Cyprus Eastern Forum Archive


This is a text archive version of our main content. To view the full site with more information, features, formatting and images please click here.

>> Eastern Cyprus Forum Archive Index

View The Full Original Topic: More guns in school!


>> Have YOUR say - Post A Reply To This Topic

Posted By: Kwacka

Just watching the NRA's press conference. Apparently to avoid another massacre in schools every school should have armed volunteers to protect kids under a 'National School Shield Programme'. To me it sounded like the NRA was like using the deaths of 20 children to further their interests. After the Port Arthur massacre in the mid-90s the Australian government introduced a ban on self-loading rifles and bought back over 600,000 weapons (more have been collected under amnesty). This massacre was the fifth such firearm-related atrocity in 15 years. In the time since then there has been 1 - a student killed two and injured 5 class-mates..



Posted By: hatzyian

Sounds like "Jobs for the Boys" to me.

Posted By: mouse

What the NRA fail to realise that with all these school shootings the murderer was not deemed a bad person or criminal before the event. What next armed guards watching over the armed guards who are watching over the children.

Posted By: Shedman

It's a very good point and well made, mouse.
There is nothing that legislation can ever do to prevent nutters, psychopaths or suicide bombers. After Dunblane, groups of the UK population were prevented from enjoying or participating in legal sporting activities because of knee-jerk responses that were designed to appease the (understandable) outcry from the public at the time. The legislation achieved little.
You cannot legislate for all of the worlds' ills.

Posted By: Kwacka

  • Shedman wrote:
    It's a very good point and well made, mouse.
    There is nothing that legislation can ever do to prevent nutters, psychopaths or suicide bombers. After Dunblane, groups of the UK population were prevented from enjoying or participating in legal sporting activities because of knee-jerk responses that were designed to appease the (understandable) outcry from the public at the time. The legislation achieved little.
    You cannot legislate for all of the worlds' ills.

  • Kwacka wrote:

    After the Port Arthur massacre in the mid-90s the Australian government introduced a ban on self-loading rifles and bought back over 600,000 weapons (more have been collected under amnesty).
    This massacre was the fifth such firearm-related atrocity in 15 years. In the time since then there has been 1 - a student killed two and injured 5 class-mates..


Posted By: journeyman

Am i missing something here, according to Aussie figures
••
Over the past two decades, an average of 19 people per year have been killed by offenders using firearms.

The number of homicide victims killed by offenders using firearms decreased from 14 percent in 2008–09 to 13 percent of total homicides in 2009–10.

The proportion of homicide victims killed by offenders using firearms in 2009–10 represented a decrease of 18 percentage points from the peak of 31 percent in 1995–96 (the year in which the Port Arthur massacre occurred with the death of 35 people, which subsequently led to the introduction of stringent firearms legislation
I would suggest its a bit more than just 2.
http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/0/B/6/%7B0B619F44-B18B-47B4-9B59-F87BA643CBAA%7Dfacts11.pdf

Posted By: Kwacka

You are talking about homicides, the bulk of which are carried out by an intimate or friend of the victim. Homicides also tend to have an explanation, e.g. robbery.
I am talking about a very small proportion of homicides, where an individual goes out and indiscriminately attacks a group of people for no obvious reason.
This would not include, for example, the Guangshan School in China, where 23 pupils were attacked, but none died.

Posted By: ProVox

A sound observation although it is not directly associated with mindless masacres:
    Quote:
  • “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms… disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
    ~Thomas Jefferson

This statement is 'according to the MSM ', so validity is questionable but if true really points the finger of blame on the propensity for people, especially in the USA, to take prescription drugs for every illness they can think of? Take Michael Jackson for example .......
    Quote:
  • The ‘Connecticut Shooter’ Adam Lanza has now been reported by mainstream media to indeed be taking the violence-linked anti-psychotic drug known as Fanapt, a prediction I made after the news of the shooting broke. And as I explained in my previous article regarding this drug by name, Fanapt has a very disturbing history of FDA testing and approval. It also has a long line of side effects that echo reports that drugs of this nature ultimately lead to suicidal behavior and increased overall aggression — side effects covered up by Big Pharma corporate scientists.

Read more: http://naturalsociety.com/predictions-confirmed-shooter-adam-lanza-was-on-violence-linked-anti-psychotic-fanapt/#ixzz2Fl6sSE7d





Posted By: Byker

Quote from the NRA tw@ I heard on the World Service last night;
"The only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"
Do they get these phrases from reading Reagan's old speeches or are they going back to the era of John Wayne movies... :roll:

Posted By: devil

In this country, where there are very strict gun laws, you need a medical certificate to renew your driving licence every 3 years after the age of 70. Maybe a medical certificate should be required, with annual renewal, for gun licences with doctors being warned to be extra-vigilant when patients are prescribed psychotropic medications, such as diazepam, acting on the CNS. This would include all addicts, including alcoholics. It may not filter out all, but it may filter out some potential killers. We never hear what these mass murderers take.

Posted By: spurs

  • devil wrote:
    In this country, where there are very strict gun laws, you need a medical certificate to renew your driving licence every 3 years after the age of 70. Maybe a medical certificate should be required, with annual renewal, for gun licences with doctors being warned to be extra-vigilant when patients are prescribed psychotropic medications, such as diazepam, acting on the CNS. This would include all addicts, including alcoholics. It may not filter out all, but it may filter out some potential killers. We never hear what these mass murderers take.
Very good point Devil.....usually these nutters get their hands on other peoples weapons. ie family members......but any one who knows how the Americans think will know nothing will ever change.

Posted By: ProVox

It is obvious from many of the comments that it is people that are the danger not the guns. To kill a gun normally needs a person to pull the trigger? The solution is to prevent guns being fired except by the registered user and that is not as difficult as it sounds.
I am not an expert on guns but it appears that every gun has a safety catch which is operated by a persons thumb? By moving a lever through a few degrees ( 20-30 deg ) this unlocks the firing mechanism. With the safety catch ON the bolt cannot be released and the weapon is safe.
Surely, with the advancement in electronics it would not be that difficult to mount a simple mechanism that is actuated by reading a thumb print that would un-lock the safety catch? You normally have to grip any gun and this entails using the thumb. If the thumb reader did not recognise the thumb print then the safety catch remains locked, the weapon cannot be fired and therefore is not dangerous. All the device needs is to be designed to fit onto the safety catch spindle and is permanently secured by an authorised gunsmith.
Take that further; When you have paid for your weapon the dealer sends to it to the local police unit dealing with firearms. You present yourself with the required document’s, the police connect the device into the computer which records the weapons details, including the thumb print of the authorised user and all their relevant details. Even a test round fired and the details of the marks on the round and on the firing pin could also be recorded in the police computer, maybe making any gun crime easier and quicker to solve. If the memory ‘ stick ’ in my digital camera is anything to go by, the chip fitted to the weapon could be very small, the largest bit is the pad that reads your thumb print.
Now the gun can be limited in use to a known and authorised person, if it is stolen the weapon cannot be fired, the weapon cannot be transferred without re-registering it at with the police, it could be made a requirement to re-register every twelve months and it cannot be fired accidentally in the home if found by the children. Anyone found with a weapon that has been tampered with would face a life ban on owning a weapon, face a very hefty fine and/or a prison sentence and if used in a criminal act, then the death penalty or at least a very long sentence for ‘intent’.
Now everybody is happy! Guns are now ‘ safe ’ in the right hands so home owners, in fact everybody will be safer because the bad guy now takes a chance as to whether his victim is armed or not. Once someone uninvited sets their foot inside your house or becomes a threat to life or limb the risk is theirs and the same should go for muggers, car thieves or anyone menacing another with life threatening violence.
Nothing can ever be a 100% infallible solution but making it more difficult has to be a step in the right direction? :-k

Posted By: Byker

  • ProVox wrote:

    Surely, with the advancement in electronics it would not be that difficult to mount a simple mechanism that is actuated by reading a thumb print that would lock the safety catch? You normally have to grip any gun and this entails using the thumb. If the thumb reader did not recognise the thumb print then the safety catch remains locked, the weapon cannot be fired and therefore is not dangerous. All the device needs is to be designed to fit onto the safety catch spindle and is permanently secured by an authorised gunsmith.

I am sure that something similar was designed a few years ago, if memory serves me correctly it was along the lines of an electrode in a ring or bracelet, if the electrode wasn't within the range of a few inches the gun could not be fired, it was primarily for US Policemen but it seems it never got on the market. :(

Posted By: Steve - SJD

Have to say that it is a difficult situation with no easy solution as far as I can see. The problem seems also to be compounded by the fact that you have two opposing sides in the US that are very vocal and I don't believe that either has a workable solution despite the rhetoric. I think the suggestion of an outright ban that has been called for in the media will not work given the history of the country and the strength of feeling towards arms. Nor do I think it will stop gun related deaths - the evidence on the ground simply does not back this up unfortunately. Cheers Steve

Posted By: journeyman

Steve, I have seen and heard reports of up to 300 million guns owned in the United States, even if they curbed future weapons or like the Australians had some sort of buy back scheme thats hell of a lot of guns in circulation. Here in a smallish county like Dorset there are approx 17,000 firearms registered, how many are not, well the policeman i asked when I renewed my Licence thinks double that amount.



Posted By: geof j

my solution for what its worth, let Americans buy guns from firearm dealers, but let the police sell the bullets after all mental health checks, and reasons why the bullets are required to be stated. thus the constitution of America still allows everyone to bare (bear?)arms, but at the same time the weapons are not dangerous.

Posted By: Tangutica

  • geof j wrote:
    my solution for what its worth, let Americans buy guns from firearm dealers, but let the police sell the bullets after all mental health checks, and reasons why the bullets are required to be stated.
    thus the constitution of America still allows everyone to bare (bear?)arms, but at the same time the weapons are not dangerous.
sounds like a recipe for a nice little trade in black market ammo to me!

Posted By: Kwacka

  • geof j wrote:
    my solution for what its worth, let Americans buy guns from firearm dealers, but let the police sell the bullets after all mental health checks, and reasons why the bullets are required to be stated.
    thus the constitution of America still allows everyone to bare (bear?)arms, but at the same time the weapons are not dangerous.

a few years ago it was suggested that US arms manufacturers uniquely mark all bulllets so their source could be determined.
After the normal NRA (I.e. arms manufacturer') outrage about 2nd amendment it was thrown out.

Posted By: ProVox

There are two very clearly defined sides to this argument. Those that believe guns should be banned and those that do not. Both seem to have a sound argument.
A total ban on all weapons would be the utopian solution but would have to include ALL weapons not just the householder’s hand gun but Security Services, National Guard, Homeland Security and the weapons held by law enforcement as well because, if the people had no weapons why would these people need them? A highly unlikely scenario?
The alternative to a total ban is to allow people to own weapons of any description, including assault rifles and sniper rifles but control their use without retracting from the right to bear arms. I believe this is possible as I have already suggested.
In the not too distant future I have a feeling that we will all be thankful that the US Citizens retained their right ( if that is how it pans out ?) under the 2nd Amendment that actually allow citizens to bear arms and this has been upheld in the US Courts. If you read the explanations of the reason for the 2nd Amendment it becomes clear that it is to give the American people protection against their own Government and this is why the Americans should retain their right to bear arms.
Another valid argument becoming obvious is that, although the grief of the US after the Newtown incident is obvious, there are those in other countries that are questioning the morals of the US when they grieve at their own losses but show not the slightest remorse for the killing of thousands of innocent civilians using remote controlled drones in other countries ( such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan and several other African countries ) in their so called war against terror. Whilst the American people grieve their own losses they dismiss the deaths of many others as ‘ collateral damage ’.

Posted By: Kwacka

There are a couple of items that need to be added to your comments. Firstly te 2nd Amendment qualifies the right to bear arms with as part of an organised militia,. Secondly the same document states that anybody taking up arms against an elected government is guilty of treason.

Posted By: ProVox

Kwacka:
    Quote:
  • Firstly the 2nd Amendment qualifies the right to bear arms with as part of an organised militia.

Militia = 1) A military force of civilians to supplement an army in an emergency.
2) A military force that engages in rebel activities.
I take that as civilians with guns? And rebels ‘activities’ I believe are now identified as terrorism, depending on which side they are fighting?

    Quote:
  • Secondly the same document states that anybody taking up arms against an elected government is guilty of treason.

That is until the rebels win and then the elected government are the ones charged with treason and other acts against the people and the rebels are the hero’s. Of course, if the rebels lose then ‘ secondly ’ applies and they are guilty of treason!
Funny old World ....init? :wink:

Posted By: ProVox

Maybe banning guns is not the solution? These arguments seem reasonable but some of the numbers seem a bit excessive.
A ban on guns may stop the nutcases going on a shooting spree but it seems that once the guns are taken off the responsible citizens it opens the door to the criminal and all gun related crimes increase as a result as the citizen now has no means of defence. The phenomena of ‘ home invasion ’ also becomes a problem because, once again, even if the tenant is in the property they have no deterrent to counter the intruder that threatens them with a firearm.
It appears that by taking the weapons off the responsible citizen you endanger the individual but the same cannot be said for the criminal, who will carry guns irrespective of any weapons ban.
As these videos point out the idea of gun control ( now renamed to be more PC as ‘Gun Safety’ by Obama ) sounds fair enough but it apparently does not work.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0sdZz5SntE&feature=youtu.be
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjzKQNxoFNo&feature=youtu.be



Posted By: Kwacka



Posted By: scrappy

I read that as 'if you want to ban guns, lets start with Israel' Agreed

Posted By: Byker

  • scrappy wrote:
    I read that as 'if you want to ban guns, lets start with Israel'
    Agreed

From "Guns in schools" to Israel?.... :roll:
That's some agenda you're carrying around with you.

Posted By: ProVox

Scrappy:
    Quote:
  • I read that as 'if you want to ban guns, let’s start with Israel'

If you are referring to Israel’s nuclear weapons then I think the majority of ‘ normal ’ people would agree with you, I certainly do?
Israel of course is the perfect example that proves gun control does not work! An armed law breaker will always abuse their unassailable strength irrespective of what the Law says. In Israel’s case, they are aggressive oppressors and have proved to have a total disregard for the law, for human rights and for the right to life of anyone but themselves, just as criminals would in the US, if guns were banned. In Israel’s case they are also supported both morally and financially in their well documented criminal actions by the very government that wants to disarm its own people, 99% of whom are no danger to their own society or any other. It is a bit like having law enforcement and responsibility for ‘gun control’ under the jurisdiction of the Mafia.
Whilst the idea of NO GUNS is obviously the most satisfactory option, to take them away from the majority, knowing that the criminal minority still have them, is denying the people their right to self defence. In fact as this discussion has progressed I have become more convinced that everybody, no matter where they live should be allowed to carry a weapon, provided they have a police background check, a mental health report, approved training, a licence and also carry a concealed weapon permit. :roll:


[ ADVERTS: UK Stores Delivering To Cyprus | Find eBay Misspellings - Grab A Bargain! ]



Viewing Cyprus Eastern Forum Archive - Lo-Fi Version | Visit Cyprus Eastern Forum - Full Version | Questions?

TOP TIP: BUYING PROPERTY IN CYPRUS? PLEASE ENSURE THAT YOU SEEK INDEPENDANT LEGAL ADVICE FIRST.
Cyprus forum covering Kapparis, Protaras, Pernera, Agia Napa, Agia Thekla, Paralimni, Larnaca, Oroklini, Pervolia & surrounding areas
Please note that the views expressed on this forum are those of the author and may not reflect the views of the management.