Discuss the second amendment here.

[MF Perm]

Tell me MF Perm why when my father went to high school in the 1960s there was never a thought of taking a gun to school? I challenge you to find a recorded case of this kind of violence taking place during the generation of the baby boomers. Those would be people born after WWII. Also, I'd like to point out that there was little to no gun legislation at the time, no paper work, or red tape or waiting period to buy a gun. So why didn't what is happening today happen 40 years ago?

Charles Joseph Whitman (June 24, 1941 – August 1, 1966) was a student at the University of Texas at Austin and a Marine, who is known for having ascended The University's 27-story tower on August 1, 1966, and shooting passersby in the city and on the campus below, after having killed his mother and his wife the night before. In all Whitman killed 15 people and wounded 31 others before he was shot dead by Austin police. (Some accounts allege 16 or 17 victims, citing a later suicide stemming from the attacks, and a pregnant woman who subsequently miscarried.) An autopsy showed Whitman had a brain tumor, which has led some to speculate that it caused his actions; however, this can't be known for sure. A state report found that Whitman's lifelong abuse by his father created the conditions that led to a homicidal breakdown. This incident was known as the deadliest student-perpetrated school shooting in US history until the Virginia Tech massacre which killed 33 people including the gunman, Cho Seung-hui who commited suicide in Blacksburg, Virginia, on April 16, 2007.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Wh ... _shootings


I'm sorry you were saying?

[Melchiah]

Splitting hairs, but not a baby boomer. Close enough though. So that's one case in 40 years, and it is attributed to poor parenting/abuse. Now what do you think the problem is?

Edit: Rephrase: Why is the violence more frequent now, even though there is more regulation on gun ownership?

[MF Perm]

Splitting hairs, but not a baby boomer. Close enough though. So that's one case in 40 years, and it is attributed to poor parenting/abuse. Now what do you think the problem is?

His easy access to guns.

[BarthelloSylph]

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

Before guns, there were other weapons. Many people were killed.

Now we have guns. People get killed.

If you
A) Ban guns and
B) Leave the underlying problems of poverty, lack of education, etc alone you will get a future where there are

1) new weapons
2) people getting killed

you keep accusing me of not wanting it to be hard to get a gun. Did you not read my posts? Gun control is good! Let's make it hard as hell. Make it so you have to have a squeaky clean record and pass 20 psychatric tests. That's fine. I'm for it. I'm not for banning guns.

And while you focus so much on getting rid of guns, you seem to realize there is an underlying problem, but have no interest in fixing or trying to fix it.

My solution - let's stiffen up gun control (but not ban it, too much money and impossible to enforce), and let's get to solving some of these issues that plague our country.

I think your solution comes up short. Banning guns is A) impossible, B) costly, and C) doesn't permanently solve the problem.

Now that I've explained my position for the 10th time, can you explain why getting rid of guns will solve our problem A) more effectively and B) less costly than simply helping people in need? Bringing them out of poverty and educate then?

Geez, I sound like a better liberal than you!

Once again - solve the problem, and it's gone forever. Solve the means, and the problem will occur again in the future.

It's my opinion, but I think it's pretty solid. I'd be interested to see if you can respond sans personal attacks, I don't think you've got it in ya

EDIT: You seem to have latched onto my point that the VT thing could have POTENTIALLY been averted if people had a channel to report suspicious behavior. I said this because one of the guys in his english class last year SAID HE WOULD HAVE REPORTED HIM IF THERE HAD BEEN AN ESTABLISHED METHOD OF DOING SO. People in Columbine may have done so as well. Who knows.

Anyways, quit trying to say I want us to read peoples minds and whatever you are saying - I'm just saying in this one case, this would have helped. It's not going to work everywhere. But it's just one more example of something that could have been stopped long before the gun's trigger pulled itself and killed those students.

[Melchiah]

Splitting hairs, but not a baby boomer. Close enough though. So that's one case in 40 years, and it is attributed to poor parenting/abuse. Now what do you think the problem is?

His easy access to guns.

The problem was his access to guns? Not the fact that his father abused him in whatever form?

You are trying to say that taking guns out of the hands of the citezens will lead to less violence/mortality. You found ONE case in 40 years where a person went on a killing spree with a firearm, and it was noted to have stemmed from paternal abuse/poor parenting.

Fact: 40 years ago there was no gun legislation and there was less violence.

Fact: Today there is a considerable amount of gun legislation, and the violence occurences rise every year.

Now, you show me the correlation Perm.

[BarthelloSylph]

Splitting hairs, but not a baby boomer. Close enough though. So that's one case in 40 years, and it is attributed to poor parenting/abuse. Now what do you think the problem is?

His easy access to guns.

The problem was his access to guns? Not the fact that his father abused him in whatever form?

So... less gun regulation in the past and there was less violence, and today there is considerable regulation on the purchase of firearms and yet there is more violence?

So true. Don't think we're gonna get him to understand though!

[Devek]

The first thing the government needs to do to outlaw guns it to set a good example and get rid of their guns first.

[MF Perm]

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

Before guns, there were other weapons. Many people were killed.

Now we have guns. People get killed.

If you
A) Ban guns and
B) Leave the underlying problems of poverty, lack of education, etc alone you will get a future where there are

1) new weapons
2) people getting killed

you keep accusing me of not wanting it to be hard to get a gun. Did you not read my posts? Gun control is good! Let's make it hard as hell. Make it so you have to have a squeaky clean record and pass 20 psychatric tests. That's fine. I'm for it. I'm not for banning guns.

And while you focus so much on getting rid of guns, you seem to realize there is an underlying problem, but have no interest in fixing or trying to fix it.

My solution - let's stiffen up gun control (but not ban it, too much money and impossible to enforce), and let's get to solving some of these issues that plague our country.

I think your solution comes up short. Banning guns is A) impossible, B) costly, and C) doesn't permanently solve the problem.

Now that I've explained my position for the 10th time, can you explain why getting rid of guns will solve our problem A) more effectively and B) less costly than simply helping people in need? Bringing them out of poverty and educate then?

Geez, I sound like a better liberal than you!

Once again - solve the problem, and it's gone forever. Solve the means, and the problem will occur again in the future.

It's my opinion, but I think it's pretty solid. I'd be interested to see if you can respond sans personal attacks, I don't think you've got it in ya

I think I've made clear the case I'm making is that violent crime is related to the ease of which guns are obtained. Furthermore, I am disagreeing that simply running psychological tests is an efficient way to prevent said crimes.

We can sure go into the other areas surrounding this, but the end result of a violent crime is a person with a gun, not a fucked up mental person - who by the way may not have been mental or desperate until a certain point that no person can anticipate, ever.

So there it is in cliffnotes for you. You can't prevent crime by trying to impossibly diagnose millions of peoples mental conditions when it can change AFTER THE FACT of a gun purchase.

You can prevent crime by denying access to the gun.

Unless something new comes up I'm done with this line of argument, it's getting redundant and going in circles.

[MF Perm]

Splitting hairs, but not a baby boomer. Close enough though. So that's one case in 40 years, and it is attributed to poor parenting/abuse. Now what do you think the problem is?

His easy access to guns.

The problem was his access to guns? Not the fact that his father abused him in whatever form?

So... less gun regulation in the past and there was less violence, and today there is considerable regulation on the purchase of firearms and yet there is more violence?

No one reported hate crimes in the 60's. It was a bit of different world as far as recordkeeping and policing in those days, so that is an invalid argument.

If he didn't have access to the gun, those people would not have died. There are people who go through the same or worse as him ( BY THE WAY IT SAYS THAT IS A THEORY THAT HE WAS ABUSED, THIS IS NOT FACT AND I APPRECIATE YOU DON'T TREAT IT AS SUCH, THX ), that don't go out and kill people from a tower, or in a cafeteria, or in a dorm.

They write, they cry, they commit suicide, they produce music.

The bottom line that you cannot escape is, if he didn't have access to that gun, those people would not have died. You cannot control what people do in their own homes or how people raise their children behind closed doors.

You can, however, stop the purchase and use of firearms by citizens.

[Melchiah]

I think I've made clear the case I'm making is that violent crime is related to the ease of which guns are obtained.

This is ignorant, or fairy-tale visions. I direct you two posts above. How is it that there was less gun related violence 40 years ago when gun control was lax and today there is an increasing amount each year and we regulate firearm purchase/ownership?

Furthermore, I am disagreeing that simply running psychological tests is an efficient way to prevent said crimes.

Fine. I can agree with this. Doesn't mean taking guns away from honest people will stop violent crime. Gun legislation only disarms the honest man. What the fuck does a criminal care what the law says?

We can sure go into the other areas surrounding this, but the end result of a violent crime is a person with a gun, not a fucked up mental person - who by the way may not have been mental or desperate until a certain point that no person can anticipate, ever.

Wrong. The end result of a violent crime is an injured or dead person, regardless of the weapon used.

You can prevent crime by denying access to the gun.

This statement is the most asinine thing I have ever heard.

Unless something new comes up I'm done with this line of argument, it's getting redundant and going in circles.

Factual and Solid Counterpoints != going in circles.[/quote]

Also, as for stating fact this is what YOU wrote:

A state report found that Whitman's lifelong abuse by his father created the conditions that led to a homicidal breakdown.

You reported it as fact kthx

[Tyche]

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

This been quoted, if not, im quoting it as hard as i can.

[MF Perm]

Also consider that gun manufacturers had a string of wars to profit from from WW1 to Vietnam. There was practically a war every decade. After Vietnam was the focus on the Cold War. No fun there, who else do we sell to? THE PUBLIC.


I wouldn't be surprised to see a dramatic increase in gun related crimes shortly after the end of Vietnam.

[Beckwin]

Once again - solve the problem, and it's gone forever. Solve the means, and the problem will occur again in the future.

Never gonna solve the problem of people wanting to kill other people. Sorry. It's like terrorism- has always been around and always will be, and thinking you can completely snuff it out is extremely naive.

[MF Perm]

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

This been quoted, if not, im quoting it as hard as i can.

Owning a gun is not an essential liberty, it is a privilege. Quote harder pls.

[Tyche]

[quote=MF Perm]

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

This been quoted, if not, im quoting it as hard as i can.

Owning a gun is not an essential liberty, it is a privilege. Quote harder pls.[/quote:06827]

Owning a gun is a right, not a privilege. What's this 2nd amendment thing again?

[GRT]

[quote=Tyche]

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

This been quoted, if not, im quoting it as hard as i can.

Owning a gun is not an essential liberty, it is a privilege. Quote harder pls.

Owning a gun is a right, not a privilege. What's this 2nd amendment thing again?[/quote:510ec]

lol, have you read this thread at all?

pages and pages in the very front talking about court rulings

[MF Perm]

I think I've made clear the case I'm making is that violent crime is related to the ease of which guns are obtained.

This is ignorant, or fairy-tale visions. I direct you two posts above. How is it that there was less gun related violence 40 years ago when gun control was lax and today there is an increasing amount each year and we regulate firearm purchase/ownership?

Furthermore, I am disagreeing that simply running psychological tests is an efficient way to prevent said crimes.

Fine. I can agree with this. Doesn't mean taking guns away from honest people will stop violent crime. Gun legislation only disarms the honest man. What the fuck does a criminal care what the law says?

[quote:5b73a]We can sure go into the other areas surrounding this, but the end result of a violent crime is a person with a gun, not a fucked up mental person - who by the way may not have been mental or desperate until a certain point that no person can anticipate, ever.

Wrong. The end result of a violent crime is an injured or dead person, regardless of the weapon used.

You can prevent crime by denying access to the gun.

This statement is the most asinine thing I have ever heard.

Unless something new comes up I'm done with this line of argument, it's getting redundant and going in circles.

Factual and Solid Counterpoints != going in circles.[/quote:5b73a]

Also, as for stating fact this is what YOU wrote:

A state report found that Whitman's lifelong abuse by his father created the conditions that led to a homicidal breakdown.

You reported it as fact kthx[/quote]

Again with context please. Don't quote line and not the line before it:

An autopsy showed Whitman had a brain tumor, which has led some to speculate that it caused his actions; however, this can't be known for sure. A state report found that Whitman's lifelong abuse by his father created the conditions that led to a homicidal breakdown.

[Melchiah]

Perm, I liken you to a man trying to plug a leaky bucket with his finger. You stop the leak in one place, it's just going to find another outlet. Know much about physics? A force will try to find the path of least resistance. You can think of a pressurized container. The first place that container will leak is the weakest point. Upon finding that outlet blocked, it will then begin exerting force on the next weakest point. All of that to say this: The problem is that there are people who are not being taught that killing others is wrong. If you make guns illegal for private ownership, what have you accomplished? You only deprive people who obey the law of guns. All of these violent incidents we are discussing, Columbine, VT, the historical example were all carefully considered thought out endeavors. Those people made up their minds that they were going to make other people share in their misery. The easiest method was a gun. Could have been explosives, arson, poison, any number of things. You want to outlaw guns because they are the easiest target, and you still aren't addressing the underlying problem of the devaluation of human life or untaught morality. Also, wasn't your example to my challenge using a rifle? Not a handgun?

[Beckwin]

The Constitution is not a static document. Hence ammendments.

Nothing essential in this day and age about college students buying glock 9mms.

[MF Perm]

[quote=Tyche]

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

This been quoted, if not, im quoting it as hard as i can.

Owning a gun is not an essential liberty, it is a privilege. Quote harder pls.

Owning a gun is a right, not a privilege. What's this 2nd amendment thing again?[/quote:822ac]

An essential liberty is not the right to own an object that is used only with the intent to harm or kill someone. Please try again.