Author Topic: A Columbine Father Speaks Out  (Read 19092 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline I_Drive_Planes

  • Member
  • ****
  • 703
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 131
Re: A Columbine Father Speaks Out
« Reply #50 on: May 28, 2007, 03:28:44 »
Personally I feel safer knowing that people aren't walking around with guns because they think that the person standing next to them is a rapist, thug, or serial killer. It will only lead to trouble.

Do you know that people aren't walking around with guns?  It may placate you to think that the guy standing next to you isn't armed but are you sure?  What if he is?  What if he is not only armed but he is a "rapist, thug, or serial killer" What do you do about it when he decides to act?

You've mentioned innocent bystanders being shot etc. quite a bit in your previous posts, yet if that were really case given the prevalence of CCW in the US you would think that we would be bombarded by media reports of ADs and dead witnesses when some paranoid, trigger happy CCW holder opens up with a hail of gunfire at an assailant.  But we don't hear that, do we?  Perhaps your average CCW holder is just a normal, law abiding citizen, something like yourself.  I find it interesting that you repeatedly accuse people who carry and who wish to be able to carry (i.e. me) of being paranoid, and suspicious of everyone around them, yet your tone seems to indicate that you are paranoid and suspicious of any law abiding citizen who would want to carry a concealed weapon.  It's not the law abiding folks that you should be worried about, it's the ones that don't care about the law, the ones that you don't think are walking around with guns.

Planes
Fear of death will not prevent dying, but it may prevent livng

Offline Bobby Rico

  • Young, dumb and full of....stuff.
  • Member
  • ****
  • -10
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 120
Re: A Columbine Father Speaks Out
« Reply #51 on: May 28, 2007, 10:45:35 »
Here's my dollar-fifty on the original topic.

Religion in schools- No. 

Why not?  Simply because, we live in a diverse society, a society made up of literally hundreds of religions, and people of no religion.  To enforce or at the very least reinforce religious beliefs alienate those people who are non-believers or believers of a different faith.  All you're doing in that instance is creating a different problem.  Does it not occur to those of you who believe religion should be in schools will potentially create only more problems?  If your response to this is to create schools of individual relgion (christian schools, muslim schools etc)- that's segrigation, people.  You might as well be proponents of racial segrigation then, in which I ask that you please get yourself a time machine, and go back to the 1940's deep south where you belong.  Religion in schools is NOT the answer.  Tolerance is.  And frankly, you cannot reinforce tolerence by putting emphasis on the things that differentiate people, and religion is one of those big things in society that still differentiates people and keeps peoples divided into their 'cliques'.  Hell, we're only now beginning to understand racial tolerance, and how long did that take us?  And it's STILL a big problem in certain parts of the country and world.

Religion DOES NOT MAKE PEOPLE NON-VIOLENT!  Believe it or not, it's the bare-simple truth.  I don't mean to bash any individual religion, but how many wars have been fought due to religious dogma?  It's still going on.  Religion, even Christian religion, even BUDDHIST religion has sparked violence throughout history.  People are violent man, you can't change that.  Believing in god isn't going to change that.  How many soldiers do you think believe in God and consider themselves devout christians when their very EXISTENCE as soldiers make them utter hypocrites.  Thou shall not kill people, it's in the bible.  Yet a soldier's life is in killing.  Contradiction much?  And you can defend it all you want, soldiers are killers- we don't do the work of god, we do the work of our country and government because it's asked of us to do it.  Killing in the name of god is the biggest load of crap.  Yet soldiers throughout history have done it.  They still do it.  Well, so what if those two boys from Columbine were Christians and were killing in the name of god- Would that somehow legitimize their actions, or even make it understandable?  If you said yes to the above question, you fail as a human being.  But at the same time, if you say no to that question, and you're a soldier, and you're religious, then you're a hypocrite. 

The bottom line is, Religion and killing have absolutely no bearing on one or the other.  Christians kill, Catholics kill, Muslims kill, Hindu kill, Buddhists kill.  Believing in God won't stop the killing.  People kill because we're a naturally aggressive species.  Columbine was tragic, but it was simply an expression of humanity.  An illustration of human behavior if you will.  Putting more guns into the hands of people won't stop people from killing, nor will taking them all away.  Humanity needs to wake up and realize we're going to keep killing ourselves until there's none of us left or until we evolve as a species---it's just that simple.  The real answer to the problem, is no answer.

(one further note- I'm a Nihilist if that makes my beliefs more clear to people.)
« Last Edit: May 28, 2007, 10:48:41 by Bobby Rico »
Hell looks alot like Parking Lot Echo.

Offline Sigs Guy

  • Banned
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • -105
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 649
Re: A Columbine Father Speaks Out
« Reply #52 on: May 28, 2007, 12:17:28 »
Quote
Your main argument seems to revolve around fear. There is a difference between being afraid and being ready. Police officers carry sidearm, not because they fear something will happen, but because they have to be ready. They do not walk around, pulling their pistols to anyone who gives them lip, or anytime a confrontation happens.

Because they are trained fully in how to use force when necessary and its their job to keep the peace.

Quote
I think it is reasonable to assume people outside of the law enforcement and military are capable of the same "restraint".

Not really, they don't have the same training, and when people are gripped by fear they'll do stupid stuff, especially if they have easy access to firearms.

http://www.africanaonline.com/rosewood.htm

Quote
If you take a look at how many people decide to CCW in the USA, you will see that it is a small number of people. This small number of people has a disproportionate effect on the crime rate of state where CCW is allowed. (Deployed DWAN Internet is slow, so as I write this, the site you gave me hasn't uploaded yet. But let me venture that the numbers on there are not broken down by individual states. I bet it would show that states with CCW have a much lower crime rate than the ones that don't, who hence raise the national average. Edit: Also, I am weary of stats that have been compiled. There is no source attached on the website you gave us. AFAIK, these might just be a bunch of random numbers pulled out of someone’s ***.)

If you want the website again, by all means check the statistics provided, just click on the link and go to the corresponding fact sheet. I highly doubt they are random numbers and if you want provide your own source. The states that have lenient gun laws are places like Minnesota, Vermont, New Hampshire, North Dakota, etc. Unfortunately its easy for anyone to buy a gun in Minnesota and transport it to Detroit. It really isn't rocket science. Once again compare the countries with a lower amount of gun ownership as compared to the US and these countries fare better overall than our neighbours to the south.

http://www.nationmaster.com/cat/cri-crime

Quote
The civilians in Canada, who aspire to be allowed to ATC, that I have met, are rational individual, who spend an inordinate amount of time making sure they are ready. These people will use all means at their disposition, including neighbours, police and everything else they can. But in the end, they want to be ready and self-reliant.

The problem being what if a kid gets a hold of a gun and takes it to school, or for that matter some right wing militia types decide to stock up on assault rifles for the coming "race wars," or to fight off the government. In the end its better that some firearms are restricted from public use.

People shouldn't carry guns around acting like the police. As for being ready, if a person is that scared they shouldn't be allowed a gun, period. I don't think giving someone who is that paranoid a weapon is ever a good idea.

Quote
It is not like I am arguing for everyone to carry concealed weapons. What I am looking for is something like a month long course, with yearly qualification shoot and 3 year course refresher on use of force, that would allow you the privilege to ATC.

I'd argue more education is the key as well, however I disagree with the belief that people need guns to cut down on crime as that simply is never the case.

Quote
Indeed, education is the key. Fear of weapons, banning them and marginalizing its owners, is not the way to educate the population at large. Thinking I would shoot someone for stealing is right out of her, it goes to show more about your irrational fear of your law abiding citizen/neighbour, than my implied paranoia.

My fear is that people carrying around more guns thinking they need it to fail safe will probably make the more likely to use it on innocent bystander or someone they fear MAY do something. Once again the statistics show that countries with lax gun laws are more prone to violent crime and more guns rarely ever brings down the crime rate. Around 11,000 people are killed by guns every year in the US, now compare that to the amount of guns per capita in the US and you can see a trend develop. Going state by state is fairly useless as you can't stop a gun from Minnesota coming into Detriot.

Quote
Do you know that people aren't walking around with guns?

Luckily we don't have people constantly walking around with guns, and apparently our crime rate has actually gone down.

Quote
It may placate you to think that the guy standing next to you isn't armed but are you sure?

No, but how would it help if I had a Glock with me. What if somebody were to come up behind me and take my weapon.

Quote
What if he is not only armed but he is a "rapist, thug, or serial killer" What do you do about it when he decides to act?

If he decides to act their isn't much I can do since I probably won't be holding my gun in my hand.

Quote
You've mentioned innocent bystanders being shot etc. quite a bit in your previous posts, yet if that were really case given the prevalence of CCW in the US you would think that we would be bombarded by media reports of ADs and dead witnesses when some paranoid, trigger happy CCW holder opens up with a hail of gunfire at an assailant.

Lets look at another statistic, how many people were killed by guns.

5     people in New Zealand
37   people in Sweden
56   people in Australian 
73   people in England and Wales
184 people in Canada
11,344 people in the United States.

Seven out of ten states with the highest rate of violent crime issued CCW permits. Even when there was a decline their is no evidence to suggest that CCW makes people safer compared to nations where handguns are restricted.




"I submit to you that if a man hasn't discovered something that he will die for, he isn't fit to live. "
"Life's most persistent and urgent question is, 'What are you doing for others?' "

Martin Luther King Jr

Offline TCBF

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 13,445
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,929
Re: A Columbine Father Speaks Out
« Reply #53 on: May 29, 2007, 18:26:26 »

"Unless they end up wounding or killing two innocent bystanders as well."

- Will you deny her the right to save her own life because someone else MIGHT get hurt?  Even hunters get to carry, even though someone MIGHT get hurt.

The fact is, under our current laws fully 60% of the adult population could probably pass a PAL screening and be licensed to buy firearms in Canada.  That would make for a more even distribution of the 15,000,000 + guns in the country now.  Would attitudes change then, if more Canadians were trained on firearms?

 
"Disarming the Canadian public is part of the new humanitarian social agenda."   - Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axeworthy at a Gun Control conference in Oslo, Norway in 1998.


"I didn’t feel that it was an act of violence; you know, I felt that it was an act of liberation, that’s how I felt you know." - Ann Hansen, Canadian 'Urban Guerrilla'(one of the "Squamish Five")

Offline Sigs Guy

  • Banned
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • -105
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 649
Re: A Columbine Father Speaks Out
« Reply #54 on: May 29, 2007, 23:03:30 »
Quote
- Will you deny her the right to save her own life because someone else MIGHT get hurt?  Even hunters get to carry, even though someone MIGHT get hurt.

Yes because it probably won't end up saving her life. This notion that you have to carry around a handgun at all times to be safe from the creep standing next to you is somehwat fallacious, especially considering the fact rape is usually committed by someone that the victim already knows and who may have even been considered a friend. When some people think of rape they usually think of some creep waiting in the bushes and jumping out to take advantage of a woman in a dark alleyway, this is often not the case. In most instances a weapon wouldn't have done much good, their is the potential that the victims gun could be used against her as well.

As well have you taken into account when an abuser in the household has a handgun, in which case the victim may be powerless.

Quote
The fact is, under our current laws fully 60% of the adult population could probably pass a PAL screening and be licensed to buy firearms in Canada.  That would make for a more even distribution of the 15,000,000 + guns in the country now.  Would attitudes change then, if more Canadians were trained on firearms?

Even in countries outside of the US such as the Swiss which have a high rate of firearms ownership they still maintain strict gun laws with regards to handguns and don't see the need to hand out a CCW permit to every civilian who feels afraid. More guns floating around don't make a safer society, and alot of the guns which make it onto the black market were at one time considered legal. As well even if their is a firearm in the home you have to take into account possible domestic violence or family disputes.

While I will agree that we can't put all of the blame on gun's, I think that having a society which has an abundance of handguns floating around only worsens our situation. As for the "gun's don't kill people, people kill people" argument, yes I agree, however a gun is the easiest way to kill a person, especially when using a handgun.

When dealing with the argument that its good to have a gun in the home to protect against intruders consider looking at the following link to see what the statistics say.

http://www.usc.edu/schools/medicine/departments/family_medicine/research/grants/yvp/factsheet.html

Quote
A gun kept in the home is 4 times more likely to be involved in an unintentional shooting, 7 times more likely to be used in a criminal assault or homicide and 11 times more likely to be used to commit or attempt a suicide than to be used in self-defense.

The following is a good article which attempts to try to and get into the issues of guns more indepth. It also shows the problems with trying to find a science so to speak of figuring out whether more guns cause crime. But in the end though I think it's somewhat clear that high firearms ownership in the US has done little to prevent firearms homicide.

http://discovermagazine.com/1996/may/gunslinginginame759

Quote
Sam Walker was not your average American gun owner. For one thing, he had no interest whatsoever in hunting. And whereas the average gun owner owns at least three guns, Walker owned only one, a .38-caliber revolver, which friends persuaded him to buy for the sole purpose of protecting himself and his family in their suburban Houston home. Walker didn’t even particularly like guns. He still hadn’t gotten around to acquainting himself with his new weapon when his burglar alarm went off one weekday morning last December. Notified by his security company of the intrusion, Walker rushed home from work, quietly entered the house, took the gun out from the spot where he had left it for safekeeping, and, hearing a noise, moved stealthily up the stairs and opened a closet door. He saw a movement, a figure, and in a split second fired. The smoothly oiled gun worked perfectly, and Walker’s aim was true. A body fell to the floor. It was his 16-year-old daughter. She had cut school that day and had hidden in the closet to avoid her father. It wound up costing her her life.

Quote
After the new laws were passed, permits to carry concealed handguns rose enormously —in Florida the number of licenses soared from 17,000 before the law was passed in 1987 to 141,000 seven years later. After studying five cities, McDowall found that the rate of firearms homicides increased overall by 26 percent. Although this would seem to support the arms-race hypothesis, the results were inconsistent. Whereas McDowall had expected the effects of the liberalized laws to be greatest in Miami, the biggest city in the study and the one with the highest crime rate, the rise in homicides there was too small to be statistically significant. However, McDowall believes his evidence is strong enough to show that armed citizens do not decrease the number of firearms-related deaths.

Even a firearms trainer for the NYPD and lifetime NRA member finds that allowing every person to carry gun is problematic.

Quote
Given that purging guns from the population is problematic, would the world be safer if each law-abiding citizen carried a gun? Alessandro Veralli hesitates before answering this question. For most of his adult life, he has carried a concealed handgun almost everywhere he goes, whether it’s out to the movies with his wife or to the local hardware store on a Saturday afternoon. Yet Veralli, a Master Firearms Instructor for the New York City Police Department and an NRA life member, admits that as a civilian he has had very little opportunity to use his gun. If he ever found himself a customer at a liquor store that was being held up, in most cases his training and common sense would tell him to lie low rather than start a shoot-out. If he was out with his wife and a thief demanded his wallet, he would probably hand it over. “In a robbery, there’s not much you can do except maybe shoot at the guy as he’s walking away,” he says. “But what if he shoots back? I’d be putting my wife in danger, and for what?” He carries a gun for the hypothetical extreme case when having it might mean the difference between life and death. “Personally I’d hate to get into a bad situation and think that I might have been able to do something if I had had a gun,” he says.

But should other citizens carry guns? “I’m tempted to say yes,” he says, but then he demurs. “Maybe it makes sense in other parts of the country where they have more space. New York, though, is too crowded. There’s something about all these people being confined in a small space. People can fly off the handle over little things. I don’t think I’d want to see each and every one of them carrying a gun.”
"I submit to you that if a man hasn't discovered something that he will die for, he isn't fit to live. "
"Life's most persistent and urgent question is, 'What are you doing for others?' "

Martin Luther King Jr

Offline Roy Harding

    He\'s Back.

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 14,965
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,231
Re: A Columbine Father Speaks Out
« Reply #55 on: May 29, 2007, 23:43:14 »
Yes because it probably (emphasis added) won't end up saving her life.

So you invalidate TCBF's "someone else MIGHT get hurt" with your own "probably won't end up saving her life"?  I'll take a chance on TCBF's "might" before your "probably" any time.

This notion that you have to carry around a handgun at all times to be safe from the creep standing next to you is somehwat fallacious, especially considering the fact rape is usually committed by someone that the victim already knows and who may have even been considered a friend.

I don't follow you here - you are correct, most victims are raped by someone they know.  What are you saying, firearms only work when fired at strangers?

When some people think of rape they usually think of some creep waiting in the bushes and jumping out to take advantage of a woman in a dark alleyway, this is often not the case. In most instances a weapon wouldn't have done much good, their is the potential that the victims gun could be used against her as well.

I'll take the chance that there is a "potential" that the victim's gun could be used against her (or his) assailant.

As well have you taken into account when an abuser in the household has a handgun, in which case the victim may be powerless.

As you will have to take into account that when there is an abuser in the household, the firearm may be used against him/her by the victim.

Even in countries outside of the US such as the Swiss which have a high rate of firearms ownership they still maintain strict gun laws with regards to handguns and don't see the need to hand out a CCW permit to every civilian who feels afraid. More guns floating around don't make a safer society, and alot of the guns which make it onto the black market were at one time considered legal. As well even if their is a firearm in the home you have to take into account possible domestic violence or family disputes.

What you are failing to take into account is that in the case of crimes of passion (or domestic violence, if you prefer), it doesn't MATTER what weapon is at hand - be it a firearm, butcher knife, or a pair of children's scissors - crimes of passion cannot be accounted for, and cannot be controlled by banning weapons of ANY kind.

While I will agree that we can't put all of the blame on gun's, I think that having a society which has an abundance of handguns floating around only worsens our situation. As for the "gun's don't kill people, people kill people" argument, yes I agree, however a gun is the easiest way to kill a person, especially when using a handgun.

I think you have a valid point here - any society which has an abundance of handguns "floating around" is, indeed, in dire straits.  I would contend, however, that a society which has an abundance of handguns being properly handled by properly trained individuals (we'll go into what "properly trained" later, if you want - but I stand by my basic premise of current and retired military and LEOs being so authorized) is a safer one.  Unfortunately, here in Canada, all the properly trained, and law abiding folks aren't ALLOWED to carry firearms, and therefore don't.  This leaves all the firearms on the streets "floating around" in the hands of the criminals and lunatics.

When dealing with the argument that its good to have a gun in the home to protect against intruders consider looking at the following link to see what the statistics say.

http://www.usc.edu/schools/medicine/departments/family_medicine/research/grants/yvp/factsheet.html

The following is a good article which attempts to try to and get into the issues of guns more indepth. It also shows the problems with trying to find a science so to speak of figuring out whether more guns cause crime. But in the end though I think it's somewhat clear that high firearms ownership in the US has done little to prevent firearms homicide.

http://discovermagazine.com/1996/may/gunslinginginame759

Even a firearms trainer for the NYPD and lifetime NRA member finds that allowing every person to carry gun is problematic.


Sigs Guy - I'll be honest - I have not (yet) read the links you provide above, and therefore have no comment to make on them - with the exception of your final sentence - I don't recall anyone on this thread (but I stand ready to be corrected) advocating "allowing every person to carry a gun" - I know I certainly presented no such view. 

I WILL read the links within the next couple of days and get back to this thread.

Take care,


Roy
I love mankind.  It's people I can't stand.

Linus van Pelt

Offline NinerSix

    is getting the itch to deploy.

  • Attitude re-adjuster
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 316,101
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,040
  • Car guy learning to drive
Re: A Columbine Father Speaks Out
« Reply #56 on: May 30, 2007, 01:51:33 »
Quote
When dealing with the argument that its good to have a gun in the home to protect against intruders consider looking at the following link to see what the statistics say.

http://www.usc.edu/schools/medicine/departments/family_medicine/research/grants/yvp/factsheet.html

A gun kept in the home is 4 times more likely to be involved in an unintentional shooting, 7 times more likely to be used in a criminal assault or homicide and 11 times more likely to be used to commit or attempt a suicide than to be used in self-defense.


This reminds me of the red light camera study. The study "proved" that cameras were decreasing accidents at intersections, because the number of crashes “in” the intersection were down after installing them. What the study did not say was that the amount of rear end collision leading up to the intersection had increase and surpassed the pre-camera figures.

The numbers provided above, do they separate them between illegally owned guns and legally owned ones? Do they separates incidents that involved drugs and gang members? Does it matter if someone shoot themselves or hang themselves? And what about possible crimes that were avoided, either because the criminal was aware of the consequences of a possibly armed “victim” and desisted, or the situation was resolved because the intended victim manage to deal with the situation.

Food for thought.
The process is not the mission.

Offline Sigs Guy

  • Banned
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • -105
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 649
Re: A Columbine Father Speaks Out
« Reply #57 on: May 30, 2007, 08:53:09 »
Quote
I don't follow you here - you are correct, most victims are raped by someone they know.  What are you saying, firearms only work when fired at strangers?

Unless you have your firearms in your hand at the moment you are being attacked their really isn't much you can do. My point was about the misconception about rapes being occured by the creeps in bushes.

Quote
I'll take the chance that there is a "potential" that the victim's gun could be used against her (or his) assailant.

Follow the links which show that their the addition of a firearm to a situation can make it more dangerous. I was at a lecture at EPS, and a detective was asked if more woman were armed with guns would they be safer, the answer was a strong no.

Quote
As you will have to take into account that when there is an abuser in the household, the firearm may be used against him/her by the victim.

I highly doubt professionals in either social work or law enforcement suggest that a victim should use a firearm on the abuser, their are better solutions to any problem than turning to a gun.

Quote
What you are failing to take into account is that in the case of crimes of passion (or domestic violence, if you prefer), it doesn't MATTER what weapon is at hand - be it a firearm, butcher knife, or a pair of children's scissors - crimes of passion cannot be accounted for, and cannot be controlled by banning weapons of ANY kind.

A gun is the most effective and easiest way of killing any person.

Quote
I think you have a valid point here - any society which has an abundance of handguns "floating around" is, indeed, in dire straits.  I would contend, however, that a society which has an abundance of handguns being properly handled by properly trained individuals (we'll go into what "properly trained" later, if you want - but I stand by my basic premise of current and retired military and LEOs being so authorized) is a safer one.  Unfortunately, here in Canada, all the properly trained, and law abiding folks aren't ALLOWED to carry firearms, and therefore don't.  This leaves all the firearms on the streets "floating around" in the hands of the criminals and lunatics.

Few societies allow their citizens to freely carry around handguns simply because they are afraid, as I stated before even in Switzerland they have handgun regulations and they don't hand out handguns permits to every person who feels afraid. The firearms floating around the streets in the hands of criminals and lunatics usually always started out being legally bought.

Quote
The numbers provided above, do they separate them between illegally owned guns and legally owned ones?

As was stated in the links many criminal firearms started off being legal. As well those that bought a firearm to protect themselves from intruders actually increased their risk of getting killed by a firearm.

Quote
Do they separates incidents that involved drugs and gang members?

Even if people legally buy a weapon their are several scenarios which could result in a legally bought weapon getting in the hands of gangs.

Quote
And what about possible crimes that were avoided, either because the criminal was aware of the consequences of a possibly armed “victim” and desisted,

The United States is one the most armed countries in the developed world yet still has an extroadinarily high rate of crime.




"I submit to you that if a man hasn't discovered something that he will die for, he isn't fit to live. "
"Life's most persistent and urgent question is, 'What are you doing for others?' "

Martin Luther King Jr

Offline NinerSix

    is getting the itch to deploy.

  • Attitude re-adjuster
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 316,101
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,040
  • Car guy learning to drive
Re: A Columbine Father Speaks Out
« Reply #58 on: May 30, 2007, 09:29:54 »
Quote
Even if people legally buy a weapon their are several scenarios which could result in a legally bought weapon getting in the hands of gangs.


What is the logic here? Because something can be used illegally, it shouldn't be allowed to be possessed legally? Things potentialy as harmfull as prescription drugs, cars and Alcohol, that can all individually account for more deaths than firearms every year, can be bought perfectly legally, but are widely used illegally to great harm. Would you decry these as well? 

Your logic is flawed.

Your corolation between the perceived high crime rate in the USA and it status as one of the most armed country in the world is an opinion. An opinion that is not taking many other factors into account.

No matter what, you can ban all the guns in the world, it will not chage one basic fact: There will always be someone people out that is just waiting for a chance to take advantage of someone, most preferably someone weaker. He might come with a gun, a knife, a hammer or simply his fist. Denying people the means to defend themself is, arguably, unconstitutional and will not make an overall safer society. Making criminals consider the seriousness of the consequences of their actions will make them pause.

Let me put it this way by taking your philosophy to the extreme, do you think that taking the guns away from everyone around the world, will make the world a better place?
The process is not the mission.

Offline Sigs Guy

  • Banned
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • -105
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 649
Re: A Columbine Father Speaks Out
« Reply #59 on: May 30, 2007, 18:09:56 »
Quote
What is the logic here? Because something can be used illegally, it shouldn't be allowed to be possessed legally? Things potentialy as harmfull as prescription drugs, cars and Alcohol, that can all individually account for more deaths than firearms every year, can be bought perfectly legally, but are widely used illegally to great harm. Would you decry these as well? 

Cars and prescription drugs serve a useful purpose, handguns serve no purpose beyond killing people and is the most efficient and effective way to kill someone. I'd agree that prescription drugs can be potentially harmful, and perhaps we should find new regulations when distributing and selling them.

Quote
Your corolation between the perceived high crime rate in the USA and it status as one of the most armed country in the world is an opinion. An opinion that is not taking many other factors into account.

Their is crime in other developed nations as well, however they don't see the need to give guns to people who are afraid because they watched too much TV, their is always a better solution to preventing crime.

Quote
No matter what, you can ban all the guns in the world, it will not chage one basic fact: There will always be someone people out that is just waiting for a chance to take advantage of someone, most preferably someone weaker.

Agreed, which is why we should throw repeat violent offenders in jail for life after a third offense. On justice issues you'll find that I'm usually fairly conservative and not as liberal when it comes to violent or repeat offenders.

Quote
He might come with a gun, a knife, a hammer or simply his fist.

Yes...

Quote
Denying people the means to defend themself is, arguably, unconstitutional

Some kids also bring guns to school to protect themselves, I wouldn't argue that I'm taking away their constitutional rights if I believe we shouldn't have an abundance of guns in a school. Once again I've been the victim of crime but I use common sense and call law enforcement which is what a responsible adult does.

Quote
Making criminals consider the seriousness of the consequences of their actions will make them pause.

I agree, however at the same time a society should find a middle ground between rehabilitation and punishment. I think we are too lenient myself, and have stated above that I support stronger sentences against violent criminals. 

Quote
Let me put it this way by taking your philosophy to the extreme, do you think that taking the guns away from everyone around the world, will make the world a better place?

Probably, if taken to the "extreme". A liberal democracy doesn't need an armed populace to function, and the nations of Great Britian, Japan, and Australia, have all shown that fewer firearms will not result in a police state or a complete breakdown of society. However once again as I have stated their are more factors then firearms involved in making the world a better place, but we don't need to be armed to the teeth in order to feel safe. I feel perfectly safe when I'm in Canada, and I'm glad we don't have such a prevalent culture of fear.

Just to clarify I'm not 100% against allowing people to carry CCW permits, I think they should only be allowed in rare cases when a person has been directly threatened or for certain professional's if needed. But handing out CCW permits to anyone who wants one isn't responsible gun policy which is why so few developed nations support it. I prefer our current regulations, they aren't unreasonable, you can still get rifles, shotguns, etc.

"I submit to you that if a man hasn't discovered something that he will die for, he isn't fit to live. "
"Life's most persistent and urgent question is, 'What are you doing for others?' "

Martin Luther King Jr

Offline NinerSix

    is getting the itch to deploy.

  • Attitude re-adjuster
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 316,101
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,040
  • Car guy learning to drive
Re: A Columbine Father Speaks Out
« Reply #60 on: May 31, 2007, 00:51:38 »
You are inferring a lot in your post that, no one here, has claimed. From the top of your soap box, you have failed to listen and made up your own meaning. This apocalyptic vision of everyone armed, even children in school, is yours and yours only.

I don’t think we think very differently, I just think that you misunderstand, maybe on purpose, what I am writing. Maybe you are more interested in “listening to yourself talk”, who knows? Who cares?

In the end:

Quote
Just to clarify I'm not 100% against allowing people to carry CCW permits, I think they should only be allowed in rare cases when a person has been directly threatened or for certain professional's if needed. But handing out CCW permits to anyone who wants one isn't responsible […]

This is 98% of what I am saying. Here is my version:

I'm not 100% against allowing people to ATC, I think they should only be allowed in cases when a person has been threatened or for certain professional's. But handing out CCW permits to anyone who wants one isn't responsible.
The process is not the mission.

Offline KevinB

  • Has Been
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 35,620
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,334
  • As a Matter of Fact the Sky is Blue in my world...
    • FN America
Re: A Columbine Father Speaks Out
« Reply #61 on: May 31, 2007, 07:07:05 »
Well this thread certainly took to life since I last looked...

I disagree that only "professionals" should be allowed to carry -- I know a lot of civilians who have never been mil or LE with a much greater degree of skill and training that the average LE or MIL user.

  I do however agree that a user wishing to CCW should be mandated training in according to both Use of Force laws and the safe use of a firearm. 

Secondly I will point to one issue of Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine" he noticed (and promptly ignored it cause it did not serve his misguided rant) that in Canada there is proportionally MORE firearms (as in per capita) than the US -- yet you dont see the rivers running red in Canada.

Secondly US gang violence (and for that matter Cdn gang violence) typically occures with illegal weapons to which none of the handwringing crowd like to admit that it is really not affected by gun laws.

Secondly Gun violence in Britian SKYROCKETED when their laws cramped down on Firearms and basically outlawed a large portion of types (semi-auto) firearms.


Lastly -- a car has much more destructive power than a firearm. 


After lastly - I fully believe that the Lords Prayer in Schools was a good thing -- I went all thru school with it and the National Anthem being played on the PA.  I will proudly note there never was a mass killing in our school at that time.
  Those who chose to ignore the fact Canada was created as a Christian national are welcome to abstain from prayer -- but not to infringe my rights to enjoy my right to religion.  IMHO Canada is slowly being posioned by "multi-cultural diversity" - which is fine in soem instances but not to the point if weakens the very fabric of the nation.

I spit on PET and his social engineering fiasco





 
« Last Edit: May 31, 2007, 07:11:25 by Infidel-6 »
Kevin S. Boland
Manager, Federal Sales
FN America, LLC
Office: 703.288.3500 x181 | Mobile: 703-244-1758  | Fax: 703.288.4505
www.fnhusa.com

Offline Sigs Guy

  • Banned
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • -105
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 649
Re: A Columbine Father Speaks Out
« Reply #62 on: June 01, 2007, 01:19:18 »
Quote
Secondly I will point to one issue of Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine" he noticed (and promptly ignored it cause it did not serve his misguided rant) that in Canada there is proportionally MORE firearms (as in per capita) than the US -- yet you dont see the rivers running red in Canada.

The difference being Canada has better gun laws and more social programs than the US, theirs a reason why social democracies such as Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and Finland, all tend to rate higher in areas of health, welfare of the child, etc. than the US.

Quote
Secondly US gang violence (and for that matter Cdn gang violence) typically occures with illegal weapons to which none of the handwringing crowd like to admit that it is really not affected by gun laws.

The vast majority of those guns were obtained legally, and to compare state by state gun laws is futile [I don't remember being stopped by customs at the Michigan/Wisconsin border]. The vast majority of developed nations have law restricting handguns because their really is no acceptable reason to own a handgun unless you happen to be a collector or a target shooter.

Quote
Secondly Gun violence in Britian SKYROCKETED when their laws cramped down on Firearms and basically outlawed a large portion of types (semi-auto) firearms.

The United States still has 40 times the amount of people killed by firearms than compared to England and Wales. Even then a large proportion of those were air weapons, and the new recording system used in Great Britain was believed to have inflated those statistics. Recently the rate has been dropping. The majority of developed countries maintain that some firearms should be more thoroughly regulated, especially handguns since they really don't serve any practical purpose. Even then the rate has remained relatively static. But part of the reason the rate is so much higher in the US is because of the proliferation of firearms, and it doesn't matter if a state decides to limit the amount of guns a person can buy, that person only needs to drive to a nearby state and pick up a firearm. As well at most gun shows one can easily buy a firearm.

Quote
Lastly -- a car has much more destructive power than a firearm. 

Most people don't buy a car to use it as a murder weapon, a handgun has no useful purpose besides killing people.

Quote
After lastly - I fully believe that the Lords Prayer in Schools was a good thing -- I went all thru school with it and the National Anthem being played on the PA.  I will proudly note there never was a mass killing in our school at that time.
  Those who chose to ignore the fact Canada was created as a Christian national are welcome to abstain from prayer -- but not to infringe my rights to enjoy my right to religion.  IMHO Canada is slowly being posioned by "multi-cultural diversity" - which is fine in soem instances but not to the point if weakens the very fabric of the nation.

I agree with the national anthem being played in school's, but I don't support allowing the Lord's Prayer to be recited by the staff to students.





"I submit to you that if a man hasn't discovered something that he will die for, he isn't fit to live. "
"Life's most persistent and urgent question is, 'What are you doing for others?' "

Martin Luther King Jr

Offline KevinB

  • Has Been
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 35,620
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,334
  • As a Matter of Fact the Sky is Blue in my world...
    • FN America
Re: A Columbine Father Speaks Out
« Reply #63 on: June 01, 2007, 07:00:40 »
Most people don't buy a car to use it as a murder weapon, a handgun has no useful purpose besides killing people.
::)  So I guess Olympic Bullseye pistol is a breeding ground for gangland slayings
  Your other figures are so out to lunch that your above statement says it for me that its not worth my efforts to refute you - your closeminded on the issue and I shall further ingore all transmisions from your C/S.

Quote

I agree with the national anthem being played in school's, but I don't support allowing the Lord's Prayer to be recited by the staff to students.


  Us evil Christians indoctrinating the world I suppose?
FWIW -- it was played on the PA as a recording - staff was not required, nor where the students, to recite if they wished not too.  But I cant recall any godless heathens in my classes either  ;D
 
Kevin S. Boland
Manager, Federal Sales
FN America, LLC
Office: 703.288.3500 x181 | Mobile: 703-244-1758  | Fax: 703.288.4505
www.fnhusa.com

Offline Teflon

  • I blame it on the MAGNETs in our drinking water
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 15,055
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 571
  • Insert Personal Text Here
Re: A Columbine Father Speaks Out
« Reply #64 on: June 01, 2007, 09:55:26 »
 
Quote
  Us evil Christians indoctrinating the world I suppose?
FWIW -- it was played on the PA as a recording - staff was not required, nor where the students, to recite if they wished not too.  But I cant recall any godless heathens in my classes either 


Here here! +1

If one doesn't agree don't recite it
When you meet somebody new,
don't get excited, because
9 out of ten times
they're stupid

Offline Sigs Guy

  • Banned
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • -105
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 649
Re: A Columbine Father Speaks Out
« Reply #65 on: June 01, 2007, 13:25:15 »
Quote
  Us evil Christians indoctrinating the world I suppose?

I don't think Jesus was really concerned about whether or not the Lords Prayer will be recited in schools.

Quote
  So I guess Olympic Bullseye pistol is a breeding ground for gangland slayings
  Your other figures are so out to lunch that your above statement says it for me that its not worth my efforts to refute you - your closeminded on the issue and I shall further ingore all transmisions from your C/S.

What issues do you have, they show that the US which has a large abundance of weapons tends to have a higher murder rate and more gun violence then countries which do not.

"I submit to you that if a man hasn't discovered something that he will die for, he isn't fit to live. "
"Life's most persistent and urgent question is, 'What are you doing for others?' "

Martin Luther King Jr

Offline Bruce Monkhouse

    is thinking beach volleyball.

  • Lab Experiment #13
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 231,685
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,569
  • WHERE IS MY BATON?
    • http://www.canadianbands.com./home.html
Re: A Columbine Father Speaks Out
« Reply #66 on: June 01, 2007, 13:33:44 »
What issues do you have, they show that the US which has a large abundance of weapons tends to have a higher murder rate and more gun violence then countries which do not.

He doesn't, his issue is that you blame the guns for the murder/violence, .......how many in Rwanda died from a good old knife?
IF YOU REALLY ENJOY THIS SITE AND WISH TO CONTINUE,THEN PLEASE WIGGLE UP TO THE BAR AND BUY A SUBSCRIPTION OR SOME SWAG FROM THE MILNET.CA STORE OR IF YOU WISH TO ADVERTISE PLEASE SEND MIKE SOME DETAILS.

Everybody has a game plan until they get punched in the mouth.

Offline Sigs Guy

  • Banned
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • -105
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 649
Re: A Columbine Father Speaks Out
« Reply #67 on: June 01, 2007, 13:48:36 »
Quote
He doesn't, his issue is that you blame the guns for the murder/violence, .......how many in Rwanda died from a good old knife?

I've said before that to blame the guns entirely would be a fallacious argument as their are a number of factors, however a firearm is part of it. As for people dying in Rwanda from a machette, how many people died in Sierra Leone from a good old AK-47. My issue is with the notion that we have to be armed in order to be safe from the predators when it simply isn't true. I especially take exception an argument that without guns we'll become a police state.
"I submit to you that if a man hasn't discovered something that he will die for, he isn't fit to live. "
"Life's most persistent and urgent question is, 'What are you doing for others?' "

Martin Luther King Jr

Offline Teflon

  • I blame it on the MAGNETs in our drinking water
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 15,055
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 571
  • Insert Personal Text Here
Re: A Columbine Father Speaks Out
« Reply #68 on: June 01, 2007, 13:52:43 »
Quote
I don't think Jesus was really concerned about whether or not the Lords Prayer will be recited in schools.

Why are you? Be alittle different if kids where punished or expelled if they didn't recite it, but having those that do wish to recite it in the morning, this is a bad thing?
When you meet somebody new,
don't get excited, because
9 out of ten times
they're stupid

Offline Staff Weenie

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 11,920
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 310
Re: A Columbine Father Speaks Out
« Reply #69 on: June 01, 2007, 13:58:45 »
Bruce is correct in that the firearms are only the means to an end. Denied a pistol or other firearm, a violent person intent on harming will simply find another way to achieve their goal. That said, firearms are the most efficient means currently available to kill.

What the US has, in perhaps far greater levels than any other developed country, is a variety of social dysfunctions coupled with ready access to firearms (legal and illegal).

While I really don't see the need for everybody and their dog to possess a vast basement arsenal, I also believe that the only folks who would be impacted by the laws, are the law abiding folks. The criminal element will always find a way to get more guns.

And yes, the notion that without privately held weapons, we would become a police state is pathetic. It merely represents a radical argument with no real means (from a historic perspective) to back itself up.

My ideal, would be to see a balance struck, whereby legal and responsible ownership is possible, and illegal possession or use is harshly punished. For years, as a military history buff, I've wanted to collect weapons from prior conflicts, yet it's just far too prohibitive these days.

BTW - does anybody know what the ratio of firearms related murders to non-firearms murders is? I've read about more stabbings than shootings, but they don't seem to get the same press.

Offline KevinB

  • Has Been
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 35,620
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,334
  • As a Matter of Fact the Sky is Blue in my world...
    • FN America
Re: A Columbine Father Speaks Out
« Reply #70 on: June 01, 2007, 15:40:43 »
- From Statcan website 2005 Crime stats
http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/85-002-XIE/85-002-XIE2006004.pdf

Shared in blah blah blah - its the gov't data

Quote
The overall crime rate dropped 5% in 2005. Decreases were seen in most crimes, with the exception of the serious
crimes of homicide, attempted murder, assault with a weapon, aggravated assault and robbery.

Quote
Homicide, the most serious of all criminal acts, includes first and second degree murder, manslaughter and infanticide.
Following a 13% increase in 2004, the homicide rate increased by a further 4% in 2005.

Quote
The rate of offensive weapons violations increased 5% in 2005.

Population 31,021,251 31,372,587 31,669,150 31,974,363 32,270,507
Homicide2 553 1.8 582 1.9 549 1.7 624 2.0 658 2.0 4 2
Attempted murder 725 2.3 678 2.2 707 2.2 671 2.1 772 2.4 14 -20
Assault - Total 236,957 764 235,710 751 236,802 748 234,259 733 234,729 727 -1 -2
Level 1 191,147 616 189,185 603 188,667 596 184,883 578 182,049 564 -2 -8
Level 2 - Weapon 43,094 139 43,793 140 45,222 143 46,643 146 49,653 154 5 25
Level 3 - Aggravated 2,716 9 2,732 9 2,913 9 2,733 9 3,027 9 10 4
Other assaults 12,260 40 12,454 40 12,534 40 12,811 40 12,818 40 -1 -14
Sexual assault - Total 24,044 78 24,499 78 23,514 74 23,036 72 23,303 72 0 -25
Level 1 23,563 76 23,973 76 22,983 73 22,449 70 22,736 70 0 -24
Level 2 - Weapon 320 1 373 1 359 1 397 1 396 1 -1 -39
Level 3 - Aggravated 161 1 153 0 172 1 190 1 171 1 -11 -47
Other sexual offences 2,689 9 2,756 9 2,565 8 2,614 8 2,741 8 4 -29
Abduction 674 2 605 2 559 2 637 2 584 2 -9 -55
Okay I dont know how to do tables, however if you follow the link you will notice the major metropolitan areas have had crime increase -- and they are statically areas with lower per capita legal firearm ownership.

I'm not going to post all the data -- as well the URegina has a website that has copied of all homicided by type of offence -- but you need to be student or staff (I tried to access it)

I would like to point out that in Iraq automatic weapons and explosives are illegal -- but that does not seem to stop the insurgents from shoot at me with them...
(I'm not suggesting we should be allowed to have explosives in Canada BTW -- well it would be cool  ;D)







« Last Edit: June 01, 2007, 15:45:46 by Infidel-6 »
Kevin S. Boland
Manager, Federal Sales
FN America, LLC
Office: 703.288.3500 x181 | Mobile: 703-244-1758  | Fax: 703.288.4505
www.fnhusa.com

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 183,512
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,681
Re: A Columbine Father Speaks Out
« Reply #71 on: June 01, 2007, 17:29:58 »
That said, firearms are the most efficient means currently available to kill.

No, they're not.

What was the worst mass murder to ever take place fully on Canadian soil, and what means was used?

Most would pick the ecole polytecnique killing by Ghamil Gharbi, son of an Algerian woman-hating wife beater, and who preferred to be known as  Marc Lepine.

They would be incorrect.

It took place at the Blue Bird Bar in Montreal on 1 September 1972. Thirty-seven people died. The weapon was a quantity of gasoline and a match. It is extremely hard to find any info about it - I only knew about it because a friend's sister was one of the victims. Had a firearm been used, though, we'd still be subjected to sickly annual memoria.

That was far less labour-intensive than shooting that many people. Apparently more politically acceptable, too.

Quote
What the US has, in perhaps far greater levels than any other developed country, is a variety of social dysfunctions coupled with ready access to firearms (legal and illegal).

The social dysfunction statement is correct, however the "ready access to firearms" is only incidental. Problems stem more from a background of slavery and racism which still keeps large numbers of citizens out of main-stream society. Those thus marginalized, especially the youth, tend to seek outlets for their frustration and compensation for their poverty elsewhere - drugs and the attendant violence as gangs protect and invade each others' turf. During Prohibition, alcohol fuelled gang warfare.

We are starting to see similar problems here, with race-based drug gangs. And as long as moronic politicians looking for nothing more than votes continue to focus on one particular implement sometimes used in some crimes rather than the crimes and criminals themselves, the problems will continue to grow. If somebody does not believe that, and/or if somebody thinks that Canada is homogenously safe, I invite that/those person(s) to take a leisurely stroll through the Jane-Finch area or some of the other choice locales in Toronto

It is not the availibility of firearms that is a factor. It is the motivation of those carrying them. The firearms themselves are neutral, inanimate objects. While a firearm can indeed be used to kill an innocent person, a firearm can also be used to defend an innocent person (and usually without a shot being fired; criminals are not so stupid that they cannot appreciate the concept of personal risk).

And reducing lawful access to firearms of any sort has no effect on criminal access to firearms whatsoever.

Jamaica has very restrictive firearms laws and its murder and violent crime rate puts that of the US to shame. It's also an island, which in theory makes it easier to control firearms access but in actual fact only disproves the notion that criminal access can be controlled by restricting access to anybody. It's simple supply and demand. If there is a demand for firearms in the underworld, there WILL be a supply - the only questions revolve around specific source(s), means of smuggling, and price.

Quote
While I really don't see the need for everybody and their dog to possess a vast basement arsenal, I also believe that the only folks who would be impacted by the laws, are the law abiding folks. The criminal element will always find a way to get more guns.

Correct, save that nobody is advocating that everybody possess even one firearm. Nobody who collects, shoots targets, or hunts wants a crook or nincompoop next to them on the range or wandering about in the woods either.

"Need" is a common anti-gun red herring, as in "nobody needs a gun". It is partially true, but it's also completely irrelevant. Nobody needs a home theatre, a Harley-Davidson, a backyard pool, a Ferrari, Scotch, or anything else beyond oxygen, warmth, food, and basic shelter either. Not all of our desires are born of need, yet nobody questions them. Questioning my interest in owning firearms is no more justified than questioning any of my other purchasing habits.

Quote
And yes, the notion that without privately held weapons, we would become a police state is pathetic. It merely represents a radical argument with no real means (from a historic perspective) to back itself up.

Quite the contrary. No nation that has oppressed its citizenry has been able to do so without first disarming them. That was the driving force behind the Second Amendment to the US Constitution. The US Founding Fathers intentionally restricted the powers of the federal government in favour of the States and the people at large in order to protect them from domestic tyranny.

Just because something is highly unlikely does not mean that it will not or could not occur, otherwise I for one would have no insurance whatsoever, or smoke detectors, or life jackets, or wear seatbelts etcetera.

Quote
My ideal, would be to see a balance struck, whereby legal and responsible ownership is possible, and illegal possession or use is harshly punished.

Yes, precisely. We had that once.

Quote
For years, as a military history buff, I've wanted to collect weapons from prior conflicts, yet it's just far too prohibitive these days.

Do it regardless. It's worth it. Pyss Off a Liberal - Buy a Gun.

Quote
BTW - does anybody know what the ratio of firearms related murders to non-firearms murders is? I've read about more stabbings than shootings, but they don't seem to get the same press.

Firearms are historically used in about one-third of Canadian homicides. Nobody needs a gun to kill somebody else. There is no shortage of other methods. And where downward changes are noticed, they are compensated by increases in other methods although much of this can be accounted for by normal statistical variation - we're dealing with small numbers so blips can be significant.

Suicide is also means-independent. A decrease in shooting has been accompanied by an increase in hanging.

This is why weaselly organizations (sorry, weasels) like the Coalition for Gun Control only talk about reductions in gun deaths as a result of stupid Liberal legislation as there is no corresponding reduction in overall deaths. Essentially, we have blown around two billion bucks simply to increase rope and knife sales.

Nobody has yet been able to prove a link between firearms laws and reduction in violent crime or suicide. Studies that purport to do so usually fail to account for other variables. A continuing overall decline in murder can be linked to an aging population, improvements in trauma medicine, the replacement of ambulance attendants with paramedics, and the increased ability to contact emergency services through cellphones and the 911 system.

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 183,512
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,681
Re: A Columbine Father Speaks Out
« Reply #72 on: June 01, 2007, 17:38:13 »
a handgun has no useful purpose besides killing people.

Then I have wasted a pile of money over several decades, as none of my firearms have ever killed anybody.

As far as I know - I do not know the specifics of the histories of my WWII stuff in sufficient detail to know that they never went beyond a unidirectional range.

Certainly, none have during my ownership of them.

Either my firearms or I are clearly defective by your reasoning.

I've thoroughly enjoyed punching holes in paper etcetera, though.

Very few police weapons are ever used to kill anybody either. They're carried to protect innocent life largely through deterrence - or are our police failing to use their handguns properly?

I am guessing that a dramatic rise in police shootings would not make you happier despite your theory of the purpose of handguns.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2007, 23:32:55 by Loachman »

Offline Bobby Rico

  • Young, dumb and full of....stuff.
  • Member
  • ****
  • -10
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 120
Re: A Columbine Father Speaks Out
« Reply #73 on: June 04, 2007, 19:06:17 »
 

Here here! +1

If one doesn't agree don't recite it


Yes, lets create an atmosphere of alienation for the kids that don't recite it.  That's what we want, MORE social division in the classroom  ::).  You give kids more credit then they deserve if you think it won't happen.  And hell, isn't that why those two kids at Columbine went on their little killing spree, because they were being outcasted and ostracized by their peers for being ' a little different'?  Well what do you think the kids who pray will do to the kids that don't?  Same reason the rich kids didn't hang out with the poor kids, and so on and so forth.

Anyway, I think some of you older folk who haven't been in a public school for years may forget just how divided the various social cliques are in school.  You already have the jocks, nerds, popular kids, greasers...do you really need the religious kids in there too?  Jeeze, lets try for a little more unity and a little less division.

One other thing to add to those who use the defense that they had prayer in schools and never had to deal with gun toting lunatics in the halls.  Well, here's one for you----How many schools do you think exist in the United States and Canada this very moment that don't have prayer in school, and have never had a shooting  in the school?  I'd like to think more than you can count on one hand.  I went to schools with no prayer and NEVER had a gun related incident.  Did it occur to any of you that these incidents might be (gasp!) isolated incidents?  Something to think about.
« Last Edit: June 04, 2007, 19:11:51 by Bobby Rico »
Hell looks alot like Parking Lot Echo.

Offline Teflon

  • I blame it on the MAGNETs in our drinking water
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 15,055
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 571
  • Insert Personal Text Here
Re: A Columbine Father Speaks Out
« Reply #74 on: June 05, 2007, 12:26:47 »
Quote
I went to schools with no prayer and NEVER had a gun related incident.  Did it occur to any of you that these incidents might be (gasp!) isolated incidents?  Something to think about.

So Lord's Prayer in school = guns in schools?  ::)

I went to a school that had the Lord's prayer in the morning and we never had a gun related incident either, as a matter of fact the Catholic school still has the Lord's Prayer and they havn't had a gun related incident either

When you meet somebody new,
don't get excited, because
9 out of ten times
they're stupid