...a couple staffers had been armed?

Tags: control, gun, guns, killings, mass

Views: 8486

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

When I divine what your point is (assuming I do) I may have a response.

Arming more people might lower the body count. But so might disarming more people.

Yeah. Hey. Listen! Guys! Seriously, listen. I have an idea, it's a little unconventional so bear with me alright. So, what if we, listen, what if we.. wait for it.... ban murder?

What a profound point! *jerking off motion*

Laws are mostly applied in retrospect. We don't give people tickets for thinking about exceeding the speed limit or thinking about going on a shooting rampage.

Never heard of NADD indefinite detention?

 

"Arming more people might lower the body count. But so might disarming more people. Nutcases like this young man in Connecticut would be a good start. That, I would call worthwhile."

I can agree with that.

What I find disturbing is the fact that the young mans mother thought that teaching a socially challenged troubled individual how to use firearms was a good idea.

That boggles my mind.

Which admittedly is no big accomplishment.

Define "Nutcase".

Now define how you are going to disarm Nutcases.

Are you going to disarm non-Nutcases who just happened to be related to a Nutcase?

Who decides if you are a Nutcase?

Who decides if you are too close to a Nutcase to be allowed to exercise your rights and own a gun?

Hypothetical question:

There are two rooms,

In the first room there are 100 people, 99 sane people and 1 Nutcase.

In the second room there are 100 people, 99 sane people and 1 Nutcase.

In the first room everyone has a loaded Glock 17.

In the second room only the Nutcase has a loaded Glock 17.

In both rooms the Nutcase starts shooting people.

In which room is it most likely the Nutcase will be shot dead?

If you had to be in one of the two rooms which one would you choose to be in?

I can not define Nutcase as used in G.M.s post, which is what I replied to.

But I will define it as I perceive it to be.

Nut case - Any individual willing to plot to invade a school and execute 20 plus children.

That would be one of many definitions of a Nutcase.

And if the individuals mother did not have firearms then he would not have gotten them from his mother.

Disarming ourselves is the obvious answer. It is not an easy answer nor very popular, but that does not mean it is not the right answer, or an impossible goal. Even if it takes the next 100 years to accomplish.

Either 20 dead children along with all the other recent mass shootings is an acceptable sacrifice for having access to firearms like we do or it is not and we willingly relinquish that privilege.

Question: Shouldn't the right answer have the right result?

Question: Shouldn't the right answer also be possible?

Question: Is disarming ourselves possible in any practical way? (I think, given the practical obstacles—and despite it's being a theoretical possibility—we have to say no.)

Thus... If disarming ourselves is impossible, then it can't achieve the right result. Therefore, disarming ourselves isn't the right answer, if indeed there even is one.

M.M. you are more then welcome to disarm yourself, I won't stop you or anyone from not having a gun, disarm yourself all you want.

But that's not really what you mean is it?

What you are really purposing is disarming others who don't want to be disarmed isn't it?

Thanks just the same, I will be keeping my arms (including the two attached to my shoulders), regardless of the desires of others.

AREAIRES, ICAO airline code

Already disarmed.

Not to offend you but that is the most paranoid thing I have ever read.

In my opinion, not incontrovertible fact, guns are like god.

Both are clung to out of fear.

Both have to be given up WILLINGLY.

And both prevent us from becoming a better and more peaceful species.

@M.M.

Paranoid???....:D

Already disarmed.

I would be surprised if that wasn't so obvious.

Not to offend you but that is the most paranoid thing I have ever read.

No offense taken, but then I'm not the paranoid one.

In my opinion, not incontrovertible fact, guns are like god.

You are correct, your opinion is NOT a fact, no one's opinion is a fact.  Facts can be verified, opinions are rarely factual but often emotional.

Take this opinion for example:

Both are clung to out of fear.

Really? And your evidence for this conclusion is what?  You are comparing the tangible (guns) to the intangible (doGs) using the emotion of fear. In an empirical sense how are you going to do that?

And another example:

Both have to be given up WILLINGLY.

What?  Where in the historical record have guns every be given up WILLINGLY?

And both prevent us from becoming a better and more peaceful species.

Uhhhhh....(scratches head)...so removing guns and doGs will somehow change the basic drives of the human species? A robber will no longer feel the need to rob?  A rapist will no longer feel the need to rape? A etc. will no longer feel the need to etc.?

In my opinion (not a fact) we are what prevents us from becoming a better and more peaceful species.

RSS

Events

Services we love!

© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service