So what do you propose Justin? Do you think we should have everyone decked out in SWAT gear, or they should just carry a concealed weapon all the time? Maybe, we should just give every single person who buys a gun legally a mental examination? Or maybe we should destroy the black market? Plenty of options, take your pick.
-
Check out the relaunch of our general collection, with classic designs and new ones by our very own Pissog!
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
Northern Illinois University
- Thread starter Aldaron
- Start date
So what you're saying is that the criminal in question only wants to break the law that you can't have guns on the NIU campus. He wouldn't dare break a law that prevented him from getting a gun in the first place.
Cause ya know, criminals respect some laws. Just not the most local level of laws that prevent them from committing the crime they want to.
Exactly!! Isn't cocaine/heroin/[insert ANYTHING illegal] a problem in the US? People still manage to get ahold of these "banned" items on a daily basis. Getting a gun in America is no harder than getting some Meth or making a pipe bomb (actually, i think acquiring a gun is probably a million times easier than making a bomb)
You guys seriously need to get real. People are just crazy, tragedies will happen until the end of time. All we can do is console the victims and hope this stuff never happens to us.
Dude, there's nothing we CAN do about it.
seeing how none of these school shootings involve criminals, that background check is a bit of a non-issue in this case. people like seung-hui cho (forgive me if i misspelled his name there) are still able to acquire firearms, and that's what i have a problem with.
and oh man, you mean i have to wait a WHOLE MONTH to get something that can take another person's life? then i have to wait another THREE DAYS? FUCK. WHAT A RIP-OFF.
also, justin, you definitely have a point there. the importance of stricter gun control laws is indeed overexaggerated, especially when you consider how much else is going to shit in america. but still, just because it's a smaller issue than some others, that doesn't mean it isn't worth discussing in a topic, you know, dedicated to discussing it ?_?
How terrible... :(
You know, I'm a student at Missouri State University, and there was a copycat attempt there soon after the Virginia Tech shooting. I'm worried about another one...
You know, I'm a student at Missouri State University, and there was a copycat attempt there soon after the Virginia Tech shooting. I'm worried about another one...
And on the whole everyone arming themselves issue...
Why do people even carry guns? To defend themselves? I always thought you never needed a gun if you weren't afraid of anything. People defend themselves whenever they feel threatened, and that's the problem with everyone owning a gun. People's thresholds for how much "threat" they can handle is vastly different from person to person.
Take my friend for example, he gets really defensive whenever he gets called names. I'm pretty sure his life is never in danger when someone calls him a bitch. Yet, it wouldn't be too hard for me to imagine my friend getting really angry one day and taking out his gun, his "self-defense" tool.
My friend also happen to have a clean record and would have no problem getting a gun in America, legal or illegal.
Why do people even carry guns? To defend themselves? I always thought you never needed a gun if you weren't afraid of anything. People defend themselves whenever they feel threatened, and that's the problem with everyone owning a gun. People's thresholds for how much "threat" they can handle is vastly different from person to person.
Take my friend for example, he gets really defensive whenever he gets called names. I'm pretty sure his life is never in danger when someone calls him a bitch. Yet, it wouldn't be too hard for me to imagine my friend getting really angry one day and taking out his gun, his "self-defense" tool.
My friend also happen to have a clean record and would have no problem getting a gun in America, legal or illegal.
Columbine shootings: Under 18. They were BANNED from having guns. Guns were against the school's zero-tolerance policy. The law, surpise, did not deter them.
So-Hung Chi: Had mental health issues that went unaddressed. BANNED from having guns. The law, surprise, did not deter him.
In this case, this guy was off his meds and violating Illinois' Gun Statutes and NIU's policy. The law, surprise, did not deter him.
Criminals, surprise, do not respect the law. Putting laws in place does not deter criminals. The biggest deterrent to crime is the thought that if you try it, you will be killed. By disarming normal people, criminals are enabled.
The Black Market will always be able to get guns in a country as large as America. Disarming normal citizens does not save any lives, it just allows more murderers to do their deeds unopposed by an armed populace.
Arming citizens wouldn't help as much as you think either. A lot more people in America would be killed if everyone was allowed to have a gun.
**Ninja edit; if you're not advocating what I said, that what are you advocating?
Actually, it would help. If everyone knew how to properly use a gun and when to use it, then there would be a lot less crime. Who really wants to fuck with a bunch of people with guns? The problem again is that people do not know when or how to use them. Guns deserve just as much respect as people do. Preventing this from happening again is just as simple as being nicer to those that you know, so they do not snap and kill innocent people. That is what CAN be done.
Your post says two different things, and I REALLY REALLY like the bolded part. This is the way humanity is gonna go 6-0 against most of the social threats that plague our world.
I think you should really re-consider the first part of your post. The problem isn't that people don't know how to use guns, its that crazy people want to use them.
True, but the majority of people are too stupid to ever learn that. In a utopia, those kinds of things can work. But we live in a shitty world. You up security presence, they will just shoot the guards. Same story with metal detectors. If someone has enough of a motive, there is no stopping them. Fact is, there is really nothing we can do to stop these sorts of events, outside of becoming a communist country where nobody has any freedom. I feel that is an impossible alternative, as that kills the whole point of our country.
Hell, I love using guns, but I use them for target practice, not to shoot innocent people. The crazy people would not be crazy if people just took the time to think of what is making them crazy. In most cases it is trauma from their peers or parents. That utopia part is what is the problem. We do not live in a perfect world, so not everyone is nice. So, I guess this kind of thing will just keep happening until people stop being assholes to eachother.
What do you mean by "when to use it", by any chance do you mean when to kill someone, if people cannot be trusted with let's face it machines for killing humans then shouldn't it not be illegal.
It's easier said than done though, especially with so many guns lying around America.
What I mean by when to use it is, like when a crazed gunman comes in and starts killing people. If someone is trying to rob a bank and everyone in the bank has a 22 or 9-mil, I do not think the robber would last very long. Okay, so you do not apparently get the American Constitution. The second ammendment allows people to have guns. They have to be acquired through legal processes, but they can still be acquired unless you are mentally incompetant, or a felon, etc.
Banning guns in the UK has not stopped Gun Crime however guns in the UK are not fully banned, this is true, however in more people are likely to be killed by a gun of any sort in the US rather than the UK at least it is a means of prevention. Prohibition never worked because nearly everyone wanted to carry on with it. The only way to truly ban guns and prevent this from happening is to change people's mind sets and realise that guns are a weapon made to KILL, yet let's sell them to anyone who is a capable of filling in a form and not convicted of a felony. You state that banning guns is a draconian act that will not solve anything. The US has to put metal detectors in Schools to prevent crimes from happening, they have to have Secruity in Senior (High) Schools, The UK has none of these problems, just a very few sporadic incidents.
However UK itself is currently in a wrangle about the rising of Knife Crime, and children and adults alike getting stabbed. You never hear of people shooting up a School, going on a killing spree in london armed with a Sniper rifle. You do hear of the one person that get's stabbed. So in all honesty what's worse the one life in which the person committing the killing hasn't as of yet turned the knife onto themselves, or increasing incidents of people running into schools killing as many people as they're bullets as they could afford then killing themselves so people don't get the justice they feel they deserve.
How can pulling a gun on the person shooting be justice? That's nothing but viligante law, eventually if everyone believes they need to arm themselves for protection it will turn into an Anarchist state.
If NRA and the likes of Americans don't go round toting they're 2nd Amendmant and realise that Moral rights should be suppressed IF as a direct result people will actually live their lives.
However UK itself is currently in a wrangle about the rising of Knife Crime, and children and adults alike getting stabbed. You never hear of people shooting up a School, going on a killing spree in london armed with a Sniper rifle. You do hear of the one person that get's stabbed. So in all honesty what's worse the one life in which the person committing the killing hasn't as of yet turned the knife onto themselves, or increasing incidents of people running into schools killing as many people as they're bullets as they could afford then killing themselves so people don't get the justice they feel they deserve.
How can pulling a gun on the person shooting be justice? That's nothing but viligante law, eventually if everyone believes they need to arm themselves for protection it will turn into an Anarchist state.
If NRA and the likes of Americans don't go round toting they're 2nd Amendmant and realise that Moral rights should be suppressed IF as a direct result people will actually live their lives.
@ Ghandi - It is not being a vigilante if it is in defense of yourself or others. That is another law that can be found in some states. Recently a man in Texas shot two thieves and killed them in order to defend his neighbor's property. That is completely legal because it is in defense.
@ Max - I guess the gun control is being related to how a fourth incident of this nature happening, could be prevented. It is more up to the people than anything, even the guns. They should not have been so cruel to that guy, and he would not have snapped.
@ Max - I guess the gun control is being related to how a fourth incident of this nature happening, could be prevented. It is more up to the people than anything, even the guns. They should not have been so cruel to that guy, and he would not have snapped.
blastoiselover100 - that is a perfect example of vigilante justice. the man was told NOT to act on the two criminals and that the police would arrive shortly to deal with the situation. that man should be in jail for the rest of his life on two counts of first degree murder, not idolized by fanatics.
deck knight - you keep contradicting yourself. first guns are hard to obtain then they aren't? make up your mind on where you stand.
it is quite obvious that if a criminal wants a firearm there is next to nothing from stopping him/ her from getting it. abolition of guns will not solve the problem, this has already been shown by countries like the UK where a complete ban is not even in effect. education is a much more powerful tool than making laws that prevent the innocent, law abiding citizens from defending themselves.
personally i am for arming the faculty. if every single teacher had a small caliber firearm and knew where non-fatal targets were these fucking nutjobs would not be killing anyone. although if i were an armed teacher i would shoot to kill, people with deadly intent towards innocents do not deserve to continue living.
deck knight - you keep contradicting yourself. first guns are hard to obtain then they aren't? make up your mind on where you stand.
it is quite obvious that if a criminal wants a firearm there is next to nothing from stopping him/ her from getting it. abolition of guns will not solve the problem, this has already been shown by countries like the UK where a complete ban is not even in effect. education is a much more powerful tool than making laws that prevent the innocent, law abiding citizens from defending themselves.
personally i am for arming the faculty. if every single teacher had a small caliber firearm and knew where non-fatal targets were these fucking nutjobs would not be killing anyone. although if i were an armed teacher i would shoot to kill, people with deadly intent towards innocents do not deserve to continue living.
No, I'm not contradicting myself because I never said guns were easy to obtain. Perhaps you missed the sarcasm when I was talking about the 30 day FOID limitation, the fact Illinois laws bar people from travelling with their weapons loaded or outside a case, and even after getting a FOID card, which requires a background check among other things.
The "lets ban guns" types seem to think there are guns laying around everywhere even if they aren't any average joe can just walk up to a gun shop in a rage and throw down a Benjamin to seek vengeance in a moment of passion. They seem to think anybody could go maniac one day and go on a shooting spree. They don't trust individuals to act responsibly, but they do believe putting a law in place and having a massive taxpayer funded bureacracy to confiscate guns is a practical solution.
There are already draconian gun laws in Illinois. They don't even have Concealed-Carry. That didn't prevent this crime, but they seem to think a nationwide ban on firearms would somehow fix the problem. Their solution to everything is to put more restrictions on people who already abide by the existing ones. You can't target criminals with laws! By definition, they ignore the laws!
And I agree with you completely. It's what I've been arguing the whole time.
That might not be a bad idea, incidentelly. There would need to be proper training for it, but its feasible enough. Of course, they would have to either repeal or alter the "gun-free zone." We'd need to allow teachers to opt-out, but we should make it available.
Of course, some cringe at the mere suggestion that people be able to defend themselves. They think guns are only for taking lives, not saving or defending them. That is an unfortunate view of life, but dispicable when they want to enforce their irrational fear of firearms on everyone else through the force of law.
@ Vespa - Technically it is vigilante act because it is legal in Texas law to do that and he took fulfilling the law into his own hands. It was completely legal. Defense is legal, as long as it is not for something like revenge.
It was a dispatcher, and it was fully legal. He prevented the theives from escaping with his neighbors property and shot them after he gave a clear warning. Anyways, we are getting a little off topic here.
i'm not saying it wasn't legal, i'm saying it was vigilante justice. [SIZE=-1]A vigilante is someone who takes enforcement of law or moral code into his own hands and that is clearly what he was doing. just because he is inside the boundaries of the law doesn't mean he isn't being a vigilante. as i already made clear i do not think what he was able to do should have been legal and that he should be in jail for the rest of his life. if the two men in question had threatened him with weapons it would be a different story but nothing they did threatened his well being in any way.
quit trying to justify senseless violence.
[/SIZE]
quit trying to justify senseless violence.
[/SIZE]
It was not senseless. It was based on defense of property. He warned them to stop, but they did not. So it is technically their fault.
it wasn't his property. he did not give them warning at all. technically is a cop-out term used when people are hard pressed to defend their argument with logic and fact.
he walked outside, said something and then you hear two shots go off. he gave them no warning or option to stop what they were doing. what he did may not have been illegal but it was incredibly unethical and senseless. every person should have the right to a fair trial even when they are unquestionably guilty and since when is burglary a crime punishable by death. even most third world countries aren't that extreme.
he walked outside, said something and then you hear two shots go off. he gave them no warning or option to stop what they were doing. what he did may not have been illegal but it was incredibly unethical and senseless. every person should have the right to a fair trial even when they are unquestionably guilty and since when is burglary a crime punishable by death. even most third world countries aren't that extreme.