Another school shooting

[Kabowd]

So you're opposed to something where only the skilled win, but when it comes to something that evens the playing field and thus increases the deterrence for use, you oppose it. So you enjoy human death?

Get real, man. No need to be so glib. I oppose illegal use of firearms. When there is a proliferation of them in the hands of the general public, it makes one uneasy. I am glad I live in Canada, where there are laws concerning owning firearms--not perfect, but better in my view.

But this isn't what your original post implied. You implied that you are opposed to the use of weapons "that kill people and do nothing but people people", never specifying any responsibility of the weapon's owner. Furthermore, you then made a distinction between swords and guns (which you've yet to explain), and now you say you're only opposed to illegal use of firearms. Here we go with the shifting advocacy again! Yay!

Excuse me? Who died and left you king/queen?

If you can't have a discussion without resorting to childish insults and attack, please just refrain from entering the discussion. Capische? Some of us are having a discussion, which you willingly entered into. We'd like to continue, but if you're only going to ruin another thread with your usual behavior, then please just avoid this topic. Thank you.

Sidenote: I'm actually rather glad you don't own a gun.

[Candi770]

This is total proof that this whole nation can be affected by sin and are not somehow shielded because we keep our distance from the unbelievers. We will probably see more of this as the time draws closer, but those who are saved have a wonderful promise of everlasting joy in the presence of our savior. I can't imagine what the man who took the lives of these little ones is facing now-everlasting torment for eternity. One moment to get even- an eternity to pay for it.

Is there a way that condolences can be sent to these amish people??

candi

[Floatingaxe]

So you're opposed to something where only the skilled win, but when it comes to something that evens the playing field and thus increases the deterrence for use, you oppose it. So you enjoy human death?

Get real, man. No need to be so glib. I oppose illegal use of firearms. When there is a proliferation of them in the hands of the general public, it makes one uneasy. I am glad I live in Canada, where there are laws concerning owning firearms--not perfect, but better in my view.

But this isn't what your original post implied. You implied that you are opposed to the use of weapons "that kill people and do nothing but people people", never specifying any responsibility of the weapon's owner. Furthermore, you then made a distinction between swords and guns (which you've yet to explain), and now you say you're only opposed to illegal use of firearms. Here we go with the shifting advocacy again! Yay!

Excuse me? Who died and left you king/queen?

If you can't have a discussion without resorting to childish insults and attack, please just refrain from entering the discussion. Capische? Some of us are having a discussion, which you willingly entered into. We'd like to continue, but if you're only going to ruin another thread with your usual behavior, then please just avoid this topic. Thank you.

Sidenote: I'm actually rather glad you don't own a gun.

Please stop being so self-righteous. I am only responding to your tactics. If you were nicer, maybe this discussion would go well.

What does that crack about you being glad I don't own a gun mean? Talk about immaturity! I am done with you. I see no love, only conceit and arrogance in your posts.

[Kabowd]

So you're opposed to something where only the skilled win, but when it comes to something that evens the playing field and thus increases the deterrence for use, you oppose it. So you enjoy human death?

Get real, man. No need to be so glib. I oppose illegal use of firearms. When there is a proliferation of them in the hands of the general public, it makes one uneasy. I am glad I live in Canada, where there are laws concerning owning firearms--not perfect, but better in my view.

But this isn't what your original post implied. You implied that you are opposed to the use of weapons "that kill people and do nothing but people people", never specifying any responsibility of the weapon's owner. Furthermore, you then made a distinction between swords and guns (which you've yet to explain), and now you say you're only opposed to illegal use of firearms. Here we go with the shifting advocacy again! Yay!

Excuse me? Who died and left you king/queen?

If you can't have a discussion without resorting to childish insults and attack, please just refrain from entering the discussion. Capische? Some of us are having a discussion, which you willingly entered into. We'd like to continue, but if you're only going to ruin another thread with your usual behavior, then please just avoid this topic. Thank you.

Sidenote: I'm actually rather glad you don't own a gun.

Please stop being so self-righteous. I am only responding to your tactics. If you were nicer, maybe this discussion would go well.

What does that crack about you being glad I don't own a gun mean? Talk about immaturity! I am done with you. I see no love, only conceit and arrogance in your posts.

Would you stop announcing everytime you're leaving a topic, and then adding your insults upon your "exit"? If you're done with me then stop responding to me. It would be much much appreciated.

[buckthesystem]

Why should owning a gun be such a right? Is it good? Why is owning a weapon that kills people and does nothing but kill people a highly revered right? I cannot fathom it.

You're much physically closer to America than I am so you should know the American psyche, and I must say that I hope this particular aspect of it at least, never changes. I could be wrong, but I gather that the American attitude towards gun control is a healthy "it is our right" (as one American tourist put it to me when we were talking about John Kerry "I hope they remember what happened last time a government tried to take our guns away from us"). I feel quite happy in the belief that the American people will never bow to politically correct global pressure and introduce arms control.

You only have to look at what happened in UK for an example of what can happen to the people of a country who obsequiously give up the right to own firearms.

Tony Blair was very proud of arming UK police and disarming the civil population. This is ALWAYS a prerequisite to introducing draconian laws to "control" populations. And very shortly afterwards Blair introduced things like the "no protest zone" for one kilometre around parliament buildings, compulsory dna testing and indefinite retention of the dna sample from all people charged with ANY "recordable offence" whether or not the person is eventually convicted or even properly charged, and of course the UK id card/NIR scheme which went against overwhelming public opinion etc. etc. (the "changes" in UK are far too numerous to list).

I remember thinking at the time I first heard that Tony Blair had disarmed all UK citizens "well, I wonder what horrible, draconian laws will be forced on the population now?" Then sure enough.........

The main reason that "owning a gun should be such a right" is: EVEN THE UN WILL TELL YOU THAT THE ORDINARY PERSON MUST ALWAYS BEAR ARMS TO BE USED AS A LAST RESORT AGAINST THE TYRANNY OF GOVERNMENT!

The following would not have been possible if these countries had retained the right of their citizens to be armed:

1-----Nazi Germany established gun control in 1938 enabling the government to round up 13 million defenceless Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, mentally ill and impaired human beings, imprisoning them in concentration camps, and by a conscious process of attrition, destroyed them.

2-----The Turkish Ottoman Empire established gun control in 1911, proceeding then to exterminate 1.5 million Armenians from 1914 - 1917.

3-----The Soviet Union established gun control in 1929. Subsequently from 1928 - 1953, 60 million dissidents were imprisoned and then exterminated.

4-----China. Gun control laws were enacted in 1935. Between 1948 - 1952, 20 million Chinese, unable to defend themselves, were likewise murdered.

5-----In the United States the first gun control laws were enacted during the Civil War era to prevent guns from falling into the hands of black slaves who might be inclined to attack their masters and thereby keeping control in the hands of the latter.

6-----Guatemala. Gun control laws were passed in 1964: as a result, between 1964 - 1981, 100,000 defenceless Mayan Indians met their deaths.

7-----Uganda. Established gun control measures in 1970. Predictably, from 1971 - 1979, 300,000 defenceless Christians met a similar fate.

8-----Cambodia. Established gun control measures in 1956, subsequently from 1957 - 1977 one million Cambodians met their deaths.

9-----Closer to home, Indonesia, another Republic, has a similar record. Out of a population of just one million people in East Timor, 200,000 have been killed over the past twenty years until the recent bloodshed when it still unknown how many thousands more have been murdered. Being promised freedom these brave people elected to vote in a referendum during which the United Nations guaranteed their safety and still they died unarmed and defenceless.

So it is simple, the first rule of how to create a totalitarian dictatorship is to take away the arms of the people so that they are unarmed.

I hope that America never falls for the whining cliches of the anti-gun brigade and allows their people to be disarmed. Americans have lost so many of their constitutional rights already, don't ever get rid of the second amendment.

[AndrewA]

ON the 13th of March 1996 Thomas Hamilton walked into a primary school in Dunblane Scotland and shot 16 children and a teacher dead and wounded many others before killing himself.

There were already very tight gun laws in the UK. This incident resulted in even tighter laws which closed many gun clubs and saw thousands of people including myself to loose their hand guns. Most guns were banned and those few exceptions have very tight laws on their use and who can own them. Since 1996 there have been no shootings in our schools or other massacres.

Maybe this guy who killed the Amish girls would have gone with other weapons. Well maybe, but at least with other weapons he would have been over powered more easier.

A few years ago an insane man attacked a kindergarten with machetes a quick thinking adult moved children out of harm, then bravely went in to tackle the knife wielding maniac, she suffered horrible injuries to her arms and face, but did enough to stop him from attacking the children and for help to turn up to over power him. Had he been carrying a gun then she would have been dead along with goodness knows how many children.

Those of you who carry guns , in reality would you really be able to use your weapon to protect yourself? By the time you know someone is threatening you say with another gun, you pull yours out? No you will be shot. Why should you find more comfort in a lump of metal that kills people over that of God and the Holy Spirit?

[EricH]

This has really gotten off topic. Also We are getting multiple reports (people turning each other in). So I am closing it