Breaking news: gunman opens fire at Northern Illinois university near Chicago!

[<RJMC>]

so they started whit the antivideogames cruzades yet?

 

[mastag]

I blame Marilyn Manson.

 

[repiV]

Where the hell is there a place where its mandatory to carry a gun?

There are a couple of towns in the US where it's mandatory for all sane, law-abiding adult residents to own a gun. I can't remember the names, but one of them is in Georgia.
As a consequence, crime is almost non-existent - virtually no murder, theft, burglary etc...

oh come on repiv with your utterly ridiculous notion that an armed student body would have prevented this, we've been through this a dozen times ..it could have easily turned into the gunfight at the okcorral, you have absolutely no way of proving your point

You have no way of proving yours. The fact remains that leaving the campus completely defenceless is both idiotic and morally reprehensible. Teachers at the least should be armed.
It's not a case of going out and arming the student body, if they have CCW permits, they shouldn't be barred from exercising their rights while on campus.
Then, the only question that needs to be raised is the training necessary to obtain that license. Cars are far more dangerous in the hands of an untrained operator than guns are, but both can be 100% safe in the hands of someone who knows what they're doing.

The UK is a far more dangerous place to live than the US overall (highest crime rate in the developed world), and we have a communist attitude towards self-defence - even being in possession of a gun can land you in the slammer for five years, and anything and everything can be considered as an offensive weapon, even innocuous objects. You aren't even allowed to carry pepper spray.
Defending yourself will, more often than not, backfire on you legally.

Clearly blaming everything on guns is just stupid, especially considering there are other countries where guns are just as proliferate with nowhere near the same rate of gun crime.

 

[AKIRA]

I blame Marilyn Manson.

lolz0rz

 

[Escaep]

Hey, don't drag us into this, you started it.

What are you talking about? You cant deny that the whole society of the world is going to hell. Look at the violence everywhere.

 

[Top Secret]

....

 

[Tagaziel]

You have no way of proving yours. The fact remains that leaving the campus completely defenceless is both idiotic and morally reprehensible. Teachers at the least should be armed.

Nobody has shot up any campus in Poland, even though we're completely defenceless (hell, every case where a cop open fire is thoroughly checked and combed each and every time).

Then, the only question that needs to be raised is the training necessary to obtain that license. Cars are far more dangerous in the hands of an untrained operator than guns are, but both can be 100% safe in the hands of someone who knows what they're doing.

Guns safer than cars when untrained? 100% safe? repiv, do you actually read what you post? Or do you randomly mash the keyboard hoping it'll make sense?

 

[Qonfused]

A gun debate on HL2.net? Holy hornbeam!

 

[repiV]

Nobody has shot up any campus in Poland, even though we're completely defenceless (hell, every case where a cop open fire is thoroughly checked and combed each and every time).

There's much less for them to defend against, so it's an invalid comparison.
The same applies here, for the most part, but this is not the USA. You can't just copy/paste policies from one country to another and expect them to have identical results.

Guns safer than cars when untrained? 100% safe? repiv, do you actually read what you post? Or do you randomly mash the keyboard hoping it'll make sense?

I don't know WTF you got your throne from, but your attitude is pissing me off.

Of course guns are safer than cars when untrained, virtually everyone is familiar with guns to a certain extent due to their presence in popular culture, anyone with a brain can avoid killing somebody with a gun - and there is no reason a responsibly handled gun would ever pose a danger to anyone except in self-defence. Gun safety is mostly common sense.
Driving, however, is much more complicated. Yet an appropriately skilled driver can certainly avoid ever being involved in an accident, that's just a lot harder than avoiding shooting someone in error.

 

[Saturos]

A gun debate on HL2.net? Holy hornbeam!

There's no way I'm not going into this again. I nearly got banned for a week the last time I got into a gun debate. :hmph:

I've already tried shoving my ideas down everyone else's throat with a plumber's helper and it didn't work. :angel: Let people have their opinions is my policy from now on until fact is proven. Even then, facts doesn't always change people's minds. For example, even if there was an alien invasion in plain view, I'd imagine there would still be a few loonies claiming it's just experimental holographic technology masterminded by our evil world government.

 

[Mr-Fusion]

Americans need more guns to defend themselves against the prevalence of guns.

 

[Mr-Fusion]

I blame Marilyn Monroe.

...the ****

 

[Jintor]

Americans need more guns to defend themselves against the prevalence of guns.

Damn right. Without more guns, how do we protect ourselves against these gun-wielding maniacs?

 

[Mr-Fusion]

With Guns Of Course

 

[hneaz]

The scary thing is that the killer went to my college at U of Illinois and lived near my campus and i was amazed that he would drive all the way up to Dekalb to do the shooting.

 

[Bad^Hat]

You can use anything to kill someone, but guns should be banned because they're too efficient at it? It would make it more difficult or even impossible for lunatics to go postal at unis, but it would also make it a lot more difficult for the "normal" people to protect themselves in other situations.

From what? Gun attacks?

There are perfectly effective ways to defend yourself against an assailant that couldn't be used to kill at a whim. Tazers, mace, etc. Guns are an extreme measure that really aren't needed in most situations.

 

[Social Bacon]

To those all making the "Civilians are safer when they carry guns" argument, or stating that too strict gun control laws are the problem. I must ask, how then do you explain America's stupidly high gun murder rates?

 

[Eejit]

I'm still not convinced making guns more common among 'normal non-psychos' is a good idea.
Anybody can have a mental breakdown, and clearly if they have a gun it sometimes leads to this kind of thing.

You say the guy shouldn't have been allowed to buy a gun with a history of mental illness. I agree.
What if he had bought the gun before he went crazy? I mean he would have just been buying it for self-defense like anyone else.

Anyone can go crazy. A proportion of crazy people have the potential to become homicidal. Guns make homicidal rampages far, far more effective than, say, a very sharp cake-fork.
You can't just say guns are fine as long as normal non-criminals have them because most normal people can be driven to crime or insanity by circumstance.

 

[Mr-Fusion]

I'm still not convinced making guns more common among 'normal non-psychos' is a good idea.
Anybody can have a mental breakdown, and clearly if they have a gun it sometimes leads to this kind of thing.

You say the guy shouldn't have been allowed to buy a gun with a history of mental illness. I agree.
What if he had bought the gun before he went crazy? I mean he would have just been buying it for self-defense like anyone else.

Anyone can go crazy. A proportion of crazy people have the potential to become homicidal. Guns make homicidal rampages far, far more effective than, say, a very sharp cake-fork.
You can't just say guns are fine as long as normal non-criminals have them because most normal people can be driven to crime or insanity by circumstance.

I agree, but we're dealing with Americans.

They aren't normal people.

They want more MORE MORE guns!!! MORE!! Guns for all! Even pet dogs should carry guns!

 

[Mr Stabby]

It's possible to buy a gun in most countries, yet no other country has the problems America does. The issue is in regulation not prohibition.

 

[Jintor]

I'm fairly certain Gun Avaliability is much more lax in America, although that just might be stereotpye. I dunno. I don't care enough to research the arguement.

 

[15357]

We had an enormous surplus of weapons available to the public after the Korean War, and the Vietnam War, and the Gwangju Riots, but continued persecution of weapons made this country a gun-free zone in only a few years.

I don't see why it would be ineffective to ban guns in America as well. Our criminals don't have guns (so most of the police, for that matter...), and I think that the argument "only criminals will have guns" is frigging stupid. Of course they will, because having a gun will make you a criminal, duh.

 

[Mr Stabby]

That's true, American gun control doesn't regulate mental illness, and then has mentally unstable people shooting up schools. In most other countries people with a history of mental illness are not allowed to buy guns.

 

[redruM]

^ Are you saying people with a history of mental illnesses are allowed to buy guns in America? Is this true? Because if it is that may be one of the most idiotic things I have ever heard. I dunno how it works in the US, but over here people have to undergo a test of their profficiency with weapons, but also a psychological test to prove they don't have any issues.

 

[Llama]

To those all making the "Civilians are safer when they carry guns" argument, or stating that too strict gun control laws are the problem. I must ask, how then do you explain America's stupidly high gun murder rates?

*facepalms*

The overall crime rate in the US is far lower than the UK. Also note the homicide rate is not massively higher as well. It is higher, yes, but not to extent you'd expect.

 

[Social Bacon]

Is it really? Sorry, I was unaware of that. But I am certain the the crime and homicide rates in other modern nations (Canada, France, Germany, Japan etc) *are* much lower than in America.

 

[repiV]

Is it really? Sorry, I was unaware of that. But I am certain the the crime and homicide rates in other modern nations (Canada, France, Germany, Japan etc) *are* much lower than in America.

We have more draconian anti-weapon/self-defence laws than any one of those countries, and guns are, by some estimates, equally in abundance in Canada as they are in the USA, so that's rather irrelevant. The point stands.
If you burgle someone here, it's extremely likely you will suffer no consequences. If you try and fight a burglar yourself, it's you who will end up in jail - and they can and will sue you if they injure themselves in the process of robbing you. It's not difficult to see where your line of reasoning leads.

 

[ericms]

If you burgle someone here, it's extremely likely you will suffer no consequences.

My new favorite word. I've always thought that "burglarize" had no synonyms.

 

[Tagaziel]

If you burgle someone here, it's extremely likely you will suffer no consequences. If you try and fight a burglar yourself, it's you who will end up in jail - and they can and will sue you if they injure themselves in the process of robbing you. It's not difficult to see where your line of reasoning leads.

Similiar bullshit was commonplace in Poland, yet no such cases were made.

 

[Kyorisu]

This is what happens when you ban guns.

# Countrywide, homicides are up 3.2 percent.
# Assaults are up 8.6 percent.
# Amazingly, armed robberies have climbed nearly 45 percent.
# In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent.
# In the 25 years before the gun bans, crime in Australia had been dropping steadily.
# There has been a reported "dramatic increase" in home burglaries and assaults on the elderly.

However;
It is "enormously difficult" to gather accurate statistics on crime and weapons, because there are so many other factors involved. Factors such as population change have made it arduous to gauge what sort of effect gun ban laws have on crime.

I believe with a gun ban you won't see any public shootings, it makes it immensely difficult for the average person to acquire a gun. Those that do have guns then only seek to use them for personal gain. This means you see a massive boost in crimes relating to theft.

 

[Llama]

I've heard this taken-to-court by a burglar lark before, but i've never heard of a single case where something like it actually happened.

Also, the fight stuff is rubbish. You can use necessary force in self defence (Or pre-emptive self defence) so as long as you don't leave the guy crippled, you can whup ass and not worry.

I'f you're brave / stupid enough to try it, that is.

 

[repiV]

I've heard this taken-to-court by a burglar lark before, but i've never heard of a single case where something like it actually happened.

Try Tony Martin for starters.

Also, the fight stuff is rubbish. You can use necessary force in self defence (Or pre-emptive self defence) so as long as you don't leave the guy crippled, you can whup ass and not worry.

I'f you're brave / stupid enough to try it, that is.

Define "necessary force". Like people have time to worry about what the law will consider to be "necessary" in the heat of the moment. "Pre-emptive" self-defence is completely illegal - if a burglar is in your home, you cannot legally expel them by force unless they actually attack you first.
Our justice system favours the criminal. Our police force harasses law-abiding, decent people for minor technical infringements of the law and does virtually nothing to stop real criminals. Which is why the police are nowadays seen as the enemy by most people, whereas in the past they were seen as our guardians.

 

[Mr Stabby]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/3130871.stm

 

[Sulkdodds]

If you burgle someone here, it's extremely likely you will suffer no consequences. If you try and fight a burglar yourself, it's you who will end up in jail - and they can and will sue you if they injure themselves in the process of robbing you. It's not difficult to see where your line of reasoning leads.

What are you talking about? Where are your sources as to this being "extremely likely"? Do you actually know the laws on self-defence? You can definitely be acquitted of whatever assault you do to a burglar in a court of law, especially if it is serious enough to be tried by a jury. And guess what: the jury decides what constitutes 'reasonable force' so you only really have the public to blame if people keep getting off.

You're also falsely conflating criminal and civil law. You can't go to jail if a criminal sues you. As prison sentences are very often awarded for burglars, especially consistent burglars - I'm sure you know how much the imposition of mimimum sentences by the govt. on the courts has been reported on - it is usually unlikely that the burglar will be able to sue you, let alone whether he'd be able to win.

AFAIK, the criminal courts found that Tony Martin shot his burglars as they were running away. Great self-defence there.

EDIT:

in the past [the police] were seen as our guardians.

You must be joking.

 

[repiV]

What are you talking about? Where are your sources? Do you actually know the laws on self-defence? You can definitely be acquitted of whatever assault you do to a burglar in a court of law, especially if it is serious enough to be tried by a jury. And guess what: the jury decides what constitutes 'reasonable force' so you only really have the public to blame if people keep getting off.

That's not true...the only legal justification for assaulting a burglar is if they pose a direct physical threat to you or your family. The fact that they're stealing your stuff isn't enough.
In any case, why should we even have to concern ourselves with such technicalities? If someone breaks into the sanctity of your home, they should lose any and all protection they were entitled to under the law.

You're also falsely conflating criminal and civil law. You can't go to jail if a criminal sues you.

Um, that's not what I said. You can go to jail for assaulting a burglar, and the burglar can also sue you if they hurt themselves burgling you.

As prison sentences are very often awarded for burglars, especially consistent burglars - I'm sure you know how much the imposition of mimimum sentences by the govt. on the courts has been reported on - it is usually unlikely that the burglar will be able to sue you, let alone whether he'd be able to win. Also, who burgles when they have enough money for the legal fees?

Community service is also a sentence awarded to burglars. Speeding and parking fines are often higher than the fines imposed for shoplifting.
Virtually no burglars are ever caught, and if you call the police, the chances are they won't even bother doing anything about it because their government targets encourage tham to spend all their time on petty crime.
This is not a system that works in the interests of the populace.

AFAIK, the criminal courts found that Tony Martin shot his burglars as they were running away. Great self-defence there.

So what? He had been harassed by these people time and time again. Don't play with fire if you don't want to get burned.
If I lived in Texas and I had a gun, and some **** was running away with all my stuff, I wouldn't hesitate to give him 2 in the chest and 1 in the head either. No bastard is gonna get away with my possessions.

You must be joking.

No. They certainly weren't regarded with vitrolic hate by the vast majority of the law-abiding population, as they are now.

 

[Llama]

No, pre emptive self defense is not illegal. Come on, would I have said so if it wasn't?
It means just that, if you think that a person is going to attack you you can strike first.

http://www.ukmao.co.uk/enc_selfdefence.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defence_in_English_law

Necessary force is the force required to stop the attacker from being a threat. If you were to punch me, for example, I could hold you in a lock. That would be necessay force. If you're repeatadly trying to bottle me it would be necessary to use more force - Breaking your arm to stop you smashing my head open with broken glass as an example. Now the problem is that what is "necessary" is decided by the Jury - what the **** does a jury know?

 

[repiV]

No, pre emptive self defense is not illegal. Come on, would I have said so if it wasn't?
It means just that, if you think that a person is going to attack you you can strike first.

http://www.ukmao.co.uk/enc_selfdefence.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defence_in_English_law

That's fine, but you then have to stand up in front of a court and prove that they were going to attack you - and that you didn't apply excessive force to stop them from doing what you thought they were going to do.
It doesn't allow you to attack someone for stealing your stuff. If they're walking away with your TV, the only thing you can legally do is ask them to give it back.

Necessary force is the force required to stop the attacker from being a threat. If you were to punch me, for example, I could hold you in a lock. That would be necessay force. If you're repeatadly trying to bottle me it would be necessary to use more force - Breaking your arm to stop you smashing my head open with broken glass as an example. Now the problem is that what is "necessary" is decided by the Jury - what the **** does a jury know?

If someone twice my size tried to punch me, and being that I'm no match for him, I stabbed him in the chest, where exactly would that leave me in the eyes of the law?

 

[Llama]

That's fine, but you then have to stand up in front of a court and prove that they were going to attack you - and that you didn't apply excessive force to stop them from doing what you thought they were going to do.
It doesn't allow you to attack someone for stealing your stuff. If they're walking away with your TV, the only thing you can legally do is ask them to give it back.

The act of protection must fulfill a number of conditions in order to be lawful. The defendant must believe, rightly or wrongly, that the attack is imminent. While a pre-emptive blow is lawful the time factor is also important, if there is an opportunity to retreat or to obtain protection from the police the defendant should do so - demonstrating an intention to avoid violence. However the defendant is not obliged to leave a particular location even if forewarned of the arrival of an assailant.

If someone is creeping around your house in the dead of night, and you disturb them, why would they not attack you? Let's be honest - This is a legal problem. At the end of the day, it will be your version of events versus someone who has forcefully broken into your home.

If someone twice my size tried to punch me, and being that I'm no match for him, I stabbed him in the chest, where exactly would that leave me in the eyes of the law?

Stabbing someone and causing death is far more serious than necessary force. Don't expect me to think of every conceivable issue . If someone twice your size tries to punch you - First of all, stop them form punching you. Second - Either leg it, or deal with this person. A knife to the chest, however, is (literally) overkill.

 

[repiV]

If someone is creeping around your house in the dead of night, and you disturb them, why would they not attack you? Let's be honest - This is a legal problem. At the end of the day, it will be your version of events versus someone who has forcefully broken into your home.

What if they don't attack you? They could just ignore you and keep on lifting your stuff, and the only way for you to stop them would leave you liable to prosecution.
Doesn't that strike you as slightly insane?

Stabbing someone and causing death is far more serious than necessary force. Don't expect me to think of every conceivable issue . If someone twice your size tries to punch you - First of all, stop them form punching you. Second - Either leg it, or deal with this person. A knife to the chest, however, is (literally) overkill.

Why should I have to leg it out of my own home when someone is stealing my stuff? For that matter, why should I ever, in any circumstance, be obliged by law to allow someone to commit a crime against me?

 

[Llama]

What if they don't attack you? They could just ignore you and keep on lifting your stuff, and the only way for you to stop them would leave you liable to prosecution.
Doesn't that strike you as slightly insane?

Yes. Like I said, it's a Legal problem and I think it's as stupid as you do. What i'm saying is if you do find someone taking your stuff, they are not going to ignore you. They will either
a) Leg it
b) Try it with you

Since we are only worried about b), that's when the SD comes into play.

Now I don't know about thism yself, this bit here is just my questions to the wind - If someone is taking your TV, where do you stand if you try to take the tv off them, they start acting threatening and you whallop them? I would think that would fit under self defence aswell, though that would be very hard to prove or disprove.

Why should I have to leg it out of my own home when someone is stealing my stuff? For that matter, why should I ever, in any circumstance, be obliged by law to allow someone to commit a crime against me?

You shouldn't. However, you need to clarify something for me because you seem to have used my stabbing answer (about you been attacked) and tried to use it for robbery.