1
   

HAVE U LESS RIGHT TO DEFEND YOUR LIFE IF U R STUDYING ?

 
 
USAFHokie80
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Aug, 2007 02:50 pm
i'm not talking about military grade guns. it has nothing to do with that.

i think you are focusing too much on "precision."

even a minor defect in the trajectory can markedly affect the path of a projectile as it exacerbates over distance.

this entire thing is really beside the point. guns are not nearly as easily made as david says. and the ones that are, are rudimentary and inefficient at best. the main objective still prevails in that the ability to efficient dispatch human life has been mitigated.
0 Replies
 
CZJAY
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Aug, 2007 04:15 pm
usaf hokie

your main objective is to disarm your comrades.

you dont seem to understand that cho had that ability, and no one challenged cho in the 10 minutes he was killing. you, va tech, and other universities need to change your mindset. trust worthy permit holding citizens authorized by the government, could have prevented cho from utilizing the full capability of his guns.

agrote, who lives in a gun free society, understands that you cannot prevent gun violence in this manner, at this time period.

the only way to prevent "efficient dispatch of human life" is to have permit holders, security guards, off duty officers, and on duty officers dispatch the shooter, there is no more efficient way to with this type of situation.

you seek to control the gun even though there is presently no way to do it.

i seek to control the criminal. i seek to make it as difficult as possible to commit a crime, get away with it and be alive.

cho commited murder after murder without resistance.
i dont want to see it happen again, that is why i am against you.

agrote proposed in the next century we have no guns, that is a force equalizer.

i propose there is an authorized person who is armed. that is a force equalizer.

you propose no one carry guns at va tech, i think you handing the criminal "the ability to efficiently dispatch human life". that is most definately NOT a force equalizer.

you have never challenged my argument, i feel that you cannot find a good solution to this problem.(that makes sense)
0 Replies
 
USAFHokie80
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Aug, 2007 10:01 pm
you said you seek to control the criminal and make it impossible to commit the crime...

but having other people with guns doesn't prevent the crime at all. it only allows more people the chance to kill.

if guns were extraordinarily hard to get, because they were banned... many of these things would never happen.
0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Aug, 2007 02:25 pm
Cho was only one of a number of school yard massacres in the US right? Weren't some other school massacres in the US carried out by children?

Because of all the talk about legal and illegal firearms...were the firearms carried by these people legal?

I also understand a number of Children have committed these massacres.

In Australia, most firearms murders are carried out by legal firearms (usually of the domestic murder/suicide variety)
0 Replies
 
agrote
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Aug, 2007 07:58 am
CZJAY wrote:
you seem to agree with my point as well.
as it is only fair to let permit holders and off duty police carry at va tech and elsewhere, until armed threats are removed from our society.


No, I disagree with that. Guns are banned on campus, and changing that would be a step in the wrong direction.

What I said was that guns needn't be confiscated from permit holders until the number of illegal guns has gone down significantly. Let the permit-holders keep their guns while you take away the criminal guns first. But in the meantime, in order to ensure that the number of guns in America goes down and not up, no more guns should be made or sold, and no permit holders should be allowed to carry guns in gun-free zonesl ike on campus.

If a law was passed allowing guns on campus, that would just encourage people to buy guns to carry on campus. More people would have guns. And if you armed the security staff, then again there would just be more guns around. Fighting fire with fire just creates more fire. The US is a big fire.

Quote:
the only problem is that you rely on the criminal to give up the gun.
i just dont trust them to do so. areas like chicago and new york have had gun turn in programs. all they usually get is junk that would not fire in the first place.


That was just one idea. An expert would be able to come up with a better one. It can't be impossible to take guns away from criminals.
0 Replies
 
CZJAY
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Aug, 2007 08:04 am
vikorr,

children are not allowed to own firearms or carry firearms in the public.
in rural areas some places allow a shotgun with limited capacity.

if you are talking about columbine, both the kids bought firearms illegally. state laws would not have allowed them buy firearms. it seems they bought them through a straw purchase. they also used improvised explosives, which are highly regulated by the ATF.

the technically shootings were still illegal as firearms were never allowed on k-12 school grounds. IT IS A FELONY.

the worst school massacre in america was the bath school massacre.
the murder used improvised explosives and dynomite to blow up a school.


i believe that most gun crimes occur from unregistered guns. the US has the most sophisicated gun registration system the world. a criminal with a gun registered to themselves are easily caught if a gun is found at the scene of a crime.

that is why i say that concealed carry permits are so important. in a place where firearms are commonplace, a legally licensed permit holder should not have a restriction on carry. preventing a concealed carry permit holder from carry does nothing to prevent the criminal from obtaining a gun and use it effectively.


usafhokie

you have a passivist way of looking at this situation.
i am a passivist as well... but i understand the need for trained people to be able to cancel out a dangeruous threat. saving even one life is worth allowing the carry of a gun.

va tech was a gun free area, this did not prevent the massacre.

i believe that there should have been someone there to stop him. someone with a gun. it does not matter if the gun was used to make cho surrender or to kill him. the gun is what was needed to prevent cho from continuing his murderous rampage.

even as a passivist, i am sure that you would rather see someone shoot cho, than to see him continue murdering other students.

you are partially right in that having guns doesnt prevent crime.
it does however prevent it from continuing. if a permit holder, security guard, policeman shot and killed cho in the beginning of the rampage 20+ lives could have been saved.

is that not worth letting permit holders carry?
0 Replies
 
CZJAY
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Aug, 2007 09:09 am
agrote

wow...
i misunderstood you completely...

are you saying that armed security should not be provided, off duty police not be able to carry concealed while at campus while taking a class, and permit holders not be able to carry elsewhere?

the entire point is that gun free zones lack security, and you are proposing that security guards not be armed as well? i am afraid that makes no sense to me.

you are basically encouraging va tech continue to do the same thing.

some other person will go nuts then what? no resistance... no way to defeat the murderer... no way to subdue the armed threat.
the same thing will happen again, only because you guarantee there be no armed resistance.

i think that you are going in the wrong direction...

gun free zones are the most attacked and massacred places in america. you should seek to make them more safe. by providing adequate security.

allowing guns on campus does not encourage people to buy a gun.
not feeling safe does.
massacres encourage gun sales, my local gun shop has seen a 25% increase in sales. people seek only to be protected. if adequate protection is not provided the people will seek to arm themselves, it is only natural. what you propose will cause more people to arm themselves.

sometimes you have to fight fire, with controlled burning. fire can be used to control and contain an out of control fire.
0 Replies
 
agrote
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Aug, 2007 09:11 am
CZJAY wrote:
saving even one life is worth allowing the carry of a gun.


Don't forget that criminal lives are as valuable as the lives of 'innocent' people (we're all human, after all). Guns are used to deter others from killing, but they are also used to kill. They take lives as well as save them. Wouldn't it be better to threaten criminals with a weapon that can only injure them, and not kill them?

Quote:
if a permit holder, security guard, policeman shot and killed cho in the beginning of the rampage 20+ lives could have been saved.

is that not worth letting permit holders carry?


If the sale of guns were banned and gun shops were closed, Cho would never have bought his gun and 20+ lives would have been saved (including his).

Is that not worth stopping the sale of guns?
0 Replies
 
agrote
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Aug, 2007 09:20 am
CZJAY wrote:
agrote

wow...
i misunderstood you completely...

are you saying that armed security should not be provided, off duty police not be able to carry concealed while at campus while taking a class, and permit holders not be able to carry elsewhere?

the entire point is that gun free zones lack security, and you are proposing that security guards not be armed as well? i am afraid that makes no sense to me.

you are basically encouraging va tech continue to do the same thing.

some other person will go nuts then what? no resistance... no way to defeat the murderer... no way to subdue the armed threat.
the same thing will happen again, only because you guarantee there be no armed resistance.

i think that you are going in the wrong direction...

gun free zones are the most attacked and massacred places in america. you should seek to make them more safe. by providing adequate security.

allowing guns on campus does not encourage people to buy a gun.
not feeling safe does.
massacres encourage gun sales, my local gun shop has seen a 25% increase in sales. people seek only to be protected. if adequate protection is not provided the people will seek to arm themselves, it is only natural. what you propose will cause more people to arm themselves.

sometimes you have to fight fire, with controlled burning. fire can be used to control and contain an out of control fire.


You've already made these arguments. You're restating what you know I disagree with. There's not much more I can add.

Remember that I think America should aim to wipe out guns completely (apart from in the army, or for hunting etc.). Rather than try to cope with gun violence with armed guards etc., and rather than subduing armed threats, I think you need to prevent gun violence and prevent armed threats. Guns are the root of gun violence. Destroy the root, and the plant will die.

This may mean that in the meantime, there will be more school massacres and that staff and students will again be unable to 'defend themselves' (i.e. attack the gunman) with firearms. But in the long-term, school massacres with will stop occuring, because there will be no guns.

Giving guns to guards, or abolishing existing gun-free zones, only deals with the short-term problem. And it conflicts with the long-term goal of ridding guns from your society, so it's unhelpful.
0 Replies
 
CZJAY
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Sep, 2007 10:54 am
agrote

you seem to agree with me that gun control will only increase gun violence at this point in time and for generations to come.

what if your plan doesnt work and were still confronted with gun violence 100s of years from now?

my short term solution is to provide protection for the students and faculty
i view them as important for the future of my country. people should seek to prevent them from harm in the present and in the future.

i also disagree with your support for gun free zones. they have never been proven to be any safer. and anti gun policies have never proven to deter crime.

i think both need to be abolished, as they are rarely enforced. they are yet another piece of useless legislation that has no teeth.

you dont seem to be totally against guns totally as you say they are needed for hunting, national defense, etc.(feel free to elaborate).

you should strive to end all types violence whether that be guns, knives, or sporting equipment. the only commonality is the all violence is commited by a violent person.

i say violent people are the root of all violence.
as you say destroy the root and the plant will die.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Sep, 2007 12:58 am
Supporting " gun control " is like supporting drunken driving:
its dangerous and reduces your chances to survive.

From Kitty Genovese, in N.Y.C., to Reginald Denny in L.A.,
citizens have found out the hard way that police can be away
for a long time when you need them. Shud your life depend on other people
who are not around ?
Is the natural right to self-defense limited to saints, angels
and perfect Americans? the elite?

Does discriminatory licensure of the right to effectively defend your life provide
" ...equal protection of the laws " ?
0 Replies
 
agrote
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Sep, 2007 09:31 am
CZJAY wrote:
you seem to agree with me that gun control will only increase gun violence at this point in time and for generations to come.


I'm afraid I disagree with that. Getting rid of practically all guns in your society might increase gun violence in the short term (e.g. if one criminal gang is disarmed, a rival gang might take the oppurtunity to attack them). But it would definitely not increase gun violence for generations to come. How could it?

Ineffective gun control laws might make things worse in the long-term. But successfully ridding America of guns could only reduce gun crime. I'm assuming that there is a way to successfully disarm America. You're assuming that there isn't. We'll have to agree to disagree on that point, because neither of us can be certain.

Quote:
what if your plan doesnt work and were still confronted with gun violence 100s of years from now?


Well if a team of experts were to define a much better plan (I'm no expert), then it seems that if you were still confronted with gun violence in 100 years time, it wouldn't be as extreme as it is now. I certainly think that gun violence could be greatly reduced if guns were no longer made or sold to the public, and if huge efforts were made to try and disarm criminals. Even if gun crime only went down very slightly, that's still something. 29,999 deaths is better than 30,000.

Quote:
my short term solution is to provide protection for the students and faculty
i view them as important for the future of my country. people should seek to prevent them from harm in the present and in the future.


But a short-term solution is just that: short-term. It keeps the problem under some control, but it doesn't make it go away. Wouldn't it be better to do what it takes to bring gun violence right down, so that future generations of students and academics are almost entirely safe from gun violence?

If the campus faculty were armed, Cho would only have killed, say, those first two people. But if there was no such thing as a gun shop, then Cho wouldn't even have killed the first two people, because he would never have bought a gun.

Quote:
i also disagree with your support for gun free zones.


I never expressed support for gun free zones. Gun free zones imply zones where guns are allowed, and I do not think that guns should be allowed anywhere. Your whole country should be a gun-free zone.

Quote:
and anti gun policies have never proven to deter crime.


There have never been anti-gun policies of the sort that I am putting forward. "No guns anywhere ever" is not a policy that you've tried out. It could work - you don't know yet.

Quote:
you should strive to end all types violence whether that be guns, knives, or sporting equipment.


Of course.

Quote:
the only commonality is the all violence is commited by a violent person.


Every human being is potentially a violent person. We are all potential criminals, in that we are capable of committing crimes under the right circumstances.

Quote:
i say violent people are the root of all violence.


Why do you think 'violent people' are violent?
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Sep, 2007 04:15 pm
In PLANNED PARENTHOOD v. CASEY (1992) 112 S.Ct. 2791 (P. 28O5)
the US Supreme Court declares that:
"...by the express provisions of the FIRST EIGHT amendments
to the Constitution" rights were "guaranteed to THE INDIVIDUAL ...
It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty
which the government may not enter." [emphasis added]
The 2nd Amendment is within "the first eight amendments".

The Court also adopted the Harlan dissent in POE v. ULLMAN 367 US 497 that:
"...'liberty' is not a series of isolated points...in terms of the taking of property;
the freedom of speech, press and religion; the RIGHT TO KEEP and BEAR ARMS;
the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures....
It is a rational continuum which...includes a freedom from all arbitrary impositions ..."[emphasis added]
(Notice no reference to any state government militia.)

The Supreme Court added that:
"All fundamental rights comprised within the term liberty
are protected by the federal Constitution from invasion by the states." PARENTHOOD (supra)

In GIDEON v. WAINWRIGHT (1963) 372 US 335
the US Supreme Court held that:
"this Court has looked to the FUNDAMENTAL nature of original Bill of Rights guarantees
to decide whether the Fourteenth Amendment makes
them obligatory on the States" [emphasis added]
hence, the 2nd Amendment forbids the states from controlling guns
if the right to guns for self-defense from violence of criminals or animals
is "fundamental" not trivial.

In said PARENTHOOD case, speaking of the right to reproductive autonomy,
the US Supreme Court used the following language
(in pertinent part, from perspective of the right to self-defense):

"Our law affords constitutional protection
to PERSONAL DECISIONS. ... Our cases re-
cognize 'the right of the individual ...
to be free from unwarranted governmental
intrusion into matters ... fundamentally
affecting a person'
.... These matters
involving the most intimate and PERSONAL
CHOICES a person may make in a lifetime,
choices central to PERSONAL DIGNITY and
AUTONOMY
, are central to the liberty pro-
tected by the 14th Amendment." (P. 28O7)
[emphasis added]

THE QUESTION OF WHETHER TO PEACEFULLY SUBMIT ("better Red than dead"),
to robbery or sexual violation (and/or to your own murder) OR
TO FORCEFULLY RESIST IS A "personal decision ...fundamentally affecting a person...
" bearing upon "...personal dignity and autonomy
...."

The individual citizen literally wagers his life on his choice.

David
0 Replies
 
CZJAY
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Sep, 2007 04:35 pm
agrote

as humans we are all capable of doing good as well as doing evil.
all intelligent beings have a choice.

there are many reasons for a person to turn violent.

you cant eliminate their reasons for violence. you cant eliminate all their implements. you cant control when they turn violent. you cant control what type of crime they commit.

you and other individuals can only react to the situation.
whether you fight back or not is up to you. that is your decision.
i choose to fight back and i choose a gun.
i am glad you dont live in canada, they seem to prohibit nonlethal as well as lethal defense.

i dont think violence will go away, through bans of any sort.

if anything we need to ban automobiles as they have killed more innocent people than illegal guns ever have.
0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Sep, 2007 04:37 pm
Quote:
you and other individuals can only react to the situation.
whether you fight back or not is up to you. that is your decision.
i choose to fight back and i choose a gun.


Please excuse me for being picky, but 'fighting back' is 'only reacting', so the message of the paragraph is confusing.
0 Replies
 
averner
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Sep, 2007 01:00 am
It's really sad, I can't even bring my knives, sword, chain, and various reactive chemical compounds to my dorm to defend myself..

Before guns are even mentioned we need to allow weapons in general..

But really, what are the laws on carrying a concealed blade? Varying depending on whether its a sword or knife?
0 Replies
 
agrote
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Sep, 2007 02:28 am
CZJAY wrote:
i am glad you dont live in canada, they seem to prohibit nonlethal as well as lethal defense.


And don't they have less violent crime than the USA? WHat does that tell you?

Quote:
i dont think violence will go away, through bans of any sort.


Of course violence won't go away. But it can be reduced if we impose limits on the number of killing machines in circulation.

Quote:
if anything we need to ban automobiles as they have killed more innocent people than illegal guns ever have.


The difference, of course, is that when you ban cars you don't just eradicate dangerous machines. You lose a convenient mode of transport. What would you lose if every single handgun in the USA were melted down? You'd just lose a convenient way to murder people.

If the harmful consequences of cars outweigh the beneficial consequences, then they should be banned (or made to be less dangerous). But there's no question about guns... all they do is harm.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Sep, 2007 04:22 pm
agrote wrote:
CZJAY wrote:
i am glad you dont live in canada, they seem to prohibit nonlethal as well as lethal defense.


Quote:
And don't they have less violent crime than the USA?
WHat does that tell you?

That Canadia is an authoritarian society,
where personal freedom is held in contempt.





Quote:
i dont think violence will go away, through bans of any sort.


Quote:
Of course violence won't go away.
But it can be reduced if we impose limits on the number of killing machines in circulation.

Those limits wud apply ONLY to those victims
who choose to be law abiding citizens,
not to criminal predators, until u convince criminals to obey the law.






Quote:
if anything we need to ban automobiles as they have killed more innocent people than illegal guns ever have.


Quote:
The difference, of course, is that when you ban cars you don't just eradicate dangerous machines.
You lose a convenient mode of transport.
What would you lose if every single handgun in the USA were melted down?
You'd just lose a convenient way to murder people.

No.
1 ) U 'd lose the means of preservation of life of the victims of violence,
and u promote and accept USURPATION of forbidden authority by government.

2 ) Let 's not ignore the fact that defensively killing violent criminals,
red-handed, during their crimes,
is a very valuable service to the decent people.




Quote:
If the harmful consequences of cars outweigh the beneficial consequences,
then they should be banned (or made to be less dangerous).

But there's no question about guns... all they do is harm.
Baloney !
Every citizen shud be required to carry an MP 5,
for crime reduction, and public schools shud train their students
in safe n accurate gunnery practice.

Violent recidivists shud be BANISHED
and removed from the North American Continent.

David
0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Sep, 2007 04:55 pm
Quote:
Baloney !
Every citizen shud be required to carry an MP 5,
for crime reduction, and public schools shud train their students
in safe n accurate gunnery practice.

International stats don't support your assertion that guns reduce crime - see the stats provided in your other guns thread.

Quote:
Violent recidivists shud be BANISHED
and removed from the North American Continent.


Which country would accept them?
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Sep, 2007 04:59 pm
I'm thinking, David, that the more you most re your ideas, the more you move people to reject wing-nut ideas such as your own. Keep up the good work.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 01/23/2022 at 03:38:33