School attacks couldnt happen without guns? Bombs and other means of mass attacks

jzeidler said:

I'm not, I'm just saying that it is much more fair to be "innocent till proven guilty." Rather than, "your suspicious we're going to arrest you because we are weak and scared of what you might do even if we're totally wrong."

Click to expand...

Has anyone suggested arresting anyone?

We don't allow blind people and children to drive automobiles on our streets even though we all have a "right" to own and drive automobiles if we want to. We don't allow untrained citizens to fly airplanes even though every citizen has a right to fly an airplane if they want to.

Just because we have a right to do something doesn't mean we are automatically allowed to do it. Our individual rights have to be weighed against the public's right to live in a reasonably safe environment. Right now, the gun nuts think that the public's safety is irrelevant, or they make up lies about how guns make us safer, and so they claim that anyone who wants a gun should have one. Even though that is clearly idiotic, unworkable, and dangerous, and is costing us many innocent lives every year.

All that's being suggested is that we regulate who can own and use guns and under what conditions, for the sake of everyone's safety, just as we do with other dangerous mechanical devices. No one is suggesting that we arrest anyone unless they break the laws and place the public at risk, just as they would be arrested for drunk driving, or flying an airplane without the proper training and license.

Can anyone please explain to my why they think regulating such dangerous mechanical devices as firearms is unreasonable, when we already regulate pretty much every other dangerous machine that we produce and use? Or at least explain to me why we should not do something that is clearly reasonable for us to do?

If we are going to refuse to sell guns to children and blind people, why wouldn't we also refuse to sell them to drug addicts, alcoholics, stalkers, and domestic abusers? After all, these people are even more likely to pose significant danger to society than a child or a blind person with a gun. We know this from the statistics of who tends to shoot and kill other people, with guns.

And for those who don't think the laws work, when was the last time a blind man or a child shot up a school or a shopping mall?

jzeidler said:

This is because our founding fathers were smarter and gave as the second amendment. Also, here in the U.S. we are smart and fair as do this think called "innocent till proven guilty." We're just good people like that.

Click to expand...

Not smart enough to get it right the first time apparently, since it needed an amendment.
I suspect that guns were very useful indeed for early American farmers against those pesky Red Indians who wanted their land back.
Old traditions die hard perhaps.lain:

ok doser said:

my guns must be defective :idunno:

Click to expand...

Shoot yourself in the foot then if you don't think it will incapacitate you.

alwight said:

Shoot yourself in the foot then if you don't think it will incapacitate you.

Click to expand...

Oh...So it will require the input of a sentient being then? :juggle:

alwight said:

Shoot yourself in the foot then if you don't think it will incapacitate you.

Click to expand...

that would require me to do something stupid - stupid people shouldn't own guns

but if you think guns have autonomy - shouldn't my guns shoot me in the foot all by themselves?

TomO said:

Oh...So it will require the input of a sentient being then? :juggle:

Click to expand...

The neighbourhood psychopath will probably qualify as sentient presumably.
Let's hope that next time teachers are armed too and better shots so that even more lives can be "saved" by guns.

alwight said:

The neighbourhood psychopath will probably qualify as sentient presumably.
Let's hope that next time teachers are armed too and better shots so that even more lives can be "saved" by guns.

Click to expand...

all of these mass shootings end when which of the following happens?

a. a guy who knows kung fu stands up to the shooter
b. a guy stands up and shouts "Hey! Stop that!"
c. cops show up and start shooting their guns

It simply is not the case that criminals would wield firearms if the general population did not. The reason why even police in countries like Norway are skeptical of carrying firearms all the time is because research shows time and again that if they arm themselves, so will criminals. Shootings are quite rare in Norway, simply because the gun saturation in the general population is so low.

If criminals were armed regardless of the general population. How do you explain the extreme drop in gun related murders in Australia where gun laws were severely restricted? Why didnt the criminals keep their guns and the gun murder rates stay the same? According to some of you, you could even have expected them to rise, since there no longer or very rarely are firearms wielded by the average law abiding citizen to stop them

Sure, criminals can carry knives and other weapons. But killing someone with a knife is a lot harder, especially if you are trying to kill a lot of people. A firearm is a much deadlier weapon.

alwight said:

Let's hope that next time teachers are armed too and better shots so that even more lives can be "saved" by guns.

Click to expand...

I doubt that will happen...Too many hand-wringing cowards still think "gun-free-zones" really are that. :sigh:

ok doser said:

all of these mass shootings end when which of the following happens?

a. a guy who knows kung fu stands up to the shooter
b. a guy stands up and shouts "Hey! Stop that!"
c. cops show up and start shooting their guns

Click to expand...

I suspect that at least some mass shootings would never happen if there were less guns available to ordinary people.
Shooting back at armed nutters is only a remedy not a solution.

The idea that there is a sub class of professional criminal s that commit all the murders is quite funny to.

Crimes as a whole are committed by the populace with a small percentage being committed by career criminals.

Selaphiel said:

It simply is not the case that criminals would wield firearms if the general population did not. The reason why even police in countries like Norway are skeptical of carrying firearms all the time is because research shows time and again that if they arm themselves, so will criminals. Shootings are quite rare in Norway, simply because the gun saturation in the general population is so low.

If criminals were armed regardless of the general population. How do you explain the extreme drop in gun related murders in Australia where gun laws were severely restricted? Why didnt the criminals keep their guns and the gun murder rates stay the same? According to some of you, you could even have expected them to rise, since there no longer or very rarely are firearms wielded by the average law abiding citizen to stop them

Sure, criminals can carry knives and other weapons. But killing someone with a knife is a lot harder, especially if you are trying to kill a lot of people. A firearm is a much deadlier weapon.

Click to expand...

Selaphiel said:

Sure, criminals can carry knives and other weapons. But killing someone with a knife is a lot harder,

Click to expand...

And yet their victims are not less dead ...

This Charming Manc said:

Crimes as a whole are committed by the populace ...

Click to expand...

correction - those of the general population who choose to break the law


iow, criminals

Rusha said:

And yet their victims are not less dead ...

Click to expand...

Nor are all the victims of firearms that could have been avoided by sticter gun control and the resulting lower saturation of guns in the populace.

The point is that an armed population makes for a less safe society statistically speaking.

Selaphiel said:

Nor are all the victims of firearms that could have been avoided by sticter gun control and the resulting lower saturation of guns in the populace.

The point is that an armed population makes for a less safe society statistically speaking.

Click to expand...

A society is only as safe as the men in it.

However not a set of separate bad people, part of the society some people want highly armed.

How many shootings are committed by jilted lovers, scared spouses and frightening neighbors?

When does 'looking out for a friend' become a gang fight?

The lines are not clearly drawn, this isn't the moves its rare when there are clear good guys and bad guys.

Your kid breaks the neighbors window, hes had a bad day over reacts and yells and gets threatening scaring your kid half to death, you see from you garage where your shotguns stored, so grab it when walk over to calm the situation down.... normal people in normal situations can escalate quickly.

Lots of crime is like that, dark strangers and professional hit men is the stuff of movies, but not most crime, its more everyday.

ok doser said:

correction - those of the general population who choose to break the law

iow, criminals

Click to expand...

Selaphiel said:

Nor are all the victims of firearms that could have been avoided by sticter gun control and the resulting lower saturation of guns in the populace.

Click to expand...

Nah, those who use guns to murder would find another weapon.

A scarier scenario would be resorting to a bomb or arson. Then who would be to blame? Gas stations? Matchmakers?

This Charming Manc said:

However not a set of separate bad people, part of the society some people want highly armed.

How many shootings are committed by jilted lovers, scared spouses and frightening neighbors?

When does 'looking out for a friend' become a gang fight?

The lines are not clearly drawn, this isn't the moves its rare when there are clear good guys and bad guys.

Click to expand...

Obviously a *jilted lover* is a bad person. Remember when OJ Simpson attacked Nicole and Ron with his gun? :think:

Your kid breaks the neighbors window, hes had a bad day over reacts and yells and gets threatening scaring your kid half to death, you see from you garage where your shotguns stored, so grab it when walk over to calm the situation down.... normal people in normal situations can escalate quickly.

Click to expand...

lain: That isn't how a *normal* person would handle such a situation. It's almost as though you find it necessary to vilify all gun owners in order to make a relevant argument.

Lots of crime is like that, dark strangers and professional hit men is the stuff of movies, but not most crime, its more everyday.

Click to expand...

Any unwelcome person who breaks into someone's home is a "dark stranger".

What we really need tp do is ban all hammers and baseball bats. These insidious instruments of death need to be controlled.

According to the FBI annual crime statistics, the number of murders committed annually with hammers and clubs far outnumbers the number of murders committed with a rifle.

While the FBI makes is clear that some of the “murder by rifle” numbers could be adjusted up slightly, when you take into account murders with non-categorized types of guns, it does not change the fact that their annual reports consistently show more lives are taken each year with these blunt objects
http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...hammers-and-clubs-each-year-than-with-rifles/

Angel4Truth said:

Bombs are already illegal, think that matters to a criminal?

Click to expand...

Yes. It matters a lot. It makes it a lot harder for criminals to get bombs. Sure, it still happens from time to time, but most of the time, they'd rather go for the quick and easy instead of the more difficult. Like, say, firearms.

Why doe so many people always want to assume that the criminal is "hell bent" on killing? A lot of the folks who commit these crimes are too impulsive to jump through a lot of hoops.