And a family that did as well. From his instagram:
Betcha anything that dear old dad considers himself a Responsible Gun Owner.
Bet he also considers his son a responsible gun owner.
Intparent posted that they wanted all handguns illegal. Based on LasMa’s posts it seems like they agree but I don’t think they’ve explicitly said that.
At the risk of this sounding political, lets just put the headline out there for others to opine about, from a recent news article quotation: “The Holocaust could have been “greatly diminished” if the Jews had been armed.” Linking gun control issues to the Holocaust? Words fail me.
Well, the more armed the citizenry of annexed nations was, the harder it would have been for Germany to annex and control it.
Its a completely insensitive, distasteful discussion. Period.
As in if Palestinians were as well arned as the Israelis…?
I’ve said numerous times on other mass shooting threads on CC, that if I was a benevolent dictator I would ban all guns. I don’t give a darn about the 2nd Amendment. However, I am realistic and know that will never happen, so I support legislation which has a realistic chance of being passed some day.
@emilybee, that would be my first genie wish if I found the magic lamp. Not just in the U.S., but worldwide. Poof! But since that is just a fantasy, we are going to have to plug away at it the old fashioned way. Elected officials, law changes, court challenges, publication of research findings to inform the public.
A “meaningful reduction”? What does that mean??
You act as if taking thousands of unwanted or defective guns off the street won’t save lives.
Taking “thousands” out of over 300 million firearms out of the hands of the public probably won’t make any meaningful reduction in crime.
So if I’m reading that Raw Story account correctly, the first victims’s friends did exactly what Ben Carson recommended one do when faced with a gunman who’s already used deadly force – they banded together to take the shooter down. And they all were wounded in the process, but they immobilized the shooter and prevented him from shooting himself. I have no idea if this was the best response, but I’d be curious to hear if law enforcement agreed with their approach.
Is this really what it’s come to, that we need to be prepared to throw ourselves in front of bullets to protect the innocent from legal gun owners who snap?
No, because people commit crime, not inanimate objects.
Reducing unwanted and uncared for firearms directly addresses issues concerning children and the mentally ill.
Think that “guns don’t kill, people do” trite argument has been use about half a dozen times or so in this long winded thread. Anything new to add? recycling old arguments doesn’t seem to add much to the discussion.
People need constant reminding of what is fact and what is fiction, particularly where they pontificate over issues they know relatively little about.
You can argue all day long over the philosophical nature of “evil guns”, but what remains a fact is that they are inanimate tools, which, like every other tool, can be used or misused…by people.
The Arizona shooter is claiming self defense:
http://www.wral.com/officials-1-dead-3-wounded-in-university-shooting-in-ariz-/14957697/
Overstating the obvious simply leads to major eyerolls. The analogy to the rules and regulations to the requirements to use/operate a motor vehicle simply gets ignored in the discussion of safety (see post # 815, which was not responded to http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/discussion/comment/18858036/#Comment_18858036) because “gun nuts” seem to get all huffy and regurgitate the same trite lectures, as if smacking people over the head with the same tagline over and over and over ad nauseam will make any difference. It won’t .
Have to disagree about unilaterally deciding what posters “need”. Seems more to be simply condescending and doesn’t add to a discussion. It detracts. Thinking that if one repeats it 896 times, that suddenly the 897th time will lead to a massive “ah ha- NOW I get it” moment from the readers is silly. Better to just hold a gun to our heads and tell us to believe it.
“The Arizona shooter is claiming self defense.”
Of course that is the scenario the defense team will go with. That will only change if he is offered a plea deal and accepts. Might be in his best interest since AZ has the death penalty and he’s being charged with 1st degree murder.
Maybe this shooting will end up being a good lesson for parents who think it’s a good idea for their kid to take a gun with them to college.
Yup. Because many young adults whose frontal lobe/executive function skills (eg judgement, planning, problem-solving), are still developing , and many of whom have trouble deciding what/how to study, drink/smoke/party too much and make bad decisions, should of course have firearms.
Just FYI, post # 876 was not in response to your post, CF. Yours popped in between. Hopefully that is just stating the obvious 