drachillix, I’d be perfectly happy to see all those weapons gone except tasers and pepperspray, which seem like reasonable, mostly non-lethal, less-potential-for-misuse measures for self-defense.
As for the NRA thing, UncleBeer and others said that the NRA had remained silent in response to other school shootings, which is not true. Whether or not you agree with it, holding rallies in towns after such a traumatic event is not “remaining silent,” even if they were planned ahead of time. The decision to go through with it is a statement in itself, and in my opinion an insensitive one. YMMV.
It’s not that I want to live in a world with guns. I’m realistic. Any war against guns will be just about as successful as the war on drugs. The unintended consequences, especially to the Constitution, will be just as bad also.
Around here there are as many stories of home invaders being shot as home invasions. OTOH, you don’t hear about many home invasions. Period.
If you choose M. Moore as your unbiased source of information then this attitude is understandable. As noted by others previously, a phobia is an irrational fear that needs no justification.
Rallies? The NRA holds no “rallies.” They hold meetings and conferences. The Klan holds rallies. If you’re gonna call holding a previously scheduled meeting “a statement,” perhaps you’d be so kind as to tell us what it is you believe that “statement” contained. That’s a pretty thin reed you’re grasping at, Qwerty.
The NRA meeting held in Denver two weeks after the Columbine shootings was, as noted, planned years in advance. The meeting was scaled back from the planned four-day event to merely a members’ meeting. The meeting was a legal requirement of the NRA’s non-profit charter; it could not simply be cancelled. It should also be noted that the mayor of Denver eagerly solicited the meeting. Cite.
Having read the links provided, and trusting that their accurate WRT the legality of not holding the conference, I take back my statements about the NRA mishandling the Denver thing (strictly on the basis that the convention was legally obligated.) Now (and this is an honest question) what about the Michigan convention? Is it just unlucky that they keep having conferences right after school shootings?
And also much less likely to actually work in self-defence. Pepper-spray is very iffy on wether it’ll stop someone, or just piss them off (One of my friends got sprayed full in the face with pepper spray and barely even blinked), and a taser requires you to get right up next to someone, and hit them squarely in the body with it.
Now then, what risk exactly is a 500-year-old katana going to pose to anyone? Are there even any stats on how many are killed by katanas each year? I’m betting it’s somewhere around zero. More people probably die from having their TV fall on them, than are killed by katanas. Or most other medieval weapons. Are you seriously worried about some kid flipping out, taking a crossbow, and “shooting up” his school with it? Do you really think the risk of these weapons is too high for them to be availible?
Most of my friends have a replica sword, of some sort. Most are functional, as in they have an actual edge, and are designed just as a real, used-in-combat sword would be. Of all of those weapons, they have never been used to threaten another person. Only one has been used against another person, when a coworker had been taking a newly-purchased katana home, and got jumped by a man that slashed him across the ribs with a beer bottle. He used the katana to successfully defend himself, though he was rather cut-up for it.
So is there an actuall, solid, provable risk these weapons pose, or are you figuring that since “scary” is a good enough of a reason for so-called “assault weapons,” it should be good enough for these weapons, too? Hoplophobia, or any other phobia, is not a good basis for laws.
Unfortunatly, you don’t know what you’re talking about The event Heston attended in Flint, Michigan, was not a gun rally. It was a “get out the vote” rally that Heston spoke at. And it was eight months after the shooting there. Bush and Gore were there campaigning, too. Considering elections were a month away, people were campaigning all over. If you’re relying on Moore for your information, you should know that much of it is fabricated and deliberatly misleading. I suggest reading the entire page.
While this is not directly related to the main thrust of this thread, I found it quite interesting. Tuesday the paper for my school ran two stories about homocides. The first, a front page story, was about this very shooting in which a gun was used toi kill one person. The second was a short paragraph in the local news section where they usually have stories about minor criminal activities. This story was about a man who used a kitchen knife to kill three people - his wife and two children.
I don’t want to turn this into a media-bias discussion, but I find it disquieting that the bulk of the attention in these cases goes to the story in which fewer people die. It seems to me that the only reason this story would get more play is that it involves one of those evil guns.
You know, stepping aside from the gun control debate (on which I am pretty firmly in the middle), it bothers me more when the media uses stories like this to whip up fear in Americans.
Students are still remarkably safe in schools. They are statistically far more likely to get killed in a car crash than by someone at their school with a gun. But the way school violence is covered on the news these days, you’d think going to school was like going to Baghdad or something.
The result? Everyone freaks about school violence for no reason, and we get things like metal detectors and zero-tolerance policies and kids getting suspended for bringing nail clippers or butter knives to school.
Meanwhile, far fewer people care about the massive problem of underfunded, overcrowded schools.
As someone who used to go armed to school on occasion, and as someone who lives with someone else who used to carry guns to school ALL THE TIME, I’d just like to state that Zero Tolerance and pulling lockers out of schools and similar measures DON’T WORK.
Maybe if my school had fenced off the campus and put in metal detectors. Maybe. I doubt it though.
And for the record, none of the guns my friend used to carry were acquired legally. They were stolen, or bought off the black market (which just means stolen in a different way). People like that are not going to be stopped by something as arbitrary as laws.
And ironicly, possibly making things worse. Of all the idiocy in the reactions to school shootings, from blaming music, games, parents, or guns, this has to be the worst. I can’t think of a single shooting where metal detectors would have made a difference. Security guards? At best, they’re the first targets (Do any security guards at schools even carry handguns?), most likely the students will know how to get in while avoiding the areas they’re most likely to be.
And then there’s the zero-tolerance bit. Making life harder on the students is not going to improve matters. In my time at high school, it went from being a place where creativity was promoted (I got one of my stories in the school paragon, even. It was a horror story. Gunfire, blood, plenty of screams and people dissapearing, and the just-off-screen death of the main character at the end of the story), to a place where you could get suspended or expeled for anything even slightly out of the ordinary. The contents of my binder alone would have done it, just in notes for stories.
Only slightly less disgusting are all the complains about the school and the like, immediatly after a shooting. They complain about the school not noticing the “warning signs.” How they should have known they were a troublesome student, just because of some small thing they can blow all out of proportion. And yet, just about every single “warning sign” that they list could have fit me and almost all of my friends, something that’s always struck me as somewhat ironic. For every potential “school shooter” you’d catch, you’d get hundreds, even thousands of students that are not.
Sure, it’s stupid to think “it can’t happen here.” But the amount of fear people have built up over this is absurd… And the people who immediatly take this news, and use that fear for their own goals, that’s just offensive.
Oh, and I’d also like to note that I resent the implication, if that’s the case, that the NRA is responsible for making a statement on school shootings. Are they school shooting advocates, or something?
It’s analogous to someone getting in a drunk driving car wreck and someone saying “I wonder how the triple A will spin this.”
If thats the case show me the Wal-mart puh-leeze. Since the Clinton import ban theyr’e hard to find (OTC). I could pick a few up and make a profit (legally of course) (and as I have told my friends mine isnot for sale)
Let’s switch to fantasy world rules to make things painfully obvious, and I’ll refute myself so to save us all the trouble of typing some long dissection of each other’s post. I do this so you can stop beating us over the head with the same tired argument.
I’ll even let you in on a secret, ok?
[sub]Shhhhh, come closer[/sub]
I know that laws won’t stop criminals from doing what they do. If those wacky tempestuous sons of bitches want a gun, I betcha they’ll find one. You could make a law that anyone found with a firearm will get their balls chopped off, and guess what? Well you can figure out the answer.
We ban guns not by laws but by getting rid of the actual gun. Stop manufacturing them, or in significantly less numbers, (remember we just banned them), and Joe criminal won’t be using a gun, because they are impossible to find, not because he is scared of the law.
Yes, well, I realize that all guns won’t magically vanish from the streets, but if they are physically harder to obtain, perhaps that will have an impact in their criminal use. Perhaps the price will go up, which may make it harder to buy one, keeping it out of some hands.
Maybe they will, maybe they won’t, I doubt we’ll ever know. The point is we all know that criminals will break any law, so shut your fucking piehole on that, we get it.
Thank you. That is all.
P.S. Don’t bother responding to either of my fictitious stances, because thats all they are, fictitious.
I assume that you are talking about the semi-auto versions.
I haven’t seen them in Wal-mart (although they do have other functionally equivalent rifles such as Ruger Mini-14s). However, you can buy them just as easily at a gun store or gun show. (more easily, given the stereotypical Wal-mart employees). Most of the store here carry them, as well as having used ones for sale, but if your local store doesn’t have any in stock there are many wholesalers or importers they can order them from, as well as auction sites etc. They are not at all hard to find. I saw at least half a dozen at a show this weekend. Only reason I didn’t buy some was they were too expensive - $400+ for a gun I can mail order for $300 + shipping + transfer fee.
So World Eater… You’re pretty much saying, ban all semi-automatic firearms, because it might, possibly, reduce the chances of a criminal getting one? So, because it might reduce the number of firearms in criminal possession (Which is a far cry from reducing deaths by firearms! You have to include the fact that there will be almost no legal defensive firearm use), it’s justified to make it impossible for anyone to legally own those firearms.
What is the reasoning behind this need? Is it just fear? Sure, “assault weapons” are scary to people who don’t know a thing about guns. They also, as have been pointed out several times, are among the least-used weapons in crime. Or are you just trying to exploit a school shooting (More like gang retribution…) to try and short-circuit logic with the appeal to emotion of “our children are in danger!” Schools are already pretty safe places. Banning all semi-automatic firearms is not going to make them any safer.
The event Heston attended in Flint, Michigan, was 