So where were all the able-bodied, red-blooded armed US civilians who should have prevented this under prevelant US 2nd Amendment theory? Or maybe just get rid of the over-supply of hand guns in America?
Another US Gun Nut Opens Fire
- Thread starter chuck schmidt
- Start date
First, its illegal in Alabama to carry a firearm on public school property. The state government disarmed those people and left them at the mercy of the criminal.
Also, notice that the law banning firearms on campus, a law ostensibly put in place to make school a "safe" environment, didn't stop the criminal from bringing a firearm to school.
It also depends upon where you are. Some places are much more "gun friendly" than others. Where I live and work, its very gun friendly. I live in a very rural area, which has a different mind set than urban areas, and everyone has firearms. Everyone is familar with them, many are ex-military, most grew up with firearms, many have taken NRA safety courses. At work, over 60% of employees have concealed carry permits, and we are allowed to carry on company property. Its not uncommon for people to bring in firearms to show coworkers. Last Wednesday, a guy brought in an AR-15 and another guy brought in an AK-47, and we all gathered around to compare them.
So, if a nut shows up in my community or at work looking for trouble, he won't last long.
And before the people who are afraid of guns start squeeling, in the 28 years I have been here, there has never been an accidental shooting at work, and only one accidental shooting in the community (and that guy was in the Army, home on leave from Iraq, he accidently shot himself which is tragic, but he should have known better).
They were obeying the law and going "unarmed". The the the so called "gun nuts" usually try to obey those silly laws. Because they know every time a gun is mentioned the "gun grabbers" have a knee jerk take the guns panic moment. Had anyone but the killer been armed they sure could have stopped her. So in my opinion there was not "enough guns" in the room. Why do you think police officers carry guns even when off duty? Because they work!
Where there is demand, supply will follow. Even in Europe, Canada, etc. the people who want guns find ways to get them. Gun bans in countries like Australia and England have not led to decreases in crime or murder, so the idea that guns cause crime or murder is very misleading- it is some people who yield them that do, but they would most likely find ways to do what they want anyway. Pointing to one bad case just tries to make an appeal through pathos, but fails to look at logic and statistics. Gandhi's quotation comes to mind, "You must not lose faith in humanity. Humanity is an ocean; if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty."
Cute argument, and typical of the false premise on which all 2nd Amendment arguments try to rest. It is the ease of access to handguns that created the problem. In no other country in the world would you hear the rationale that the deaths of the victims were caused by the lack of pistol packers in a university room full of academics. It can happen anywhere. It happens so often in America because America has a gun problem.
Right issue, false logic. The European countries have the same economic and population issues as America but no gun problem. Canada is the "other" North "American" American culture and has no gun problem. It is the over supply of guns in America that causes the US gun problem that everybody except US gun nuts recognizes.
If you want to sit around and wait for someone else (police, sheriff or army) to come to your rescue that is fine. But they can't be everywhere they are needed as fast as they may be needed. My choice is to be responsible for me and my families own safety.
If you hate guns or are afraid of guns that is your choice. Just don't try to choose for me and millions of other responsible gun owners. It would seem to me with your hatred of everything American all you need to do is stay away from America and Americans for your life to be perfect.
Here is a little of how I feel on the subject: Seems this came from some Canadian.
Topic: If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns
http://changelog.ca/topic/If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns
I'm not sure if you're here just to whine or to have a discussion, so I'll spend just a moment on this. If you really want to talk about it, and its reflected in your posts, I'll spend more time in my replies.
More than just access to firearms is involved in crime. England has always had a very low firearm related murder rate, before they started strict gun control the rate was low, and its low today. Switzerland has an extremely low firearm crime rate and they have a fully armed "militia" population. The firearm crime rate in the US varies tremendously by state.
Guns are banned in Mexico, we know how that is going - and before you say Mexico just imports guns from the US, go look up the facts, the "90% of guns used by drug gangs in Mexico comes from the US" is false. It was misrepresented by people with an agenda.
You are wrong to say that in no other country in the world would you hear the rationale that the deaths of the victims were caused by the lack armed citizens. Gun control is a big issue in many other nations, including Canada (whose law enforcement agencies are concluding that their gun control methods are ineffective, a waste of money and manpower, and should be removed).
In the US, firearms are used by citizens (not counting law enforcement) between 200,000 and 500,000 times a year to prevent crime, the exact number depends on the source of the data.
A number of points, Dodge. The first is that I choose not to personalize my post. My position is related to what I perceive as social issues, not individuals. You are free to do as you choose.
Second is that I do not disagree with being responsible for my and my family's safety. I simply disagree with individuals being armed in public for the purpose of shooting other individuals in public. That's what a government and police are for. The faster unnecessary guns are off the street the faster the problem diminishes, and the faster it becomes justifiable to start disarming government.
Third, I do not hate guns and gunners. I own guns, I have shot all my life and I reload my own ammunition. I believe I should have a right to have guns at home and for sport.
Fourth, I do not hate America and Americans. You don't know my nationality and its none of your business. It is irrelevant to this issue.
Fifth, I read your link and am unimpressed.
Last edited:
There is no gun "problem." If at the end of the day there are still the same amount of murders and same amount of injuries, then how can you say that guns are causing a problem? Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
First fallacy: That guns don't kill people. Total semantics. Without a gun yesterday's shooter, a woman who was killing men in a room full of men, might have been able to knife one but I doubt she'd have put down a room-full.
Second fallacy: 'At the end of the day there are still the same number of guns and murders.' Pure unrealistic speculation because America has had its gun culture and traditions since the 1700's. Its death-by-gun comparative statistics to other western cultures demonstrate very clearly a huge difference. Do you really want me to pull them out?
The argument that communities with more gun control have more murders is equal nonsense. All that has happened is the crooks moved over three blocks.
The problem is that America has a gun problem. Unless of course you wish to argue that syphilis doesn't cause death, sex does?
Do you really think a criminal will not buy a gun if they are criminalized? The black market will always supply what is demanded. Believe it or not, even in countries where guns are banned, people still have them- and they are usually the criminals. In fact, gun control only leads to more criminal activity through the black market it produces, which also leads to further taxpayer cost.
Yes, pull them out. I have seen many stories and studies on the matter and the data clearly supports that the ban doesn't work. Here is a quick article from the BBC on the matter that I found with a quick search: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk/1440764.stm
Maybe the people who want to ban guns are either under the illusion that utopia can exist or they have to benefit financially from guns being banned. Maybe the anti-gun culture is fueled by unrealistic speculation, as opposed to the "gun culture" you describe in the United States.
My point is that murder rates aren't effected by the law- whether they go up or down is just because of people's choices on whether or not to murder. And how does the "three blocks" argument make sense in a country like Britain where there was Federal regulation?
That is a very weak analogy. Sex is not a conscious being, it does not choose to do anything. Syphilis also does not want to kill- it just seeks to reproduce as all living things do.
I'll reply to some of your points singly. I'm chatting with my wife, and its safer to be late responding to you than to her.
Not a weak analogy at all. As far as sex not being a conscious being, I beg to differ. Its a choice unless you're a rape victim. Get rid of the virus and even victims are safer. Bullets don't leap from handguns without choices, nor does syphilis change hosts without choices. If people are not permitted to legally carry handguns in public for the purpose of shooting other people, fewer people will be shot. Simple math. Because of the magnitude of the problem America has created it might never be reduced to western world levels in our lifetimes. It will change.
I don't think that's the issue any more than people will stop driving drunk if prohibition is enacted. I think that it should be brought under greater control.
Oh nonsense (IMRO). This is the same as arguing that because people keep speeding there should be no speeding laws. Of course there should. I remember back in the 1970's when governments started to really criminalize drunk driving. Lots of people said it wouldn't work. It does. Some people will always disobey. That's why there are courts and jails. "MYP, meet Bubba. Bubba has a bad reputation, but if you give him what he wants you'll get along."
In my view the carrying of guns in public for the purpose of shooting other people should, for the most part, be limited to police. On the other hand I do not think government should ban guns any more than it bans hockey sticks or knives. I should be allowed to be armed at home and for sport.
Gimme a break and look at the shooting deaths per thousand stats in Britain. They are a fraction of American stats. You argue as if I supported a gun ban and your arguments were designed to prevent gun control. Those are extremist positions. I support neither. I should be permitted to be armed at home and for sport, and the US already has gun control.
Sex is not conscious- the people who have it is, but most people are not having sex to give syphalis.
Your simple math fails to account for a black market in which only the criminals have the guns and the law-abiding citizens don't.
A wikipedia page on gun violence? Sorry, but that doesn't say anything- not to mention it is a bad source.
This is probably the root of why we disagree. You think it can be controlled, I do not. How is the government going to control whether people carry their guns in public? The criminals will still do it- it is pretty easy to hide a gun in a jacket, etc. Look at the war on drugs, how the prohibition was, prostitution, etc. and you will see that in each, even after prohibition the activities still happen.
How far are you willing to take it? In the United States, the war on drugs has lead to an overcrowding of the jails and one of the highest jailed populations per percentage in the world. If no one is hurting someone else, I see no problem in letting them carry weapons. The possibility of them killing in public will always be there regardless of the law and preemptive action only leads to more problems with things such as jailings, black markets, etc. With that logic we should invade every country because they might use their nuclear weapon on us.Oh nonsense (IMRO). This is the same as arguing that because people keep speeding there should be no speeding laws. Of course there should. I remember back in the 1970's when governments started to really criminalize drunk driving. Lots of people said it wouldn't work. It does. Some people will always disobey. That's why there are courts and jails. "MYP, meet Bubba. Bubba has a bad reputation, but if you give him what he wants you'll get along."
The criminals will always carry it in public if they want, so why not let the innocent people do it too?
Don't compare the US and Britain- they are two different nations, with two different peoples, two different cultures, two sets of laws, and vastly different populations/living areas. There are too many other factors involved. It is a lot better experimentally to compare Britain before and after the ban or Australia before and after and you will quickly see that these bans do not help at all. Did you check out the BBC article I linked to? The statistics clearly show that these bans are no effective at stopping gun crime.
Re-read my post. That is the opposite of what I posted.
An interesting confession, that the gun problem in the US is now out of the control of the law? You keep arguing as though I argue for abolition. I don't. I am a gun owner and hope to remain one.
<rotflmao> NOW you're catching up.
As you said above, guns are out of control. That's why so many people get hurt.
How about Canada?
