Two students dead, 17 injured in shooting at Kentucky high school

[thaibeachlovers]

39 minutes ago, wildewillie89 said:

NEED vs WANT...you said NEED so lets clarify the need.

For a gun to be of any actual use to you in that situation you would NEED to have the gun on you at all times and be constantly scanning/listening around your property. So that would mean not sleeping, not showering, not resting, no noise, no focusing on any task (even using computer/phone) and not having any guests (especially children) over. Not to mention it would mean you are highly trained and familiar with not only the weapon, but your movements and surroundings. This isn't the movies lol. 

My father-in-law has a gun on him in a case and sometimes a vest with a police escort (mostly during election times as he is a target). I see him shower and sleep and think what is the point of the gun? Even in a home invasion the gun being in a case would be too slow to get out. For those 6 hours he sleeps and 5 minutes he showers someone could easily gain access to him as the gun is definitely out of reach. For him, it is second nature due to his Army days rather than being of any actual use. I have made sure it is put away when my children are there (so again, it is utterly useless). My Mrs driver used to have a gun on him, but it was physically on him (not in a case), and was only ever to be used if confronted by militants in the South during field work.    

However, on the most part, 'responsible' gun owners who have actual lives have their guns locked in a safe, do sleep and do shower. The gun as a form of defence is useless to them if a home invasion was to occur. Hence, why I have two dogs with stopping powers of .45 calibre bullets as I do want to sleep, watch TV, shower and have children. If people have both the fire power and skill to conduct a home invasion where I live, no gun I have in my home locked in a cute little safe would be saving me. 

OMG.

I lock my doors when I'm in the house. Breaking in alerts me that a bad person means to do me harm. I can get my gun from where it is located in a secure but not locked place, and be ready to use it by the time the bad person has entered the house.

 

BTW, like millions of others I am trained to use weapons, and a shotgun, which is what I'd use does not have to be aimed precisely to immobilise an intruder. It can even have non lethal substances in the shells if I don't want to kill.

A hand gun would not be my choice of weapon in a home invasion, as few are going to be cool enough to use one accurately in a chaotic situation, and I certainly wouldn't be, plus the chance of a bullet exiting the house and hitting some innocent outside.

[wildewillie89]

1 minute ago, UncleTouchyFingers said:

 

LOL Those dogs wont do shit. Some poison in a hotdog and they are done man its how the Thais do it. 

 

As to everything else. I dont even have any idea where you dreamt up all that. A non gun owner trying to school the other non gun owners on why owning a gun is "pointless" has got to be one of the most laughable propositions I've seen today. 

 

Thousands of homeowners in the US have successfully thwarted/killed/protected their property from home invaders with their household firearms.  From little old ladies, single moms, you name it. 

 

Only the stupidest retard burglars would assume that household firearms would be locked in a safe all the time and completely inaccessible lmao. 

 

Come on you have to see how ridiculous all that is. 

The dogs are LGDs. I have owned 4 now that wouldn't accept a steak from a stranger that had been accepted onto the land by me at a BBQ or drink water on land that wasn't their own. They will protect a tomato with the same intensity if that is what they are bonded with. Rather than show your ignorance, actually research them. Sub types temporarily replaced GS during WW2 as stock was being stolen (no issues after that). I guess no poison in those days...oh wait. 

That may well be, but thousands of Americans have also accidentally killed each other or themselves, and have also been victims of home invasions where the gun did literally nothing. So if that is the best you can come up with then keep watching the movies :).

[Coastrider]

Tell me why I don't like Mondays was a great song about this type of shit years ago, great tune, sorry for the kids.

 

[wildewillie89]

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

OMG.

I lock my doors when I'm in the house. Breaking in alerts me that a bad person means to do me harm. I can get my gun from where it is located in a secure but not locked place, and be ready to use it by the time the bad person has entered the house.

 

BTW, like millions of others I am trained to use weapons, and a shotgun, which is what I'd use does not have to be aimed precisely to immobilise an intruder. It can even have non lethal substances in the shells if I don't want to kill.

A hand gun would not be my choice of weapon in a home invasion, as few are going to be cool enough to use one accurately in a chaotic situation, and I certainly wouldn't be, plus the chance of a bullet exiting the house and hitting some innocent outside.

My Mrs is trained and licensed to use weapons. In the scheme of things it means literally jack all unless you are using them on a frequent basis (the hand gun comment implies you do not). Your house must be a fortress or a fire hazard if you think a gun is sufficient in these circumstances. 

[DM07]

1 hour ago, UncleTouchyFingers said:

 

Lots of exclamation points and emotion again in your reply. This is what I'm talking about. You being angry and going after people that haven't done anything wrong definitely wont fix the problem. 

 

People dont just grab a gun and go on a shooting spree. You and me and 99.9% of the rest of the world look at that like an insane how-the-hell-can-someone-do-that kind of thing, and the issue needs to focus on WHY they are doing that. What is driving them. 

 

Im glad that you support the individual right for one to kill themselves - you're kinda proving my point for me in that regard as the majority of firearm related deaths in the US are from suicide, not murder, yet those deaths are rolled into all the statistics to inflate the number of actual murders. 

"the majority of firearm related deaths in the US are from suicide, not murder,"

I am sure the family and friends of those killed in the 11 shootings this year (mind you: it's Jan 25th, now!), will be glad to hear about this important fact!

 

...and stop going on about my use of exclamation- points, please!!!!!!!!!!!!

[DM07]

1 hour ago, UncleTouchyFingers said:

You cant just scream BS!! when its not BS!! because you don't like it. 

 

So to recap your point (or lack thereof) cars kill WAY more people than guns, but thats tolerable because they carry people around, and they didn't mean to do it? (I Think, but you know, drunk driving - also illegal) Drugs (opiates) are killing WAY more people than both cars AND guns, but thats tolerable because for some reason you equate medial treatment to illicit drug use, therefore it has some "good" (?) 

 

A gun is a tool for defense and most people use them for just that. Some people, unfortunately, do not, and use them to commit criminal acts. Bad people will be bad people. There isnt any way to stop it. Its been going on since humanity began and it will continue. The dumbest thing imaginable to me would be to neuter the law abiding citizens of the country based on the feelings of uninformed bystanders. 

 

To use your last diabetic analogy - Im an American, but im still not going to blame the gun, or large swaths of the population, if I get shot. Ill blame the shooter. Just like everywhere else. Just like the courts will as well. 

One last point and the I will leave you to the fantasies of defending democracy and your family and your rights at gun-point...

 "A gun is a tool for defense and most people use them for just that."

 

a) no, it very well isn't!

b ) google  what the letters "AR" in AR 15 stand for!

Defense, huh?!

 

Oh...and here...for your pleasure: !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[UncleTouchyFingers]

6 minutes ago, DM07 said:

One last point and the I will leave you to the fantasies of defending democracy and your family and your rights at gun-point...

 "A gun is a tool for defense and most people use them for just that."

 

a) no, it very well isn't!

b ) google  what the letters "AR" in AR 15 stand for!

Defense, huh?!

 

Oh...and here...for your pleasure: !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

AR stands for ArmaLite Rifle, not Assault Rifle, not Automatic Rifle. 

 

ArmaLite Rifle, named after the company that developed it. 

 

As if anyone here needed any more evidence of your ignorance.

 

[DM07]

3 minutes ago, UncleTouchyFingers said:

 

AR stands for ArmaLite Rifle, not Assault Rifle, not Automatic Rifle. 

 

ArmaLite Rifle, named after the company that developed it. 

 

As if anyone here needed any more evidence of your ignorance.

 

...and the term "assault rifle" for exactly this kind of gun was invented, because....

...a bunch of law-abiding homeowners defend themselves with rifles against people who assault them!

Got it!

Good bye!!!!!!!!!!!

[wildewillie89]

Look at it from another angle. What areas are guns actually justified? That is the risks of them being readily available (school shootings, accidental shootings, mass shootings) are overcome by actually needing the gun in self defence. How many areas realistically? Chances of events occurring are pretty low aren't they. 

 

I live in a family of politics (Thai isn't known for its safe politics), we will have actual police drive bys all day outside our house during election times. My dogs I feel are more than sufficient. 

 

My Mrs worked in the red zones of an actual insurgency for 18 months wearing an officials uniform all day (target). Didn't feel the need for a gun in her down time or room.

 

What kind of paranoid, scared people feel they need guns so much it counters the thousands of innocent people who lose their lives to them every year. Cars have an actual purpose for the majority of people, guns do not. 

 

Delusional. Enjoy the guns, until you accidently shoot someone/yourself as you are so nervous around the very situations you claim you need them for or the very gun itself.

Edited January 26, 2018 by wildewillie89

[wildewillie89]

Oh I forgot, already incredibly low chances of needing a gun, but they are actually even lower. If we add in the fact that a lot of violence/murders are committed by someone you know in the actual household then that would further decrease the reason for having a gun as you're providing the murder weapon in the house to the person most likely to kill you. Especially as you don't 'lock' it. 

 

You like guns, I get that. I like guns. But they aren't actually of any use to the circumstances that have been put forward so far. Even 'trained' police on the beat in disciplined forces make up incredibly low shooting stats. Where I'm from the Special Operation Groups are called in for things like armed robberies as they are usually ex SASR and have the familiarity with guns that is actually required. Normal police carry guns, but only use them in emergencies and try and call in SOG if they can. Yet, a part time shooter who has probably below a 0.00001% chance of being a target, and who doesn't have the confidence to use certain weapons, thinks he has some sort of a hope because he has a license???? Come on. No need for guns in your instance. 

[JLCrab]

This is a World News Forum topic about a school shooting in small town Kentucky USA. Little detail is known, as the shooter is a juvenile, especially how this kid was able to get his hands on a hand gun capable of doing the damage he inflicted.

 

Having a debate about who or under what circumstances one needs or doesn't need a gun for whatever reason is a bit late. There is estimated already about 300 million guns total in the USA and about 5-10 million semi-automatic type weapons.

 

Somehow the USA as a first step has to finds a way to prevent these guns falling into the hands of those who would use them in these mass shootings.

Edited January 26, 2018 by JLCrab

[thaibeachlovers]

19 hours ago, wildewillie89 said:

Look at it from another angle. What areas are guns actually justified? That is the risks of them being readily available (school shootings, accidental shootings, mass shootings) are overcome by actually needing the gun in self defence. How many areas realistically? Chances of events occurring are pretty low aren't they. 

 

I live in a family of politics (Thai isn't known for its safe politics), we will have actual police drive bys all day outside our house during election times. My dogs I feel are more than sufficient. 

 

My Mrs worked in the red zones of an actual insurgency for 18 months wearing an officials uniform all day (target). Didn't feel the need for a gun in her down time or room.

 

What kind of paranoid, scared people feel they need guns so much it counters the thousands of innocent people who lose their lives to them every year. Cars have an actual purpose for the majority of people, guns do not. 

 

Delusional. Enjoy the guns, until you accidently shoot someone/yourself as you are so nervous around the very situations you claim you need them for or the very gun itself.

What does that have to do with the situation in the US, which is the subject of the OP, not some village in Thailand?

Even I don't think I need a gun in Thailand.

[wildewillie89]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

What does that have to do with the situation in the US, which is the subject of the OP, not some village in Thailand?

Even I don't think I need a gun in Thailand.

Introductory paragraph clearly stated the argument. Supportive arguments taken from potentially more dangerous areas of the world compared to the OP were used to show how delusional your claim of NEEDING a gun is.

 

Didn't think it was that hard to comprehend...

Edited January 27, 2018 by wildewillie89

[JLCrab]

The Second Amendment to the US Constitution and subsequent legal interpretation is the basis for gun advocates support that the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" not be infringed.

 

It says nothing about whether a gun is needed or not.

Edited January 27, 2018 by JLCrab

[wildewillie89]

That's the beauty of these things, they can be changed - with a bit of common sense. 

Re debate regarding circumstances, I don't think it ever too late if the frequency of these mass shootings continue (as lives should matter). As it seems the only way to overcome the political donation side of the equation would be with a cultural shift for many Americans forcing some accountability (if democracy exists in the land of the free). 

This is evident in the fact that the rhetoric coming out of American (journalists and some politicians) regards Australia. Australia is the country that America is compared to re gun laws. The way Australia fixed mass shootings revolved around circumstances. That is, someone can have a gun if they have a reason, sure. However, they must prove they have 'genuine' reasons for having that gun (hunting or gun club). Obviously, self defence isn't a rational reason. This land of the free argument is silly, as people in Australia still can own guns, the only difference is the people who own them have reasons to own them and they are legally required to own them responsibly. 

How did Australia get rid of the stock piles of guns? Compensate people, pay them for handing in their guns. Not prosecute them for handing in already illegal guns (as human life is more important than increasing the prison population). 

I'm sure we can sit around thinking of softer ways to do this and do that, ways which probably will not work. However, judging from these threads 'responsible' gun owners cant even lock their guns away so it is a bit of a pointless conversation to have. As it stands there will always be chances of children or mentally ill people going on rampages if guns are so easily accessed within even the household. Without payback schemes and stricter laws that really don't infringe the rights of people who have legitimate interests/reasons to own guns, it will never change unfortunately. All I really have to say on the matter. 
 

Edited January 27, 2018 by wildewillie89

[JLCrab]

The US Supreme Court (2007)  in the Washington DC v. Heller decision said that self-defense is a rational reason to own and keep a hand gun in an individual's home in a  ready-to-use mode.