|
|
 |
|
|
Pages: 1
teen uses cop gun 2 kill classmates
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)
Posted by: Fury451
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/03/22/sc...ting/index.html
the best part about this is , all them gun control ppl who are always yappin about the need 4 stricter gun laws whenever theres a shooting : where are they now ? this time they aint said shit . not a word about the case . wierd huh ?
Posted by: SKYHN
The gun control people havent said anything because they know the Anti-GTA people have got it covered.
Posted by: Fury451
"anti gta" ? 
Posted by: redwench
why would gun control advocates feel the need to comment? although you have to wonder where he came up with the 22.
Posted by: Fury451
yeah thats the point the.22 wuz his grandpas police gun i guess
Posted by: SKYHN
 Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fury451
"anti gta" ? |
Grand Theft Auto.
You can do exactly what this kid did on GTA.
Posted by: Fury451
oh that game , ok 
never bought it but i played it once at a friends tho . not my type of game but it wuz kinda fun 4 a moment then it got boring after a while
Posted by: redwench
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fury451
yeah thats the point the.22 wuz his grandpas police gun i guess
|
nope, read the story again. police dont issue 22s at any rate, theyre either 38s or 9mm or something comparable.
Posted by: Spork Lover
Americans have one of the most educated societies (Im sure to some of you this is an arguable point, but Im not here to argue this), but IMHO, but we are some lazy mofos and always try to take the easy way out. gun control the way GCA want it is not the way.... it will not make it any harder for a criminal to buy a gun. To some extent it is part of the solution but it is not the whole solution. The other part is education. In-grain it into the young children that guns are not a toy, and even though the constitutions says you have a right to own a gun....its really a privaldge. The younger the better.... often lessons that children form when they are young stick with them for life. Although I don't completely buy into the tv violence thing, I do buy into being careful about what you expose a young child to, and TV violence is definitely not one of them.
My lowly opinion, it would take time to implement and see results, but gun control is not the answer cause you will always have wack jobs like this guy that will get a hold of a gun and kill people.
Posted by: redwench
no rational person would think that gun control would prevent planned gun crimes. thats not what its about really, thats just the emotional rhetoric. gun control would, in theory at least, prevent accidental deaths and impulse gun crimes. like getting in an arguement with your spouse and shooting them. obviously, youre not going to prevent someone from robbing a bank or assassinating someone wiyh gun control. thats just irrational.
Posted by: IceBreaker
Red> .38 = 9mm...
Also, accidental deaths make up only a tiny proportion of gun-related, um, "crimes" - and since they're not even crimes they shouldn't be counted as such anyways. For cars also make up formidable weapons as well as makeshift coffins for reckless drivers (ie. accidental deaths) - imagine the number of lives spared if cars were to be banned (and yes there are modern countries that do fine without them)! http://forum.presence-pc.com/images/perso/kryten.gif
As for impulse crimes, the only form of gun control that might prevent this (although it wouldn't have in the present case http://forum.presence-pc.com/icones/smilies/whistle.gif ) would be banning ALL kinds of firearms outright, stripping your Constitution of its 2nd amendment & disarming the entire civilian population - most assuredly against their will - with the various inconveniences that this would entail, I believe you & I have already discussed that. Besides, as you said this would do nothing to prevent more serious crimes such as murder, which IMO should be of far more immediate concern (worst case scenario: robber kills unarmed couple in their own home - gun control would only trigger a spectacular rise in such crimes as we've already seen in some parts of Europe  )
Posted by: Bix VT
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IceBreaker
Red> .38 = 9mm...
|
not when it comes to standard issue police sidearms.
here's what an old style .38 would fire
http://www.kyimports.com/ammo/feder...8%20special.jpg
and here's what a modern cop's 9mm would fire:
http://www.ammoman.com/images/9mm-amer-eagle124.jpg
similar diameter? sure. but certainly not the same round.
Posted by: sidefx52
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Spork Lover
The other part is education. In-grain it into the young children that guns are not a toy, and even though the constitutions says you have a right to own a gun....its really a privaldge. The younger the better.... often lessons that children form when they are young stick with them for life.
|
I'm sure that this kid knew exactly what he was doing. You can't be 16, pissed off, take a gun to school, kill people, then kill yourself if you thought guns were toys.
I remember being in highschool and getting picked on and wanting to retailliate in some form. I never killed or hurt anybody since I'm not a homicidal maniac, but that doesn't mean that I wasn't angry.
In cases like this one you can't blame videogames, media, or even parents. All you can blame is the kid who did it. In the end it was his emotions that drove him to do it.
Posted by: dburg322
Quote:
|
In cases like this one you can't blame videogames, media, or even parents. All you can blame is the kid who did it. In the end it was his emotions that drove him to do it.
|
I disagree, if someone would have paid attention to the kid and made sure that he was emotionally okay (which is what parents are for) then he may not have felt that way. If a parents talks to their kid on a daily basis (the basic how was school, how was your day, etc.) then they form a good relationship.
The problem is, many parents today don't act this way. A bunch of my friends parents don't have a good relationship with their kid and the only thing that keeps them in line sometimes is their friends.
Posted by: sidefx52
If you're going blame the parents for having a bad relationship with their child, then can you also blame the other kids who made this one feel the way he did? Or maybe you can blame those children's parents too. If they brought their children up "correctly" then they would know not to tease other kids in school and then this kid would never had done what he did.
See what I'm getting at? I'm not saying that bad parenting didn't contribute to the problem, I'm just saying it was the kids fault that he shot up his school. He should be the only one held responsible not his parents. I too have friends that have f-ed up relationships with their parents. They are also the kids that I see abuse alcohol and drugs and are more likely to do extreme things, but none of them have shot anybody. Although if they did it would be their choice.
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dburg322
Quote:
|
In cases like this one you can't blame videogames, media, or even parents. All you can blame is the kid who did it. In the end it was his emotions that drove him to do it.
|
I disagree, if someone would have paid attention to the kid and made sure that he was emotionally okay (which is what parents are for) then he may not have felt that way. |
And I beg to differ - I concede that outside influence may be a minor parameter, but that's about it. For how would you explain that some kids, raised by responsible parents & showered with all the attention they could ask for still ended up becoming serial killers later on in life, whilst on the other hand you get some kids who, despite being brought up in a "hostile" environment (to say the least), grew up into perfectly respectable & honest citizens?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sidefx52
I'm sure that this kid knew exactly what he was doing. You can't be 16, pissed off, take a gun to school, kill people, then kill yourself if you thought guns were toys.
I remember being in highschool and getting picked on and wanting to retailliate in some form. I never killed or hurt anybody since I'm not a homicidal maniac
|
For once, I agree -
Mere provocation is nowhere near a reason or even an excuse for going out on a shooting spree.
There's a saying that goes, "a true british boy fights with his fists" - granted it's british, but there's no reason it shouldn't apply to non-british people as well http://forum.presence-pc.com/images/perso/kryten.gif
Posted by: TheeMon
about gun control- it only stops lawful people from having guns... criminals will get cuns no matter what
i seem to remember someone(high up) in the military on some debate with(some chick whos into gun control) and the chick was like well dont guns kill people(or something) and the military dude was like, just because you have the capablity to be a prostitute doesnt mean your gonna go stand on a corner... (i think red knows what im talking about) either way that didnt make sence to yall but it would have if you knew WTF i was talking about
the above paragrapgh is why i let people like red argue my points for me(kuz i f it up)
Posted by: 9:35
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by TheeMon
just because you have the capablity to be a prostitute doesnt mean your gonna go stand on a corner... (i think red knows what im talking about)
|
LOL
thats the funniest ****ing thing i've ever read on this forum
Posted by: redwench
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IceBreaker
Also, accidental deaths make up only a tiny proportion of gun-related, um, "crimes"
|
not here sonny. a good portion, if not the majority, of gun injuries and deaths are accidental. because any idiot and his children can get their hands on a gun.
Quote:
|
a spectacular rise in such crimes as we've already seen in some parts of Europe
|
yeah, ive seen it. one person getting shot in the UK makes front page headlines on the BBC. several people shot to death here is page 3 or lower for nonlocal news sources, unless its a school shooting of course  a nice workplace shooting spree here last month left several dead, and i bet most of the people that read this forum never heard a word about it
you brits ideas of spectacular numbers astounds us 
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by redwench
not here sonny. a good portion, if not the majority, of gun injuries and deaths are accidental. because any idiot and his children can get their hands on a gun.
|
What I stated was following an article I read in the Time magazine (4 years ago, though). Perhaps you could provide more up-to-date and reliable (if you deem the mags I cited unreliable) figures?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by redwench
yeah, ive seen it. one person getting shot in the UK makes front page headlines on the BBC. several people shot to death here is page 3 or lower for nonlocal news sources, unless its a school shooting of course a nice workplace shooting spree here last month left several dead, and i bet most of the people that read this forum never heard a word about it
|
Oh I see - so you launched your own overseas inquiry into the matter & found out that the rise in such crime rates decried even by local UK news since the ban was in fact spurious, and belied only sparse & sporadic outbursts of violence at best..
Impressive (...)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by redwench
you brits ideas of spectacular numbers astounds us |
I'm glad it does http://forum.presence-pc.com/icones/smilies/kaola.gif ^^
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by TheeMon
someone(high up) in the military on some debate with(some chick whos into gun control) and the chick was like well dont guns kill people(or something) and the military dude was like, just because you have the capablity to be a prostitute doesnt mean your gonna go stand on a corner... (i think red knows what im talking about)
|
Affirmative, here's the exact account of what was said:
Quote:
FEMALE INTERVIEWER: "So, Mr. Reid, what things are you going to teach these young boys when they visit the convention and your NRA camp?"
GENERAL REINWALD: "We're going to teach them climbing, canoeing, archery, and shooting."
FEMALE INTERVIEWER: "SHOOTING! That's a bit irresponsible isn't it?"
GENERAL REINWALD: "I don't see why, they'll be properly supervised on the rifle and archery ranges."
FEMALE INTERVIEWER: "Don't you admit that this is a terribly dangerous activity to be teaching children?"
GENERAL REINWALD: "I don't see how. We will be teaching them proper rifle range discipline before they even touch a firearm or bow."
FEMALE INTERVIEWER: "But you're equipping them to become violent killers."
GENERAL REINWALD: "Well, you're equipped to be a prostitute, but you're not one, are you?"
|
http://forum.presence-pc.com/images/perso/ddr555.gif
Posted by: sidefx52
now while i don't blame the parents, if they saw this http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0323051weise1.html
and did nothing about it then they are way f-ed up too.
Posted by: Bix VT
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IceBreaker
|
could you please provide me with a link to that?
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bix VT
could you please provide me with a link to that?
|
? A quick search returns quite a few results -
here for example (scroll down)
Too bad the US Army denies the existence of this general, though - more than a story, t'would have made a nice anecdote had an army officer really been involved in the conversation 
Posted by: TheeMon
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IceBreaker
....
|
ohh my (word i cant say) or just hell yeah lol
Posted by: TwiztidJuggalo
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Spork Lover
and even though the constitutions says you have a right to own a gun....its really a privaldge.
|
No....It's a right. Priveleges can be taken away, but rights cannot. We also have a Constitutional right to free speech, speedy and public trial by an impartial jury, no unreasonable searches and seizures, freedom of assembly, etc.; under your argument, these are all priveleges and I would love to see you try to take away those rights and see how far you get. Actions by our judiciary to prohibit free exercise of religion as well as gun control are unconstitutional.
have a nice day
-matt
Posted by: IceBreaker
I surmise he meant it's a de facto privilege...
History has shown that just because something is laid down in a Constitution doesn't mean it's always respected ; ) This is not about the judiciary, but the executive - for example when you mention "no unreasonable searches and seizures"... you may rest assured that regardless of the legality of such procedures, the authorities will always devise a way to make them legal - I believe recent events will succour them in this respect ; ) Thus the question as to whether Homeland Security Act or Patriot Act may or may not pass constitutional muster is, alas, of little concern to them - a constitution may grant you a right, but might is also right...
Posted by: Spork Lover
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by TwiztidJuggalo
No....It's a right. Priveleges can be taken away, but rights cannot. We also have a Constitutional right to free speech, speedy and public trial by an impartial jury, no unreasonable searches and seizures, freedom of assembly, etc.; under your argument, these are all priveleges and I would love to see you try to take away those rights and see how far you get. Actions by our judiciary to prohibit free exercise of religion as well as gun control are unconstitutional.
have a nice day
-matt
|
It's a right if you look at it strictly from the standpoint of the law... which I agree with.... but it's a luxury and still a privalge.
Ice hit it on the nail... its a de facto (I lack a better term) privalege
Posted by: sidefx52
i like the assortment of spellings on the word privilege.
Posted by: Spork Lover
Love the grammer patrol
Privilege is one of those words that owns me when I sound it out. Besides.... incorrect spelling of the word doesnt deminish the message won bit at awl.
Posted by: sidefx52
i too am a horrible speller. i just thought it was interesting that there was there or four different ways of spelling it going around.
|
|
|
|
|
