Why does a 12 year old have a SHOTGUN? Can you say "potential school shooting perpetrator"? I know I can! :mfinger:

They have shotguns because they are usually hunters. It is not uncommon. Having a gun, especially a shotgun or a rifle, does not make one a "potential school shooting perpetrator". Now, if he showed up with a pistol, or with a semi-auto, maybe, since those have about zero place in hunting (I need my full auto with armor penetrating bullets! Those deer are fast and wear bulletproof vests now!). But just having a gun is not a crime.

link]">

Hm what if he snapped because someone called him a dirty jew? He would have the potential to do so much more damage with that gun than without.

He could also rape a schoolmate, I say we have him castrated as well! I mean, he has the potential to do so much more damage with it.

"This is my rifle, this my gun"
"This is for fighting, this is for fun!"

Guns are unneccessary nowadays - there are so many non-lethal alternatives. And hunting for sport is just cruel >(

Guns are unneccessary for what exactly? Clarify.

And who said the kid was sport hunting? He could be hunting and eating what he kills, as do most the hunters I know. I was saying equating owning a shotgun to somehow being a kid who will shoot up a school is ridiculous. I do not agree with sport hunting, you should eat and use what you kill, not kill for fun. And I have never been hunting btw, but I have been trained to use a rifle. Gun training is NOT a bad thing, and should be mandatory before ANYONE uses a firearm.

Yes, as a person armed with a gun confronts me, I will coax him slowly to me with my psycho-hypnotic powers and then douse him with my pepper spray and its three foot range.

Muhahaha! I have saved two lives!

Hunters do an important part in helping control deer and animal populations. It’s not like we can have packs of wolves, lions, and bears running around in settled areas, they are just too dangerous. Sure it could be managed better, but the main problem is that there are few natural predators left, so if hunters were not reducing the population of animals like deer, they would overpopulate, become diseased, and die much more painful deaths than a hunter would give them.

Next thing you know they'll have sex education without the hands-on interactive.

Or as I like to say, anatomy by Braille.

I live in a FREE country- when the government tells me I can't have a gun because I don't "need" one... it's time for a new government. Do the police carry guns? Why, if they're "unnecessary these days"?

Hunting is by far the most efficient way to manage the wildlife population. License fees fund public wildlife habitat, and so called "non-leathal alternatives" are ultra-expensive fantasy. Harvesting a wild animal is far less cruel than letting it starve to death or die of disease, it's also less cruel than keeping an animal confined in a barn it's entire life before being killed.

I started hunting and shooting at 7 years old, and am a better man for it. The kids shooting up schools typically AREN'T hunters who have been trained in firearm use and safety, but typically someone who's parents kept a gun in the house... but never taught their kids about them. In the rural area I grew up in, almost EVERY kid had access to a gun and knew how to use it, yet school shootings were unheard of.

If you choose to be a peasant in a country run by a authoritarian regime, so be it. Those of us who are citizens (rather than subjects like you) have the right to own a firearm- and I resent the suggestion that my freedom should be taken away by someone who clearly doesn't understand the meaning of the word.

Dicks are unnecessary now days. You can impregnate a woman with sperm extracted from the testes.

Asshole.

you mean theres sex ed WITH hands on?!??!?!

I'm sure Hoochie will volunteer to walk around the woods and put condoms on deer during their rut.

Kinda funny you mention "dirty jew" in the same thread you speak of not needing guns. I believe the word is irony. But anyways, this isn't a gun control discussion, this is a stupid school problem. I think the whole problem here is they told them to bring their guns only to tell them they can't have them. When I took hunter safety at my middle school, the instructor brought in a few different guns to show us how they all work (bolt, pump, etc) and we all met at a gun range to use our own. I think that would have been the better approach in the first place.

I knew my opinion on this whole gun thing would get some attention! Let me elaborate and clarify:

When I was in Australia a few years back, I met an innovative animal control guy. The population of kangaroos in Australia can get out of hand, leading to starvation blah blah - whatever you gun advocates mentioned above. Well - he was testing a method of ranged stunners which shoot out darts that stun and incapacitate the kangaroos. He goes up to the unconsious kangaroo and then injects a toxin which stops the heart. The dart itself can be reused and fatalities reduced since this zap only renders the victim unconsious.
Any new technology is comparitively expensive at first, but in the long term costs are reduced by the low cost in recharging the reusable darts.

These stunners can do exactly what guns can do; if the user really wants to kill, then he/she can. If it is an accident, then death can be prevented. Other advantages include it being lighter, reduced risk of jamming, low maintenence, to mention a few.

If police used these, then accidental deaths, resulting in million dollar lawsuits, would be reduced.

For you sniper fans, I remember hearing something about developing a sniper stunner, which has a self contained electric dart delivering thousands of volts on contact. I'm not sure if it is available on the consumer market though.

So tell me, if a stunner did everything (and more) that your gun could do, would you replace your gun with it? Or is the gun culture too prevalent in society?

You do NOT live in a free country. If you did, you would be able culture the ebola virus in your house, or perhaps buy nuclear weapons. Why can't you do that? Because of the risk involved to others. Similarly, the privilege, not right, to own a gun has risks which can be eliminated with alternatives (read below).

Well if these new stun guns could do just as much damage as a normal gun, won't they just be banned as well?

Also, most of the new stun guns aren't that great. I took a police academy class and they showed us people getting stunned by three stun guns or more at a time and it didn't effect them. Some people react differently than others. This is why some people don't die during their execution via electric chair.

Also, stun guns can't get through some clothing, especially baggy clothing.

I could write an entire article on how a stun gun will not be adequate for the foreseeable future, so here is my question for you:

If you see me trying to shoot at you with my AK, would you rather shoot at me with a stun gun that even if it hits me may not effect me at all or shoot at me with a real gun where you know if I get hit with a bullet, I'm going down?

I would negotiate with you, explaining that what you are trying to do is wrong. I would say things like "what would your MOTHER:o say if she saw you now?" After that, you would throw down your weapon, fall to your knees and start crying for your mother.

:D

Seriously though, would I shoot at you knowing that I could kill someone in the way with a gun? No.

;) But you just gave an example of what can happen with guns.

Uhm, it would cost less in the long run?

How do you figure?

Using your argument regarding the roos:

Cost of gun (fixed one time cost)

Cost of stun gun + cost of "reusable" dart. (fixed)
Dart breakage (extra cost)
Cost of injectable (potassium chloride, repeating cost that isn't all that cheap)

Sorry, I'd rather spend a buck on a .50 round and kill the fucker than waste money on a stun device only to spend MORE money to inject the little shit. Injecting something to kill something up-close and personal speaks volumes about your attitude. You must enjoy inflicting pain and death else you wouldn't be so ready to shock the fuckers then inject them to stop their hearts.

Insult to injury.

Defining a country as "free" isn't the same as implying it's an anarchy without laws. In the US, the ability to own a gun IS a right, NOT a "privilege". Yes, there are limits. Same with freedom of speech, and most other rights.

Freedom carries risk- let people drive, they'll get in car accidents. The right to a fair trial without self-incrimination means some guilty people go free. Let people own firearms, and some will commit murder with them.

I won't live anywhere where simple minded elitists tell me that I can't own a gun- whether used for hunting, self defense or just target shooting. Period. Maybe I'll feel differently when the police and military no longer carry firearms.

Your "alternatives" suck- if you knew anything about hunting, you'd know how silly your alternative sounds.

It may be mentally taxing to be up close and personal but it inflicts less pain on an animal. A bullet might not kill immidiately and the animal might run away in pain. However, the immidiate shock from the dart knocks them out, thus they feel no measurable pain. The injection is probably some muscle relaxant which stops the heart/lungs etc.

And just exactly what kind of range do these darts have- 30 yards? 50 yards? A deer rifle is good for up to 800 yards. And just how accurate are they- most hunting rifles can put 5 rounds in a 2" circle at 100 yards- I doubt your stun gun is accurate enough for small game.

And just tell me how you intend to use this in place of a shotgun when hunting birds- ducks, pheasant, etc.

Many police already carry stun guns or tasers (which shoot out darts attached to electrified wires)... but still carry guns, since stun guns aren't very effective. Next cop you run into, suggest to them that they shouldn't carry a gun anymore but rather only a stun gun of some sort and see what his reaction is.

As mentioned below, if it was so effective, the same people who want to ban firearms will want to ban stun darts, too- they prefer unarmed peasants. In the US, hand held stun guns are already banned by some states. (a good knife is more effective anyways)

You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.

You scary. You laugh too much like the Rev. :(

However, I predict in a few decades that guns will be eliminated by something like more advanced stun guns or something 8)

I am replying to this cause this a true statement. i have listened to all of everybodys remorse,anguish,shame,cries,and fears. I think there is a fear in the country now cause of all the crap in Iraq. Have all of you lost your mind? You all care about kids hadling guns...WHY? They need them someday quit worrying so damn much your making the would a terrible place...

Spoken like a true ICP fan- incoherent and pointless.

I predict that in a few decades, anyone who tries to "eliminate" my guns is going to get them... bullets first.

Hmmm this dart that shocks them into unconsciousness... exactly how powerful is it hmm?

Cows don't drop to the ground from a cattle prod and they are stronger than the tazers used on people.

How BIG is this dart gonna be to hold that kind of charge? I have a feeling unless they stick with tranqs to bring an animal down, the tazer will just hurt/piss off the poor beastie.

Even if you could drop it with a shock, it is gonna hurt like a som'bitch. Have you ever shocked yourself? Try playing with a standard 120volt/ac outlet. Or a 12volt/dc car battery. Fucker hurts.

Hell you would have better luck dropping the battery on the beast's skull from a helicopter if you want to knock it out.

As for the beast surviving a shot from a gun... If you can't hit the thing properly you shouldn't be shooting at it with a gun or a silly stun dart. I don't think many animals can take being hit by a barrett m99 but hey, I'm thinking you can use a vulcan if you want to shoot an elephant.

Suffice it to say, I think your ideas of cost effectiveness and less cruelty are a bit far-reaching. Therefore, I disagree with you.

Hell if you want a nice, fast, pretty damn reliable kill, use dynamite.

I agree with most of what you said. But it wasn't the instructors that told them to bring a gun then told them they couldn't have it - that was a miscommunication on the part of the school. My whole point in posting this was to illustrate the overreaction of the school district. The zero tolerance policies are somewhat ineffective to my way of thinking. The school shootings are still happening. The recent one you all most likely heard about in Minnesota (North Central US for those of you unfamiliar with the US) happened not far from where I grew up - about 40 miles or so. It was truly sad and troubling, but that doesn't mean I think ignorance is bliss. If you ignore gun saftey in a community that attaches such importance to hunting and safe conduct then you run the risk of MORE of these kinds of incidents.

Now whether you're from a country that allows the use or ownership of firearms is irrelevant to me. Common sense can usually be the best guide. Learning about something does not mean that you will use the knowledge - only that you are better "armed" (pardon the pun). So learning gun safety is a good thing to me. I think people should know what the consequences and capabilites of a weapon are.

As for the whole hunting thread in these posts - wildlife management is a great point, but not the only one. I can list several but will limit myself to a few. I hunted and supplemented my own diet as a poor student for years by hunting. The license was inexpensive and I had access and time to hunt. I do the same with fishing. It was often the only decent meat I had at times. Further, even if I could have afforded to purchase meat (as I do most often these days) - where do you think the meat comes from? The animals that are killed and processed and packaged come from farms and slaughterhouses where animals bred for killing are butchered. There are still large cattle ranches and poultry farms and fisheries where these animals are raised specificially to feed people.

I think hunting, killing, cleaning and preparing my own meat is a traditionalistic way of life and I further think it's a good thing to pass along to future generations.

I suppose that simply pointing out that guns are far too pervasive in society would be pointless. I sincerely doubt anyone will ever disarm the US. Even if the country fell into anarchy and emerged in some futureistic form there would still be a gun culture somewhere. There are too many people who, for the right reason or the wrong reason, still believe in gun ownership.

In this country, gun ownership is a protected right dating back the founding of our nation. Also, I'll add that it was key in helping to found our nation. That is why I think the previous comment that all guns would be replaced by stun guns is sort of silly. It's not going to happen. If stun guns ever became as powerful and accurate as the current lead/powder weapons are they'd be under as much scrutiny as well.

You'll never eliminate guns unless you create a new weapon which makes a bigger bang.

I'll take a railgun as soon as you can make it compact enough to carry around with a suitable power supply.

Yo She-bitch,

The kids have guns in their hands to teach them the right and wrong ways to use them. This prevents them from picking them up later in life and accidentally blowing their heads off while looking down the barrel.

At the very least, you can then hold the little shit-fucker accountable for his actions if he chooses to use the gun in an inappropriate manner. No more "well he never learned" cop-outs.

If they did manage to take away our guns, I'd still have my crossbow and katanas.

They can have their silly tazers. Until they advance far enough to be set to "stun" or "disintegrate" I'm not interested.

Yeah, and the homework is great! Just don't try to use the excuse about your dog eating it.

"I plead the 5th because I don't want to incriminate myself"

"Really? Do you have something to hide?"

"I... well... er..."

Pleading the 5th is incriminating :D No self-respecting juror would ignore that. Blood in the water.

Most of the testostorone is produced in your hairy gumdrops. That's why when you 'fix' Fido he gets a lot more mellow.

guns are cool u suck

guns are cool u suck

u suck guns are the boom bwhahahaha

sweet