The Mayor Of Simpleton Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 https://www.facebook.com/ArtisticTributeForSandyHookElementarySchool I was sent the above link today by a friend, and I amazed at the quality of these sketches of the children who lost their lives in the recent Sandy Hook Elementary School Attacks. It just shows that there is still some good in the world, and I am in admiration for the creator of these works - Dana Benz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
missunderstood Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 https://www.facebook...lementarySchool I was sent the above link today by a friend, and I amazed at the quality of these sketches of the children who lost their lives in the recent Sandy Hook Elementary School Attacks. It just shows that there is still some good in the world, and I am in admiration for the creator of these works - Dana Benz. Probably fair to say that the tribute those poor parents really want is a total ban on firearms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eastside Urchin Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Do you think that will happen with so many of Americas 'finest people" loving the firearm sport. Saying that,if someone wants to kill people they will get hold of firearms legally or non Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mayor Of Simpleton Posted January 16, 2013 Author Share Posted January 16, 2013 Knives are legal, and people can kill with them (recently in Birmingham as an example). Cars are legal, and people can kill with them. Does that mean, therefore, that we ban knives and cars just because they can kill people if used incorrectly? Whilst what happened at Sandy Hook was undeniably tragic, I would not go for illegalising guns. It's not the gun that's the problem - it's the nut-job holding it that is. When you read about the history of Adam Lanza and learn of his family background (his Mother was a Domesday Prepper) then you begin to realise the circumstances and what led him to commit the atrocity. I believe that he was on the same kind of medication that Dunblane killer Thomas Hamilton was on. Surely the medication needs looking at as well, if it caused psychosis? Guns, if used properly and correctly, can be great (even fun) things. I know of people who clay pigeon shoot in Dartmoor and near Welshpool - none of them has ever shot a person dead, yet all have used a firearm. It's a bit like saying 'if you support Milwall, you must be a hooligan.' I am sure that 99.9% of all Millwall fans are perfectly normal and not violent at all, but unfortunately it is the 0.1% who are idiots who ruin it for the rest of their fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
missunderstood Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Knives and cars are made for socially acceptable reasons and guns are designed and manufactured predominantly to kill. IMO there should be a total ban on all firearms, and the only people allowed to carry guns should be the police, in exceptional circumstances, and members of the armed services. Anyone caught in possession of a gun should expect to serve a minimum of five years in prison and at least double if the gun has been used. How can any sane person honestly believe guns are fun, or shooting innocent animals is sport? and people that do are nothing short of savages IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loose Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 I think the difference here is that the gun is the only one of the three to, if used properly, for the purpose it was manufactured for, that will kill. It's time the americans grew up and realised:- That their constitution written in a time when protection let alone justice could be many hours, even days or weeks away simply does not apply to the modern world where if you pay your taxes you have protection and justice on your doorstep or if not a question of minutes away. That hunting which they seem to embrace like kids does not require the use of semi automatic weapons to be a sport or to provide meat for their consumption. That clay pigeon shooting needs to take place at licensed venues using secure gun storage systems and yet again is not a sport whilst using semi and automatic rifles. Hand guns do not protect people, they kill people. When no-one has them you don't need one either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mayor Of Simpleton Posted January 16, 2013 Author Share Posted January 16, 2013 Whilst I see your points, Alan and Loose, I do think that the right to self defence needs to be looked at. If somebody came onto your property, for example, and threatened you or your family, surely you'd want to be able to defend yourself and your family from this person? I'm going to be controversial, but I do not think guns should be banned - at least not hand-guns as a means of protection. I know of somebody in the USA who recently threatened to shoot a burglar on his property, unless the burglar dropped his sack with stolen goods and walked out of the house. Now for that, I don't have a problem - the burglar broke the law by crossing the threshold of the homeowner's property, so if he had been shot it would have been his fault. What if it hadn't been a burglar but a rapist or a paedophile? Surely then, a gun would have been a good deterrent and a way to say 'keep the hell away from my wife and kids!' Nobody needs a big arsenal of weapons, but a hand gun used sensibly to defend and not attack is something that I don't have a problem with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
missunderstood Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Whilst I see your points, Alan and Loose, I do think that the right to self defence needs to be looked at. If somebody came onto your property, for example, and threatened you or your family, surely you'd want to be able to defend yourself and your family from this person? I'm going to be controversial, but I do not think guns should be banned - at least not hand-guns as a means of protection. I know of somebody in the USA who recently threatened to shoot a burglar on his property, unless the burglar dropped his sack with stolen goods and walked out of the house. Now for that, I don't have a problem - the burglar broke the law by crossing the threshold of the homeowner's property, so if he had been shot it would have been his fault. What if it hadn't been a burglar but a rapist or a paedophile? Surely then, a gun would have been a good deterrent and a way to say 'keep the hell away from my wife and kids!' Nobody needs a big arsenal of weapons, but a hand gun used sensibly to defend and not attack is something that I don't have a problem with. There could never be a non living thing in my house valuable enough to kill for, and I would imagine that if any criminal that burgled my property thought I had a gun they to would also be armed, for their own protection. That fact alone would make owning a gun counter productive and far more dangerous for myself and my family. Burglar alarms, using effective locks properly, and neighbours looking out for each other are far more efficient than any weapon, although I'm sure the macho adrenalin junky brigade would disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loose Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Whilst I see your points, Alan and Loose, I do think that the right to self defence needs to be looked at. If somebody came onto your property, for example, and threatened you or your family, surely you'd want to be able to defend yourself and your family from this person? I'm going to be controversial, but I do not think guns should be banned - at least not hand-guns as a means of protection. I know of somebody in the USA who recently threatened to shoot a burglar on his property, unless the burglar dropped his sack with stolen goods and walked out of the house. Now for that, I don't have a problem - the burglar broke the law by crossing the threshold of the homeowner's property, so if he had been shot it would have been his fault. What if it hadn't been a burglar but a rapist or a paedophile? Surely then, a gun would have been a good deterrent and a way to say 'keep the hell away from my wife and kids!' Nobody needs a big arsenal of weapons, but a hand gun used sensibly to defend and not attack is something that I don't have a problem with. One of your examples seems to me to be saying that property is more valuable than life, that you value your baubles more than life itself. It's your opinion, your entitled to hold it as do many others particularly when you have a gun and that power to take life, I do not agree. Belongings can always be replaced, when you have found a way to replace a life you take then that is what you like to call a level playing field. Now, does the rapist or the "paedophile" know that you have the gun as a deterrent? If not then it is hardly a deterrent is it? Do you put a sign on your house saying I have a gun(s) and if you come into my home to cause harm I'll use my gun to hurt or kill you? Does the rapist or "paedophile" then arm himself ahead of entering your house? A gun isn't a deterrent, it's a weapon that kills whether someone knows you've got one or not, whether he decides to bring a bigger or automatic gun with them. A society that does it's best to ensure that people don't cause harm to each other does so with high detection and judicial rates, that deters. When you have a gun, someone else wants one. Or a bigger one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
missunderstood Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 One of your examples seems to me to be saying that property is more valuable than life, that you value your baubles more than life itself. It's your opinion, your entitled to hold it as do many others particularly when you have a gun and that power to take life, I do not agree. Belongings can always be replaced, when you have found a way to replace a life you take then that is what you like to call a level playing field. Now, does the rapist or the "paedophile" know that you have the gun as a deterrent? If not then it is hardly a deterrent is it? Do you put a sign on your house saying I have a gun(s) and if you come into my home to cause harm I'll use my gun to hurt or kill you? Does the rapist or "paedophile" then arm himself ahead of entering your house? A gun isn't a deterrent, it's a weapon that kills whether someone knows you've got one or not, whether he decides to bring a bigger or automatic gun with them. A society that does it's best to ensure that people don't cause harm to each other does so with high detection and judicial rates, that deters. When you have a gun, someone else wants one. Or a bigger one. I said it first, but as usual you said it much more eloquently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loose Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 I think the sentiment and reasoning is the same Alan. The only purpose in having a gun is that when you use one you use it to kill. I've never seen anyone saying that you must use it to wound, the police who are armed are trained to only use the kill shot, no-one is that skilled that they can stop a person with a wounding shot. To my mind anyone possessing a gun illegally, which apart from gun clubs and shotgun licences in this country is the case should be given a life sentence because that is their purpose in having a gun, to take a life. As I said, the americans need to grow up and love life more than their enshrined in a different century right to possess a shiny killing toy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krooner Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 I listened to the mother of the Biritsh boy in the shooting referred to. It was very moving and you haev to feel for them. Even the 5 Live presenter was choked and had to back off from anotehr story to get her composure. The fact is ban guns or not will make very little difference. If someone wants to get a gun and kill they will be able to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big J R Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 I listened to the mother of the Biritsh boy in the shooting referred to. It was very moving and you haev to feel for them. Even the 5 Live presenter was choked and had to back off from anotehr story to get her composure. The fact is ban guns or not will make very little difference. If someone wants to get a gun and kill they will be able to. I have to agree with Krooner. Even though the penalties for carrying a fire-arm are quite severe, there are certain areas of Britain, (NO - I'm NOT going to point the finger), where it is the norm for young people to carry a knife, and many a fire-arm. I know from experience that any-body that wants a gun, and has the money can get one quite easily. It is even possible in certain areas of Britain to RENT, one, the deposit being returned if the weapon is returned un-used ! Perhaps the sentence for carrying a knife or a gun should be a mandatory twenty years with NO parole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mayor Of Simpleton Posted January 16, 2013 Author Share Posted January 16, 2013 I listened to the mother of the Biritsh boy in the shooting referred to. It was very moving and you haev to feel for them. Even the 5 Live presenter was choked and had to back off from anotehr story to get her composure. The fact is ban guns or not will make very little difference. If someone wants to get a gun and kill they will be able to. Very true Krooner, and if guns go 'underground' in the USA then that is a far more dangerous scenario. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loose Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 I don't get this "we can't do anything" mentality tbh. If you make possessing a hand gun or any firearm not used strictly under supervised or licensed hunting conditions illegal then in the US you would remove 95% of these weapons from their society. Law a biding folk generally follow the law. Then you are left with criminals and the "survivalist" nutters. You identify crime, you identify criminals. The FBI know each and every member and organisation of the conspiracy illuminati sucking variety. At the very least you remove 257 million weapons designed to kill from the hands of total amateurs and their abnormal kids who want to kill their schoolmates. Leaving maybe 30 million guns or less in the hands of law enforcement officials and criminals, surely that should be enough for them to play with? Or maybe we should go with "It's a lost cause". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eastside Urchin Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Has anyone ever though that the states is just full of complete loonies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big J R Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 Has anyone ever though that the states is just full of complete loonies On more than one occasion ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.