PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Gun Control Debates
     Gun Proposal
       Can another VT be avoided?

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
bilinghm

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


What steps could possibly be taken to make another VT massacre less likely?   Certainly, many of the potential remedies that might be considered, such as the banning of hand guns, national licensing of gun ownership, etc. will be suggested, but would be extremely unlikely to work.  America will never give up its’ guns.  However steps could be taken that would make such tragedies less likely and/ or reduce the scale of carnage should they occur.

Two  suggestions:
1) Limit the magazine capacity of all firearms to a maximum of 6 rounds, and
2) Outlaw weapons with detachable magazines.  

Although a mass killing would still be possible, these limitations would make such an event vastly harder for a killer to achieve.  The reloading of a non detachable magazine (or a revolver) is much slower, taking , taking 10 seconds or more rather than the 1 to 2 seconds required to replace the clip in a modern semi auto pistol. And, due to the low capacity of ammunition, the reloading process would be much more frequent. These additional seconds would allow the potential victims to escape or fight back.

How to deal with the creation of a whole class of outlawed weapons in the hands of the population?  In the 1920’s the Federal government restricted the ownership of machine-guns.  They didn’t say you could not posses them, they said that if you decided you must own one, it must be registered, and you must obtain a Federal tax stamp for it.  

Detachable magazine/high capacity weapons could be handled in the exact same way.  Over a five year period, gun owners could either dispose of or register their non-complying guns.  After five years, get caught with one and go to jail.  In the interval, gun manufacturers could develop new guns that meet the rules and offer trade-in and rebate programs.  The gun manufacturers/dealers of this country would do a big business.

I believe that the result would be, that over a 25 year period, high capacity/ detachable mag guns would fade from the scene, just as Thompson sub machine guns have.

These new laws would not limit the ability of any law abiding gun owner to fully pursue their lawful activities: hunting, target and recreational shooting, self protection. And, as far as complaints about insufficient firepower go, If you can’t defend yourself with six shots, I doubt six more will be any help .

lastly, who could make such gun laws happen?  Who could resist the wrath of the NRA?  Who could use this issue to build a legacy?  George Bush.  



Bill Cunningham
Atlanta
 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 1:29 PM on April 20, 2007 | IP
homerb89

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

great idea since we all know that criminals (by definition) follow laws...right??

oh wait, they don't follow laws.

since we outlawed illegal drugs 25+ years ago, the millions of drug arrests each year shouldn't happen if your "25 year plan" were logically sound.


criminals roam the streets with illegally purchased and owned guns as we speak. gun laws don't stop them.

think about it this way. What would happen if the guy that shot up Virginia Tech tried to do the same at a gun show?

See, most if not all of these shootings occur in
"gun free zones".


The solution isn't to ban an inanimate implement, of course if we banned cars, restricted gasoline, confiscated silverware, and eradicated baseball bats, most crime would be solved...in theory.


 


Posts: 11 | Posted: 8:53 PM on April 21, 2007 | IP
dmxx99

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from bilinghm at 1:29 PM on April 20, 2007 :

What steps could possibly be taken to make another VT massacre less likely?   Certainly, many of the potential remedies that might be considered, such as the banning of hand guns, national licensing of gun ownership, etc. will be suggested, but would be extremely unlikely to work.  America will never give up its’ guns.  However steps could be taken that would make such tragedies less likely and/ or reduce the scale of carnage should they occur.

Two  suggestions:
1) Limit the magazine capacity of all firearms to a maximum of 6 rounds, and
2) Outlaw weapons with detachable magazines.  

Although a mass killing would still be possible, these limitations would make such an event vastly harder for a killer to achieve.  The reloading of a non detachable magazine (or a revolver) is much slower, taking , taking 10 seconds or more rather than the 1 to 2 seconds required to replace the clip in a modern semi auto pistol. And, due to the low capacity of ammunition, the reloading process would be much more frequent. These additional seconds would allow the potential victims to escape or fight back.

How to deal with the creation of a whole class of outlawed weapons in the hands of the population?  In the 1920’s the Federal government restricted the ownership of machine-guns.  They didn’t say you could not posses them, they said that if you decided you must own one, it must be registered, and you must obtain a Federal tax stamp for it.  

Detachable magazine/high capacity weapons could be handled in the exact same way.  Over a five year period, gun owners could either dispose of or register their non-complying guns.  After five years, get caught with one and go to jail.  In the interval, gun manufacturers could develop new guns that meet the rules and offer trade-in and rebate programs.  The gun manufacturers/dealers of this country would do a big business.

I believe that the result would be, that over a 25 year period, high capacity/ detachable mag guns would fade from the scene, just as Thompson sub machine guns have.

These new laws would not limit the ability of any law abiding gun owner to fully pursue their lawful activities: hunting, target and recreational shooting, self protection. And, as far as complaints about insufficient firepower go, If you can’t defend yourself with six shots, I doubt six more will be any help .

lastly, who could make such gun laws happen?  Who could resist the wrath of the NRA?  Who could use this issue to build a legacy?  George Bush.  



Bill Cunningham
Atlanta

Your idea would work if it were in fantasy land. Otherwise its not going to work like all other gun control laws and bans.The criminals think guys like you who propose gun control as the solution and bans as "Making their criminal activities much easier and safer from victims who could of defended themselves if guns were allowed".


 


Posts: 65 | Posted: 10:07 PM on April 21, 2007 | IP
florida308

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I've got a couple ideas that could prevent this from happening:

First, we could make it against the rules to carry a gun onto a college campus.  Then, we could require a waiting period to purchase a handgun.  Then, we could make it illegal for all felons and people with mental illness to own guns.  Then, we could make it illegal to own machine guns.  Then, we could require all gun dealers to run background checks.  Then, we could set a minimum age of 21 to buy a handgun.  Then, we could require all gun dealers to comply with rigorous ATF requirements.  Then, we could make it illegal to kill people.


Wait, you mean to tell me all those are already laws!?!  And they didn't do anything to stop this tragedy?!?!  Well, then surely we should enact some more laws!  (sarcasm)
 


Posts: 38 | Posted: 8:04 PM on April 22, 2007 | IP
WBPV253

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Billinghm, have a look around the world at all the terrorist acts that have killed hundreds and thousands of people not involving the use of guns.  Should planes be outlawed due to the 911 attacks????  Certainly something is wrong with all these school shootings but to blame a gun for it is just living in denial.  Why not look at things like unequal wealth distributin or the amount of money spent on the military budget as compared to the education budget or the welfare system or the public health system or poverty .  All areas which could use a lot of improvement.  Lets look at ourselves as responsible people and see if the problem can be fixed, forget about pointing the finger and looking for easy excuses.
As a starting point I would suggest an emphasis on manners and courtesy.  Simple to implement and do and would certainly remove a lot of unneeded stress in society.  

 


Posts: 16 | Posted: 9:44 PM on April 22, 2007 | IP
bilinghm

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

170 shots...that would have been a lot of reloading with a six shooter.
 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 4:45 PM on April 26, 2007 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

True, although the idea of manners and courtesy certainly wouldn't hurt.  I remember some years back in the small town of Prescott Valley somebody was shot to death for pulling into an ATM line when the other guy thought HE was next.  Seriously people, calm down.  If I shot some idiot everytime they drove incorrectly (or even if it was only when they nearly hit me driving the wrong way, turning illegally, merging WITH traffic, etc...) I'd be in prison for life.  Heck... I saw 6 cars today (in a 15 minute period) driving down the wrong side of the street in a school zone because they were too impatient.  I highly doubt they were ALL medical emergencies... :P


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 4:53 PM on April 26, 2007 | IP
kindrox

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I have to ask, if 6 rounds are all you need to defend yourself, why do cops pretty much all carry guns with high capacity mags, and carry several extra mags with them?

Usually in home invasions, home owners are faced with at least 2-3 attackers and in the last several months I know of one home owner that faced 6,

http://kvoa.com/Global/story.asp?S=5888378&nav=HMO6HMaW

and two brothers in Houston Texas that faced 4 armed attackers.  If you are faced with multiple attackers, you are going to need more than 6 rounds.

 


Posts: 54 | Posted: 7:04 PM on April 26, 2007 | IP
bilinghm

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If you cannot defend yourself with six bullets, you don't need more bullets, you need some firearms training.  Dirty Harry didn't need no stinkin' high capacity semi auto pistol!
 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 2:22 PM on April 27, 2007 | IP
kindrox

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Sure, if my attacker and I agree to square off at 10 paces, then hold our ground with an old fashioned police shootout, six rounds aught to get the job done.  Honestly, you sound like a fool.

Should I expect to be more proficient than the police?  Consider all the police shootings you have heard or will hear about, and pay attention to the number of shots fired versus the number of shots that hit the suspect.  It will average to 5-6 shots fired to each shot that hits.

In real life, you are moving and the attacker is moving.  You won’t be using the sights on the gun, and you will be aiming by instinct.  

Second, if you get a hit in your six shots, there is no guarantee that will incapacitate the attacker, should the attacker not decide to give up.  People are incapacitated one of two ways.  Either loss of blood, or damage to the central nervous system.  One shot generally won’t do this unless you get really lucky.  Now 5 minutes later it might, through loss of blood, but if you run out of ammunition, you are dead and you don’t care.

The Atlanta shooting of the 92 year old lady is a case in point.  Of course what they did was a crime, but put that aside and just look at the facts. The cops shot about 35 times, and hit her 5 times.  Only one of the 5 hits was fatal.

There is a reason why cops traded in their 6-shot revolvers and took to high-capacity pistols – a lot of cops were dying with empty revolvers.

Even with one attacker, a limit of 6 shots is taking a big chance with your life.  With multiple attackers, a situation often faced, it is suicide.

 


Posts: 54 | Posted: 3:09 PM on April 27, 2007 | IP
bilinghm

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Do you shoot?  have you handled a double action revolver and a semi auto pistol?  How many rounds does one need to protect ones self anyway?  15? 20? 30?  If you cannot discourage the mythical attacker with six shots, then you are unskilled and shouldn't touch a hand gun.  Get a 12 guage pump shotgun (still only six rounds).

I am an experienced shooter that believes that there need to be reasonable gun laws.
 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 3:37 PM on April 27, 2007 | IP
kindrox

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I shoot with some frequency but I don’t have revolvers.  A shot gun might be nice but in my state we only have concealed HANDGUN licenses, and either way I am not nearly fat enough to shove a shotgun down my pants.  So the shot gun is out.  And around the house a shotgun is certainly nice, but I don’t have a quick access lock box that a shot gun will fit into.  So a pistol is what I use for self defense.

I notice you apparently could not attack my actual post, except to say you don’t agree.  Ok.  I did a quick internet search looking for recent new stories and found quite a few with multiple attackers, they are at the bottom of this post.

I am sure you are quite the Rambo, and if you were in any of these situations, and you were not able to shoot each attacker square in the forehead, you probably could have gone ALL Ninja on them and took them out with throwing stars and the like.

But again, the police don’t have these Ninja skills and they must rely on their guns.  I will defer to their expertise, and use what they use.

And to answer your question, I carry 10 rounds in my .45, and my wife carries 12 rounds in her 9mm.

Clerk uses gun to defend against two armed robbers
http://cbs11tv.com/local/local_story_117001426.html

Man repeals six armed robbers
http://kvoa.com/Global/story.asp?S=5888378&nav=HMO6HMaW

Man defends against two armed robbers
http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/20070405_Home_invasion_ends_in_fatal_shootout.html

Woman defends herself from two robbers
http://www.wthr.com/Global/story.asp?S=6104934

2-3 men attack man, kill him.
http://www.pennlive.com/news/patriotnews/index.ssf?/base/news/116580754182860.xml&coll=1

Two robbers shot.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/022207dnmetinvasion.1f4148.html
Man repeals six armed robbers
http://kvoa.com/Global/story.asp?S=5888378&nav=HMO6HMaW

Two Houston brothers defend against 4 armed robbers
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...n/4432086.html

Two home invaders shot by homeowner
http://www.news-press.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070416/NEWS0110/70416019

Two different homeowners defend against home invaders
http://www.heraldcitizen.com/NF/omf.wnm/herald/news_story.html?rkey=0044201+cr=gdn

Residents fight off two armed home invaders
http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/12615615/detail.html?rss=pit&psp=news

 


Posts: 54 | Posted: 4:23 PM on April 27, 2007 | IP
qednick

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

FYI: Here's a web site that actually collects news reports (with links to original reports) of defensive gun uses going back some time:

http://claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html

I can't seem to find any single case of where one single gun control law has actually saved one single life in any one place in all of history. Can anyone else???


 


Posts: 34 | Posted: 6:52 PM on April 29, 2007 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
+1

Rate this post:

That would be because those times "never happened".  Somebody couldn't get ahold of a gun because of some gun law and didn't go on to blow away multiple people.  Perhaps he still tried to do it, but he just couldn't seem to kill as many people by throwing doughnuts at them.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 9:35 PM on April 29, 2007 | IP
bilinghm

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Dear Kindrox,

My original reason for posting was to attempt to make a reasonable proposal that might reduce the chance of multiple deaths in shooting incidents like VT.  Your point seems to be that in the jungle in which you personally live, you need more guns and higher capacity clips to fight off the hoards of attackers.  No gun laws, no hope, no chance for anything but reliving the past again and again.  We can have this discussion again after the next mass shooting.  Further discussion seems pointless.  
 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 10:01 AM on April 30, 2007 | IP
qednick

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EMyers at 9:35 PM on April 29, 2007 :
That would be because those times "never happened".  Somebody couldn't get ahold of a gun because of some gun law and didn't go on to blow away multiple people.  Perhaps he still tried to do it, but he just couldn't seem to kill as many people by throwing doughnuts at them.


Ahhh EMyers, so it "never happened". So whenever anyone is murdered or commits suicide they always use guns? It's just not possible any other way? So if I can't get a gun, I also can't walk down to a gas station, fill up a can, walk into a New York night club and use the gas to burn the place down with 80+ people in it then? That wouldn't be possible? Buying a gallon of gas isn't easier than buying a gun? Well???

EMyers, I've seen a lot of your posts here. It seems that on this subject the posts always invariably start with people throwing utterly biased statistics and charts at each other that suit their own arguments. It's clear that statistics and charts can be twisted to suit one's outcome. There are even books on this very subject.
Here's one example. So, right up front, to save time, let's agree not to use useless statistics from any source (beit Handgun Control or the NRA) OK?

I also took note that once your rationale loses its steam you invariably resort to name calling and/or using diversionary tactics such as poking fun at your opponent's grammatical mistakes or spelling errors. So, right up front, to save time, why don't we agree to not call each other names or use diversionary tactics OK?

What do you say EMyers? Do you still want to enter into a gun-control debate with me on these terms? If so, let's get started...

To begin this debate, I would like to know your reasoning for wanting more gun control. Would I be correct in assuming that you would like to see more gun control because you don't trust yourself with a gun?
 


Posts: 34 | Posted: 11:23 AM on April 30, 2007 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The point was... when laws work you really have no ability to estimate how often they work. How would you estimate the number of people who would like to own a gun, but didn't go through the hassle of buying one illegally and therefore didn't have one on them when somebody cut them off in traffic and then wanted to show that guy a lesson?  And stating that laws don't work because there are still law breakers is the most illogical argument out there (although many people still use it).  What type of person would suggest that we make murder legal because only outlaws murder?  Or biological weapons legal because if we don't, only outlaws will have biological weapons (my grandmother's meatloaf notwithstanding)?  And yet that is the EXACT argument put forth by many gun proponents.  Also, how often have I called anyone a name around here?

P.S. kindrox, qednick meant *hordes* I assume.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 07:53 AM on May 1, 2007 | IP
qednick

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

EMyers, I see you're immediately trying to sidestep and have refused to answer my question: do you want to see more gun control because you do not trust yourself with a gun?

It's a pretty simple question EMyers. A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.
 


Posts: 34 | Posted: 09:32 AM on May 1, 2007 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No.

Do your friends know you are a pedophile?  It's a pretty simple question.  A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 12:46 PM on May 1, 2007 | IP
qednick

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Another sidestep attempt huh EMyers? How can you expect anyone to take you seriously on this subject when you won't even stick to the subject matter?

There's no tricks behind my question EMyers, I simply want to know why you think there should be more gun control. Either you don't trust others with guns because you don't trust yourself or you do trust yourself with a gun but not others. It's clear that your opinion is anti-gun. I just want to know why without anyone using biased and pointless statistics or charts.

I'm trying to have a reasonable debate with you on the subject but twice now you have tried to sidestep. So, should I take it that you're simply not willing to enter into a reasonable debate on the subject and are only interested in sidestepping and poking fun at other people's spelling?

The subject is gun control EMyers, not doughnut control, pedophile control or other poster's grammar/spelling.
 


Posts: 34 | Posted: 1:56 PM on May 1, 2007 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The point, as I'm sure you already knew was that when you asked me "Would I be correct in assuming that you would like to see more gun control because you don't trust yourself with a gun?" you MUST have assumed I'd answer "no".  Why then would you have asked the question?  Either you did it to set up your next question or you thought that the other readers of this forum would be stupid enough to fall for the mere hint that this is the "real answer".  You underlined it by your very choice of words "It's a pretty simple question.  A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice."  Obviously that isn't necessarily true or you would've answered my "simple yes or no" question.  Heck, you even changed the tense of your second question so that if I answered "no" (as I did) it would not mean the same thing as your original question which I quoted above.  Now, since I answered your "simple yes or no" question with a simple "no" you say I am trying to sidestep the question... how is answering your question sidestepping your question?  Seriously?

As for your second paragraph, well duh.  I certainly trust myself with the care of my children but I do NOT trust the average person on the street.  Never once have I walked up to a stranger and said, "Hey, would you mind watching my kids for a few moments?".  I don't know ANYONE who trust the masses in general as much as they trust themselves.  I don't even know what point you are trying to make with this paragraph.

Now, I have obviously not sidestepped your question as I answered it directly and succinctly.

I obviously do not trust the average person as much as I trust myself.

I did NOT poke fun at your spelling.  Kindrox was the one who put *s around hoards like he was trying to make some sort of point.  I, addressing him, told him what I assumed you meant.  If you did not mean it then I apologize.

Perhaps you can now get on to whatever point you are trying to make.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 2:07 PM on May 1, 2007 | IP
qednick

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Actually EMyers my question wasn't loaded or a trick - unlike your ambiguous pedophile one. Let me explain:

My question only has 3 possible answers:

1) You don't trust yourself with a gun and don't trust anyone else.
2) You trust yourself with a gun but you still don't trust anyone else.
3) You trust yourself with a gun and also trust others.

Your question also only has 3 possible answers:

1) You're a pedophile and your friends know it.
2) You're a pedophile and your friends don't know it.
3) You're not a pedophile so your friends are irrelevant.

When you asked me your question, you did so without knowing whether I was a pedophile or not. But by answering either "yes" or "no" would imply that I was a pedophile - hence the "trick".

When I asked you my question, I did so knowing that your answer couldn't possibly be #3 because it's clear from your views posted in these forums that you don't trust others with guns - thereby invalidating answer #3.

My apologies for rephrasing the question the 2nd time around. I felt the need to ask it again because you ignored it the first time. I asked for a simple "yes" or "no" from your the 2nd time I asked it because I figured it may make it easier for you to answer. You'll notice that I didn't stipulate "a simple yes or no" the first time I asked it - therefore I don't see how you can possibly play the "trick question" card because I did give you the opportunity to answer the question in full the first time.

I know you weren't poking fun at my spelling. However, your modus operandi certainly does appear to be "poke fun at everyone's spelling at every opportunity" - which has been proved in this thread and others.

So, now to the point... I appreciate your answer in the form of the "trusting someone else with your kids" analogy but that doesn't really constitute a valid answer because it's ambiguous. You could easily have said arguendo (and assuming you're not a brain surgeon) "I trust myself to perform surgery on my brain but I wouldn't trust anyone else".

So again, I'll try and make it easier for you this time. No analogies or sidestepping - we're talking about trusting people with guns here:

1) You don't trust yourself with a gun and don't trust anyone else.
2) You trust yourself with a gun but you still don't trust anyone else.

Which one is it EMyers?

 


Posts: 34 | Posted: 3:06 PM on May 1, 2007 | IP
kindrox

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Qednick,

You start out with the premise that E even believes in saving his own life.  

 


Posts: 54 | Posted: 3:18 PM on May 1, 2007 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

kindrox,
 I do believe in saving my own life.  I don't feel the need to use a gun to do it.  I'm prepared to save my life whether there is a gun available or not.  Guns don't even enter into the equation here.

qednick,
  If you've followed my posts as you seem to state you have then you know that I've obviously trusted people with guns in the past.  You can't survive a war without trusting other people (most with guns) to do what they are supposed to do when they are supposed to do it (however you obviously prepare yourself for the fact that some people will simply not respond well in the middle of a firefight).  Ergo, there is another possible answer which your "simple yes or no" doesn't take into account.  I trust myself, I trust SOME other people, but I obviously do NOT trust the vast majority of people in the world of whom I know absolutely NOTHING about.  I'm sure that there are some people out there who trusted Seung-Hui Cho.  Doesn't mean that was a good decision.  Seung-Hui Cho did not steal the guns that were in his possession.  Some idiots somewhere trusted him to not blow away thirty two people when they sold him the guns (or else they have some seriously deepseated issues).  Perhaps this level of "trust" makes you feel safer at night.  Me, I'm responsible for the lives of my wife and two young children.  Therefore I teach them how to avoid and/or diffuse these types of situations.  You can't always rely on a gun.  If someone sneaks a weapon onto a plane or into a courthouse where you didn't bring your gun and opens fire, are you prepared to do anything?  Anything at all?  Or  are you going to be on of the ones jumping out of windows and hiding under desks while the elderly "take one for the team"?  I am not afraid of guns.  If someone manages to put a bullet in me then I was either woefully unprepared (in which case having a gun wouldn't have saved me) or I'm too stupid to figure out another way to defend myself.  So far, neither have been true.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 3:41 PM on May 1, 2007 | IP
qednick

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

There ya go EMyers! Now we're debating like adults. Isn't that nice?

So, from what you're saying, you trust yourself with a gun and you trust people you know personally with guns but you don't trust everybody else with guns. That's a reasonable response so let's address it.

It's obvious from your response that your fear is not with the guns themselves.

So, is your deep rooted fear of unknown persons with guns due to your time in the military? Do all other gun owners (the ones unknown to you) become the "enemy" in your eyes? If Cho hadn't been able to buy his guns legally, would there have been absolutely no other way for him to either:

a) buy illegal guns; or
b) use some other method of killing loads of people (eg. gasoline, fertalizer bomb, etc.)?
 


Posts: 34 | Posted: 4:12 PM on May 1, 2007 | IP
dmxx99

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I make my own army
First I need some cash and some loyal homies to join me.I will train them and then we will chill at my house when we are done training and then we can relax and watch 3000 miles to graceland which I will get soon.
The homies have to get their own guns and they cant be felons or have any mental problems to join my army I will even make a background check on them if they act weird
heres my list for me only in the next two years.
1.Semi Auto AK
2. another .357 revolver of some sort
3. .22 rifle
4.a .44 magnum revolver because they are cool
5. another 12 gauge shotgun
6.and the rest is classified until I can afford it.
All the guys have to get their own guns and they have to get it online or at a gun shop otherwise I will revoke them.We are just a private army protecting the area and getting ready for any SHTF.
Some of my members will be black and hispanic but it does not matter to me what race they are they just have to be clean to directly join my army.
I will have a rank system similar to what the US army uses and it depends upon experiance,leadership,and political/social influence,also years in service either in my army or US army.I will get a big army cargo truck to get all the ammo supplies,clothing,gear,documents, and food supplies.I will make a base somewhere secluded and make a huge fence with barbed wire and build a barracks and general building.This will all happen in 10 to 15 years.

(Edited by dmxx99 5/1/2007 at 4:34 PM).
 


Posts: 65 | Posted: 4:28 PM on May 1, 2007 | IP
malignantpoodle

|      |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Two  suggestions:
1) Limit the magazine capacity of all firearms to a maximum of 6 rounds, and
2) Outlaw weapons with detachable magazines.

In which way would these measures prevent massacres like the one at VT?

I am assuming that you're trying to hinder a would be shooter.  Couldn't you just hinder a shooter by banning guns altogether?

But how about a real life example of someone that pulled off a massacre using such weapons?  Someone that used weapons that did not have detachable magazines, and didn't carry more than 6 rounds.  Does the name Charles Whitman ring a bell?

Whitman did take several weapons to the tower, but he only used the Remington 700 rifle and the 12 ga. pump.
[random]

(Edited by malignantpoodle 5/1/2007 at 4:44 PM).[i]

(Edited by malignantpoodle 5/1/2007 at 4:44 PM).
 


Posts: 17 | Posted: 4:43 PM on May 1, 2007 | IP
malignantpoodle

|      |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

sorry, new to the forums just learning how it works.  I meant to add;

it's time to wake up and realize that things like magazine capacities, weapon types, even the guns themselves are not the problems that need to be faced, rather the human element behind these shootings.

Look at Canada, look at Mexico.  Any gun control advocate that objectively looks at those two countries should realize that it's game, set, and match against the gun control argument.
 


Posts: 17 | Posted: 4:48 PM on May 1, 2007 | IP
qednick

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

malignantpoodle, I'm sure bilinghm had the best of intentions with his post/ideas and was worthy of discussion. Unfortunately, for me, all credence was lost with the Dirty Harry thing. You can't compare real life with Hollywood fiction. Even EMyers, as an ex-military guy, should agree with that.
 


Posts: 34 | Posted: 4:51 PM on May 1, 2007 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

We can't know what Cho would've done because he didn't need to go out of his way to try and obtain any of it.  In fact, from all that we can tell, he even waited the requisite month between buying handguns.  The fact is, there are plenty of people who do things in the heat of the moment.  These people do much more damage with guns than those who don't.  Nobody has ever attacked someone with a knife in the heat of an argument and accidentally hit a little girl sleeping in her bedroom across the street.  I doubt many people have gotten mad at their neighbor, went down to the local TSC, came home and mixed up a homemade bomb and then killed their neighbor with it.  You can never point to statistics of things that DIDN'T happen just like you can't have accurate statistics of how many people were saved (since their is no way to tell how many people would've died), but how many "possible" lives saved because someone didn't have access to a gun while they were in the state of mind to do something that they'd never do while cooler heads prevailed would be enough to make it worthwhile?  This may sound corny (since something very like it is said in LoTR) but there are people who deserve to die who are walking around alive and people who deserve to live who aren't.  You can never give life back to someone whom you've taken it from.  No one will ever be killed in my house from a gun that "went off" or was being played with or was used in a fit of anger and no one will ever be killed by a gun that was stolen from me.  If that only ever saves one life, that is enough for me.  Especially if it is the life of one of my children.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 4:58 PM on May 1, 2007 | IP
malignantpoodle

|      |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well, that's an interesting notion, and even though I support gun ownership, I don't entirely disagree with you.

The problem however is that gun control does not prevent VT, does not prevent accidental shootings, it doesn't change squat.  The only thing it does is hinder responsible people.  

Asserting that statistics are irrelevant must mean that the statistics aren't supporting your side of the issue.  We have working examples of societies with millions and millions of people that demonstrate that the guns are not the problem.  If you really want to stop violence, we need to start talking about things like public healthcare, higher standards of living, and enforcing the laws that are already in place (remember, it was illegal for Cho to have the weapons).


 


Posts: 17 | Posted: 5:11 PM on May 1, 2007 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

My goodness you people were busy typing while I was...

mp, q, etc... I'll agree with you all on this.  If people (and I'm mainly talking about Americans here, since I have little {or not the best } experience with other countries' citizens) were, on the whole, more mature then there would be no need for any talk (outside of criminals/mentally unstables who have already proven themselves to be untrustworthy) of gun regulations.  I know the "old days" were always (insert sarcasm here) better, but I don't think it is a stretch to say that Americans (as a whole, after all there are some great individuals) are not nearly as respectful, moral, or just plain nice as they used to be.  There is an entire generation (or two or three) that seems to think of themselves first, foremost, and often only.  Next think you know we'll have kids talking about stocking up on weapons, making their own army and creating a bunker somewhere (to protect themselves from "them").  There was a day when we used to call those type of people paranoid.  These days we just call them junior highers.

Don't misquote me.  I love America.  It's just many (usually the loudest) American's these days that sadden me.  When I left school from picking up my kids today I was passed by a van driving down the wrong side of the street in a school zone.  No thought was given to the children that were out.  No thought was given to the person in front of me who had their left turn signal on and was lucky they didn't turn right in front of them (how many of you look in your side or rear view mirror when making a turn?).  Traffic wasn't moving fast enough for their personal liking and so the rest of us can all take a flying leap.  Perhaps it's like this in most of the world, I don't know.  I've never been out of the states on "vacation".  But a little more "no, no, you first" would probably quiet down most of the gun opponents.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 5:14 PM on May 1, 2007 | IP
qednick

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'm not too sure EMyers. I seem to recall hearing reports of people "going postal" and mowing others down in the heat of the moment with their automobile or truck. One of your kids could take the keys to your vehicle and accidentally kill someone else. Or, someone else could steal your vehicle and mow down one of your kids.

If you don't want your kids to play with your car while you're not looking you put the keys away in a safe place. If you don't want one of your kids to play with and accidentally discharge one of your guns you can put it in a gun safe.

Yes, there will always be irresponsible gun owners just as there will always be irresponsible drivers - but we don't "punish" all the good drivers in the world just because of the actions of the few bad ones do we?

Sure we can discuss all the posibilities of Virginia Tech and Cho and what could've or should've happened until we're all blue in the face. It doesn't change the fact that 32 innocent people are dead. A number that could've been lower if one legally armed and trained CHL-holding professor or student had been able to at least try and stop him.

After all, we can't all be bullet-dodging kung-fu experts who are fearless in the face of a gun-toting nutjob. Although it's admirable that you teach your wife and kids the alternatives and how to diffuse such situations, sometimes a legally held gun in legally trained and licensed hands can be a much better "equalizer" than throwing your morning doughnuts at some South Korean psycho with a big chip on his shoulder.

Just because you feel you're man enough to take on such using crouching tiger hidden dragon techniques doesn't mean everyone else is and nor should you try and take that choice away from those other people that you don't trust with a gun no matter how competent they may be.

Nobody is forcing you to keep a gun. That is your choice. But do not try to take that choice away from others who may need it more than you do.
 


Posts: 34 | Posted: 5:24 PM on May 1, 2007 | IP
qednick

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Despite the many misgivings of modern-day Americans I can attest to the fact that they are [generally] much more polite and generous than most modern-day Europeans.
 


Posts: 34 | Posted: 5:31 PM on May 1, 2007 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Perhaps we are, as a people, simply too extreme.  Most people consider Germans to be impolite (it's really more of a stoic thing as far as I can tell).  While they may not be as nice as you next door neighbor, they are also less likely (on the whole) to be the creepy guy down the street that collects ears.  American's seem to run the entire gamut of emotions on a more regular basis.  We are often more quick to smile, but more quick to anger.  Quick to help those we care for, but quick to look the other way when it "doesn't concern us".  We simply have no idea how to be content.  Obviously every person can not be so nicely pigeon holed as this, but as a nation I feel it to be true.  We are a "look out for myself" generation more often than not.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 6:47 PM on May 1, 2007 | IP
qednick

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well, I can't profess to know about every country or culture in the world. I can however make deep comparisons between the UK and the US, the way of life and the people because I've spent years living in each one.

In the UK, the general consensus of America is of a violent nation with high crime. In the US, the general consensus of Britain is of a quiet nation full of excessively polite law-abiding people.

Although, there are still areas in both countries that pertain to this paradigm (eg. US inner cities with drive by shootings, etc. and flowery UK rural towns surrounded by rolling hills), the roles have actually reversed in recent years.

A couple of years ago, an Amercian study found that the UK was more violently crime ridden than the US. This was so much of a shock that nobody believed it. In fact, the UK newspaper, the Daily Mirror, printed a pooh pooh on it's front page proclaiming the American scholars to be "nuts" to even entertain such an absurd claim. A few days later, after studying all the evidence, the Daily Mirror apparently printed a retraction. However, that being said, the paradigm of a violent US and green and pleasant Britain still exist in people's minds on both sides of the Atlantic.

Britain, today, is a crime-ridden hell hole. There are barely any police on the streets. The prisons are bursting at the seems and the judiciary are handing out ridiculously light sentences to violent rapists and other criminals on Home Office guidelines. Interestingly, burglary is now only a cautionable offence.

Another thing that seemed to embolden criminals is the case of farmer Tony Martin who shot and killed a burglar he found in his home. Martin had repeatedly called police to complain about burglars and received no response many times prior to that fateful night. Martin was found guilty of murder and sentenced to life in prison. So much for an "Englishman's home is his castle".

The Martin case effectively let the criminals know that the law was against the victim and in favor of the criminal. There have been many many other cases in the UK where a homeowner has confronted a burglar only to find themselves foul of the law in some ridiculous manner.

A Home Office spokesman, when asked on a BBC TV show about how one should act if they see an old woman being attacked by a thug in the street, said you should call the police then "jump up and down". The full 30 minute TV show (called Panorama) is posted on YouTube here. If you have the time, please watch it, it will at the very least raise your eyebrow.

Perversely, Britons can't defend themselves or their family anymore. Not even with a pocket knife, stick or even their fists. If someone is being attacked by a gang of alcohol fueled thugs, the passersby just keep on passing by. It's unusual for anyone to come to anyone else's aid. I saw this story  from today's BBC news website where a family, utterly fed up with the situation, had installed razor wire around their fence but are now being threatened with eviction because of it.

If you think US police response times are a joke, there are many many stories about the British police taking 2 or 3 days to turn up after emergency calls.

In a strange twist of fate, Britons are watched in public by several million CCTV cameras across the country. The government wish to institute a mandatory ID card. They also want to install GPS tracking devices into every vehicle on the roads so they can track everyone's movements. The UK has built up the world's largest DNA database. They have started fingerprinting children at the schools.

It would be bold of me to state that all this is a result of banning handguns from ordinary citizens. I'm not sure what the cause of the rise in crime has been: the gun ban, the lack of self-defense, the lack of harsh sentencing, the lack of policing or something of a combination of two or more of these. One thing is very clear though... British society has gone into social meltdown for some reason.

This is the country that gave America, inter alia, the notion of common law principles, the 1689 Bill of Rights and the Magna Carta. Included in the 1689 BoR was the right to arms. However, in the English version, there was a caveat: "as allowed by law". British politicians, fearing revolts and uprisings, selfishly used that caveat to eradicate that right on the pretense that gun crime was rising. The first step in this slippery slope was to turn the right into a privilege.

The point of all this is: I think America has a lot to learn from the English experience. We have a great constitution that is envied the world over. We should never weaken one amendment or we will weaken them all no matter how distasteful some of us may find it. It will only undermine the very fabric of our society and the meaning of what it is to be "American".

 


Posts: 34 | Posted: 9:21 PM on May 1, 2007 | IP
WBPV253

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Good reading from EMyers and qednick even though took a while to get through it all.  Imagine if we all agreed on everything, how boring would that be?  As for not trusting your fellowman with private gun ownership, who decides who isn't to be trusted??? Obviously that becomes an excercise in finger pointing and looking at every other person in a suspicous manner.  We trust school teachers to look after our kids all day long, we trust our politicians that we elected to do whats best for us, we trust our doctors to take care of us and we even trust the police to rid society of criminal behaviour.   So now that gun ownership has been made into such a big contentious topic, we no longer function and interact as a society and instead we become isolated from each other and suspicous of each other and that leads to FEAR.  
House alarms, car alarms, security monitors, security doors, pepper spray etc.. etc.. are all things that were not around 50 years ago and neither was gun control.  Today thats all changed and our fear is making things worse all the time.  The whole world knows about the recent shootings at VT but does anyone know if any other students from VT have been murdered in the last 12 months??? The media has done such a good job of feeding our fear that our judgement has become a forgone conclusion, we are so scared that it may happen to us that we are prepared to do anything to prevent it.
Gun control as a deterent to murder has not worked in other countries, so why persist with it.  Maybe there is another agenda for the gun control issue.  
 


Posts: 16 | Posted: 04:55 AM on May 2, 2007 | IP
qednick

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Good comments WBPV253. I think something is needed but I'm not sure what. EMyers is definitely correct in his assessment of modern society. The reason I got on my soapbox about the UK situation was to highlight what can happen if it's not nipped in the bud now. Letting the state take more and more control of things is not the answer - governments are notoriously bad at running things and don't know what the word "efficient" means.
 


Posts: 34 | Posted: 10:30 AM on May 2, 2007 | IP
qednick

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'm just watching the news now and they're highlighting a new video game called Counter-Strike. It's one of those shoot-em-up games but incredibly, this one is set in a high school!!!  

The game developer actually modeled the virtual school on the high school around the corner from his house - even down to the Coke machines!!! Crazy!!!
 


Posts: 34 | Posted: 10:39 AM on May 2, 2007 | IP
kindrox

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If you want to feel safe, turn off the boob tube.  How many people immerse themselves in crime, violence and death for 60-90 minutes per day?  After doing that day in and day out, is it any wonder people want to ban guns?  I consider the “news” to be the same as WWF wrestling and Rush Limbaugh – there to attract as many viewers as possible using any means necessary.

If the same television coverage was spent examining car wrecks and resulting deaths I suppose the same people would be beating the drums for more car control.

The fact is, despite the US crime reports, most people in the USA don’t experience crime just like most don’t experience car wrecks.  Most of the crime in the USA is concentrated in a few “hot spots” and most murders involve criminals killing criminals, usually tied to drugs in one way or another.

Frankly I am shocked at how little it takes to mobilize a large number of people who have an intense desire to take away guns.  But other “risks” that we face every day which are MUCH more likely to kill us, are seen as perfectly acceptable.

Why do people have such a strong reaction to guns when the risk of dying from one is much less than heart disease, cancer, stroke, respiratory disease, accidents, diabetes, flu & pneumonia, Alzheimer’s, kidney disease, infection, liver disease and high blood pressure?  

 


Posts: 54 | Posted: 10:50 AM on May 2, 2007 | IP
qednick

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well, can I at least still watch "Lost" tonight?  
 


Posts: 34 | Posted: 11:06 AM on May 2, 2007 | IP
kindrox

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Back up your statements with fact or even a little logic, and if you want to suggest a hypothesis, feel free to do so in the form of a question instead of a command, and you will get along much easier in this world.

Imagine how your post could have gone if you had started as:

“Are there any reasons why people might need more than 6 rounds in a gun magazine?”

“Are there any reasons why gun magazines should be detachable?”

“Would banning detachable gun magazines and guns that hold more than 6 rounds be constitutional?”

Instead you waded in with opinion-based conclusions and then got defensive when your opinion-conclusions were challenged.

Come in with facts and questions and you will get miles further.

 


Posts: 54 | Posted: 2:50 PM on May 2, 2007 | IP
malignantpoodle

|      |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

magazine capacity doesn't stop mass murder (Charles Whitman), banning gun types such as the Tec-9 and assault weapons do not stop mass murder (VT), gun control does not stop mass murder (Mexico).  

The gun control argument is silly and ignorant, and at this point any of those still advocating it can only be trying to save face and have no concern for the real issues.
 


Posts: 17 | Posted: 3:04 PM on May 2, 2007 | IP
qednick

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Looks like one of bilinghm's posts (about 3 posts up) has vanished.
 


Posts: 34 | Posted: 4:08 PM on May 2, 2007 | IP
kindrox

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Maybe the forum has a no-whining rule?
 


Posts: 54 | Posted: 5:20 PM on May 2, 2007 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The gun control argument is silly and ignorant, and at this point any of those still advocating it can only be trying to save face and have no concern for the real issues.


And what, pray tell, are the real issues (from your point of view)?


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 6:14 PM on May 2, 2007 | IP
kindrox

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Some real issues are allowing open carry, where to allow concealed handguns, what training to require of concealed carry license holders, how to keep guns out of the hands of felons/mental cases, any storage requirements, punishments for gun crime and crime in general.  
 


Posts: 54 | Posted: 6:22 PM on May 2, 2007 | IP
malignantpoodle

|      |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"And what, pray tell, are the real issues (from your point of view)?"

Poverty, lack of public services such as healthcare, lack of community, corruption, the list goes on.

Rich people don't hold up 7-11's, rob old ladies, or carjack tourists at the airport.  Anywhere you find poverty and the polarization of economic classes, you find crime.  Guns are pretty much entirely irrelevant in the whole equation.  It really is quite obvious.  Please refer to the Mexico/Canada examples.

Anywhere you have poverty, crime is present.  But not everywhere you have guns is crime present.

I'm on the far left E.  I mean way left.  I'll just say it flat out;  I'm a hardline communist.  The one issue that I don't see eye to eye on with fellow comrades is the issue of gun control.

(Edited by malignantpoodle 5/3/2007 at 12:33 AM).
 


Posts: 17 | Posted: 12:30 AM on May 3, 2007 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ironically, I'm on the far right with the same exception.    I'm pretty sure that almost any country in Africa would laugh at the idea that America has an issue with poverty.  And I don't know of a single hospital that can refuse to serve you for a lack of insurance.  Heck, we provide healthcare for people that aren't even here legally.  The problem is more a lack of morals and the ability to be personally responsible for one's own decisions.  

P.S.  I have no problem with you being a communist.  It's a great theory (everyone working for the greater good), but it never seems to work out in practice.

P.P.S. I grew up in Phoenix.  Open carry is the norm.  


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 09:32 AM on May 3, 2007 | IP
malignantpoodle

|      |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

hehe, that's funny... you're on the far right but are for gun control, I'm on the far left and am against it.

But on to the issues...

citing that there are places with greater poverty than the US is completely irrelevant.  Look at gun crime in Africa, look at life expectancy, peer into any number of African hotspots and what will you see?  Destitution, lack of infrastructure, famine, complete absence of social services.  African examples support my argument of the cause for crime.

Now let's talk about your dismissals of US issues (which by the way, I'm glad that you did not summarily dismiss the entire argument which tells me we can have real dialogue here).  
Hospitals;  yes they will treat you whether you have insurance or not, but not for elective services.  It must be an emergency of some type that can be directly addressed.  However, if you need an elective procedure done say oh, a biopsy to check for cancer, or medication to keep you alive, if you don't have the money for it you're stuck out.  You're probably the only person on the planet that doesn't think that there is a healthcare crisis in the US.  It's the one thing the right and left actually agree upon.

Let's say you do get some emergency treatment and you can't pay for it.  Well, it goes on your credit, which prevents you from getting a home, a car, and even most good jobs are out of reach once you have a poor credit score.  This perpetuates poverty further by removing opportunities while debts mount.

The problem is not lack of morals or ability to be personally responsible.  What's next, are you going to tell me that Romanians are more responsible than Italians because they never had a fascist leader?  Are Mexicans not morally upstanding when compared to say, Costa Ricans?  

It's really obvious, you can pick any country on the planet, examine its crime rate, and you'll see a direct correlation to the standard of living and social welfare.

And if you think communism has ever been applied in any country, then you don't understand communism.  Read Marx, and tell me where, in the history of man have his socio-economic ideas ever been even attempted.
 


Posts: 17 | Posted: 6:02 PM on May 3, 2007 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.