|
On March 27 2009 02:38 Nytefish wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2009 02:26 Caller wrote:On March 27 2009 02:19 dream-_- wrote:On March 27 2009 00:30 Rice wrote:On March 27 2009 00:24 Ace wrote:
What the FUCK do the gun laws have to do with this? the same thing marilyn manson had to do with columbine.......nothing, just a scapegoat umm it has to do with the fact that things like this wouldnt happen if kids didnt have access to guns? its just as easy for a crazy person to kill people, regardlses of whether or not there are guns. Take the Japan crazy guy in a truck/knife stabbings. Without guns, the incentives criminals have are reduced. When the hell was the last time you heard of criminals robbing a gunshop, shooting range, or any of those places? If people have guns, even if they don't use them, the fact that criminals know that their crimes may result in their death is an incentive that works against crime. And if someone is determined to kill somebody, it is just as easy to do it with a crowbar or a baseball bat as it is with a gun. Hell, they could get a bow and fucking arrow, or use a molotov cocktail, or buy a gun illegally, or w/e. People behave according to incentives: if the incentives against something outweigh the incentives for, they won't do it. Isn't that crazy japanese guy an example of how not being able to easily obtain a gun means less people die?
if somebody else on the street had a gun loss of life wouldve been minimized.
That same guy could have easily gotten a molotov cocktail (legally) and thrown it at a building, burning it down and killing hundreds of people. Should we ban matches, cloths, and wine?
Or he could've stayed in the truck and just ran people over. Should we make trucks harder to obtain?
If anything, this is a counterexample of that.
|
Only on teamliquid... can an 11 year old blow somebody's brains out and the conversation jumps immediately to the gun. Not how or why an 11 year old would want to shoot somebody in the face, but why was he able to get his hands on a gun to satisfy his urge? Things like this wouldn't happen if guns weren't so available? How about those 2 kids in England that beat and murdered the 4 year old and left his body on the train tracks to be ran over? They didn't seem to need a gun.
|
On March 23 2009 14:01 Savio wrote:
I think that God put us here on earth in large part so we could learning what is right and wrong and learn to choose the right without being coerced. Some laws (of what is good) are probably unchanging to which God himself conforms (like the principles/laws of mercy and justice), while other laws define something as "good" or "bad" simply because God commanded it so. For example, in the Garden of Eden, God commanded them not to eat of a certain tree. There is nothing inherently wrong about eating off a tree but it was wrong because doing so would be blatant disobedience to our parent. Other laws have been transitory like the Law of Moses, but the law of sacrifice has always existed in one form or another (animal sacrifice, or a "broken heart and contrite spirit).
In short, it goes either way. But there IS a wrong and a right that is not just what we choose it to be. For someone who doesn't believe in God (as Idra just explained), there is no real wrong or right, but just what is evolutionarily advantageous.
We need to learn to chose what we know is right when we are given the option between right and wrong. That is where there must not be coercion. Is God made us choose the right, then we would not progress. Also, if we still lived with him in heaven we couldn't really have the opportunity to choose between good and evil because there isn't evil there. So this place is the perfect training grounds for learning to make correct choices.
So to answer your question, he gave us the ability to KNOW good from evil and what we are learning is how to CHOOSE good instead of evil when both are offered to us. When we can do that, we will be much more capable, powerful, perfect than we were before we came here.
But since he knew we would mess up from time to time and since God cannot rob justice (someone has to suffer for every sin committed), he sent Christ to suffer the sum of all our guilt, pain, and punishments (just like how lambs in the Law of Moses would die in the place of the sinner, Jesus is the Lamb of God who was sacrificed just like all those lambs during the time of Moses. That was all symbolic of what was about to happen). Then because Christ payed the debt, he can set the terms by which we can return to him (the Gospel of Jesus Christ).
I have argued that all the bad (meaning the physical suffering) that happens in this life is as irrelevant as a half second itch because by an eternal perspective (and we are eternal being who have existed forever and will exist forever), 70 years is much shorter than a half second feels to us. In the long run, EVERYBODY in the world will receive much better things from God than we by ourselves deserve. THIS is the goodness of God. You can't judge his goodness by looking at the bad things that happen here and now. You have to at least attempt to view things from his perspective (that is an eternal perspective), then things that you thought were important are no longer important and other things are.
One way to think of things is to image God as a parent and us as a 2 year old (most deep doctrines about God are to be seen through the use of symbolism, this is why Christ taught in parables). 2 year olds get VERY emotional when another kid takes their toy for example (I have a 2 year old so I see this). When some sad thing happens to him, his face shows shear agony. I am serious, it is AGONY. Remembering back as far as I can, I can vaguely remember very strong feelings of anger and sadness when my brother would steal my toy or knock me down. They were strong and very real emotions.
Now, as parents, we know that it is not a serious problem that his toy is gone and we also know that he will feel better very soon. Sometimes we intervene and give the toy back but sometimes we punish them both for fighting in the first place and sometimes we just ignore them and let the injustice stand. That does not make us bad parents. It is not child abuse, but from the kids perspective, there is real suffering. So could the 2 year old, use the injustice that he sees as proof that his parents don't love him? Is letting an injustice stand show that the parent is unjust?
Actually all it shows is that the kid's perspective is different from the parent. In reality, there is nothing "fair" about what the kid gets from his parents. They give him EVERYTHING he has and do EVERYTHING for him. The kid is getting way more than he earns by whatever little good deed he does.
The same is true of us. We see bad things happen (even lost limbs). God does not intervene but we don't realize that the lost limb is not important because God has already ensured that we will all be resurrected some day and live for eternity with a perfect body. What does it matter that we missed a limb for a few years compared to eons with a perfect body?
The only difference in this analogy is that God temporarily took from us our memory of our life before being born and does not live with us here where we can see him. His purpose in doing this is to help teach us to choose right even when wrong is available and enticing and to do it when we think no one is watching.
Think about it. What would make you happier, if your kid shares their toy with another kid when you are sitting right there ready to intervene, or if you are peeking around the corner and you see your kid sharing and being nice? In the 2nd instance you know that the intentions are pure (and that the lesson was really learned) while in the first it might be affected by your presence.
So if you want to make sense of this world and God, you have to look at it not as someone in this world but as an eternal being looking at it from way out seeing eternity in both the past and the present.
|
On March 27 2009 02:48 BackHo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2009 14:01 Savio wrote:
I think that God put us here on earth in large part so we could learning what is right and wrong and learn to choose the right without being coerced. Some laws (of what is good) are probably unchanging to which God himself conforms (like the principles/laws of mercy and justice), while other laws define something as "good" or "bad" simply because God commanded it so. For example, in the Garden of Eden, God commanded them not to eat of a certain tree. There is nothing inherently wrong about eating off a tree but it was wrong because doing so would be blatant disobedience to our parent. Other laws have been transitory like the Law of Moses, but the law of sacrifice has always existed in one form or another (animal sacrifice, or a "broken heart and contrite spirit).
In short, it goes either way. But there IS a wrong and a right that is not just what we choose it to be. For someone who doesn't believe in God (as Idra just explained), there is no real wrong or right, but just what is evolutionarily advantageous.
We need to learn to chose what we know is right when we are given the option between right and wrong. That is where there must not be coercion. Is God made us choose the right, then we would not progress. Also, if we still lived with him in heaven we couldn't really have the opportunity to choose between good and evil because there isn't evil there. So this place is the perfect training grounds for learning to make correct choices.
So to answer your question, he gave us the ability to KNOW good from evil and what we are learning is how to CHOOSE good instead of evil when both are offered to us. When we can do that, we will be much more capable, powerful, perfect than we were before we came here.
But since he knew we would mess up from time to time and since God cannot rob justice (someone has to suffer for every sin committed), he sent Christ to suffer the sum of all our guilt, pain, and punishments (just like how lambs in the Law of Moses would die in the place of the sinner, Jesus is the Lamb of God who was sacrificed just like all those lambs during the time of Moses. That was all symbolic of what was about to happen). Then because Christ payed the debt, he can set the terms by which we can return to him (the Gospel of Jesus Christ).
I have argued that all the bad (meaning the physical suffering) that happens in this life is as irrelevant as a half second itch because by an eternal perspective (and we are eternal being who have existed forever and will exist forever), 70 years is much shorter than a half second feels to us. In the long run, EVERYBODY in the world will receive much better things from God than we by ourselves deserve. THIS is the goodness of God. You can't judge his goodness by looking at the bad things that happen here and now. You have to at least attempt to view things from his perspective (that is an eternal perspective), then things that you thought were important are no longer important and other things are.
One way to think of things is to image God as a parent and us as a 2 year old (most deep doctrines about God are to be seen through the use of symbolism, this is why Christ taught in parables). 2 year olds get VERY emotional when another kid takes their toy for example (I have a 2 year old so I see this). When some sad thing happens to him, his face shows shear agony. I am serious, it is AGONY. Remembering back as far as I can, I can vaguely remember very strong feelings of anger and sadness when my brother would steal my toy or knock me down. They were strong and very real emotions.
Now, as parents, we know that it is not a serious problem that his toy is gone and we also know that he will feel better very soon. Sometimes we intervene and give the toy back but sometimes we punish them both for fighting in the first place and sometimes we just ignore them and let the injustice stand. That does not make us bad parents. It is not child abuse, but from the kids perspective, there is real suffering. So could the 2 year old, use the injustice that he sees as proof that his parents don't love him? Is letting an injustice stand show that the parent is unjust?
Actually all it shows is that the kid's perspective is different from the parent. In reality, there is nothing "fair" about what the kid gets from his parents. They give him EVERYTHING he has and do EVERYTHING for him. The kid is getting way more than he earns by whatever little good deed he does.
The same is true of us. We see bad things happen (even lost limbs). God does not intervene but we don't realize that the lost limb is not important because God has already ensured that we will all be resurrected some day and live for eternity with a perfect body. What does it matter that we missed a limb for a few years compared to eons with a perfect body?
The only difference in this analogy is that God temporarily took from us our memory of our life before being born and does not live with us here where we can see him. His purpose in doing this is to help teach us to choose right even when wrong is available and enticing and to do it when we think no one is watching.
Think about it. What would make you happier, if your kid shares their toy with another kid when you are sitting right there ready to intervene, or if you are peeking around the corner and you see your kid sharing and being nice? In the 2nd instance you know that the intentions are pure (and that the lesson was really learned) while in the first it might be affected by your presence.
So if you want to make sense of this world and God, you have to look at it not as someone in this world but as an eternal being looking at it from way out seeing eternity in both the past and the present.
wat
|
On March 27 2009 02:42 Caller wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2009 02:38 Nytefish wrote:On March 27 2009 02:26 Caller wrote:On March 27 2009 02:19 dream-_- wrote:On March 27 2009 00:30 Rice wrote:On March 27 2009 00:24 Ace wrote:
What the FUCK do the gun laws have to do with this? the same thing marilyn manson had to do with columbine.......nothing, just a scapegoat umm it has to do with the fact that things like this wouldnt happen if kids didnt have access to guns? its just as easy for a crazy person to kill people, regardlses of whether or not there are guns. Take the Japan crazy guy in a truck/knife stabbings. Without guns, the incentives criminals have are reduced. When the hell was the last time you heard of criminals robbing a gunshop, shooting range, or any of those places? If people have guns, even if they don't use them, the fact that criminals know that their crimes may result in their death is an incentive that works against crime. And if someone is determined to kill somebody, it is just as easy to do it with a crowbar or a baseball bat as it is with a gun. Hell, they could get a bow and fucking arrow, or use a molotov cocktail, or buy a gun illegally, or w/e. People behave according to incentives: if the incentives against something outweigh the incentives for, they won't do it. Isn't that crazy japanese guy an example of how not being able to easily obtain a gun means less people die? if somebody else on the street had a gun loss of life wouldve been minimized. That same guy could have easily gotten a molotov cocktail (legally) and thrown it at a building, burning it down and killing hundreds of people. Should we ban matches, cloths, and wine? Or he could've stayed in the truck and just ran people over. Should we make trucks harder to obtain? If anything, this is a counterexample of that.
first of all you woulnt kill hundrds, second u need a very specific location and plan to carry it out, you cant just go out and throw it in the middle of the street or you will fail.
You are a fucking retarded if you think there are means as effective and fast than going to the store and buy an M16.
so according to you, people should be allowed to have a nuclear weapon too right?... oh but you invaded a country on those premises fuck... incongruence.
|
wow.. i need to get myself a gun so i can protect myself from these crazy kiddies.
|
On March 27 2009 01:13 NeonFlare wrote:
If there was no gun the kid might have used something else, such as kitchen knife or hammer.
Who knows, he was probably not only deeply jealous and engulfed in envy, but also desperate or just overall crazy.
Regardless of what sentece they are going to give him, it's likely that he will suffer even more if he ever realizes the gravity of his actions.
You realize an 11yo cant kill both of their parents with a fucking hammer right? dumbass
|
On March 27 2009 02:24 Rice wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2009 02:19 dream-_- wrote:On March 27 2009 00:30 Rice wrote:On March 27 2009 00:24 Ace wrote:
What the FUCK do the gun laws have to do with this? the same thing marilyn manson had to do with columbine.......nothing, just a scapegoat umm it has to do with the fact that things like this wouldnt happen if kids didnt have access to guns? yeah he couldnt use any of the other 17284864585 items around a typical household that could be used as a deadly weapon. the kid obviously has a problem and if something like this happened at 11 what if you took the guns away? then he still does something later in life because hes obviously not a sane individual.
1, we cant say if he would have killed her if he didnt have access to a gun.
2, I dont think it takes someone at 11 to be mentally unstable. An 11 year old prolly doesn't even know what murder means, how can you expect him to completely understand what he is doing? To lock this kid up for life would be nothing but a waste of taxpayer money, an increase on an already overflowing criminal justice system, not to mention throwing away a life.
I think minors being sentenced as adults is absurd. Thanks to Measure 11 that was passed in Oregon not too long ago, my 15 year old brother was recently sentenced to 8 years in jail. I understand the whole 'tough on crime' stance, but sending a 15 year old to jail for that long for robbery is unthinkable. He is not a danger to society in any way. He is an idiot kid from a bad neighborhood who started hanging out with the wrong people and helped break into some guys house because of peer pressure.
In rare instances is this a good thing for society in any way, and more often than not it traps kids into a life of crime or mediocrity.
|
On March 27 2009 02:31 Jaksiel wrote:
I'm pretty sure studies have shown that people who purchase guns to "defend themselves" are much more likely to injure or kill members of their own family than theoretical criminals. The argument is ridiculous.
Yup, I've read studies like this too. In Sweden no one has guns, does many people get killed by criminals? Not really.
|
On March 27 2009 02:49 Caller wrote:
wat
ALL have sinned and fall short of God's "expectation". Sin is not something you do, it is a condition that we as humans are literally born with. Just like the flu is a disease with symptoms that manifest itself as sneezing, coughing, fever, etc. SIN, as a condition, manifests itself in our actions (selfishness, jealousy, bitterness, lying, etc). We call these bad things we do "sin", but the reality is that the problem is deeper. Because I believe that sin is a condition, rather than things we do, I believe that even babies are born in this condition of sin. Do I believe that many churches teach that children are sinners? I think that any church that teaches the Bible should teach this. Romans 3:23... "all have sinned." I believe that we achieve salvation, not thru our own actions, but by God's action on the cross. This is what the Bible calls GRACE. None of us deserve salvation, since all fall short. So salvation is a GIFT from God through His son Jesus Christ. For the visual, Jesus bridges the gap (sin) between us and God. We can be reconciled to God because of Jesus' death on the cross. I believe this is the only unforgivable sin: to deny Jesus Christ.
|
On March 27 2009 02:56 BackHo wrote:ALL have sinned and fall short of God's "expectation". Sin is not something you do, it is a condition that we as humans are literally born with. Just like the flu is a disease with symptoms that manifest itself as sneezing, coughing, fever, etc. SIN, as a condition, manifests itself in our actions (selfishness, jealousy, bitterness, lying, etc). We call these bad things we do "sin", but the reality is that the problem is deeper. Because I believe that sin is a condition, rather than things we do, I believe that even babies are born in this condition of sin. Do I believe that many churches teach that children are sinners? I think that any church that teaches the Bible should teach this. Romans 3:23... "all have sinned." I believe that we achieve salvation, not thru our own actions, but by God's action on the cross. This is what the Bible calls GRACE. None of us deserve salvation, since all fall short. So salvation is a GIFT from God through His son Jesus Christ. For the visual, Jesus bridges the gap (sin) between us and God. We can be reconciled to God because of Jesus' death on the cross. I believe this is the only unforgivable sin: to deny Jesus Christ.
A thread about gun control, life and death sentences, trying minors as adults and now religion.
I'm gonna give this 5.. no 4 pages before it's closed.
|
On March 27 2009 03:00 Hans-Titan wrote:
A thread about gun control, life and death sentences, trying minors as adults and now religion.
I'm gonna give this 5.. no 4 pages before it's closed.
I just think that abortion is wrong, even though some may argue that it would have been better if this child had not been born.
|
On March 27 2009 02:50 baal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2009 02:42 Caller wrote:On March 27 2009 02:38 Nytefish wrote:On March 27 2009 02:26 Caller wrote:On March 27 2009 02:19 dream-_- wrote:On March 27 2009 00:30 Rice wrote:On March 27 2009 00:24 Ace wrote:
What the FUCK do the gun laws have to do with this? the same thing marilyn manson had to do with columbine.......nothing, just a scapegoat umm it has to do with the fact that things like this wouldnt happen if kids didnt have access to guns? its just as easy for a crazy person to kill people, regardlses of whether or not there are guns. Take the Japan crazy guy in a truck/knife stabbings. Without guns, the incentives criminals have are reduced. When the hell was the last time you heard of criminals robbing a gunshop, shooting range, or any of those places? If people have guns, even if they don't use them, the fact that criminals know that their crimes may result in their death is an incentive that works against crime. And if someone is determined to kill somebody, it is just as easy to do it with a crowbar or a baseball bat as it is with a gun. Hell, they could get a bow and fucking arrow, or use a molotov cocktail, or buy a gun illegally, or w/e. People behave according to incentives: if the incentives against something outweigh the incentives for, they won't do it. Isn't that crazy japanese guy an example of how not being able to easily obtain a gun means less people die? if somebody else on the street had a gun loss of life wouldve been minimized. That same guy could have easily gotten a molotov cocktail (legally) and thrown it at a building, burning it down and killing hundreds of people. Should we ban matches, cloths, and wine? Or he could've stayed in the truck and just ran people over. Should we make trucks harder to obtain? If anything, this is a counterexample of that. first of all you woulnt kill hundrds, second u need a very specific location and plan to carry it out, you cant just go out and throw it in the middle of the street or you will fail. You are a fucking retarded if you think there are means as effective and fast than going to the store and buy an M16. so according to you, people should be allowed to have a nuclear weapon too right?... oh but you invaded a country on those premises fuck... incongruence.
a) Tokyo, Akihambra. Very crowded.
b) Crowded as hell street, if you're crazy you'll do all sorts of irrational things. You're looking at committing an irrational crime from a rational point of view, which is flawed.
c) Crazy people will do crazy things, you can't buy an M16 anyways, nobody said anything about assault weapons.
d) False metaphor and extenuation of circumstances. It is of course much much much much harder to obtain nuclear weapons than it is to own a car that is capable of running over hundreds of people. More importantly, I never said anything about what kind of guns are acceptable, just that the principle that we should ban ALL guns to "protect" people is flawed.
Again, incentives.
|
On March 27 2009 03:02 BackHo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2009 03:00 Hans-Titan wrote:
A thread about gun control, life and death sentences, trying minors as adults and now religion.
I'm gonna give this 5.. no 4 pages before it's closed. I just think that abortion is wrong, even though some may argue that it would have been better if this child had not been born.
wat
|
Really, to be honest I just blame the whole thing on the readily availability of pornography on the internet. Every 11 year old has watched it before - greater censorship is required.
What really needs to happen is for the drinking age to remain at 18, otherwise the boy would have done a lot worse.
I'd also be interested to know whether or not the child was black, because no matter how PC you want to get the facts state that the majority of those who are crims in the US justice system are of negrotic skin colour.
What the kid did really deserves the death penalty.
If we allowed stem cell research then maybe there would be a cure for bringing the mother back to life, as well as her fetus.
It's because people downloaded illegal music that this boy listened to gansta rap which encourages disregard for wife beating.
|
On March 27 2009 03:00 Hans-Titan wrote:
I'm gonna give this 5.. no 4 pages before it's closed.
Five more posts until page five... Mate, you should've stuck with your original bet.
|
On March 27 2009 00:49 statix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2009 00:22 unkkz wrote:
Yeah well, always in America this crap happens. Kid seems pretty messed up and he cannot be mentaly stable, but with him covering up the sound of the shotgun and shooting her in her sleep kinda proves he knew what he was doing.
I find it hilarious though how i read about this over and over again in the states and the general american public do not understand how things like this can happen. Just change your gun laws already? Really what is the point of your gunlaws when all they do is cause problems and getting people killed? Can some american explain to me why the politicians and general american public are so blind to this fact? The people who want to use guns for the wrong reasons will find ways to get guns no matter what the laws say. Granted it will be a little difficult but they'll still obtain them one way or another. Take a look at the ban on fully automatic weapons and guess how many people on the streets actually have them. Taking guns away from the public just limits their ability to defend themselves.
It is true that this kid could have just as easily stabbed her instead of shooting so talking about guns in this case really doesn't make sense.
Still you have to look at it from the perspective that the more guns that are made, the more chances that they will fall in malicious hands. What is the purpose of a gun? Basically, to kill. In a capitalistic sense there is a very high demand for death and ways of dealing it out. Every gun out there legal or not can easily be used to kill people in a far easier method than using a knife. Getting rid of guns wouldn't stop cases like this, but they would stop mass shootings (of course you hear from time to time about some whackjob running around cutting people with a sword).
How many guns you think there are currently in the world? How many illegal weapons were made in the United States? Illegal weapons just don't magically appear on the street, they have to be manufactured somewhere. And those goods have to be shipped somewhere. And then sold to retailers, the military, narco-terrorists, street thugs, etc. I supposed with a decent facility guns can be manufactured anywhere in the world by anyone, but they wouldn't be the best guns. Also, part of the reason there are so many guns out there is that the guns makers(around the world, not just our own) pretty much will deliberately get their weapons in hot zones in order to test and get a rep and hopefully make money, not caring all that much who ends up using the guns.
I'm not saying that all guns should be a illegal, just that there should be limits and supervisions imposed. Of course there are all kinds of regulations, but most of those are probably gone or weakened after the deregulation era of the past 20 years or so. I really do not think everything is kosher in the gun industry and that it should really be looked into.
|
On March 27 2009 00:33 GinNtoniC wrote:
I'm going to fuel the flames beforehand by saying (and this is actually my most serious opinion) that this obviously wouldn't have happened without every other US family keeping a firearm of some sort at home (well, duh!)
I know, I know, it's too late to change the law since now everyone has a gun, it's too late to recall them. People get guns because everyone else has guns and "I'll return my gun, if everyone else return their guns" etc and so on.
I understand the fundamental problem of why it's too late to change american gunlaws.
Nevertheless - flaming or not - I'd like to see some debate on this from U.S. citizens who actually have the inside information and the experience I lack.
obviously wrong. this subject has been discussed here 100's of times. guns being used in the wrong way by people is what happens. baseball bats are fine and legal, but if you use it in a way it's not meant to be used (hitting someone with it) it becomes a dangerous weapon. society is the problem, where were all these kids shooting their parents, or gang bangers killing folks in the 60's and 70's? there weren't those kind of problems back then. you could bring your hunting rifle to high school and show your principal back then and no one would give a damn because people were responsible and had respect for one another. times are changing way too fast, and not for the better.
bottom line is if someone wants to kill someone, they're probably going to find a way to do it regardless. a gun might be easiest by just pointing and pulling a trigger, but it's not the gun that makes that person want to kill someone. it's just a method.
|
On March 27 2009 03:08 BackHo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2009 03:00 Hans-Titan wrote:
I'm gonna give this 5.. no 4 pages before it's closed. Five more posts until page five... Mate, you should've stuck with your original bet.
5 pages MORE is what's meant 
|
On March 27 2009 01:26 unkkz wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2009 00:49 statix wrote:
The people who want to use guns for the wrong reasons will find ways to get guns no matter what the laws say. Granted it will be a little difficult but they'll still obtain them one way or another. Take a look at the ban on fully automatic weapons and guess how many people on the streets actually have them.
Taking guns away from the public just limits their ability to defend themselves.
Yes that is probably true seeing as even in Sweden organised criminals appear to have no problem getting a gun, but for an average joe like me - getting hold of a gun is quite the hassle and that is where im getting at, because alot of murders and shootings seem to be heat of the moment things, where it feels that if there wouldn't have been a gun at handy someone wouldn't have died or gotten shot. And the ability to defend themselves - against what? Like someone else pointed out if nobody else has guns why would you yourself need a gun to defend ourself?? If the hardcore criminals comes after you i doubt it would matter much if you had a gun or not, unfortunately.
So at the beginning of your post you agree that organized criminals have an easy time getting weapons. Then at the end of your post you state that if nobody had guns we wouldnt need to defend ourselves? So you have no problem with criminals having guns and everyone else not having guns?
On March 27 2009 01:53 Naib wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2009 00:49 statix wrote:On March 27 2009 00:22 unkkz wrote:
Yeah well, always in America this crap happens. Kid seems pretty messed up and he cannot be mentaly stable, but with him covering up the sound of the shotgun and shooting her in her sleep kinda proves he knew what he was doing.
I find it hilarious though how i read about this over and over again in the states and the general american public do not understand how things like this can happen. Just change your gun laws already? Really what is the point of your gunlaws when all they do is cause problems and getting people killed? Can some american explain to me why the politicians and general american public are so blind to this fact? The people who want to use guns for the wrong reasons will find ways to get guns no matter what the laws say. Granted it will be a little difficult but they'll still obtain them one way or another. Take a look at the ban on fully automatic weapons and guess how many people on the streets actually have them. Taking guns away from the public just limits their ability to defend themselves. That's bull, I'm sorry. Take this kid for example. It's clear he had the intention of doing what he did, but had his parents not kept guns at home, how would he be able to carry out such an act? You could argue "he could just get a knife and stab her!" or something, but that'd be pointless. Stabbing someone to death isn't as easy (for a 11 year old) as it is to pull a trigger. Not to mention various accidents that sprung news over the years... All this "The Average Joe has a right to defend himself!" crap is so outdated, honestly. Edit: clarity
If the kid was set on killing her im sure he would have found another way to do it. Making ridiculous gun control laws takes weapons away from people who don't intend to do any harm with them. I'm guessing that you've probably never held a gun which makes it more unstandable that the idea of weapons scares you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
