Another US Gun Nut Opens Fire

[David]

No amount of government checks will prevent all crimes such as Virginia Tech. How many times does the government screw up? A person committed to a suicide mission can accomplish it with or without a firearm.

True but I'd like my suicidal and murderous rampagers to e using guns they have illegally. The kid was totally legal in being armed, any psych test would have stopped him from buying 1. Laws allowing his fellow, sane students to also carry would have also meant he wouldn't have gotten past his 1st victim, if that far.

 

[Harrison Bergeron]

Here is the bottom line
98% of the guns in the US HAVE NEVER BEEN FIRED IN ANGER

 

[chuck schmidt]

The problems with all of your arguements is:
1 - .... We don't ban cars to solve the drunk driving problem (which is far worse than the gun problem)....

Handguns are not a necessity of life in an industrial suburban western society.

2 - you don't recognize any reason for a person to carry a firearm in public. Wait until you are a victim, then lets see what you think.

Totally irrelevant.

3 - you think anyone that wants to carry a concealed weapon is a killer and a nut.

Never said that. Why so defensive? Are you a nutty killer? What kinds of nuts do you kill?

4 - you think the police can protect everyone at all times.

"Freedom requires sacrifices." That expression used to be a rallying call of gun owners. Has this generation gone wimpish?

The bottom line is, despite your claim to own firearms, you're just an irrational gun control freak that won't or can't understand a different point of view.

Name caller. With that low an emotional threshold I hope you're not a gun carrier? Isn't personal name calling against the rules here?

 

[GOP]

Handguns are not a necessity of life in an industrial suburban western society.

Guns are a part of peoples hobbies and lives in the West. Even if it, according to you, is not a necessity, is that a reason to regulate it away from people?

 

[chuck schmidt]

True but I'd like my suicidal and murderous rampagers to e using guns they have illegally. The kid was totally legal in being armed, any psych test would have stopped him from buying 1. Laws allowing his fellow, sane students to also carry would have also meant he wouldn't have gotten past his 1st victim, if that far.

In an orderly, rule of law nation that is the job of police.

Imagine yourself a first-responder cop arriving on-scene at a university shooting, and 18 armed civilians are running around waving guns and claiming to be rescuers? NOW what do you do? What's to stop them from shooting at each other? Its not as though they are a trained team with established plans of attack and rules of engagement? I can see it now - three separate groups of vigilantes all shooting at each other, singletons all shooting at other vigilantes and the cops all shooting at all non-cops. Meanwhile the shooter sticks his gun back in his pocket, gets on a bus and goes home to watch it all on tv. Talk about a Walter Mitty special? <rotflmao>

 

[chuck schmidt]

Guns are a part of peoples hobbies and lives in the West. Even if it, according to you, is not a necessity, is that a reason to regulate it away from people?

I totally agree. Shooting is my hobby. My objection is to pistol packers armed in public for the purpose of shooting other people.

 

[chuck schmidt]

Chuck Schmidt, the numbers do not make an argument for what you are advocating. Not only are the countries very different in circumstance, but more importantly, some of those companies have complete gun bans. Murder and crime rates show that gun bans have not helped, but again that isn't even what you are arguing for. From what you have said, you are ok with legalizing guns, but just oppose public carrying. The numbers we would have to see is within a country before and after public carrying was legal/illegal. I am not sure if some of the European nations went through a period of legal public carrying, but if they did I will try to find those numbers and post them.

Obviously we disagree.

 

[GOP]

My objection is to pistol packers armed in public for the purpose of shooting other people.

And I think everyone agrees on that! We all just have a different way of solving the problem. Never stop the majority of loosing their hobby, because the minority decides to behave badly.

 

[chuck schmidt]

Here is the bottom line
98% of the guns in the US HAVE NEVER BEEN FIRED IN ANGER

Number one, your point is devoid of definitions.

Two, tell that to the parents of 1995's 3,000 dead children.

 

[Dirk]

Two, tell that to the parents of 1995's 3,000 dead children.

To the parents of 1995's 3'000 dead children, i'm sorry your sons and daughters were murdered by guns, and not by knives or other murderous implements.

I do not endorse the above statement. We should deal with the causes of crime, through eradicating poverty and raising living standards. Then they will happen less. 'Tis called logic.

 

[GOP]

I do not endorse the above statement. We should deal with the causes of crime, through eradicating poverty and raising living standards. Then they will happen less. 'Tis called logic.

This is naive. How can you expect people, just because they're wealthy will stop committing to crime? If you have a habit of something, it will take more than a little more wealth for that to stop.

 

[Dirk]

This is naive. How can you expect people, just because they're wealthy will stop committing to crime? If you have a habit of something, it will take more than a little more wealth for that to stop.

Logic is naive? :unsure:

Habit? As in kleptomania or something? That could be solved by adding variety to life. 9 to 5 can go to hell. Wouldn't be sad to see that go!

 

[dave]

Handguns are not a necessity of life in an industrial suburban western society.

Totally irrelevant.

Never said that. Why so defensive? Are you a nutty killer? What kinds of nuts do you kill?

"Freedom requires sacrifices." That expression used to be a rallying call of gun owners. Has this generation gone wimpish?

Name caller. With that low an emotional threshold I hope you're not a gun carrier? Isn't personal name calling against the rules here?

Name calling? You are too sensitive, as well as being an ideolgue on this issue, and with limited exposure to the subject. No amount of reason, discussion, or presentation of facts will sway your opinion.

 

[GOP]

Logic is naive? :unsure:

That wouldn't be logic. Just simple guessing.

 

[Dirk]

If there is no motivation, there is no point. If i were to murder someone, i would have a motivation. Even being a nutter is a motivation.

 

[GOP]

If there is no motivation, there is no point. If i were to murder someone, i would have a motivation. Even being a nutter is a motivation.

But sometimes you don't even need the motivation.

 

[Dirk]

But sometimes you don't even need the motivation.

Care to explain?

 

[GOP]

Care to explain?

People act without having to have a motivation for it. You earlier mentioned that people would stop their criminal acts, or at least some, because they received more wealth. For me, it is very difficult to understand that. If you're in a bad circle, doesn't help with more money in your bank account. You need help or in some cases a hard punishment, not more money.

 

[Dirk]

People act without having to have a motivation for it. You earlier mentioned that people would stop their criminal acts, or at least some, because they received more wealth. For me, it is very difficult to understand that. If you're in a bad circle, doesn't help with more money in your bank account. You need help or in some cases a hard punishment, not more money.

Peer pressure is still a motivation. Cause and effect is the rule of the universe, my friend. I believe i said that the best medicine to what we perceive as "crime" is to deal with the causes. I then proceeded to give the example of how to deal with most economically motivated "crimes". I'm sorry for the misunderstanding.

 

[Harrison Bergeron]

Two, tell that to the parents of 1995's 3,000 dead children.

and how did these children die?

did the parents lose control of their guns, if so it is their fault not my 2nd amendment rights fault.

Guns used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year -- or about 6,850 times a day.1 This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.2


So we see that 3000 children are dead a year because someone didn't guard their weapon but 6850 people a day save their lives .
2.5 million a yr

that mean 2.5 million people are going home to their children and you want to destroy this ability, Chuck?