• There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.

    If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.

    Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.

    The Staff of SOH

  • Server side Maintenance is done. We still have an update to the forum software to run but that one will have to wait for a better time.

What makes a person do something like this

Status
Not open for further replies.
i think the difference is, you equate (being from the uk) law and order with the concept of no one owning a gun. maybe the guy got past the measures we have to prevent things like this from happening. i don't know. i do know that it's not realistic to think you can stop all possible nutjobs. some of em are gonna squeak past somehow. look at ted bundy. that guy fooled everybody for the longest time.
 
There are far far more people in the USA who own guns....many many guns and tons and tons of ammo for those guns....who do not go on maniacal shooting sprees than there are those who do. My father-in-law has nearly a dozen guns in his house....and he has shot not a single person. My brother-in-law owns close to 100 firearms, keeps them all in his house, has ample stocks of ammunition for all of them....and he has not shot a single person. I have friends and relatives who, if put together with all their fire arms, would make one imposing army of citizens. And not a single one of them have used their firearms in an evil or illegal manner.

I could go on here...but then I would be getting very political...and that I will not do.

Oh..I will say this....the laws of a society (any society) only effect those people who are law abiding. You can pass all the laws you want, criminals and thugs and deviants will continue to operate outside of those laws and still pose a great threat to those who do abide by those laws.

And law enforcement is not here to protect....they do not PREVENT crimes....they only come to work after the crime has happened. The cops never show up before someone is robbed, or before someone is raped, or before someone is killed. They only show up after the fact and then they try to figure out who did it and then try to arrest them. It is up to the individuals within a society to protect themselves and their homes.

OBIO
 
You know, by this argument, it might be OK to allow anyone with a driver's licence to own a small tactical nuclear weapon because it is his right to do so... most of them won't be used on people.

Simple fact is that a nutter with a baseball bat will not do as much harm as a nutter with an automatic assault weapon.
If society ups the ownership ante, it must also accept the more serious consequences.
This guy legally obtained all the hardware.

(I also typed nearly a page worth of rant and deleted it, you can't help getting steamed up by stuff like this)
 
Okay, this thread is heading into the ditch and it's days are numbered. What happened in Colorado is horrific and we should be thinking about the families that have suffered so much pain and loss.
 
stansdds said:
You said it!

As for the police protecting us from such events, the courts have been very clear on this subject. The police cannot protect people, they make arrests and take statements after a crime has been committed. That is the role of law enforcement.
QUOTE]

1829 Sir Richard Mayne - "The primary object of an efficient police is the prevention of crime: the next that of detection and punishment of offenders if crime is committed. To these ends all the efforts of police must be directed. The protection of life and property, the preservation of public tranquillity, and the absence of crime, will alone prove whether those efforts have been successful and whether the objects for which the police were appointed have been attained."
I kinda think he was onto something there which the courts and succesive liberal attitudes have undermined. He was a barrister and joint Commissioner of the Metropolitan police at its inception in 1829. Now if that was good enough then as a code of conduct, why not now?
Click to expand...
 
You know what I don't understand about this thread....we always have members that swing it the wrong way and F--K IT UP :angryfir:. It's closed now...Mike
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top