Latest "school shooting" scare

[Shorts]

I agree. No one's bent out of shape, just addressing misinformation.

The media does sensationalize what does not need to be sensationalized. If you watch/listen to the original video news link, you'll understand. As for "semi-auto", it was mentioned in the thread as well.

No one's downplaying the seriousness of this kid and the trouble he's in. But to tack on additional drama just because you can shows the uneducated anti-firearm bias, then spreads that view to the masses. And if I know mgdavis (and I do) this is is what his OP was about. To put it into terms for the motorcycle community, that's like you seeing Squids on Gixxers pulling all kinds of crap on public streets and then hearing or feeling the backlash just because you are a motorcycle rider, period.

Many would not buy their kids guns here. I would. I see no problem with my kids owning and using BB/pellet guns or have their own "real gun" (I did, many do). And the calibers that that kid did have is the preferred progression in order to learn handling and technique from younger folk to adults - kinda like starting on a 250 motorcycle and moving up...

Food for thought, just erase for a minute this kid was disturbed and didn't get in trouble. Say he's on par for Valedictorian of his class, team captain, president of student body, dates the head cheerleader, active in his church youth group and goes through middle and high school unscathed. Does it matter now that at random you find out he has the same collection of firearms? After all, he isn't disturbed, angry, troubled, holding a grudge... Or should this guy still "not need" them?

Well, we all don't "need" the toys and hobbies we do have, but we have them.

Let's face it, when someone gets in trouble with the law, one of the first things that is reported is anything that can be used as dirt, is used as dirt. And owning a gun does look like dirt to uneducated, biased anti-firearm community. To the educated and trained, owning more than one gun is no different than owning more than one motorcycle, or stamp collecting, or whatever the hobby is that one is interested in.

It isn't the "ownership" issue that is in direct question here. It is the biased nature against firearms that is so often regurgitated. And that does lead to more restrictions, and tougher ownership laws to abide by for the law abiding citizens that are most often affected by these implementations (bad guys get around laws in place). The story just doesn't end with this kid getting reprimanded for what he got caught for. It does lead to other issues being dredged that does threaten gun ownership. You may not see it, but it's a gateway and opportunity for censorship. This issue may not be in your interest, but it is for others. I see no reason to give up my opportunity to speak for what I see fit.

[Loonette]

Food for thought, just erase for a minute this kid was disturbed and didn't get in trouble. Say he's on par for Valedictorian of his class, team captain, president of student body, dates the head cheerleader, active in his church youth group and goes through middle and high school unscathed. Does it matter now that at random you find out he has the same collection of firearms? After all, he isn't disturbed, angry, troubled, holding a grudge... Or should this guy still "not need" them?

I already covered this point by mentioning that the mother should have gotten her son some counseling instead of some new deadly weapons. He was demonstrating that he was troubled, yet instead of addressing his issues, she gave him an escape that could have been deadly. Would we protect her "rights" if she had bought him some rx to sooth his wounded soul?

And owning a gun does look like dirt to uneducated, biased anti-firearm community. To the educated and trained, owning more than one gun is no different than owning more than one motorcycle, or stamp collecting, or whatever the hobby is that one is interested in.

Really? The thing is... if I'm upset at the world, I'm not likely to take out 20 school kids by sticking stamps all over them.

It isn't the "ownership" issue that is in direct question here.

No kidding - you were the one who made the "ownership" thing an issue. And the OP made it sound like those weapons weren't a big deal - (they're just toys after all). I mentioned that the mother used poor judment in purchasing the weapons for her son when what he needed was guidance and professional help.

The story just doesn't end with this kid getting reprimanded for what he got caught for. It does lead to other issues being dredged that does threaten gun ownership. You may not see it, but it's a gateway and opportunity for censorship. This issue may not be in your interest, but it is for others. I see no reason to give up my opportunity to speak for what I see fit.

GOOD! I hope it dredges up other issues. In particular issues of accountability. This issue is in my best interest because my kids go to public school. And I don't believe it is about gun ownership - it's more about poor parenting and holding people responsible for their poor choices.

[Shorts]

I already covered this point by mentioning that the mother should have gotten her son some counseling instead of some new deadly weapons. He was demonstrating that he was troubled, yet instead of addressing his issues, she gave him an escape that could have been deadly. Would we protect her "rights" if she had bought him some rx to sooth his wounded soul?

rx's illegal. Guns aren't.

Really? The thing is... if I'm upset at the world, I'm not likely to take out 20 school kids by sticking stamps all over them.

I didn't expect you'd make the association I was referring to, but glad you confirmed.

No kidding - you were the one who made the "ownership" thing an issue. And the OP made it sound like those weapons weren't a big deal - (they're just toys after all). I mentioned that the mother used poor judment in purchasing the weapons for her son when what he needed was guidance and professional help.

Again, you fail to see the association, or at least refuse to. While this case affects you by way or your kids, it affects me differently by way of ownership. And yes, those weapons the kid had aren't a big deal.

GOOD! I hope it dredges up other issues. In particular issues of accountability. This issue is in my best interest because my kids go to public school. And I don't believe it is about gun ownership - it's more about poor parenting and holding people responsible for their poor choices.

So why then are you knit-picking at me for making "ownership" an issue if it apparently is fair game for you to address? Again, you push your own agenda, I'll press mine. I'm not about to let my voice be silent because you don't want me speaking against yours.

I already covered this point by mentioning that the mother should have gotten her son some counseling instead of some new deadly weapons. He was demonstrating that he was troubled, yet instead of addressing his issues, she gave him an escape that could have been deadly. Would we protect her "rights" if she had bought him some rx to sooth his wounded soul?

Hmm wait, on second thought, let's just get all moms off the street, they seem to be more dangerous than anything else.

[scan]

Hmm wait, on second thought, let's just get all moms off the street, they seem to be more dangerous than anything else.

This is a response I'm not surprised coming from you Shorts. Anti-kid, Anti-mom, and pro-gun. Yeah, from Texas too. One more reason for me to question that whole state. You know Texas thinks it is a whole other country, and we should let'em go. And send George back there to run the place. You'd all be much happier that way. Me, I'll keep my distance if I can. But I doubt that would be enough for Texas anyway.

And you are currently in Japan, right? Another place that has found a lot of success with anti-gun laws. You haven't seen that? You have all kinds of reason for your skew though. You are from Texas, where I think it is a law to have a gun. If your pickup doesn't have a gun rack, they know you are from out of state. Maybe even, if you don't have a pickup, they know you are from out of state. And beyond the Texas damage you have, you also have an Army husband. So the whole "gun rights", and Army thing go pretty much hand in hand. If you are trained to handle guns, and taught about the need for guns, and about the safety in trained hands, you tend to live by that programming.

So it sounds like a slam Shorts post. But no, I'm actually saying I can understand your point of view. Mine is different, and you would probably never understand, or try to understand my point of view. That is just the Texas way. Freedom of speech, rights, and ideas, as long as they are the right ones. Soldiers dying for my right to think they way moral majority thinks is most fit.

But back to the whole living in non-violent, and low crime Japan with strict gun laws - I'm guessing you don't see much of that as I'd guess you live in some US compound, so you likely know little of that life, but you do know the US has the highest crime rates in the world, and people owning guns has not done much to improve that statsitic here anyway.

Sorry, the attacking Mom thing got me going. Loonette is a damn good Mom, and I know a lot of good Moms. Moms are not the problem, but people with screwed up ideas of what is a good therapy - like giving a kid a gun - is screwed up. I will grant you this though, any woman can have a baby (well most anyway), and that is not always a good thing.

[fireguzzi]

[Shorts]

Scan, you've got your facts all wrong. If you're going to be rude and condescending, at least don't make up stories to go with them.

Not Army, but Navy. And not any infantry or fleet, rather aviation. So, they don't really run around and play with guns like you think happens. Not US compound, but in a Japanese house, from a Japanese landlord, in the middle of a Japanese city with a Japanese address and Japanese neighbors. You think we want to be lame like the people who think base is the coolest thing in a foreign country? Get real.

Glad you brought up Japan. You're correct in that they're a country that prohibits firearms. The culture and society is a rather dynamic and one I wish every North American citizen got the chance to experience.

Of course I think no guns has an affect on society. But I think the personal standards of honor and basic manner and values has a much larger affect than any gun law. Japanese people are much more respectful of others, society, and their family compared to North Americans. As for the interest in guns, there is lots. Speaking to Japanese friends, they are interested in firearms, target/skeet shooting, hunting, etc. It's an activity that is withheld from them, so naturally, they are curious and intrigued. Matter of fact I was telling my friend Hiroshi about the basic laws or purchase and ownership just yesterday at the gym. And before you assume, he brought up the subject of guns, not me. I know, shocking.

I see and experience quite a lot here in Japan. What do you know about it first hand? You know what's funny? You're sitting there slamming me about things I have roots in, and what I believe in, yet for years now even as I'm thousands of miles away, I've experienced and function in more culture, languages, laws, environments, societies, and lifestyles than anyone can shake a stick at in a lifetime...and you're criticizing me about what I do or don't understand?? Man, yall are really insecure.

[Johnj]

Acting as a vicious person in return for vicious behaviour hardly seems civilized, nor does it seem morally correct.

While I understand where your coming from, that kind of thinking has got a lot of people killed.


Neville Chamberlain or Sir Winston Churchill

[scan]

Acting as a vicious person in return for vicious behaviour hardly seems civilized, nor does it seem morally correct.

While I understand where your coming from, that kind of thinking has got a lot of people killed.


Neville Chamberlain or Sir Winston Churchill

While I know war cannot be handled by laying down your weapons, I still in my own corner of the world cannot promote and eye for an eye. I want to promote peace, but I understand it will not always be the road to freedom. I know you understand where I was coming from because it does make sense to be the cooler head in may situations. I know you can look at world history, even current history, and see where violent actions have made this worse. I can anyway.

But I do get your point.

[scan]

Scan, you've got your facts all wrong. If you're going to be rude and condescending, at least don't make up stories to go with them.

I see and experience quite a lot here in Japan. What do you know about it first hand? You know what's funny? You're sitting there slamming me about things I have roots in, and what I believe in, yet for years now even as I'm thousands of miles away, I've experienced and function in more culture, languages, laws, environments, societies, and lifestyles than anyone can shake a stick at in a lifetime...and you're criticizing me about what I do or don't understand?? Man, yall are really insecure.

Well sorry for making up the facts, but I couldn't recall them all. I did make a lot of leaps based upon what I could remember reading in the past. Sorry again for the inacurracies and thank you for setting them straight.

And thank you for sharing the extra details. I'm glad to hear you see things in the society and don't live in a compound. Mostly I was commenting on what I percieved as a likely set of situation that made your possition make sense. Some makes less sense now that I know that you have a broader scope of reference, but hey, you believe what you think is right. More power to ya.

I've never lived in Japan, or the UK, or other non-gun owner countries, but I've read the stats. They are doing something right with their lower crime numbers, and less accidental citizen and children deaths. There are no cases of gunman in a school. Sound good to me. I know one thing they all have in common, is no one accept cops or crooks have guns. That means a lunatic is less likely to have one too, or so the facts seem to bare out. I do agree about morals being stronger, and family meaning more too. I'm sure that does put some weight on the issue as well.

Again, sorry for the sarcastic tone. You might notice, I don't often get that worked up, but when I do, I tend to use quite a bit of passion on the topic at hand.

[MrShake]

I already covered this point by mentioning that the mother should have gotten her son some counseling instead of some new deadly weapons. He was demonstrating that he was troubled, yet instead of addressing his issues, she gave him an escape that could have been deadly. Would we protect her "rights" if she had bought him some rx to sooth his wounded soul?

rx is illegal and inherently dangerous, Guns are not either

Really? The thing is... if I'm upset at the world, I'm not likely to take out 20 school kids by sticking stamps all over them.

And, If i'm upset at the world, I'm not likely to take out 20 school kids with my guns. Its sensationalistic to think that just because someone HAS guns, that they will use them to harm others. "Likely" was the wrong choice of words here.


I tried my hardest to avoid this topic, but I got a little bored at work and made the mistake of reading it. This problem rests squarley on the mother and her lack of educating her child. I learned at an EARLY age to respect guns and use them for their intended purpose. It has NEVER occured me to harm a human with one... and that is completely because I was educated.