Ted Nugent: Gun-free zones are recipe for disaster

[SUBMAN1]

This one from CNN! Finially people are waking up to the fact that this is a very bad idea to have gun free zones in the US.

-S

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/19/commentary.nugent/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

WACO, Texas (CNN) -- Zero tolerance, huh? Gun-free zones, huh? Try this on for size: Columbine gun-free zone, New York City pizza shop gun-free zone, Luby's Cafeteria gun-free zone, Amish school in Pennsylvania gun-free zone and now Virginia Tech gun-free zone.


Anybody see what theevil Brady Campaign and other anti-gun cults have created? I personally have zero tolerance for evil and denial. And America had best wake up real fast that the brain-dead celebration of unarmed helplessness will get you killed every time, and I've about had enough of it.


SUms it up nicely.

[tycho102]

Luby's was in Killeen, if I remember. I'm not sure about the NYC pizza shop.

[Tchocky]

Yup, bad idea. To have a gun-free zone right beside an area where guns are available. Doesnt make any sense

[TteFAboB]

Yup. These brave murderers go for the pack of sheep where they are sure not to be confronted. How many of them suicided in the end, escaping confront with the police?

[Skybird]

And still nobody cares for why school shootings are so popular in America, and why such attackers obviously so easily get access to weapons. Instead of limiting access to firearms, and reducing the numbers circulating (like one tried to do in Afghnaistan and Irak!), the solution is so easy: even more weapons! In ten years then we can start thinking about publishing the first videogame wehre your task is to plan your own school massacre and try to score as many points as possible. If inviting more and more violance into society, we at least could make a money from it! Pay-TV shows featuring legalized, state-organized school-shootings! A national league, maybe two leagues where highschools and universities score separately! Popular snipers getting two semestres for free as a reward! Kill ten teachers, and you have one exam free where you can choose your note that you wish to have! In God we trust, and someday we must die anyway: live short, die young, and have a nice-looking cadaver! The earlier the longer! Hey, we even can have prizes for especially nicely presented funerals! Top! Hip! Wonderful! Every baby should get it's own gun, from mama and papa with love. Kindergärten are dangerous places, let's protect the small kids so that they can participate in the games later!. :up:

[Tchocky]

Yup. These brave murderers go for the pack of sheep where they are sure not to be confronted. How many of them suicided in the end, escaping confront with the police?
I doubt that the suicide end of a school shooting is down to fear of incarceration (thankfully not fear of execution after http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atkins_v._Virginia ).

It's usually a goal of the shooter to take his or her own life, or expecting to have it taken freom him/her.

[OddjobXL]

If Ted Nugent says it, it has to be true.

Here's another point of view. This editorial was written by someone who's been trying to study gun violence and its causes. It was written after a different school shooting in 2006.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06281/728033-109.stm

Personally, I think gun control is a tough issue. In the country and rural areas there are few reasons why people shouldn't be able to to, more or less, whatever they want in this regard. In cities and suburbs you tend to have more problems simply because so many people are packed together in close quarters. Dangerous people can simply go about their lives unnoticed or band together with other likeminded characters and cause all sorts of problems. Where in the country a gun is identified with independence and self-reliance in the city it tends to mean you're about to have a very bad day. Because there are so many idiots in the world even criminals aren't the only problem. Because there are so many idiots in close proximity to everyone else in a city, guns just aren't a good idea there.

In a perfect world we'd be able to let people have all the guns they wanted out in the country and keep them out of the cities. But largely the whole thing is moot. With rural states proportionally overrepresented in Congress and the electoral college there's no way that gun control will be a winning issue nationally. The only reason the NRA needs to keep people fired up these days is for fundraising.

[U-533]

And still nobody cares for why school shootings are so popular in America, and why such attackers obviously so easily get access to weapons. Instead of limiting access to firearms, and reducing the numbers circulating (like one tried to do in Afghnaistan and Irak!), the solution is so easy: even more weapons! In ten years then we can start thinking about publishing the first videogame wehre your task is to plan your own school massacre and try to score as many points as possible. If inviting more and more violance into society, we at least could make a money from it! Pay-TV shows featuring legalized, state-organized school-shootings! A national league, maybe two leagues where highschools and universities score separately! Popular snipers getting two semestres for free as a reward! Kill ten teachers, and you have one exam free where you can choose your note that you wish to have! In God we trust, and someday we must die anyway: live short, die young, and have a nice-looking cadaver! The earlier the longer! Hey, we even can have prizes for especially nicely presented funerals! Top! Hip! Wonderful! Every baby should get it's own gun, from mama and papa with love. Kindergärten are dangerous places, let's protect the small kids so that they can participate in the games later!. :up:


hmm...

I think if children are taught that they are created human and not evolved... Maybe an appreciation of life would emerge.

But there again that would smack of political incorrectness...

:roll:

[OddjobXL]

Or scientific illiteracy.

Let's face it, religions are only as good as the people who make them up at any given point in time. Point to just about any religion, or rigidly held secular ideology for that matter, and there's a bloodbath somewhere along the line. Idiots are the problem and when idiots end up in charge of conformists, well, history tells us the story. Of course too much nonconformity and you'd have a seriously dysfunctional society.

The key to a successful society is reasonableness, moderation and perspective. Yeah, right, well - good luck with that.

[U-533]

Or scientific illiteracy.

Let's face it, religions are only as good as the people who make them up at any given point in time. Point to just about any religion, or rigidly held secular ideology for that matter, and there's a bloodbath somewhere along the line. Idiots are the problem and when idiots end up in charge of conformists, well, history tells us the story. Of course too much nonconformity and you'd have a seriously dysfunctional society.

The key to a successful society is reasonableness, moderation and perspective. Yeah, right, well - good luck with that.

I was just saying in a round about way that ...

Children who are taught they came from nothing and will go to nothing have nothing to live for but the lust of the moment... which leads to complete insanity.

[SUBMAN1]

In a perfect world we'd be able to let people have all the guns they wanted out in the country and keep them out of the cities. But largely the whole thing is moot. With rural states proportionally overrepresented in Congress and the electoral college there's no way that gun control will be a winning issue nationally. The only reason the NRA needs to keep people fired up these days is for fundraising.

Sad point of view.

A little clue by the way, in a perfect world, you wouldn't need guns. The fact it is imperfect is the very reason you have to have them.

By the way, I don't agree with his arguments at all.

-S

[NefariousKoel]

In a perfect world we'd be able to let people have all the guns they wanted out in the country and keep them out of the cities. But largely the whole thing is moot. With rural states proportionally overrepresented in Congress and the electoral college there's no way that gun control will be a winning issue nationally. The only reason the NRA needs to keep people fired up these days is for fundraising.
Sad point of view.

A little clue by the way, in a perfect world, you wouldn't need guns. The fact it is imperfect is the very reason you have to have them.

By the way, I don't agree with his arguments at all.

-S
Agreed.

And the guy's comments about how rural American control Congress smacks of city liberal elitism and that 'we know whats best for you whether you like it or not' outlook too.

Ridiculing the electoral system, which keeps men such as this from having complete control of the gov't and thus our rights ...and being governed solely from the other side of the country by such as him is a cornerstone of such speeches.

[OddjobXL]

Rural states are proportionally, populationwise, overrepresented. Someone from Texas or California's vote means much less when it comes to congressional power or the power to elect a president than someone from South Dakota or Rhode Island, even, simply because you've got so few people there. I'm not making a qualitative judgement - it's just a fact and one I don't think is likely to change. I'm fairly sure changing it would be a bad idea because that would lead to other arguments for more "balanced" represention that could very much distort the system into something unrecognisable and far worse.

And this is why gun control, for the forseeable future, just ain't gonna happen. Hell, look at the Democratic congress's actual reaction to what happened at Virginia Tech. You don't see Pelosi or Reid calling for more gun control do you? I'll bet the Democratic primary candidates keep equally mum. At worst you might see a call for people with a history of mental illness to have a few extra hoops to jump through before they get a gun. I'm not holding my breath even for that.

No, the new posterboys for the Democratic party are guys like Webb and Tester. Guys that could win in the South and Midwest and who are very much proud gunowners. Personally, I think NRA members should be forced to volunteer weekends at hospitals and see what their hobby tends to wreak in cities. Delusions of grandeur aside that's all it really is, a hobby. If folks came after computer games, and that may yet happen, I'd probably join the gamer's version of the NRA too unless I was convinced there was scientific proof that games could cause harm.

Given the huge effort put forward by the gun industry and their advocates in the NRA the CDC and other government outfits simply aren't allowed to scientifically quantify the health risks of various types of guns in this country. So, it's likely we'll never have compelling proof one way or another. Yet another reason why gun owners can sleep easy because gun control in the USA is history.

[NefariousKoel]

Sure, OddJob, let's force NRA members to do community service. Perhaps spend some time in a Gulag too? What a great idea! :-?

Not having our national leaders rule us from far far away is the reason this country was formed. The Electoral system keeps such things in check and works perfectly well. If you recall there was a civil war in the US quite awhile back and much of the secessionist angst was fueled by what they considered the "north" stacking the electoral system unfairly against them, thus their impression that they were being increasingly lorded over by statesmen from a distant and different society.

The electoral system is working just fine. If it weren't, there'd once again be the same sentiments and that is absolutely not a good thing.

[Ostfriese]

The electoral system is working just fine.

Is it? I've been told that the electoral system allows someone to become president even if his opponent received more votes.

[NefariousKoel]

The electoral system is working just fine.
Is it? I've been told that the electoral system allows someone to become president even if his opponent received more votes.
That has happened to candidates from both parties in the past.

Of course, the system doesn't use overall numbers. The populations in individual states decide the state's standing, not just the biggest population centers.

I don't expect everyone to understand the reasoning behind the electoral system, some just don't get that which I mentioned previously. I can't say the ideals behind in any more plainly than I already have. *shrug*

We're getting a little off-topic here. My fault for picking this subject out of a previous long post.

[OddjobXL]

Clearly I'm not the scholar you are Koel, but I seem to recall a little issue of taxation without representation being the primary rational for our revolution. If my vote is worth proportionately less than someone else's vote even if I'm paying the same amount of taxes, well, you do the math.

That said, I've already agreed with you in my previous post that jiggering around with the electoral college, at least in this respect, would be a bad idea.