|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
 Posted: Sun Nov 02, 2008 7:47 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| JMO wrote: |
| What is an AK 47 a tool for? |
An Irish guy is asking this? What kind of an Irish guy are you? |
Well he said this
| Quote: |
| Tragic misuse of firearms. |
Its not exactly a misuse. It is a tool for killing. It was used correctly.
That was my point. Maybe he was talking about another use for guns which I haven't heard of yet.
edit: lol being irish..semtex is more my forte. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ellegarden
Joined: 01 Sep 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 02, 2008 7:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| pkang0202 wrote: |
#1. Ex-cons aren't allowed to have guns.
#2. The AK-47 was fired by SOMEONE. It didn't get up and start shooting on its own.
#3. The AK-47 was a tool used. It could've been a hand gun, a shotgun, or a hunting rifle.
Tragic misuse of firearms. |
Gotta agree with this.
It was an enforcement issue on a number of levels. A law banning automatic firearms (and these exist) would not have enforced itself. Much of the gun laws in many of the States would have prevented this incident, if enforcement magically happened once a law were created. |
As stated in the previous posts, a law banning automatic firearms would have set up the conditions necessary to prevent this person from having one (The idea that if automatic firearms are banned, there are less available, harder to obtain or steal ....) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jandar
Joined: 11 Jun 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 02, 2008 8:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| laogaiguk wrote: |
| pkang0202 wrote: |
#1. Ex-cons aren't allowed to have guns.
#2. The AK-47 was fired by SOMEONE. It didn't get up and start shooting on its own.
#3. The AK-47 was a tool used. It could've been a hand gun, a shotgun, or a hunting rifle.
Tragic misuse of firearms. |
You really believe that, don't you? Scary.
If automatic weapons were banned, it would be much harder to get one, to buy ammunition for it and it would be more expensive. It could still happen, but it becomes harder. While people can argue against that fairly easily for handguns or hunting rifles, it's not so easy for automatic guns. What the *beep* do you need one for? It's not a tool and give me one good reason why anyone needs one. As someone pointed out, a had a handgun been used, there would possibly be a lot less grieving people! |
Correct me if I am wrong but I think automatic weapons are outlawed or very strictly controlled. This AK47 was a semi-automatic and an assault weapon nonetheless, I just think we need to agree on the finer points to stay away from alarmists rhetoric.
Attempts of legislation to regulate semi-automatic weapons proved to be more than difficult, much home kitting can overcome the out engineered features.
See the AWB 1994 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pkang0202
Joined: 09 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 02, 2008 8:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ok, lets clear up the misconceptions.
Only a person with a Class 3 license can own FULLY AUTOMATIC weapons. You can't just go into a gun show and buy a fully auto rifle/handgun.
The AK-47 used was most likely a Semi-auto gun. That means each time you pull the trigger, one 1 bullet comes out.
You can try and make the argument that the gun had 30 rounds and the shear number killed the kid.
Ok, 1 or 2 blasts from a 12 gauge shotgun would've been even MORE deadly at that range. Shotguns can be bought at Wal Mart, AK-47's can't.
My point is this, if the man had killed the boy with a handgun or shotgun then there would be no discussion about the firearm used, but how crazy the man was.
But, just because the man used an AK-47, all of a sudden the firearm used becomes an issue.
That's the hypocrisy.
Man robs a convenience store with handgun and kills the owner. The man needs to go to jail.
Man robs a convenience sore with an AK-47, then we need to ban all assault weapons. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 02, 2008 8:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ellegarden wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| pkang0202 wrote: |
#1. Ex-cons aren't allowed to have guns.
#2. The AK-47 was fired by SOMEONE. It didn't get up and start shooting on its own.
#3. The AK-47 was a tool used. It could've been a hand gun, a shotgun, or a hunting rifle.
Tragic misuse of firearms. |
Gotta agree with this.
It was an enforcement issue on a number of levels. A law banning automatic firearms (and these exist) would not have enforced itself. Much of the gun laws in many of the States would have prevented this incident, if enforcement magically happened once a law were created. |
As stated in the previous posts, a law banning automatic firearms would have set up the conditions necessary to prevent this person from having one |
If it was stated in the previous posts, why did you feel the need to repeat it?
If we can't enforce the laws we have (no firearms for ex-cons) how is creating a new law going to correct that enforcement problem?
| Quote: |
| (The idea that if automatic firearms are banned, there are less available, harder to obtain or steal ....) |
Please refer to the 18th and 21st Amendments for such enforcement issues. Death by semi-auto firearm is not going to go away just because you ban them.
Giving the regulators more to do is not going to make them more effective at what they are already failing to do. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pkang0202
Joined: 09 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 02, 2008 8:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The fact is people read the media spin on Assault Weapons and they have no idea what the actual facts are.
Here are a couple for you unenlightened:
Assault weapons only account for 1-2% of violent crime.
The "Assault Weapons Ban" only banned COSMETIC changes to a gun.
It listed 19 weapons, all of which could STILL BE BOUGHT if the weapons were manufactured before the 1994.
The "Assault Weapons Ban" did NOT BAN FULLY AUTOMATIC WEAPONS. Full auto guns were already banned prior to the Assault Weapons Ban law.
The AWB law was purely a feel good piece. It did NOTHING to curb gun crime. The reason it was NOT renewed because it was essentially worthless.
Most people talk about the Assault Weapons Ban like they actually KNEW what the content of the legislation was. Can you say, "Ignorance"?
So, Assault weapons are responsible for 1-2% of all violent crime. Gee, you really think banning assault weapons all together is going to put a DENT into reducing violent crime? Do you really? That 1-2%?
Oh yeah, the Assault Weapons Ban expired a while ago. Since then, we have had deadly shooting sprees. How many of those shooters had Assault Weapons? Did Jo Seunghi gun down people at VT with assault weapons?
Like I said, only 1-2% of violent crime == Assault Weapons. People who point their finger at Assault Weapons are just ignoring the greater problem. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jandar
Joined: 11 Jun 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 02, 2008 9:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pkang0202 wrote: |
The fact is people read the media spin on Assault Weapons and they have no idea what the actual facts are.
Here are a couple for you unenlightened:
Assault weapons only account for 1-2% of violent crime.
The "Assault Weapons Ban" only banned COSMETIC changes to a gun.
It listed 19 weapons, all of which could STILL BE BOUGHT if the weapons were manufactured before the 1994.
The "Assault Weapons Ban" did NOT BAN FULLY AUTOMATIC WEAPONS. Full auto guns were already banned prior to the Assault Weapons Ban law.
The AWB law was purely a feel good piece. It did NOTHING to curb gun crime. The reason it was NOT renewed because it was essentially worthless.
Most people talk about the Assault Weapons Ban like they actually KNEW what the content of the legislation was. Can you say, "Ignorance"?
So, Assault weapons are responsible for 1-2% of all violent crime. Gee, you really think banning assault weapons all together is going to put a DENT into reducing violent crime? Do you really? That 1-2%?
Oh yeah, the Assault Weapons Ban expired a while ago. Since then, we have had deadly shooting sprees. How many of those shooters had Assault Weapons? Did Jo Seunghi gun down people at VT with assault weapons?
Like I said, only 1-2% of violent crime == Assault Weapons. People who point their finger at Assault Weapons are just ignoring the greater problem. |
Technically he did use the large capacity ammo clips that were attempted to be banned under the 1994 AWB. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 02, 2008 9:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jandar wrote: |
| ...the large capacity ammo clips that were attempted to be banned under the 1994 AWB. |
I do not know your position on that particular antigun tactic, but I found it quite ignorant. People who know weapons can always change magazines. Limiting my mags to ten rounds or what-have-you makes no difference in a firefight. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
newteacher
Joined: 31 May 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 02, 2008 10:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pkang0202 wrote: |
The fact is people read the media spin on Assault Weapons and they have no idea what the actual facts are.
Here are a couple for you unenlightened:
Assault weapons only account for 1-2% of violent crime.
The "Assault Weapons Ban" only banned COSMETIC changes to a gun.
It listed 19 weapons, all of which could STILL BE BOUGHT if the weapons were manufactured before the 1994.
The "Assault Weapons Ban" did NOT BAN FULLY AUTOMATIC WEAPONS. Full auto guns were already banned prior to the Assault Weapons Ban law.
The AWB law was purely a feel good piece. It did NOTHING to curb gun crime. The reason it was NOT renewed because it was essentially worthless.
Most people talk about the Assault Weapons Ban like they actually KNEW what the content of the legislation was. Can you say, "Ignorance"?
So, Assault weapons are responsible for 1-2% of all violent crime. Gee, you really think banning assault weapons all together is going to put a DENT into reducing violent crime? Do you really? That 1-2%?
Oh yeah, the Assault Weapons Ban expired a while ago. Since then, we have had deadly shooting sprees. How many of those shooters had Assault Weapons? Did Jo Seunghi gun down people at VT with assault weapons?
Like I said, only 1-2% of violent crime == Assault Weapons. People who point their finger at Assault Weapons are just ignoring the greater problem. |
So are you admitting that there is a gun problem in the US? What are your suggestions for taking care of the problem? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 02, 2008 10:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't know about the States, but gun registration in Canada was a debacle. They wasted loads of money and screwed things up even worse than before.
Like the guy in shop class who gets so comfortable with the planer he scrapes a layer or two of skin and muscle off his arm, a lot of North Americans are just too comfortable with, and ignorant of the potential of firearms.
Guns are just too ingrained in NA culture to be easily removed. I think the solution lies in education. Somewhere along the way North Americans lost their healthy fear of firearms, we need to bring that back. Maybe then we can work on getting rid of the massive excess of the things, and out of the hands of those who shouldn't be anywhere near them like the idiot in this story. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OneWayTraffic
Joined: 14 Mar 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 02, 2008 10:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Effective laws can and do control gun crime. Most Western countries do have laws against guns of this type and crimes with them are very rare. How many gangs in Korea acces guns? However due to America's unique situation regarding firearms, the chance of effective, consistent, nationwide laws is close to zero. Crying and screaming about it won't change this reality, and neither will yet another mass killing or school shooting.
On the brighter side, you are allowed to arm yourself for defense. This may not help the countries situation, but it's a logical personal choice. Also on the brighter side, knife crime isn't as much of an issue and you have your rifles to protect yourselves from the tryanny of government. (Try to forget that the government has gunships.)
Can anyone here realy think of a law that whole stop this from happening, and have the broadbased support to actually work? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 02, 2008 10:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
I agree. I never got how civilians claimed the need and the right to own assault rifles and automatic weapons.
Handguns and hunting rifles/shotguns, yes. Military weaponry, no. |
Agreed. I don't think there is a need for a civilian to have that much firepower. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pkang0202
Joined: 09 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 02, 2008 10:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| newteacher wrote: |
So are you admitting that there is a gun problem in the US? What are your suggestions for taking care of the problem? |
Gun ownership in the US is a minority. The majority of the American people don't feel the need to carry a handgun for self defense and feel safe.
In my honest opinion, the gun problem in the US is overblown. If there was a huge gun problem, then I would be scared to death to leave my house without being strapped.
The truth of the matter is, no one thinks, "Oh man, there are people with assault weapons running around outside. I better not go to Wal Mart without my combat shotgun and Kevlar to protect me" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jandar
Joined: 11 Jun 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 02, 2008 10:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| newteacher wrote: |
| pkang0202 wrote: |
The fact is people read the media spin on Assault Weapons and they have no idea what the actual facts are.
Here are a couple for you unenlightened:
Assault weapons only account for 1-2% of violent crime.
The "Assault Weapons Ban" only banned COSMETIC changes to a gun.
It listed 19 weapons, all of which could STILL BE BOUGHT if the weapons were manufactured before the 1994.
The "Assault Weapons Ban" did NOT BAN FULLY AUTOMATIC WEAPONS. Full auto guns were already banned prior to the Assault Weapons Ban law.
The AWB law was purely a feel good piece. It did NOTHING to curb gun crime. The reason it was NOT renewed because it was essentially worthless.
Most people talk about the Assault Weapons Ban like they actually KNEW what the content of the legislation was. Can you say, "Ignorance"?
So, Assault weapons are responsible for 1-2% of all violent crime. Gee, you really think banning assault weapons all together is going to put a DENT into reducing violent crime? Do you really? That 1-2%?
Oh yeah, the Assault Weapons Ban expired a while ago. Since then, we have had deadly shooting sprees. How many of those shooters had Assault Weapons? Did Jo Seunghi gun down people at VT with assault weapons?
Like I said, only 1-2% of violent crime == Assault Weapons. People who point their finger at Assault Weapons are just ignoring the greater problem. |
So are you admitting that there is a gun problem in the US? What are your suggestions for taking care of the problem? |
First enforce the existing laws and prove they can be enforced.
I hold a moderate view of gun control.
RE Gopher:
I think the 2nd amendment should be taken in it's entirety.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
I think people have a right to own firearms for safety and protection in their homes. I also believe that right is not absolute.
I think most legislation that has passed has been ineffectual and that people on both sides of the argument have caused the ineffectiveness.
I sometimes think the 2nd ammendment should be repealed because the language is too vague.
I've heard dozen of interpretations, most being valid, even "historical narratives" as cited by the supremes, are all over the place about hte intention.
My own interpretation would be that all weapons would need to be registered with the state so that you could be called to the militia (National Guard) or to serve in a posse in times of need.
So I think that in any case all laws requiring registration for ownership are legal, this not an infringement keeping with each clause of the ammendment.
Now, there is the concept of natural rights, that is all human rights arise in nature and are not a product of a charter or man made laws.
One of these principles leads to the theory that if you make laws that intercede with a human right, that right is revoke from the majority agreeing in the "charter". But, what of the minority, in this case can you really remove the gun right from the criminal?
So I think you can establish law limiting 2nd ammendment rights, the problem always will be that you are not limiting for the original intent, that is to prevent crime, you are merely creating a crime where none had existed. (SEE Thomas Paine)
The criminal continues to behave a criminal.
So any law that attempts to infringe, must be considered carefully and common sense applied. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bangbayed
Joined: 01 Dec 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 02, 2008 11:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
We should all have the right to bear arms because it would lower the crime rate. Imagine how much better Korea would be if everyone had the right to own a gun here.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
