...a couple staffers had been armed?

Tags: control, gun, guns, killings, mass

Views: 8485

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

Exactly what I said Unseen. Point well proven.

NRA is the enemy here - plain and simple. Their influence doesn't come from their membership count; they represent arms dealers. So, like all lobbyists, the NRA will employ any strategy available to manipulate public opinion - like "you can only deter the bad guy with YOUR arsenal" and "duh gubmint is steppin on my freedoms". If they could, they'd claim that Jesus is pro-gun (assuming they haven't already somehow tried to make that association).

So you're right; laws aimed at guns themselves are futile - that horse has bolted. ALL strategies must, at this point, be LONG-term. 

The only effective weapon will be public opinion. NRA must be confronted DIRECTLY on their panic-inducing propaganda. Gun ownership must become pariah like insane driving. It will take decades because some clearly detrimental activities like these can be fun - but any sane society cannot sanction things just because they're fun.

The only semi-reasonable "excuse" for owning a gun is to protect yourself because there are so many guns out there. We have no choice but to break that cycle. The idea that you need a gun to protect yourself from dem dang revenuers has to be exposed as the laughable proposition that it is.

In summary: Guns are fun. Guns are bad. Outlaw guns by 2050.

In summary: Guns are fun. Evil is bad. Outlaw Evil by 2050.

I get it. Substituting the word "evil" for the word "guns". So witty. So clever. I will certainly be tuning in to see what you have to say.

Thanks, I will endeavor to keep you entertained. :)

archaeopteryx

Hahaha, I just go a mental picture of a Comet chasing you. :D

It might but look at history do some research. There is an issue with crossfire, kids getting the guns, are they safer if the guns are locked up on the premises. Laughnor the gabby gifford incident was disarmed atthe same time a concealed weapon holder came throughthe grocey door. He almost shot the man who disarmed the killer. You add more weapons becomes very chaotic and more unpredictable. Statistically more people get the ther own weapon used agains them then use it to stop a crime.

Here's a question for you: Is it totally dissatisfactory if someone shoots the wrong person first then shoots the right one and in doing so saves three or four people from being shot. Do the math.

But does it make sense to have people with guns to shoot people with guns?  No its not ok for someone to kill any victims, even by accident. If the gunman did shoot the man who disarmed jared that man will be up against the law for trying to help.

There is no distinction made because the solution to the problem is not possible going in that direction. More guns in the schools isn't going to help anyone because its not a real double negative. There is too much evidence that the chance those weapons are used to actually prevent newtown or any crime for that matter out weighs the amount of damage adding the guns would cause. 

I don't think the situation would be The Shootout At The OK Corral. What I envision isn't some guy bursting in with six gun blazing but a guy with some skills shooting a weapon accurately, not just going into a room and spraying it with bullets.

I get what you saying:)  For me it is more statistical. I know a lot of research by the gun companies has gone into making the argument that concealed weapons lower crime and those on the other side will contest that countries with no guns have WAY less gun crimes then the US. We can add up all the countries that do not allow guns and get pretty close to the US in population and it does show 1000's of deaths difference, even less violent gun deaths. But then violent crime stats are very comparable to the US overall per capita. The only real difference is the rate of successful suicide and those who kill their wife/husband/bfriend/griend is a significant drop in non gun countries. but does that mean that it is enough to ban all gun ownership? No here is what I do think, stop saying they are for protection they are a lot of fun but the stats show no real difference in preventing crime or stopping an act of violence. Put your unload gun in a gun safe, put the ammo in a separate location if possible. Take to the range and have at it. I say this understanding what a gun really is in the hands of law enforcement and the military to understanding what I know I will never have to use it to defend my house an home from my own govt. Don't let fear dictate owning and protecting your right to bear arms, because that is what the special interests want from you. Please its not about your rights its about what you buy and how much more you buy when your scared of losing it. This whole debate on both sides is only about fear mongering and power.

How can you compare different countries along just one dimension as though there are no economic or cultural differences other than gun ownership? That kind of comparison is so naive as to be irrelevant. Take countries as similar as the United States and Canada. To Americans, Canada is hardly more than a suburb. If I, an American, go to Canada, it almost looks like America in some parallel dimension. Many of the same chain businesses are there. The same cars for the most part. They tend to look like Americans, and yet the cultural differences are great. If there is less gun crime there, how do you distinguish gun ownership from all the other differences?

You, like so many, talk in terms of gun ownership. I've pointed this out before but I'll do so again: much of the street crime involving guns involves guns not owned by the people who use them.. There is a large market in stolen guns. 

RSS

Events

Services we love!

© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service