470160) - Post Rating: 0 - Report Abuse | Link
AuraBlaze
Level: 86


POSTS: 1272/3010
POST EXP: 204423
LVL EXP: 6112676
CP: 569.2
VIZ: 78047
JigSaw : That depends on various circumstances. The most obvious, I would assume, would be illegal possession such as carrying a weapon without a proper license.

thenumberone : Okay. I do agree that such morons should not have possession of any firearms; however, I believe that banning firearms from private citizens is taking it too far. The sad fact is that there are firearms being distributed illegally. Period. Private citizens should have the opportunity to defend themselves in the event that their lives are at risk.
(last edited by AuraBlaze on 09-28-11 10:42 AM)

Hitmonlee
Beautiful Letdown
Affected by 'Laziness'

Position: Elite
Since: 01-23-11
Last Post: 5 days
Last Active: 3 days

Posted on 09-28-11 02:12 AM thenumberone is Offline     Post: 53 words - (ID: 470250) - Post Rating: 0 - Report Abuse | Link
thenumberone
Level: 118


POSTS: 1630/6272
POST EXP: 356427
LVL EXP: 17995069
CP: 4410.2
VIZ: 293418
AuraBlaze : you migh wana edit the post where it says "i disagree that banning firearms from private citizens is taking it too far" since i think you meant it is too far.
Well really,the illegal weapon trade is a self inflicted problem.spawned from the idea its ok to own devices of death.


Bleeding Heart Liberal
Affected by 'Carpal Tunnel Syndrome'

Position: Elite
Since: 03-22-11
From:
Last Post: 5 hours
Last Active: 5 hours

Posted on 09-28-11 01:59 PM Sephitard9001 is Offline     Post: 502 words - Spell checked - (ID: 470426) - Post Rating: 0 - Report Abuse | Link
Sephitard9001
Level: 39


POSTS: 366/470
POST EXP: 27493
LVL EXP: 376218
CP: 451.0
VIZ: 38255
thenumberone : I'm just going to respond to your post in no particular order. Nowhere in the U.S. is there a ban on guns. There may be strict laws, but it's unlawful to completely ban firearms from citizens. One reason for guns? I can think of many. But here's one: If you're under attack from a mugger, the police are not going to save you. The half-second it takes to draw from the holster is quicker than calling the police. A cop going 80 mph isn't going to save you, a bullet going 800 mph will.
 Also, crime increases in areas with strict gun laws. Take England for example. Their crime rate is lower than the U.S. But did you know that it was even lower BEFORE they put gun laws in place? About the, "slaves" part: I meant that if the country decides that certain people (in this case: dangerous people) shouldn't have weapons, they take the weapons away from them. They don't take weapons away from everyone in the whole country. Comparing small-hand firearms to weapons of mass destruction is ridiculous, I'm not even going to respond to that further. In the hands of a normal, average, competent adult, a weapon is less dangerous than a car. A weapon as a maximum of 4 switches/controls, while a car has around 20.
Really? The sole purpose of a weapon is to kill? And I assume that the sole purpose of a women is to give birth, right?. A handgun is classified by the police and the U.S. military as a defensive weapon. Yes, it is a GREAT trait for a country to not only support, but encourage the ownership of personal firearms. Did you know that the Japanese in WW2 never invaded the U.S. mainland because their emperor was afraid that every home in America had weapons? Japan's suicide rate is triple the U.S.'s, and they have very strict gun laws.
4 U.S. presidents have been assassinated. And that's redundant, as John Booth could've just as easily slit Lincoln's throat instead of shooting him. Your point on the constitution contradicts itself. You say that the right to bear arms is an amendment, then claim tradition is foolish. Also, the first ten amendments is the Bill of Rights, a list of unalienable rights that ALL humans should have no matter what. 

In conclusion, your line of thought must be, "People cannot be trusted, so let's place gun laws that people will follow, because they can be trusted." Trying to take away from peoples' rights instead of adding more is pure madness. In trying to deal with the problem of criminals obtaining illegal weapons, they make it impossible for citizens to obtain legal weapons. Somehow, they think that if you're helpless, you're safer from a criminal. If handguns and rifles are not necessary for the defense of this country, why does the military have like, 3 million of them?
You better bring an umbrella, because it's raining cold, hard facts up in here!
Make love against the evils!
Affected by 'Laziness'

Position: Trusted
Since: 01-30-11
From: AMERICA
Last Post: 220 days
Last Active: 2 days

Posted on 09-28-11 02:19 PM rcarter2 is Offline     Post: 88 words - (ID: 470450) - Post Rating: 0 - Report Abuse | Link
rcarter2
Level: 132


POSTS: 829/8241
POST EXP: 728542
LVL EXP: 26683016
CP: 27933.3
VIZ: 974792
There is one big problem with the idea of making guns illegal for citizens. When you buy a gun legally, they are documented, and if you ever use that gun for murder, the gun can be traced back to you, as they all leave unique ballistics marks. If they were banned, then all guns that were used would be under the radar, meaning no record of who bought it, meaning that no murder involving a gun can be traced to any source. That would be a big problem.

Star Mario
Dominating RGR Competition Hall of Fame Table!
Affected by 'Carpal Tunnel Syndrome'

Position: Elite
Since: 05-01-11
From: Kansas
Last Post: 2 hours
Last Active: 2 hours

Posted on 09-28-11 02:31 PM thenumberone is Offline     Post: 557 words - (ID: 470473) - Post Rating: 0 - Report Abuse | Link
thenumberone
Level: 118


POSTS: 1650/6272
POST EXP: 356427
LVL EXP: 17995069
CP: 4410.2
VIZ: 293418
Sephitard9001 : first, i dont think its unlawfull to ban guns, especially seeing as they have nothing to do with politics or our daily lives.And im aware you can get around it but its exceptionaly difficult to gain permission in other countrys,like the uk.you need to have a valid reason to own one, like, im a hunter for example(im not, it was an example)
i think shooting dead a mugger is extreme, and he will most likely have a gun himself, so unless you shoot his bullet outa the air, its not falling under the protection status.
england has never allowed citizens to waltz around with guns and there are increased crime rates almost everywhere, americas have spiraled far greater than the uk's.
i never compared it to a weapon of mass destruction, i stated that it was a weapon, not a toy, by putting it into perspective.although when a man can walk into a high school and shoot a hundred people that right there is pretty massive destruction.
A car is not more dangerous than a gun, i dont recall many robberies/muggings using a car.freeze or il throw my sedan at you!
A car is not a weapon, and is vital to the economy, it causes death when people dont pay attention, a gun causes death when its owner wills it, or sometimes when they dont, via a misfire or the like.
"Really? The sole purpose of a weapon is to kill? And I assume that the sole purpose of a women is to give birth, right?" i am sorry but that is a pretty terible analogy. They never designed guns to protect people, they designed them to kill people, and thats what they do.
In the us its classified as such, but then again, i think the u.s government is run by morons.no other way to say it. George bush, clinton, eisenhower, presidents that know absolutely nothing, and half there party is the same,obama is the first president iv seen that actualy has a proper plan of action.

i think the fact that japan never invaded the us had a little something to do with the fact they were split trying to invade australia and india at the same time, and soon after there fleet was decimated.
Are you trying to insinuate the japanese commit suicide because they arent allowed guns?im not really buying that...
tradition is foolish if you let it hold you back.the claim always made is its a constitutional right and you cant change that, which is ironic and hypocritical because that law is a change to the original constitution, thus in saying you cant change it to defend guns it should therefore be returned to its original state, which would b the end of gun ownership.that, is my point.
Maybe thats what america thinks all humans should have, but they didnt really respect those rights when they invaded other countries...
if we had the right to own nuclear missiles by your logic we shouldnt change it because we cant remove rights...
the military has 3 million because without them they couldnt kill people...
for defenseive purposes, on trained soldiers should have guns, and they shouldnt own them.upon removal/resignation from the army the weapon should be surrendered.
the sun is shining here, its a hail storm of facts on your end



Bleeding Heart Liberal
Affected by 'Carpal Tunnel Syndrome'

Position: Elite
Since: 03-22-11
From:
Last Post: 5 hours
Last Active: 5 hours

Posted on 09-28-11 09:44 PM Sephitard9001 is Offline     Post: 490 words - Spell checked - (ID: 470765) - Post Rating: 0 - Report Abuse | Link
Sephitard9001
Level: 39


POSTS: 367/470
POST EXP: 27493
LVL EXP: 376218
CP: 451.0
VIZ: 38255
thenumberone: How can you say that guns have no place in our daily lives, and then mention a hunter in the same breath?! That's strange, but whatever. In the U.S. it's the same. You can't walk into a hardware store and pick up a firearm. You must jump through all sorts of hoops to obtain one. Maybe because you grew up with such strict laws, you're not as impacted when people suggest taking them away. How is shooting a mugger to death extreme? And even beyond that, a mugger would not choose an armed target to mug. If he sees a holstered pistol, he'll think twice if not three times if he's willing to die for a handful of change. Increased crime rates everywhere? Yeah, everywhere they put gun laws into place, crime increases tremendously, and it increases or stays the same in areas with lax control. Criminals are not going to attack people or rob places if they know everyone has a gun. And yes, a 4,000 lb car with 1,136,000 ft-lbs of energy going at 65 mph is more dangerous than a handgun with 250 ft-lbs of energy. You also say a car kills by accident, but a gun kills on purpose. It works both ways. Intentionally hitting someone with a car is often more fatal then shooting them in the chest. If a gun was designed to kill people, does that mean knifes are as well? I can easily kill someone with a steak knife as with a rifle. No, I'm not implying that Japanese citizens kill themselves because of that, I'm saying that even WITH gun laws in place, they still commit suicide far more frequently. This means that they're not using guns to do so, and that means that guns are not as dangerous to households as you seem to think. What are you talking about, only soldiers should have guns? Guns are so complex that they require special training to use, but apparently they make murder easy? If free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and typewriters, then why does self defense only justify bare hands? How is a 90 lb women going to defend herself against a 300 lb attacker and his buddy? Is a raped and strangled women morally superior to a women with a gun and a dead rapist at her feet? Why is it that because you don't feel the need to possess a firearm, that no one else should either? Also, let's forget about all that supposed nuclear crap, that is international conduct and such. Nukes, I'm fairly certain, are not regulated by state government. And when America invades a country, it is because that leader or dictator is violating his citizen's basic human rights. The right to live a decent life is far superior than a fat politician's right to a few bombs. When you take other's rights, you're forfeiting your own in eyes of justice.
(last edited by Sephitard9001 on 09-28-11 09:45 PM)
Make love against the evils!
Affected by 'Laziness'

Position: Trusted
Since: 01-30-11
From: AMERICA
Last Post: 220 days
Last Active: 2 days

Posted on 10-03-11 10:38 AM smotpoker86 is Offline     Post: 247 words - (ID: 474220) - Post Rating: 0 - Report Abuse | Link
smotpoker86
Level: 38


POSTS: 222/465
POST EXP: 89805
LVL EXP: 352647
CP: 23.3
VIZ: 18982
There are good arguments both for and against banning guns. I personally believe they shouldn't be banned, but maybe just have stricter regulations on owning them.  As sephitard said, it is easy for people to get guns, even illegal ones. If guns are banned there is nothing that is going to physically stop people from getting guns, it would just make all of them illegal. The only way to stop this would be to get rid of every gun, which is impossible. As long as there are militaries there will be guns being produced.

If they somehow managed to make guns unattainable I think people would resort to knives and homemade bombs. Where I live, they have made getting guns harder, and since then the majority of murders have been stabbings.

A few years ago I was talking with my father and uncle about guns. They told me when they were kids (would have been in the late 50's/early 60's) it was common for parents to give guns to their children to go have fun hunting gophers and what not. They said there was almost no incidents of  abusing this and harming other people. Keep in mind they were living in a rural area. Maybe there have been certain aspects of our society that has influenced the way people view violence in general. Its possible that media has desensitised people and made them more willing to kill other people. Just something for you guys to think about.

Geldman
maximus extraordinarius
Affected by 'Laziness'

Position: Trusted
Since: 06-06-11
From: Edmonton
Last Post: 568 days
Last Active: 250 days

Posted on 10-03-11 01:34 PM Sephitard9001 is Offline     Post: 42 words - (ID: 474276) - Post Rating: 0 - Report Abuse | Link
Sephitard9001
Level: 39


POSTS: 371/470
POST EXP: 27493
LVL EXP: 376218
CP: 451.0
VIZ: 38255
smotpoker86 : Good point. My step-father has some magazines from when he was a kid, and they advertise repeater rifles - to children even! I don't know what it is, but there's some factor that made the modern person prone to violence.
Make love against the evils!
Affected by 'Laziness'

Position: Trusted
Since: 01-30-11
From: AMERICA
Last Post: 220 days
Last Active: 2 days

Posted on 10-03-11 03:50 PM thenumberone is Offline     Post: 571 words - (ID: 474341) - Post Rating: 0 - Report Abuse | Link
thenumberone
Level: 118


POSTS: 1836/6272
POST EXP: 356427
LVL EXP: 17995069
CP: 4410.2
VIZ: 293418
Sephitard9001 :
i said its not a right, and it isnt. if its needed for work then its different, my point is random civilians shouldnt be allowed to have them.
hardly all sorts of hoops, theyre suppsoed to decide if youre mentally capable, half the time they dont bother, thats not much in the ay of 'hoops'.
i dont think no guns is strict, i think its common sense.
most people would not be effected, theyd just be annoyed they couldnt shoot stuff.
if you pull a gun on a mugger, you have him, shooting him is unnecessary.if hes got a gun, you aint going to be able to shoot him, since hes got the element of surprise, you are therefore pretty much screwed.
If hes desperate enough to rob people, chances are he'll still rob you.if he sees you with a holster he'll probably just shoot/stabb you instead, which is worse id say.
lets think, gun massacres in uk, i dont even know of any major ones.france?same.germany?samejapan?sameamerica?yeh, quite a few.
criminals do know most stores in america have guns, and they still rob them.so you've somewhat destroyed your own argument there.
you are evidently missing the point.a car is not a weapon. a car can not be concealed.a car can not be taken into a building.a can not kill what it cant reach.you can dodge a car.
None of those things are true of a gun.
drop the japan thing, its got nothing to do with guns.
yes knifes are dangerous, but you need them to cut food, make tools etc.when was the last time you shot butter onto your toast?or make a wood carving using an uzi?
because a country with higher suicides dosent use a gun to do so, guns are therefore not bad?
...
...
...
...
seriously, your japan argument is incorrect and irrelevant.
guns are so dangerous only people directly controlled by the government should have them. jeez.
Guns are not weapons of defense, there is a limit in defense and guns are far over it. it is too easy to abuse and therefore can not be given out freely.
if i had a knife i could kill a few people, id get taken out pretty soon though.
if i had a gun, good luck stopping me before iv killed a ton of people.
i dont feel the need to be shot by a firearm, and in the uk, the odds of that are exceptionally thin due to regulation.in america however, theres a pretty good chance i would have a gun pulled on me at somepoint.
guns should be international conduct 'crap'
more deaths have been caused by guns than nukes, thats for sure.
im sorry, but america does not invade countrys to save the people.
ww1:entered after us citizens were killed.
ww2:entered when us soldiers were killed.
vietnam:entered when communism spread there, and looted, raped and murdered/burned to the ground entire villages(you can look it up, because its true)
korea:communism, again.
iraq/afghanistan: a man responsible for more deaths of americans is hiding there, and there is the threat of having oil exports to the usa cut off.and after the war most of the major oil contracts are awarded to us firms, and most of the iraqi treasury goes 'missing'.
where in that list, are the selfless wars?
if that was the case, how come china, iran, north korea, the biggest violaters, havent been invaded?


Bleeding Heart Liberal
Affected by 'Carpal Tunnel Syndrome'

Position: Elite
Since: 03-22-11
From:
Last Post: 5 hours
Last Active: 5 hours

Posted on 10-03-11 05:43 PM Sephitard9001 is Offline     Post: 762 words - Spell checked - (ID: 474429) - Post Rating: 0 - Report Abuse | Link
Sephitard9001
Level: 39


POSTS: 372/470
POST EXP: 27493
LVL EXP: 376218
CP: 451.0
VIZ: 38255
thenumberone : It is a right. The second amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It may not be a right in the UK, but it is here. Clearly, you've never bought a gun in the U.S. or have never heard of someone do so. They check your criminal record, there is often waiting periods, etc... Thinking that having no guns isn't strict is an opinion. A lot of people would be affected, think of all the hunters. They have to eat too, probably because they can't afford to buy all their groceries. Most hunters I know are poor and live in trailers. Rich people don't shoot up animals for no reason that often.
If you pull a gun on a mugger - oh wait, you can't legally have guns in the UK. You're stabbed to death. If you pull a gun on a mugger in the U.S., he's yours. If the mugger is armed with an illegal weapon in the UK, then clearly the laws have failed, and you're left defenseless. If he's desperate enough to rob someone, he'll pick a weak defenseless target, he won't target the nearest person if he has a weapon. It's easy to find a gun-less man walking down the street in the U.S.
No shooting massacres in the UK? Dunblane and Hungerford for two examples. None in Japan either? Are you kidding? Ever hear of the Yakuza? Even a mayor was shot dead by a gangster recently in Japan. And no, hundreds and hundreds of stores are completely unarmed. Chain stores like Sears, and Walgreen's, and even Walmart (even millions of fast-food places) do not have any firearm protection of any kind. Only small, mom & pop shops carry weapons. Just because a car isn't a weapon, doesn't mean it's not dangerous. Nationally, there is more than 40,000 death rate from vehicles alone. There is only 20,000 to 30,000 deaths from firearms.
My Japan argument may be irrelevant, but it is correct. Guns should only be controlled by the government? Not according to the Constitution, which pretty much says the exact opposite. It more or less encourages you to take out the government if it becomes corrupt or if it deviates from the, "American Way". Honestly don't think that it's possible to defeat the U.S. Army with civilians, but it suggests to. Yes guns are for defense, you can't argue with the official police and military report. There is NO limit in defense. If a criminal breaks into your house, feel free to completely vaporize his very existence. Obviously that isn't possible, but if it were, I certainly would. Anyone who is going to do that or has violent intent deserves it.
Guns kill more people than nukes? Sure, but not at one time. As you clearly said so yourself, you would be put down before you did too much. If everyone was armed, you might be able to kill 3 or 4 people before you were shot by everyone else. Use a nuke, and that's millions upon millions of people dead in an instant. There is no stopping that. Seriously, there is no comparison there. I don't know where you're getting your info, but no, the odds of being shot dead in the street for no reason in the U.S. is incredibly, incredibly low. The last time I ever heard a gun, was about two years ago when a cop shot an armed criminal in the arm down my road. We don't have shootouts in the streets every other day over here.
I don't see your point with the World Wars. We're at fault for stepping in and help saving billions upon billions of people because we were attacked. That's complete bull crap. I didn't know so many people were ungrateful. Keep in mind that I said, "Help" because I'm not arrogant enough to say that we were the absolute saviors who defended the planet. I know Russia and the UK played a major role.
As for that Vietnam massacre, the officer in charge acted lawlessly and created his own orders. The President or generals didn't order people to be massacred and villages to be burned, the blame is placed squarely on the shoulders of the officer in charge of the troops.
Obviously you can't very well invade China or Korea. Mostly because they have something called nuclear weapons. Huh, go figure. Sorry that we don't want every country on the planet to be completely devastated by nuclear fire.
Also, you never responded to the many questions I posed in my previous post near the end.
Make love against the evils!
Affected by 'Laziness'

Position: Trusted
Since: 01-30-11
From: AMERICA
Last Post: 220 days
Last Active: 2 days
Pages: 1 2 3 4Add to favorites | "RSS" Feed | Next newer thread | Next older thread
Vizzed Board - Debate / Logic / News Discussion - News
Man Open Fires in Courthouse - Thoughts on gun control
| | Thread closed

  Site Info  Sponsor  
  Vizzed.com © was created, designed, coded by & is property of:
David Auchampach
All Rights Reserved 2002 - 2014
Powered By: Vizzed Board, Acmlm Board and Adeon Dev.
Affiliates: get-your-rom.com - mybiblegames.com -  

Page rendered in 0.243 seconds.