After every major shooting, the gun control advocates can be counted on to ask "NOW can't you see the need for gun control?" But does gun control really make sense?

Would gun control have prevented this slaughter? I doubt it. Guns will continue to be available for the person determined to get one, and the kind of person who does something like the Colorado movie theater shooting would be determined.

The problem isn't the weapon, it's the intent, and there are plenty of other ways to kill. There are even plenty of ways to kill en masse. A bomb brought into the theater could have killed more as could an incendiary device. In other contexts, there's poisoning food or water.

Is the cause of gun violence really the availability of guns or is it the nature of the people who use them? Other countries have similar or greater rates of gun possession (I believe both Israel and Switzerland have higher rates), but they don't have nearly the rate of gun violence.

The difference in gun violence between Switzerland and the United States comes down to the difference between the Swiss people and Americans, and I don't see Americans changing in any fundamental way anytime soon.

Views: 4152

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

The "really big" difference is there all right... and if the chief of police happens to be one of those who believes no private citizen should have a gun you won't get your gun no matter how sane he thinks you are.

The UK law is rule by men, not by law, and the wrong man can abuse that system for his own ends.  Imagine if a corrupt individual became a police chief; only his buddies would get guns and his buddies would not necessarily be sterling citizens.

On another note I don't know where you get the notion that "most of America" has a system like the UKs except for that difference, unless you imagine that "most of America" equals Chicago, LA, Detroit, NYC and Washington DC.

I'd agree with most of the replies above and, excuse me for making a generalisation, next time I'll prepare a 10,000 word essay on the subject.  Either that or you could stop being a pedant.

As for how it shows the threat of terrorism is overblown... I grew up under constant threat of terrorism, at least one bomb, or bomb scare a week throughout the whole of my childhood.  Until I reached my teens I had no idea why we were being kept behind after school or why a road was closed or the like.  Even when I learned of the threat it wasn't spoken of and everyone went about their business regardless.  Terror doesn't work if people refuse to be terrified.  It's governments, now, that are the true terrorists.  They're the ones creating fear amongst the people.

Terror doesn't work if people refuse to be terrified.  It's governments, now, that are the true terrorists.  They're the ones creating fear amongst the people.

I've often said, if we want to defeat the terrorists, we get rid of all the security, allow people to bring whatever they want on the plane and tell them "If we die we die; if we don't we don't" and then forbid the news sources from covering any planes that go down.

Like that will ever happen. Right now we have the system we have and the terrorists are working it...and will continue to do so. People fly scared even though there hasn't been a major terrorist attack on U.S. planes in quite a little while now.

I'd agree with most of the replies above and, excuse me for making a generalisation, next time I'll prepare a 10,000 word essay on the subject.  Either that or you could stop being a pedant.

Or you could stop making flatly wrong statements, covering them with the word "most" (when it would be much more appropriate to say "few") and then, when called on it, use that as an excuse to ignore the point made in the other two thirds of the post.

Your statement wasn't a "generalisation," it was ignorant bullshit, and pointing that out isn't pedantry.

Let me put it this way, your error was even more egregious than the error of someone who equates "London" with "Most of England"

What you describe is a "police state". That's when the executive branch of the government has final say on the rights and privileges of any given individual or group, and not the judicial branch (with juries, attorneys, and object rules of evidence). 

I'm sure that being hit by a bullet, even with body armor on is very painful and dazing. I'm not sure whatever he was wearing on his head would have made a head shot ineffective. I suspect a head shot would have disable him temporarily at least.

As for this argument I often hear that "How could you be sure you don't hit a couple innocent people before taking the perpetrator down?" my reply is that he shot 70 people, 12 fatally. Suppose you shot two people, one fatally, by mistake before finally taking him down. If that meant he shot only 35 people 6 of them fatally and you shot two, one fatally, that still means 5 people DIDN'T have to die and 30 people were injured in the total exchange instead of 58.

Not shooting in order not to have an innocent's blood on one's hands...that's rather selfish logic when one looks at the math.

I would think if I were there and I'd already seen him shoot maybe 10 people it might occur to me he could kill quite a few more and that it might be time to DO SOMETHING! No math needed.

True, but here's a guy shooting about every 5 or 6 seconds, and hitting his target most of the time, so the outcome of letting it go on for very long is pretty easy to predict.

A barrage of shots to someone, even wearing body armor (which is "armor" only metaphorically, after all) might daze him enough to take him out. I said, I don't believe there is armor that effectively protects the head, especially the face. 

The most reasonable thing, for sure, is to run in an "It's every man for himself so get outta my way!" mode. However, someone who risked returning fire in the interest of ending the killing would certainly not be held in low regard.

I would think if you, or anyone else, were there and you'd see him shoot maybe 10 people you might be startled and stuck in a shock state. The whole thing was probably over before anyone even realized what happened. Humans are no different than chicken when stuff like this happens. Most people probably just pissed their pants, jerked and trampled each other like headless chicken in an attempt to get out of their seats and run towards a door, if they had any sense of orientation left at all after they were teargased. You probably couldn't get any of those people to spell out their own names in that moment, let alone realize what's going on, locate the guy, pull a gun, aim and headshot him. Not to mention that the majority of the audience were batman fans, which basically makes them bedwetting nerds. Sitting here and debating what could've been done is kind of pointless.

Your arguement is the most valid I've seen regarding this issue, and for the most part agree that there is no way a concealed weapon would've taken the guy out..  I do however believe that a defensive gunman, if responsible (CCW permit, firearm training, ect), would've at least been able to distract the assailant and give victims precious moments to find cover or escape.

Much has been made of the use of body armor - while it will, in most cases (meaning, barring a head shot,) protect the wearer from death or serious injury, don't think for a second that a slug from a .45 won't knock the wearer on his ass.

Just the recoil from a .45 can put the shooter on his ass if he isn't shooting from a strong stance. The impact on the person at the other end can hit even harder, especially when the shot's impact is absorbed by the recipient, meaning all of the force stops there, as opposed to a through-and-through.


© 2022   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service