Latest school shooting in America

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Latest school shooting in America

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 6 of 6 << First < 2 3 4 5 6

nairb75 Baltimore 06 Oct 15 4.23pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 06 Oct 2015 4.17pm /quote] How about the right to the pursuit of happiness, and freedom of expression. One of those isn't an amendment. both are covered by the 1st ammendment.
Alert a moderator to this post

nairb75

Baltimore 06 Oct 15 4.23pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 06 Oct 2015 4.17pm
/quote]

How about the right to the pursuit of happiness, and freedom of expression. One of those isn't an amendment.

both are covered by the 1st ammendment.

Alert a moderator to this post

Stuk Top half 06 Oct 15 4.48pm
Quote Stuk at 06 Oct 2015 3.36pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 06 Oct 2015 3.28pm Quote Stuk at 02 Oct 2015 5.18pm Quote sydtheeagle at 02 Oct 2015 5.10pm Quote Stuk at 02 Oct 2015 5.00pm It's not a response to violence, it's a deterrent. Anyway comparing private and largely unregulated gun ownership to military, and heavily regulated, weapons is irrelevant. How many nukes have been fired by accident or used by rogue groups? Would that be none? Unlike the weekly problems of private ownership. Trident is a response to violence, assuming we would only use it as a retaliatory measure. Deterrence is not using it at all. If we used it first, it would be violence that invited violence. Smart, that. In none of the three cases is it justified (in my opinion.) Yes, I agree that comparing military and private gun ownership is irrelevant. However, you drew the parallel, not me. I was merely responding to your post. In answer to your question, yes, that would be none. So why do we need Trident? If the question was how many guns had been mistakenly fired (on civilians) by the military (Russia this week, anyone?) that would be lots. That is not to say we should disarm the military. We should not. But the clear parallel is that whether the weapons are nuclear or conventional, no good comes of weapons so avoid them where you can, whichever flavour of weapon we are talking about. In my view, we should ban outright those that we can (like Trident) and restrict to the appropriate bearers (the military) those that we cannot. We aren't using it at all, so it's a deterrent as I said. The threat of us using it in response is enough to make it that. I certainly did not make the comparison. You did 3 post ago. If there's been no rogue or accidental nukings, there's no irony in people on here, who back us having Trident, showing dismay at private gun ownership in the USA. Guns aren't a deterrent, clearly as displayed by the huge gun ownership in the US and the massive level of gun deaths. Trident worked in the cold war because it guaranteed Mutually Assured Destruction. Where as owning a gun in a situation where the other guy has a gun, only slightly improves your chances, because a) its unlikely you'll have your gun b) gun only works as a deterrent if the other guy knows you have it c) if you do have it, and the other guy knows you have it, he's still more likely to have the advantage. Where as having a nuclear weapons platform, that even if your enemy launches a strike that turns the whole of the UK into a smoking radioactive graveyard, devoid of life, is a deterrent - And Trident in a cold war scenario was a very effective deterrent (it was useless as an offensive platform mind). I never said they were, I said Trident was. Syd was saying people who don't agree with gun ownership but are fine with Trident are having it both ways, which I don't agree with. I'm jumping in on your side, but I couldn't find the original post. I agree with you. A deterrent is only effective if it means 'everyone dies' is the outcome. Life in Prison and the death penalty isn't an effective deterrent against shooting someone, so the risk of someone being able to shoot you, is just something you plan for. If you're breaking into someones house, and you think they might have a gun, chances are you take a gun and if you hear them coming to investigate, you shoot them. Edited by jamiemartin721 (06 Oct 2015 3.45pm) Oi! You've edited, rather than quoted, my post. The bold is your bit. Optimistic as ever
Alert a moderator to this post

Stuk

Top half 06 Oct 15 4.48pm

Quote Stuk at 06 Oct 2015 3.36pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 06 Oct 2015 3.28pm

Quote Stuk at 02 Oct 2015 5.18pm

Quote sydtheeagle at 02 Oct 2015 5.10pm

Quote Stuk at 02 Oct 2015 5.00pm

It's not a response to violence, it's a deterrent.

Anyway comparing private and largely unregulated gun ownership to military, and heavily regulated, weapons is irrelevant.

How many nukes have been fired by accident or used by rogue groups? Would that be none? Unlike the weekly problems of private ownership.

Trident is a response to violence, assuming we would only use it as a retaliatory measure. Deterrence is not using it at all. If we used it first, it would be violence that invited violence. Smart, that. In none of the three cases is it justified (in my opinion.)

Yes, I agree that comparing military and private gun ownership is irrelevant. However, you drew the parallel, not me. I was merely responding to your post.

In answer to your question, yes, that would be none. So why do we need Trident? If the question was how many guns had been mistakenly fired (on civilians) by the military (Russia this week, anyone?) that would be lots. That is not to say we should disarm the military. We should not. But the clear parallel is that whether the weapons are nuclear or conventional, no good comes of weapons so avoid them where you can, whichever flavour of weapon we are talking about. In my view, we should ban outright those that we can (like Trident) and restrict to the appropriate bearers (the military) those that we cannot.

We aren't using it at all, so it's a deterrent as I said. The threat of us using it in response is enough to make it that.

I certainly did not make the comparison. You did 3 post ago.

If there's been no rogue or accidental nukings, there's no irony in people on here, who back us having Trident, showing dismay at private gun ownership in the USA.

Guns aren't a deterrent, clearly as displayed by the huge gun ownership in the US and the massive level of gun deaths. Trident worked in the cold war because it guaranteed Mutually Assured Destruction. Where as owning a gun in a situation where the other guy has a gun, only slightly improves your chances, because a) its unlikely you'll have your gun b) gun only works as a deterrent if the other guy knows you have it c) if you do have it, and the other guy knows you have it, he's still more likely to have the advantage.

Where as having a nuclear weapons platform, that even if your enemy launches a strike that turns the whole of the UK into a smoking radioactive graveyard, devoid of life, is a deterrent - And Trident in a cold war scenario was a very effective deterrent (it was useless as an offensive platform mind).

I never said they were, I said Trident was. Syd was saying people who don't agree with gun ownership but are fine with Trident are having it both ways, which I don't agree with.

I'm jumping in on your side, but I couldn't find the original post. I agree with you. A deterrent is only effective if it means 'everyone dies' is the outcome.

Life in Prison and the death penalty isn't an effective deterrent against shooting someone, so the risk of someone being able to shoot you, is just something you plan for.

If you're breaking into someones house, and you think they might have a gun, chances are you take a gun and if you hear them coming to investigate, you shoot them.

Edited by jamiemartin721 (06 Oct 2015 3.45pm)

Oi! You've edited, rather than quoted, my post.

The bold is your bit.

Optimistic as ever

Alert a moderator to this post

Great Northern Loony Saint Paul 06 Oct 15 4.49pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 06 Oct 2015 4.17pm Quote Great Northern Loony at 06 Oct 2015 4.11pm Quote oldcodger at 06 Oct 2015 3.27pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 06 Oct 2015 3.19pm Quote nairb75 at 06 Oct 2015 2.35pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 06 Oct 2015 2.20pm Quote nairb75 at 05 Oct 2015 4.14pm here's the argument: what does right to bear arms mean? many here believe there are no limits to the definition of "arms." so can i have a tank? a nuke? walk around with a bazooka? why not? so if there then IS a limit, that is the discussion that must take place. assault weapons? this country is nuts in regards to guns. we have a sitting senator make a video where he cooks bacon on the tip of his automatic gun. these people are crazy. it won't change. we had sandy hook where a bunch of kindergarteners were killed. were they to defend themselves with guns? in essence, the right's argument is that we should live in an uncivilized society where you are on your own at all times. "well granny, if you would've been packing heat, that b**** wouldn't have stole your pocket book. too effing bad." Thing is, owning a gun, actually increases your chances of being a victim of a firearm related homicide, rather than reduces it. Very dramatically when you consider half of US gun deaths are suicides. i know that and you know that. but it's in the constitution that citizens can have gones and nothing is going to change that. my idea is to at least move the line from unlimited to one that has legal limits. will never get rid of all guns in the US. as in never, ever. In fairness to Americans, I would like to point out that if I was American, I'd have st loads of guns, but I don't think that's a ringing endorsement of the law either. Its mad that you can have an assault rifle, but go to prison for having LSD I'd never thought about it like that. So basically the government is fine with allowing people a liberty that will result in thousands them blowing each other to pieces each year, but they aren't allowed to put substances in their own body in the privacy of their home. It goes to show the power of the gun lobby. Unfortunately, there is no clause nor amendment in the US Constitution that prevents the government from regulating what Americans can put in their bodies, so there you go. In fact, there used to be an amendment (the 18th one) that did specifically the OPPOSITE: it tried to tell Americans that they weren't allowed to put booze in their bodies. For some reason, that one didn't work out. The troublesome 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution currently prevents much being done about the firearms epidemic, at least as how it's being read by the courts these days. It used to be interpreted more sensibly a generation or so ago, but the US Supreme Court has gone a lot more reactionary (and outright pro-gun) since then. And, to be frank, there are a lot of Americans -- not necessarily most, but a lot -- who's opinion on gun ownership has completely fossilized to 19th century standards. I know this for a fact, because I see these people ranting on my Facebook feed practically every day. Good luck trying to deal with that lot reasonably. I just read a comment from one of them linking to a paper asserting that the '97 handgun ban was instrumental in turning the UK into the police state hellhole that you're all living under today. How about the right to the pursuit of happiness, and freedom of expression. One of those isn't an amendment. The pursuit of happiness is in the US Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. It's a stirring document, but not legally binding. Freedom of expression is generally covered by the First Amendment to the US Constitution, which is also the same one that allows for freedom of religion. But it really doesn't apply to guns, except maybe that it allows you the right to tell a gun nut exactly what you think of him right before he shoots you for saying it. In that case, your family might be able to sue said gun nut for violating your civil rights, which should be enough to pay for your hospital and physical therapy bills, provided you survived. As a side note: the first ten amendments to the US Constitution (aka 'The Bill of Rights') were never meant to apply to the individual states, but rather just the federal government. In other words, as ORIGINALLY intended, there were no Constitutional restrictions at all against any US state banning any weapon it wanted from its citizens' hands. That's how it was for the first hundred years or so after the Bill of Rights was ratified; the First Amendment (free speech/freedom of the press) wasn't applied to the states officially until 1931!
Alert a moderator to this post

Great Northern Loony

Saint Paul 06 Oct 15 4.49pm

Send a Private Message to Great Northern Loony

Quote jamiemartin721 at 06 Oct 2015 4.17pm

Quote Great Northern Loony at 06 Oct 2015 4.11pm

Quote oldcodger at 06 Oct 2015 3.27pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 06 Oct 2015 3.19pm

Quote nairb75 at 06 Oct 2015 2.35pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 06 Oct 2015 2.20pm

Quote nairb75 at 05 Oct 2015 4.14pm

here's the argument: what does right to bear arms mean? many here believe there are no limits to the definition of "arms." so can i have a tank? a nuke? walk around with a bazooka? why not?

so if there then IS a limit, that is the discussion that must take place. assault weapons?

this country is nuts in regards to guns. we have a sitting senator make a video where he cooks bacon on the tip of his automatic gun. these people are crazy. it won't change.

we had sandy hook where a bunch of kindergarteners were killed. were they to defend themselves with guns? in essence, the right's argument is that we should live in an uncivilized society where you are on your own at all times. "well granny, if you would've been packing heat, that b****** wouldn't have stole your pocket book. too effing bad."

Thing is, owning a gun, actually increases your chances of being a victim of a firearm related homicide, rather than reduces it. Very dramatically when you consider half of US gun deaths are suicides.

i know that and you know that. but it's in the constitution that citizens can have gones and nothing is going to change that. my idea is to at least move the line from unlimited to one that has legal limits. will never get rid of all guns in the US. as in never, ever.

In fairness to Americans, I would like to point out that if I was American, I'd have s**t loads of guns, but I don't think that's a ringing endorsement of the law either.

Its mad that you can have an assault rifle, but go to prison for having LSD

I'd never thought about it like that. So basically the government is fine with allowing people a liberty that will result in thousands them blowing each other to pieces each year, but they aren't allowed to put substances in their own body in the privacy of their home. It goes to show the power of the gun lobby.

Unfortunately, there is no clause nor amendment in the US Constitution that prevents the government from regulating what Americans can put in their bodies, so there you go. In fact, there used to be an amendment (the 18th one) that did specifically the OPPOSITE: it tried to tell Americans that they weren't allowed to put booze in their bodies. For some reason, that one didn't work out.

The troublesome 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution currently prevents much being done about the firearms epidemic, at least as how it's being read by the courts these days. It used to be interpreted more sensibly a generation or so ago, but the US Supreme Court has gone a lot more reactionary (and outright pro-gun) since then.

And, to be frank, there are a lot of Americans -- not necessarily most, but a lot -- who's opinion on gun ownership has completely fossilized to 19th century standards. I know this for a fact, because I see these people ranting on my Facebook feed practically every day.

Good luck trying to deal with that lot reasonably. I just read a comment from one of them linking to a paper asserting that the '97 handgun ban was instrumental in turning the UK into the police state hellhole that you're all living under today.

How about the right to the pursuit of happiness, and freedom of expression. One of those isn't an amendment.

The pursuit of happiness is in the US Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. It's a stirring document, but not legally binding.

Freedom of expression is generally covered by the First Amendment to the US Constitution, which is also the same one that allows for freedom of religion. But it really doesn't apply to guns, except maybe that it allows you the right to tell a gun nut exactly what you think of him right before he shoots you for saying it. In that case, your family might be able to sue said gun nut for violating your civil rights, which should be enough to pay for your hospital and physical therapy bills, provided you survived.

As a side note: the first ten amendments to the US Constitution (aka 'The Bill of Rights') were never meant to apply to the individual states, but rather just the federal government. In other words, as ORIGINALLY intended, there were no Constitutional restrictions at all against any US state banning any weapon it wanted from its citizens' hands. That's how it was for the first hundred years or so after the Bill of Rights was ratified; the First Amendment (free speech/freedom of the press) wasn't applied to the states officially until 1931!

Alert a moderator to this post

Ray in Houston Houston 07 Oct 15 4.36pm
Quote Old Chap at 02 Oct 2015 4.22pm So the answer is more guns! The NRA argued after the cinema shooting if everyone had been armed then the nutter would have been shot before he killed as many as he did. Can you imagine a cinema full of people, in the dark, all blasting away What age do you allow school children to carry guns to school - 16? 14? How about 5 - I'm sure there are "baby" guns on sale for toddlers In many of the broadly publicised mass shootings there has been one or more bystanders packing a gun themselves. From what I've read, mostly they have chosen not to pull their gun so as not to appear to be part of the attack and get targeted themselves by one of the other gun-carrying bystanders. At the Tuscon mall shooting, one bloke told reporters that he was this close to shooting the hero who actually took down the gunman. This is the hero-fallacy on which the NRA bases its entire pro-gun argument: the only thing to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. It's bulls*, of course. Meanwhile, the mostly toothless assault weapons ban that was allowed to expire in 2004 (I think) did at least ban over-sized magazines. In the cases where the shooter has been taken down by citizens, it's almost entirely the case that it happens when stopping to reload. The NRA will show you a video of a trained and practiced gun expert speed-loading his hand gun. But he only does it once, and it's not in a stressful situation...and he's been practicing and may have had multiple takes to get it right. Also, he reloads only once, not 5 times like the Sandy Hook shooter, or not at all like the Aurora movie theatre shooter who had a 100-round butterfly mag. Then, even though the Sandy Hook shooter was not taken down by outside forces, a dozen kids managed to run out of one classroom while he fumbled to reload. How many more kids would have survived if he'd had to reload, say, 15 times to fire his 150 rounds (actually 151, the last one being into his own brain from his handgun once he'd emptied all his assault rifle mags) instead of 5 times with his 30-round mags? How many fewer victims in all these shootings if the shooter had to reload every 5 or 10 shots? There are things that can be done that do not impinge on the right to bear arms: eliminating the gun show loophole and having universal background checks, even for private sales; banning assault rifles; limiting magazine sizes (obviously); micro-imprinting bullets so we know from what gun they were fired; and registering every fing gun so when they pull a bullet out of someone, they can trace the gun to its owner. You already can't buy certain types of "arms", like fully-automatic weapons, so there are already limits to how far the 2nd amendment goes; we're just debating the margin, that's all. Edited by Ray in Houston (07 Oct 2015 10.51pm) We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa*ing with a football.
Alert a moderator to this post

Ray in Houston

Houston 07 Oct 15 4.36pm

Send a Private Message to Ray in Houston

Quote Old Chap at 02 Oct 2015 4.22pm

So the answer is more guns!

The NRA argued after the cinema shooting if everyone had been armed then the nutter would have been shot before he killed as many as he did. Can you imagine a cinema full of people, in the dark, all blasting away

What age do you allow school children to carry guns to school - 16? 14? How about 5 - I'm sure there are "baby" guns on sale for toddlers

In many of the broadly publicised mass shootings there has been one or more bystanders packing a gun themselves. From what I've read, mostly they have chosen not to pull their gun so as not to appear to be part of the attack and get targeted themselves by one of the other gun-carrying bystanders. At the Tuscon mall shooting, one bloke told reporters that he was this close to shooting the hero who actually took down the gunman.

This is the hero-fallacy on which the NRA bases its entire pro-gun argument: the only thing to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. It's bulls***, of course.

Meanwhile, the mostly toothless assault weapons ban that was allowed to expire in 2004 (I think) did at least ban over-sized magazines. In the cases where the shooter has been taken down by citizens, it's almost entirely the case that it happens when stopping to reload.

The NRA will show you a video of a trained and practiced gun expert speed-loading his hand gun. But he only does it once, and it's not in a stressful situation...and he's been practicing and may have had multiple takes to get it right. Also, he reloads only once, not 5 times like the Sandy Hook shooter, or not at all like the Aurora movie theatre shooter who had a 100-round butterfly mag.

Then, even though the Sandy Hook shooter was not taken down by outside forces, a dozen kids managed to run out of one classroom while he fumbled to reload. How many more kids would have survived if he'd had to reload, say, 15 times to fire his 150 rounds (actually 151, the last one being into his own brain from his handgun once he'd emptied all his assault rifle mags) instead of 5 times with his 30-round mags? How many fewer victims in all these shootings if the shooter had to reload every 5 or 10 shots?

There are things that can be done that do not impinge on the right to bear arms: eliminating the gun show loophole and having universal background checks, even for private sales; banning assault rifles; limiting magazine sizes (obviously); micro-imprinting bullets so we know from what gun they were fired; and registering every f***ing gun so when they pull a bullet out of someone, they can trace the gun to its owner.

You already can't buy certain types of "arms", like fully-automatic weapons, so there are already limits to how far the 2nd amendment goes; we're just debating the margin, that's all.

Edited by Ray in Houston (07 Oct 2015 10.51pm)

We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.

Alert a moderator to this post

Old Chap Orpington 08 Oct 15 1.03pm
Saw this on Facebook, an Australian's view... [Link] Trivial fact - Palace used to win 5-1 at least once a season, maybe next season?
Alert a moderator to this post \| Board Moderator

Old Chap

Orpington 08 Oct 15 1.03pm

Saw this on Facebook, an Australian's view...

[Link]

Trivial fact - Palace used to win 5-1 at least once a season, maybe next season?

Alert a moderator to this post | Board Moderator

robforbe cornwall 08 Oct 15 1.35pm
[Link] Edited by robforbe (08 Oct 2015 1.37pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

robforbe

cornwall 08 Oct 15 1.35pm

[Link]

Edited by robforbe (08 Oct 2015 1.37pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

dannyb1 Chichester 09 Oct 15 1.49pm
Another one [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

dannyb1

Chichester 09 Oct 15 1.49pm

Another one
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8 Hevon 09 Oct 15 1.56pm
It must be down the insularity of some of the people but then again even Brad Pitt is pro-gun. All very fvcked up. Big chest and massive boobs [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8

Hevon 09 Oct 15 1.56pm

It must be down the insularity of some of the people but then again even Brad Pitt is pro-gun. All very fvcked up.

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 6 of 6 << First < 2 3 4 5 6

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Latest school shooting in America

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors