Right, like the army guys managed to defend themselves yesterday? Easy access to guns just means more shootings. It's a fair bit of effort, danger, motivation, knowledge etc to make a bomb, the two just aren't comparable.
WTF is the deal with these shootings!
- Thread starter matt3
- Start date
Right, like the army guys managed to defend themselves yesterday? Easy access to guns just means more shootings. It's a fair bit of effort, danger, motivation, knowledge etc to make a bomb, the two just aren't comparable.
There is nothing you could do that would piss people off enough to get off their asses and "reclaim their country".
Plus: There are "good" police and "bad" police, but even the good police protect the bad ones. Which in my mind, makes them more than "not good"...they're shielding someone from the very law they're supposed to enforce.
Obviously I'm speaking from an outside perspective, I tend to agree with your assessment, is it a problem that can be fixed though?
Military service is also mandatory and every citizen has a weapon in their home.
Big difference.
Not to mention that one gun-related death in Switzerland is comparative to almost fifty in the United States, as far as population is concerned. One here is a blip on the radar that the high-school educated local police handle and investigate, and then it's done.
Funny how in my hometown last year, a father opened fire on his family with a sawed-off shotgun and murdered all four of them before trying and failing to kill himself. It only managed to reach our local news channel.
Location, location
Well, in my mind it's part of a larger problem: over criminalization.
With how many federal laws(10k+) state laws and local laws there are in existence, you're almost always breaking some law.
It's because of this police officers can act with near immunity. Because *everyone* is a criminal, and they can do whatever they want with criminals.
So I think there should be an anti-congress established. They take existing laws to the judiciary to argue against them. Before there is any harm or anything of that nature.
From what I understand, the area the shooter went to was a 'gun-free' zone of sorts; nobody could be carrying a weapon unless they were either going to the range or using it for a specific purpose. That's probably why it took a policewoman to bring him down; she was most likely the only one who actually had a gun.
The same thing happened with the V. Tech shootings; the school was a 'gun-free' zone. Apparently the V. Tech shooter didn't really respect the gun-free zone; how impolite of him. But at least it made the students feel safe.
Guns don't kill people, people kill people. And the day I lose my 2nd ammendment right is the day I am up and outta this country, plain and simple!
It's a shame but a majority of American's seem to have this gun culture ingrained in their way of life. It's people like Hellblazer who perpetuate this cycle with endless fearmongering and irrational arguments. I'm so glad I live in the UK, at least here you only get shanked.
I own two shotguns purely as a hobby. I don't hunt or anything. I just shoot clays and maybe the occasional computer monitor or what have you. I love America. (Also, the 2nd amendment was to protect the citizens against the government, right? That's kinda faulty isn't it? I mean the government has tanks and missiles, how are the citizens to combat that? I guess citizens should be allowed to have tanks and missiles too. <---yeah right......)
On topic, yeah these shootings seem to come in bunches. Tiller shooting, Holocaust museum shooting, army recruitment center shooting, all those we're bunched together in a relatively short time span.
Now we have Fort Hood, Orlando, and who knows what's next. It's scary.
On topic, yeah these shootings seem to come in bunches. Tiller shooting, Holocaust museum shooting, army recruitment center shooting, all those we're bunched together in a relatively short time span.
Now we have Fort Hood, Orlando, and who knows what's next. It's scary.
If you had our fucktarded government/population, you'd want to be armed too.
But in the UK they don't even trust you guys with glass beer pints so I'm thinking perhaps the path the UK has set is not a good one to follow.
Screw the nanny state. The only thing that can kill you is living.
Shooting shit is fun, guns are the best deterrent for the criminal element, some people are fucked up. Unfortunately, these are not all exclusive.
The argument for the right of gun ownership and the issue of a heavily-armed populace does not exist in a vacuum. That is, it's difficult to discuss it outside a broader context of economics and political philosophy.
It is one strand of a web. One spoke of a wheel. It has roots in, and deserves to be discussed in the context of, self-defense, natural rights, self-ownership as the basis of private property, and individual freedom.
It is not enough to say...
- "Look! Innocents are being gunned down. Get rid of firearms and you solve the problem."
Or...
- "Look. Innocents are being gunned down. Give every person a firearm and you solve the problem."
Both represent little more than an emotional response. Both positions have merit, but only within a limited scope that neglects other facets that should be included in the discussion.
Gun ownership is a huge issue. One of the reasons many people feel so strongly about the right to own firearms is because once the right is taken, it is never returned. This is what Judge Alex Kozinski was arguing.
If anyone has an example of a society that reclaimed the right to bear arms after that right was "revoked," please offer it.
this thread fails on several levels.
how is it that (some of) you think that only america has a monopoly on violence? or that with no guns this would be a safer world... it's disingenuous to claim that gun crimes only occur in the US. it's equally disingenuous to insist that people are safer by dis-arming and only allowing the government to control the weapons.
I'm sure the Jews wish they had guns when the Nazis were kicking in their doors. ever wonder why Jews carry so many Uzis? PS, I'm not Jewish but i am German. (I'm not a Nazi either)
/end rant, locked & loaded.
how is it that (some of) you think that only america has a monopoly on violence? or that with no guns this would be a safer world... it's disingenuous to claim that gun crimes only occur in the US. it's equally disingenuous to insist that people are safer by dis-arming and only allowing the government to control the weapons.
I'm sure the Jews wish they had guns when the Nazis were kicking in their doors. ever wonder why Jews carry so many Uzis? PS, I'm not Jewish but i am German. (I'm not a Nazi either)
/end rant, locked & loaded.
I was over in Apopka during the shooting, trying to get back home was nuts, they shut down I4 and you couldn't go much of anywhere for hours after the shooting.
Not sure what exactly I'm 'fearmongering' about, since I only pointed out that both the V. Tech and Ft. Hood shootings took place in a 'gun-free' zone. And that gunfree zones only ensure that non-criminals are free of guns and hence less able to defend themselves.
It just strikes me as a self-fulfilling prophecy. Taking away a populace's capability to defend themselves ensures higher casualty tolls, and thus more tragic moments to exploit. "See what guns do?" the proponents of gun control then say, neglecting to mention that it was their very efforts that left these citizens as fish in a barrel. If there were no gun-free zones, who knows if these shooters would get into double digit fatalities like we're seeing, much less even attempt it.
Jefferson even spoke about how criminals are emboldened when you take away a citizen's right to guns:
It was Carter back in the 70's who really stripped the military of their guns, which is how the only person in range who had a weapon was a cop. If he hadn't done that, who knows if this coward would have even done this. It's the difference between walking into a den of tigers or a den of sheep.
If you're going to claim somebody's 'fearmongering' or making 'irrational' arguments, by all means feel free to illustrate the logic behind your statements, if such logic even exists. Otherwise you end up looking like a hit-and-run artist dropping a quick baseless smear before disappearing back into the woodwork.
