Gun Control debate - What the hell is wrong with people???

Status
Not open for further replies.
yes i do think they should be able to carry.


View attachment 36781

Also a population of just 7 million.Twice the size of tiny wales.

You're comparing the USA (pop 310 million) with Switzerland?

Least when I posted the graphic of 7 countries with less of a death rate by several thousand I also posted they had a comparable total of population.

Albeit 70 million less. Not 303 million less.
 
Last edited:
happened in 1997 and i bet no one heard about it on the news.

This story is a little different than the normal self defense stories we publish here. This one is over 14 years old. However, I feel that it’s important that we not lose track of the older stories that often times provide prime examples of what guns in the hands of law abiding citizens are capable of. I know many people that have followed the gun rights community for any amount of time may have seen this story, but I encourage you to share it now, in the age of social media so that more may understand.

This story focuses on the Pearl High School Shooting of 1997, possibly one of the earliest mass murders committed by a student at a school in the US.

Sixteen year old Luke Woodham was distraught due to the fact that his girlfriend of the time had broken up with him, so he started by beating and stabbing his mother to death at their home. Woodham then took a lever action .30-30 hunting rifle with him to his school, Pearl High. He made no attempt to hide or conceal the rifle. He entered the school and began shooting students. Two people were killed and seven others wounded. The first person killed was Woodham’s ex-girlfriend. After she was shot Woodham began shooting indiscriminately at anyone in the area.

Woodham knew that the police would soon be on their way, but he had no plans to allow himself to be captured or kill himself (as is popular with many mass murderers). Woodham had planned to drive to nearby Pearl Junior High School and continue his shooting spree while police were occupied with the confusion at Pearl High.

Woodham successfully made his way to his car well before police arrived. However, Woodham would never make it to Pearl Junior High.

Assistant Princiapl Joel Myrick heard the shooting when it began and immediately went into action. After getting several students to safety and figuring out what was going on Myrick knew what he had to do. Myrick had a Colt .45 handgun in his truck. Due to gun laws Myrick was not allowed to carry his gun on his person. Myrick ran to his vehicle, retrieved the gun, loaded it, and headed back to the school.

Woodham was already in the parking lot, getting into his car. Myrick confronted Woodham in the parking lot, held his gun to the boy’s head and managed to subdue Woodham until police arrived.

There is simply no telling how many lives were saved by this educator who took steps to make sure that he was prepared for any situation and to use a weapon when it was necessary to save the lives of others.
 
does,nt matter the size or population.

you really think a nut is going to want to go in a place any place and start shooting it up if they think they will get shot in return?

no they are cowereds. they can only go where they know no one will shoot back.

Why doesn't it matter?

Why do you think I pulled up the total of several countries gun deaths instead of just one?

Because the more people/population you have in a country,the more risk there is of someone owning a gun.

The more risk there is of someone owning a gun.....

Well,I'll let you finish that sentence off yourself. Your logic regarding a tiny country such as Switzerland is ridiculous.

This story is a little different than the normal self defense stories we publish here. This one is over 14 years old. However, I feel that it’s important that we not lose track of the older stories that often times provide prime examples of what guns in the hands of law abiding citizens are capable of. I know many people that have followed the gun rights community for any amount of time may have seen this story, but I encourage you to share it now, in the age of social media so that more may understand.

This story focuses on the Pearl High School Shooting of 1997, possibly one of the earliest mass murders committed by a student at a school in the US.

Sixteen year old Luke Woodham was distraught due to the fact that his girlfriend of the time had broken up with him, so he started by beating and stabbing his mother to death at their home. Woodham then took a lever action .30-30 hunting rifle with him to his school, Pearl High. He made no attempt to hide or conceal the rifle. He entered the school and began shooting students. Two people were killed and seven others wounded. The first person killed was Woodham’s ex-girlfriend. After she was shot Woodham began shooting indiscriminately at anyone in the area.

Woodham knew that the police would soon be on their way, but he had no plans to allow himself to be captured or kill himself (as is popular with many mass murderers). Woodham had planned to drive to nearby Pearl Junior High School and continue his shooting spree while police were occupied with the confusion at Pearl High.

Woodham successfully made his way to his car well before police arrived. However, Woodham would never make it to Pearl Junior High.

Assistant Princiapl Joel Myrick heard the shooting when it began and immediately went into action. After getting several students to safety and figuring out what was going on Myrick knew what he had to do. Myrick had a Colt .45 handgun in his truck. Due to gun laws Myrick was not allowed to carry his gun on his person. Myrick ran to his vehicle, retrieved the gun, loaded it, and headed back to the school.

Woodham was already in the parking lot, getting into his car. Myrick confronted Woodham in the parking lot, held his gun to the boy’s head and managed to subdue Woodham until police arrived.

There is simply no telling how many lives were saved by this educator who took steps to make sure that he was prepared for any situation and to use a weapon when it was necessary to save the lives of others.

I bet if I looked hard enough I would find some instance of good being done in the UK due to a gun,even though it shouldn't have been there in the first place.

Fact/my point is,in general they tend to do more harm than good.Guns do good everyday here,when they're in the hands of police,not civilians.
 
yes i do think they should be able to carry.


View attachment 36781

Gun politics in Switzerland are unique in Europe. Switzerland does not have a standing army, instead opting for a peoples' militia for its national defence. The vast majority of men between the ages of 20 and 30 are conscripted into the militia and undergo military training, including weapons training. The personal weapons of the militia are kept at home as part of the military obligations; Switzerland thus has one of the highest militia gun ownership rates in the world.

Each such individual is required to keep his army-issued personal weapon (the 5.56x45mm Sig 550 rifle for enlisted personnel and/or the 9mm SIG-Sauer P220 semi-automatic pistol for officers, medical and postal personnel) at home. Up until October 2007, a specified personal retention quantity of government-issued personal ammunition (50 rounds 5.56 mm / 48 rounds 9mm) was issued as well, which was sealed and inspected regularly to ensure that no unauthorized use had taken place.[4] The ammunition was intended for use while traveling to the army barracks in case of invasion.

In October 2007, the Swiss Federal Council decided that the distribution of ammunition to soldiers shall stop and that all previously issued ammo shall be returned. By March 2011, more than 99% of the ammo has been received.

The sale of ammunition – including Gw Pat.90 rounds for army-issue assault rifles – is subsidized by the Swiss government and made available at the many shooting ranges patronized by both private citizens and members of the militia. There is a regulatory requirement that ammunition sold at ranges must be used there.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Homicide trend by year in Switzerland.

2005 93
2006 95
2007 93
2008 95
2009 84

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

So if you really want to play with statistics you could say that the homicide rate dropped by almost 10% after everyone was told to return all ammunition for the military assault rifles and ammunition for these rifles had to be bought and used at shooting ranges.

Maybe that's not a bad idea. Everyone is allowed to own guns. Nobody is allowed ammunition.
 
Morgan Freeman's brilliant take on what happened yesterday :

"You want to know why. This may sound cynical, but here's why.


It's because of the way the media reports it. Flip on the news and watch how we treat the Batman theater shooter and the Oregon mall shooter like celebrities. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris are household names, but do you know the name of a single *victim* of Columbine? Disturbed
people who would otherwise just off themselves in their basements see the news and want to top it by doing something worse, and going out in a memorable way. Why a grade school? Why children? Because he'll be remembered as a horrible monster, instead of a sad nobody.

CNN's article says that if the body count "holds up", this will rank as the second deadliest shooting behind Virginia Tech, as if statistics somehow make one shooting worse than another. Then they post a video interview of third-graders for all the details of what they saw and heard while the shootings were happening. Fox News has plastered the killer's face on all their reports for hours. Any articles or news stories yet that focus on the victims and ignore the killer's identity? None that I've seen yet. Because they don't sell. So congratulations, sensationalist media, you've just lit the fire for someone to top this and knock off a day care center or a maternity ward next.

You can help by forgetting you ever read this man's name, and remembering the name of at least one victim. You can help by donating to mental health research instead of pointing to gun control as the problem. You can help by turning off the news."

Some of what he says is actually true.The media always overhype stuff-even to the point 7/11 was reported as "breaking news" for around 10 hours.

How can 1 event be breaking news for such a length of time? I'm not for one second saying this wasn't tragic,but so was 9/11,breaking news also for 10 hrs+.This isn't new information to most of us-we have always known this.

Whats more,with or without media whats to stop someone thinking that after the string of school shootups,a gun owner wouldn't actually go against the grain and do as he says and ie shoot up a maternity ward?

Edit and I believe you posted this sarcastically judging by your tone.Statistics are actually important.For example you can slate the media yet we both are commenting on a thread where 28 people died.

Yet I see no thread about the mall shooting a few days ago where only 2-3 people died.Neither myself nor yourself started one.
 
So if you really want to play with statistics you could say that the homicide rate dropped by almost 10% after everyone was told to return all ammunition for the military assault rifles and ammunition for these rifles had to be bought and used at shooting ranges.

Maybe that's not a bad idea. Everyone is allowed to own guns. Nobody is allowed ammunition.

where do you get that they can not have ammunition?

from the research my husband and i have done looking for anoughter place to move to.

yes they are allowed to have ammunition?

maybe what we read was wrong i don,t know i,m just saying this is what we looked into and that is what we found.
 
where do you get that they can not have ammunition?

from the research my husband and i have done looking for anoughter place to move to.

yes they are allowed to have ammunition?

maybe what we read was wrong i don,t know i,m just saying this is what we looked into and that is what we found.

This is actually from a different article.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
Sept. 27 2007

Parliament has approved a proposal to ban the long-standing Swiss tradition of keeping army ammunition at home.
With the exception of a few thousand of the 120,000 soldiers in Switzerland's militia army who keep their cartridges at home, all army ammunition will have to be stored in central arsenals. Army guns can still be kept at home.

Also hotly debated in the House of Representatives was a people's initiative launched by the centre-left Social Democratic Party and pacifist organisations to ban the estimated one-and-a-half million military weapons from Swiss households.

The initiative called for army weapons to remain in the barracks, a national gun register, a ban on private individuals buying or owning particularly dangerous guns such as automatic weapons or pump-action shotguns, and tighter controls on those who say they need to carry a firearm.

The anti-gun supporters argued that it was no longer necessary from a military point of view to keep army munitions at home. They also said it was a question of safety, as experts claim around 300 deaths every year are caused by army weapons, which also play a role in domestic violence.

But speakers from the People's Party and the centre-right Radical Party saw the decommissioning as a weakening of Swiss security and as a vote of no confidence in soldiers, adding that the number of abuses with guns was "extremely small".

Five years ago Switzerland was stunned when a gunman shot and killed 14 people in Zug's cantonal parliament with a rifle, before turning the gun on himself.

Debate on the use of firearms was further fuelled in April last year when the husband of former women's ski champion Corinne Rey-Bellet killed his wife and her brother with his army pistol.

The point is, statistics are only useful if you know the entire picture. That's why statistics are so easily used in a debate. Statistics can be used to prove almost anything depending on how they're explained and which portion of the statistics are shown.

Switzerland is a small country. In fact the entire country would fit inside the state of Utah twice.

According to the
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
Switzerland ranks second in the quality of life index just below Ireland. USA and Canada rank 13th and 14th.
The level of unemployment is about 3.2% - Roughly half the rate of Canada and the US.

Some of these statistics might be slightly out dated but there are obviously a lot of factors that contribute to crime rates. It can't just be said that Switzerland has more guns and less crime therefore more guns = less crime. What can be asked is if the quality if life was lower, the unemployment rate higher and everyone had ammunition for those guns, what would the crime rate be then?

By the way, the divorce rate seems to be slightly higher in Switzerland so if you're looking to get rid of your spouse, moving there would give you statistically better odds.
 
I agree entirely. It does depend on where you live an how you are raised. The question is, why do people in some places want to raise their children with the idea that they need to be armed? Why raise children with the impression that owning a weapon is a good thing?

I remember a couple of stories from when I was a teenager. I remember a couple of young teens that lived in a building near the mall I used to frequent. Apparently one of them borrowed a cassette tape from the other and refused to give it back. The boy who wanted his cassette tape back took the girl's necklace as some sort of ransom. The offer was simple. Give him back the cassette and get your necklace back. Instead of making the trade she went and told her boyfriend who came back and shot him. Where do you think the gun came from?

I know another teenager who stole some hand guns his father had "locked" away and traded them for drugs in the same building complex. This was after the first shooting so they weren't the same guns but the origin of the first gun was probably similar.

The fact is, the more people there are who are allowed to own guns the more guns there will be. That's just common sense.

And the more guns there are in general, the more likely they will fall into the hands of criminals and killers.

Small time crooks are not likely going to go out and buy their weapons legally in a gun shop. They're going to buy guns that have been stolen from people who bought the legally. Mass murders may go out and buy their own weapons but they're purchasing guns that shouldn't be for sale to the general public in the first place.

View attachment 36780

According to one news article, this is one of the guns recovered. Why does a civilian need to own this gun?



Did you look up the 2 cities crime rate that I posted near me? That may be one reason why some people raise their children this way. I will tell you 100% guaranteed if I lived in these 2 cities who are very close to me, I would own a gun, and I HATE guns!!! Maybe where you live the crime rate is very low? There aren't drivebys everyday? You don't have to worry about killings, rapes, robbery, your children being abducted. I don't know? This is why I am pro guns, and remember I hate them.

Small time crooks, big time crooks, it doesn't matter they will always have a gun, find a way to get a gun. THAT is the problem.


I'm wondering something...some of you said owning a hunting gun is different as long as it is kept locked up and used for hunting. I'm wondering why these teenagers can't steal hunting guns? Strange isn't it? They can steal any other kind of gun but not a hunting gun? Hmmmm. Maybe hunting guns have magical "unsteal powers".

If your against guns entirely like some posters are, that includes hunting guns. And yes, hunting guns can be used for protection. So it kind of contradicts that statement "why would someone raise their children thinking they need to be armed." I can't be sure, but I'm assuming the people who own hunting guns would use them to protect their families? And their children know this and are probably taught. They wouldn't sit back during a robbery and say to themselves, "well I guess I have to get shot now, because my hunting gun is only for hunting."
 
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.




Springfield crime statistics report an overall downward trend in crime based on data from 12 years with violent crime decreasing and property crime decreasing. Based on this trend, the crime rate in Springfield for 2012 is expected to be lower than in 2010.

The city violent crime rate for Springfield in 2010 was higher than the national violent crime rate average by 235.53% and the city property crime rate in Springfield was higher than the national property crime rate average by 66.24%.

In 2010 the city violent crime rate in Springfield was higher than the violent crime rate in Massachusetts by 190.25% and the city property crime rate in Springfield was higher than the property crime rate in Massachusetts by 108.07%.


This particular city is about 20 minutes from me. I tried to keep it non-biased and posted that the crime rate is getting lower. There are graphs you can look at in the link that show crime rate in Springfield compaired to other cities in Mass and national.
 
Did you look up the 2 cities crime rate that I posted near me? That may be one reason why some people raise their children this way. I will tell you 100% guaranteed if I lived in these 2 cities who are very close to me, I would own a gun, and I HATE guns!!!Maybe where you live the crime rate is very low? There aren't drivebys everyday? You don't have to worry about killings, rapes, robbery, your children being abducted. I don't know? This is why I am pro guns, and remember I hate them.

I live in Ottawa. The capital of Canada. One of the biggest cities in Canada. Murder, rape and robbery exists in this city just like it does any other.

So how does owning a gun protect you from drivebys, rapes, robbery or abducted children? Are you going to carry the gun with you and shoot back at the shooter in the car? In the event of a rape are you going to be carrying the gun or are you going to go get it from the locked cabinet which is the ONLY safe way to store a gun? If your child is abducted is the gun going to help you find the child? Robbery or home invasion? Where is the gun stored? Under your pillow?

Small time crooks, big time crooks, it doesn't matter they will always have a gun, find a way to get a gun. THAT is the problem.

Yes it would be virtually impossible to remove all guns from all criminals but the more guns there are in circulation, the more guns the criminals will have.
The more households with guns stored in them, the more guns will get stolen from households with guns in them.
The more difficult it is for criminals to acquire guns, the less likely it will be they will have them.
The more strict the rules are regarding semi-automatic and automatic weapons, the less likely a person will own one when he snaps and goes on a killing spree.

I'm wondering something...some of you said owning a hunting gun is different as long as it is kept locked up and used for hunting. I'm wondering why these teenagers can't steal hunting guns? Strange isn't it? They can steal any other kind of gun but not a hunting gun? Hmmmm. Maybe hunting guns have magical "unsteal powers".

If your against guns entirely like some posters are, that includes hunting guns. And yes, hunting guns can be used for protection. So it kind of contradicts that statement "why would someone raise their children thinking they need to be armed." I can't be sure, but I'm assuming the people who own hunting guns would use them to protect their families? And their children know this and are probably taught. They wouldn't sit back during a robbery and say to themselves, "well I guess I have to get shot now, because my hunting gun is only for hunting."

Guns for the purpose of hunting can be stored safely in locked cabinets with trigger locks and ammunition stored separately. Not a very convenient way to store a weapon for the purpose of protection. The amount of people that would store hunting rifles are much fewer inside city limits where burglaries are more common. Also the best hunting rifle of the decade according to
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
is the Ruger No. 1 Varminter K1-V-BBZ. A single shot rifle. If you're going to use it to kill someone you get one chance then you have to reload. And good luck sneaking around with it unless you're wearing a long trench coat and don't mind walking funny.
 
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.


This particular city is about 20 minutes from me. I tried to keep it non-biased and posted that the crime rate is getting lower. There are graphs you can look at in the link that show crime rate in Springfield compaired to other cities in Mass and national.

Someone needs to (and I'm sure someone is) look at why the crime rates are higher in Springfield compared to other cities in Massachusetts. Population density, education, unemployment, substance and alcohol abuse, poverty, homelessness, mental health are some things that come to mind. I'm sure there are more but if you address these issues you do more to address a rising crime rate than you do by adding more weapons to the problem.

There are serious, intelligent ways to address crime rates and create a safer society.

Or you can just hand everyone a gun.
 
I live in Ottawa. The capital of Canada. One of the biggest cities in Canada. Murder, rape and robbery exists in this city just like it does any other.

Do these criminals in Ottawa not use guns? I'm being serious, not being an ass. Or do they use other weapons?

So how does owning a gun protect you from drivebys, rapes, robbery or abducted children? Are you going to carry the gun with you and shoot back at the shooter in the car? In the event of a rape are you going to be carrying the gun or are you going to go get it from the locked cabinet which is the ONLY safe way to store a gun? If your child is abducted is the gun going to help you find the child? Robbery or home invasion? Where is the gun stored? Under your pillow?

I have no idea, I don't own a gun. Maybe others can chime in. I do know of a few people who keep their guns in their bedside table, but they have no children, so I am of no help of people who own guns that have children. I could specualte and say possibly the people with children could keep theirs in their bedside table as well but with a lock? But again I have no idea. There is no way to be protected by a driveby. By owning a gun during a home invasion, be it rape, robbery, or just a random kill, I would think a gun would be the best defense.



Yes it would be virtually impossible to remove all guns from all criminals but the more guns there are in circulation, the more guns the criminals will have.
The more households with guns stored in them, the more guns will get stolen from households with guns in them.
The more difficult it is for criminals to acquire guns, the less likely it will be they will have them.
The more strict the rules are regarding semi-automatic and automatic weapons, the less likely a person will own one when he snaps and goes on a killing spree.

But again, this is giving leverage to the criminal, not to the citizen. We all know criminals will always get guns, and law abiding citizens would not.



Guns for the purpose of hunting can be stored safely in locked cabinets with trigger locks and ammunition stored separately. Not a very convenient way to store a weapon for the purpose of protection. The amount of people that would store hunting rifles are much fewer inside city limits where burglaries are more common. Also the best hunting rifle of the decade according to
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
is the Ruger No. 1 Varminter K1-V-BBZ. A single shot rifle. If you're going to use it to kill someone you get one chance then you have to reload. And good luck sneaking around with it unless you're wearing a long trench coat and don't mind walking funny.

I'm sure the people who own hunting guns also use them as protection. The best hunting rifle doesn't mean that's the one everyone owns.


No, I still don't know how to multi-quote, lol.

I'm telling you Skiny, my thoughts against your thoughts HAVE to be where we are, how we are raised, etc...you will not change your mind and I will not change mine.

If they banned guns, it would have no affect on me whatsoever. But, I believe if people want to own them, for now, it is their right.
 
Someone needs to (and I'm sure someone is) look at why the crime rates are higher in Springfield compared to other cities in Massachusetts. Population density, education, unemployment, substance and alcohol abuse, poverty, homelessness, mental health are some things that come to mind. I'm sure there are more but if you address these issues you do more to address a rising crime rate than you do by adding more weapons to the problem.

There are serious, intelligent ways to address crime rates and create a safer society.

Or you can just hand everyone a gun.


From what I hear Mayor Domenic J. Sarno does a great job, and the crime rate is going down slowly. He is now in his third term, the first four-year mayoral term in the City’s history.
 
I'm sure the people who own hunting guns also use them as protection. The best hunting rifle doesn't mean that's the one everyone owns.

Most hunting rifles as far as I know are single or double shot. I don't really know much about hunting but someone can correct me on this if I'm wrong. Like I said, hunting rifles should be stored away from the ammunition in locked cabinets WITH trigger locks or the bolt removed. Unless you have an awful lot of time on your hands while you're being attacked it won't be much use for protection.

No, I still don't know how to multi-quote, lol.

quote.jpg :)

I'm telling you Skiny, my thoughts against your thoughts HAVE to be where we are, how we are raised, etc...you will not change your mind and I will not change mine.

If they banned guns, it would have no affect on me whatsoever. But, I believe if people want to own them, for now, it is their right.

And like I said that right comes with a price. A price that gets paid every time someone's legally owned hand gun finds its way into the hands of a criminal or someone walks into a school or movie theater with an automatic weapon and sprays the crowd with bullets.
 
From what I hear Mayor Domenic J. Sarno does a great job, and the crime rate is going down slowly. He is now in his third term, the first four-year mayoral term in the City’s history.

That's good to hear. You can't expect problems like this to go away overnight.
 
On the SAME tragic, senseless day in Connecticut--in Beijing, China, 22 school children were stabbed by a "mentally deranged" man, armed with a knife. An officer said the attack, in the village of Chengping in Henan province, happened shortly before 8am on Friday, as students were arriving for classes.

In March 2010, eight children were murdered in Nanping, Fujian province, by 41-year-old knifeman Zheng Minsheng. The attacker was executed a month later.

Also in March 2010, 33-year-old Chen Kangbing injured 16 students and a teacher at Hongfu Primary School in Leizhou, Guangdong.


In April 29 2010, 28 school children - mostly four-year-olds - were stabbed alongside two teachers and a security guard in Taixing, Jiangsu.

On April 30, Wang Yonglai committed suicide after using a hammer to attack preschool children in Weifang, Shandong.

Further attacks in the months and years following have left 11 children and four adults dead, and several more injured.

------
Knife control? Guns are banned in China or else the teachers could have taken this mofo down before he stabbed more kids. Evil exists in this world. This is the reality. When it rears its ugly head do you want to be defenseless?

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from ANY who might attempt to abuse them, which would INCLUDE their own government." -- George Washington



it does.nt matter if its guns or knifes or something eles. if someone is evil they will do evil no matter what they have to use.

i believe you should be able to have a gun if you choose to there are others that choose not to have one i believe that is their right.

and we can go back and forth until the end of times but it will not change me and i will not change you.

will they come after our guns caz of what a evil person did with one. yes

will i give mine up no.

there has been mass murders thoughtout history and not all of them have been done with guns. will they stop if all guns were taken away? no

caz evil will not go away just caz there are no guns. it will adapt and move on to something eles people will still die at the hands of anoughter.

caz evil is just that evil.

and to all the familys that have been touched by this evil my heart goes out to you and for all the heros both big and small who did what they had to in the face

of that evil i will reamber you and not the madman who did this.

may GOD watch over all the little ones that now rest in his arms and all the familys whos life will never be the same may he give you what peace he can.
.
 
He could have some other weapon of choice and used a different scenario to use it.

On Friday, same day as these attacks, a man in Beijing, China...staged an attack outside an elementary school using a knife, NOT a gun. Statistics...22 children and one adult INJURED...NOT killed. So please, let's not even go there. Had the man in Connecticut had a knife and not an assault weapon that fires multiple rounds per second...these children would be alive. End of story.

No one, save the military or the police, ever need access to assault weapons, and surely don't need "large capacity" magazines that are available at every Big Lots or Walmart store. Please.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.


BEIJING — A knife-wielding man injured 22 children and one adult outside a primary school in central China as students were arriving for classes Friday, police said, the latest in a series of periodic rampage attacks at Chinese schools and kindergartens.

The attack in the Henan province village of Chengping happened shortly before 8 a.m., said a police officer from Guangshan county, where the village is located.

BLOODSHED AT CONNECTICUT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: CHILDREN AMONG AT LEAST 27 DEAD IN SHOOTING

The attacker, 36-year-old villager Min Yingjun, is now in police custody, said the officer, who declined to give her name, as is customary among Chinese civil servants.

A Guangshan county hospital administrator said the man first attacked an elderly woman, then students, before being subdued by security guards who have been posted across China following a spate of school attacks in recent years. He said there were no deaths among the nine students admitted, although two badly injured children had been transferred to better-equipped hospitals outside the county.

A doctor at Guangshan's hospital of traditional Chinese medicine said that seven students had been admitted, but that none were seriously injured.
Neither the hospital administrator nor the doctor would give his name.
It was not clear how old the injured children were, but Chinese primary school pupils are generally 6-11 years old.

EDIT: I'm sorry Kauphy, I hadn't read to the end of the thread, was just replying to Westland Bowl's post. Sorry for doubling up on what you had posted.
 
On the SAME tragic, senseless day in Connecticut--in Beijing, China, 22 school children were stabbed by a "mentally deranged" man, armed with a knife. An officer said the attack, in the village of Chengping in Henan province, happened shortly before 8am on Friday, as students were arriving for classes.

If teachers couldn't stop a man with a knife before he managed to stab 22 children what makes you think they could stop him shooting 22 children?
With an automatic rifle you could shoot 22 people in less than a minute. How long does it take to run around and stab 22 children?

I'm not even really sure what you're suggesting here. Are you saying that teachers should be armed at all times? Are they wearing holsters like police officers or cowboys? Are they trained to quick draw and fire at a would be killer before the rain of bullets starts? Many of these mass murderers end up taking their own lives anyway. What makes you think they won't stroll in with an automatic weapon whether the teachers are armed or not and just fire away until someone shoots back?

Every time one of these mass murders happens there is an uproar from both sides. "This is why we need less guns" - "This is why we need more guns." The reasons have to go far beyond that. The questions both sides should be asking is why do civilians need guns in the first place? Do we want to live in a society where people feel they have to be armed to be safe? If you don't then how can you change that. Arming more civilians does not alleviate the need to be armed it does the opposite.

Quoting George Washington's opinion about gun ownership seems rather pointless. I'm sure he was a great man in his time but this isn't his time. He would have also told you women shouldn't be allowed to vote and then maybe got one of his slaves to fix you a drink. Times change and people have to change with them.

The old wild west attitude doesn't work anymore. If you want to decrease crime rates you increase education and increase social programs, you decrease unemployment and decrease poverty. You adopt an attitude of understanding and cooperation and you lose the attitude of survival of the fittest.

If you're scared of criminals arming yourself and hoping they'll be scared of you too is a short sighted solution that is proving itself ineffective every day. If you find a place where the crime rate is decreasing and you look at the heart of the solution I promise you it won't be the result of an increase in civilian weaponry.
 
yes i do think they should be able to carry.
Have you got a reliable source for your claim about the crime rate in Switzerland? It is repeated in various pro-gun websites, but none of them give a verifiable source. Which crimes are included? Japan, which has very strict gun laws, has a lower rate of murder, rape, assault, robbery and burglary than Switzerland.
(The murder rate in Switzerland is 0.7 per 100000 per year, in neighbouring Austria and in Japan 0.5, in the US 5, i.e., 10 times higher than in Japan.)
 
I live in Ottawa. The capital of Canada. One of the biggest cities in Canada. Murder, rape and robbery exists in this city just like it does any other.

Lol, I live in Ottawa. Our crime rate, to be fair, it dramatically less than many places, even as a country as a whole.
 
For every problem,there's usually a simple solution.It just takes 1 person/political party/country big enough to take the risks in implementing it.

In my eyes,Connecticut’s Congressman John Larson has it spot on;

“To do nothing in the face of continuous assaults on our children is to be complicit in those assaults.”
 
Lol, I live in Ottawa. Our crime rate, to be fair, it dramatically less than many places, even as a country as a whole.

Well, it has a much smaller population than Toronto or Montreal so the crime rate will decrease accordingly but there most certainly are rape, murders, burglaries, robberies and gang violence in this city.

Population and population density are big factors.
 
Its getting to the point where it never ends.A man with 47 guns in Indiana is now arrested threatening another elementary school.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.



It seems Obama is actually considering tighter laws - I have read 3 reports tonight that all say this.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.


I always said it would take a president in his last term to at least propose it as if it was his/her first term he'd never get re-elected.

The only issue once he leaves office is that of his political party having to deal with the unpopularity of the proposal as far as votes are concerned.

11 mass murders since Obama took over.He isn't even 6 months into his second term.Unreal.

Edit: On a lighter note,I thought this was a lovely gesture.You don't get many sports stars doing this sort of thing in the UK.Fair play to the guy.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
 
Ya PNEF, I heard about that guy with the 47 guns yesterday I think. My husband told me today about the Giants player, that's his fav team.

I did not hear about Obama...thanks for the link.
 
and there are said to be 89 privately-owned firearms for every 100 people.


Sorry for back to back posts.


WOW, I never would have guessed that. I thought it may be in the 40's possibly? (hubby guessed 33) but then you have to think about people who own more than one gun. But that's still a lot isn't it? That really surprised me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Meister Ratings

Back
Top