PlanetZ forums - scopeusers.com

braincell wrote:

siriusbliss wrote:[
Yeah, current California law is - when you buy a gun, you have to register it, and there is a 10-day background check before you even take possession. THEN you're on some list somewhere at the Sherriff's, Fed's, etc. where they can simply come and try to take it (and you) away for possession in times of 'disruption' - such as what happened in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina where people who owned guns to protect themselves were ORDERED to hand them over to 'authorities'.

Greg

Gun happy Virginia has a similar background check. This guy passed a background check, then he killed 33 people at Virginia Tech. Sorry but the background check is practically useless. This part is hilarious:

"they can simply come and try to take it (and you) away "

Too late when someone is dead!

wah, wah, wah.

the ONLY reason why the VT tragedy was such a huge tragedy is because of the actions of the authorities. Virginia is a "carry" state. lots of people there are armed. however, just prior to the shooting, the rules in the school were changed to prohibit firearms on campus. previously, many if not most of the students would have been armed. the police locked down the buildings and waited outside for orders. everyone was locked in the room with the killer. in previous times, the police would have rushed the building and killed the gunman. so-

1. if the students had been armed, the gunman would have been killed.
2. if the students hadn't been locked in the building, the might have escaped.
3. if the gunman had been aprehended after the first shooting, he never would have had the captive "audience".
4. if the police hadn't waited for the gunman to run out of ammo, lives may have been saved.
5. the killer was on psychotropic drugs. without those, he likely would never have behaved in that manner. it's worth noting that there is a mind control lab at VT...

braincell wrote:

siriusbliss wrote:[
Yeah, current California law is - when you buy a gun, you have to register it, and there is a 10-day background check before you even take possession. THEN you're on some list somewhere at the Sherriff's, Fed's, etc. where they can simply come and try to take it (and you) away for possession in times of 'disruption' - such as what happened in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina where people who owned guns to protect themselves were ORDERED to hand them over to 'authorities'.

Greg

Gun happy Virginia has a similar background check. This guy passed a background check, then he killed 33 people at Virginia Tech. Sorry but the background check is practically useless. This part is hilarious:

"they can simply come and try to take it (and you) away "

Too late when someone is dead!

AGAIN - for about the third time in this thread - this guy shot those people in A GUN FREE ZONE, and if any ONE of those students had had a gun with them, perhaps those people would not have died. Two weeks prior to this a student attempted to shoot students at a nearby law school and was shot by one of the students before he could even start on his attack. This Law school is NOT in a gun free zone.

Background check is troublesome because people can still get them through other means.

Greg

If the person with a gun couldn't have got one the people would not be dead either.

Neutron wrote:If the person with a gun couldn't have got one the people would not be dead either.

not true. How would they ABSOLUTELY not get one?
And why are police being told to stand down?

Dis-logic.

****

siriusbliss wrote:

Neutron wrote:If the person with a gun couldn't have got one the people would not be dead either.

not true. How would they ABSOLUTELY not get one?
And why are police being told to stand down?

Dis-logic.

****

Not many people are killed with guns when you have to do a lot of work to get one such as in Europe, if there are millions of them lying around in your country "for target practice, honest" low lifes can get hold of them really easy. Its probably too late anyways there are so many of them about.

silly argument from the place which has the most people in prison in the world., and the most guns.

Neutron wrote:

siriusbliss wrote:

Neutron wrote:If the person with a gun couldn't have got one the people would not be dead either.

not true. How would they ABSOLUTELY not get one?
And why are police being told to stand down?

Dis-logic.

****

Not many people are killed with guns when you have to do a lot of work to get one such as in Europe, if there are millions of them lying around in your country "for target practice, honest" low lifes can get hold of them really easy. Its probably too late anyways there are so many of them about.

silly argument from the place which has the most people in prison in the world., and the most guns.

not true we have the most people in prison in the world, but catching up.
And most of those in prison here are in on drug charges.

And guns are not just 'laying around everywhere'.

Gotta let go of the false stereotypes folks.

This endless loop of a thread is a waste of time. Noone is getting it, and noone cares anyways. So, what's the point?

Guns are not your problem. It's redundant ignorance. Yup, I'm blunt, arrogant, or whatever, but that's my opinion.

Not reading the stats posted re: gun ownership vs. per capita crime in Europe, Japan, S. America, etc. is only weakening your argument against guns. Noone is putting two and two together, so you're only wasting your own time making pert statements and blank opinions.

Guns are not your problem.

Greg

well, that's not really a good argument either. it's really easy to just say, "you guys are stupid there". of course we are. the people in prison are mostly in prison over drug laws. the only manufacturing that is done in the USA is in prisons it seems.....really Neutron, you guys are on lockdown too, you just may not know it yet...

without a gun, a person can go on a killing spree with a knife, a sword, a bat, fire, or if one was really tricky, one could make a gun. they're easy to make. they make them in prison, they're called "zip guns". no, i wouldn't say that there would have been no killings without guns, that's ridiculously false.

actually, MOST killings by guns are done by official killers, soldiers, police, corporate armies and "agents". banning guns will not protect from any of these, it will only make them more dangerous. it's funny how the common man is always blamed for the actions and planning of his leaders. take automobiles. there was a conscious decision in the USA in the 1950s to build the society around automobiles. suburbs were built with nothing but homes and a central shopping area that could only be accessed by car. later, the public is found to be greedy and lazy for using autos for everything. guns were invented for soldiers and killers to improve the leverage for the king. now the regular folk are bad if they have a gun, but the king is still a good guy to control them.

guns are dangerous because power is dangerous and guns are power. gun control is first and foremost a method to control the people. yes, the modern military is powerful, but they still don't want to face an armed population, especially one filled with countrymen.

here's something from the site linked earlier:
Lets work together to "stop guns falling into the wrong hands." This being a regular announcement of the anti-gun lobby, it is only right that we on the other side of the fence should help out.

Did you know that in England you are ten times more likely to be shot dead by an armed psycho from SO19 (the armed paramilitary wing of the unarmed British police force) than by a crook with a gun? Harry_Stanley__inquest_verdict_October_2004.pdf

And what’s more, these pieces of garbage always get away with it. Not a single prosecution has ever been brought against British police involved in what can only be described as murder in many cases.

garyb wrote:
Did you know that in England you are ten times more likely to be shot dead by an armed psycho from SO19 (the armed paramilitary wing of the unarmed British police force) than by a crook with a gun? Harry_Stanley__inquest_verdict_October_2004.pdf

Ten times? i'm sure you have a source garyb, could you please show the link. i'm interested to see how you think this guy owning a gun would have changed the outcome. Unless he was quick off the mark he would never have been able to get his own gun out in time. If he had owned a gun and gone for it (assuming the officers identified themselves, which i'm sure they didn't in this case) he would have been 'lawfully' killed. If he was on a register as owning a gun likewise he would have been 'lawfully' killed. As he didn't own a gun it was an unlawful killing.

garyb wrote: And what’s more, these pieces of garbage always get away with it. Not a single prosecution has ever been brought against British police involved in what can only be described as murder in many cases.

Obsolutely - we're getting sick of it. However i don't see how owning a gun would change any of this.

Given the relatively few such killings, if i'm ten times more likely to be shot by the police than crims, then going by that stat it's still a heck of a lot safer to live in the UK than the USA.

physical bodies are overrated

garyb wrote:

1. if the students had been armed, the gunman would have been killed.
2. if the students hadn't been locked in the building, the might have escaped.
3. if the gunman had been aprehended after the first shooting, he never would have had the captive "audience".
4. if the police hadn't waited for the gunman to run out of ammo, lives may have been saved.
5. the killer was on psychotropic drugs. without those, he likely would never have behaved in that manner. it's worth noting that there is a mind control lab at VT...

6. KILLER PASSED BACKGROUND CHECK
7. IF GUNS WERE ILLEGAL, THIS TRAGEDY WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED!

Some people are saying the problem is there are not enough guns. If this wasn't such a serious matter, I would be laughing my ass off. More guns would make it even worse. That is how we got into this mess.There are an estimated 235,000,000 guns in the United States. How many guns would it take for you to f safe? Perhaps the gun lobby would like to see it mandatory that everyone own a gun.

braincell wrote:

garyb wrote:

1. if the students had been armed, the gunman would have been killed.
2. if the students hadn't been locked in the building, the might have escaped.
3. if the gunman had been aprehended after the first shooting, he never would have had the captive "audience".
4. if the police hadn't waited for the gunman to run out of ammo, lives may have been saved.
5. the killer was on psychotropic drugs. without those, he likely would never have behaved in that manner. it's worth noting that there is a mind control lab at VT...

6. KILLER PASSED BACKGROUND CHECK
7. IF GUNS WERE ILLEGAL, THIS TRAGEDY WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED!

Some people are saying the problem is there are not enough guns. If this wasn't such a serious matter, I would be laughing my ass off. More guns would make it even worse. That is how we got into this mess.There are an estimated 235,000,000 guns in the United States. How many guns would it take for you to f safe? Perhaps the gun lobby would like to see it mandatory that everyone own a gun.

Go tell that to these towns:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1818862/posts
http://digg.com/politics/Mandatory_Gun_ ... 5x_pop_inc
<since you guys like (and trust) Wiki so much>:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin,_Utah

Utah, Idaho, Nevada, Georgia have been shifting their gun laws to favor the OPTION of ownership.

Your psychology is flawed thinking that if there were less guns there would be less crime.

But hey, who's really listening or reading anyways?

This pro/no gun argument is boring.

Greg

FrancisHarmany wrote:physical bodies are overrated

but hey, you have a right to enjoy and maintain it anyways.

G

siriusbliss wrote:

FrancisHarmany wrote:physical bodies are overrated

but hey, you have a right to enjoy and maintain it anyways.

G

There is no one answer for this. Yet everybody wants attention
for their little or very big point/issue.

While people replying to other post are contemplating under
differnt assumptions....

and you guys go on, and on, and on.........


I have one tip for everybody wanting to stay on topic.........

YOU KNOW WHERE TO STICK IT!

braincell, no7 is a logic fallacy. there's no way to say that if guns were illegal, there would be no killings. i already showed how easy it is to make guns, did you see the automatic that could be made with a few hand tools and off the shelf, legal parts?

Mr. A, glad that England is "safer". well, i'm glad for you anyway, at least the part you are in is better. it's not logical to assume that it's guns that make the difference. there are too many ways and reasons for murder and mayhem.

FrancisHarmany- physical bodies are the best thing going right now. it's how i live at the moment, and the body is neither a mistake, nor a bad thing, it's a blessing. there may be other states and i'll deal with them when it's appropriate. i'm not just going to die because you don't see the value in living.

siriusbliss,

Why do you think that after the VT killings most of the students and teachers don't want guns? Do you think you are smarter than they are? You better write to them and tell them how stupid they are and that you know better what to do.

braincell wrote:siriusbliss,

Why do you think that after the VT killings most of the students and teachers don't want guns? Do you think you are smarter than they are? You better write to them and tell them how stupid they are and that you know better what to do.

No. Don't be an idiot. Stop stererotyping, and start thinking.
Maybe YOU are smarter than they are - so go tell them why they don't have rights. Tell them why the police were told to stand down.
The VT students are IN A GUN-FREE ZONE. Check closely and you'll realize there is a lot of support for lifting so-called 'gun-free' status around campuses all over the country.

For the 3rd or 4th time. If even one of the students there had had a gun, or if the police hadn't been told to stand down, chances are the VT (mentally ill and possibly drugged) killer would've been shot long before he could finish his spree.

You can try to attack me all you want, try to entrap me into responding to your attempt at putting me above anybody else in this debate, but know that it's failing on the grounds of your flawed beliefs, ideologies, and lack of forethought. You haven't gotten the paradigm yet, haven't checked the data (or are in denial about it), and frankly I'm tired of all the redundant round-n-round blathering.

Greg

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/Jaco ... efenseless

most of the students and teachers, eh?

you got that info how?

even if the info is true, most people of european lineage in the USA thought that black people were less than human at one point. did that make them correct?

your reasoning is flawed.

funny how VT has never had a major shooting for the hundred or so years that guns were allowed on campus. VT was a "gun free zone" less than a year before all hell broke loose......

I got my information from Professor David McGrath:

http://thestory.org/archive/the_story_4 ... s.mp3/view

Although McGrath wants to bring a gun to class, he found that the facility at his college is totally against him, also his own daughter who is a teacher.

People who need to carry guns to feel safe are cowards.

The fact that you are questioning me makes me think that you just are not accepting reality. Most people don't own guns and don't want to be anywhere near a gun.

braincell wrote:I got my information from Professor David McGrath:

http://thestory.org/archive/the_story_4 ... s.mp3/view

Although McGrath wants to bring a gun to class, he found that the facility at his college is totally against him, also his own daughter who is a teacher.

People who need to carry guns to feel safe are cowards.

The fact that you are questioning me makes me think that you just are not accepting reality. Most people don't own guns and don't want to be anywhere near a gun.

Not true, and I'm not a coward.
I just know my rights and statistics.

I know a lot of people that have guns, but do not publicly go around bragging about it. It's a personal choice.

Cowards are the people that can't handle the truth.

Greg

braincell wrote:I got my information from Professor David McGrath:

http://thestory.org/archive/the_story_4 ... s.mp3/view

Although McGrath wants to bring a gun to class, he found that the facility at his college is totally against him, also his own daughter who is a teacher.

People who need to carry guns to feel safe are cowards.

The fact that you are questioning me makes me think that you just are not accepting reality. Most people don't own guns and don't want to be anywhere near a gun.

LOL!!
at least he has a clue about what reality is

we dont all live in your world-soap-show where verybody thinks with your assumptions and limitations in mind.