I read and heard several reports indicating that people were relieved that the Arizona shooting doesn’t fall into any kind of terror category or deranged madman with gun category. To me that is MUCH more troubling. The madman with guns scenario is at least open to the randomness of the universe. However, encouraging more “law-abiding” citizens including students to carry or have close access to firearms can only result in more incidences like this where what would have been a conventional scuffle turns more deadly more quickly. As we have seen with the inner cities, when they have a gun at their disposal people are more likely to use that gun to solve problems that they previously would have dealt with some other way. We see reports of suicides or domestic violence homicide with a fire arm and think “that won’t be me” but it’s getting harder and harder to put oneself outside these incidences as people brandish or use their weapons in more mundane situations. A number of people were advocating for “2nd amendment solutions” to the problem of campus sexual assault (strangely while not acknowledging that it is a problem). That was countered with a fear about drunken 19 year olds with guns. What could possibly go wrong? Of course guns don’t kill people . . . drunken, testosterone impaired 19 year olds with guns kill people.
I think the idea is just to get rid of people, not guns. Since you can’t tell who will snap or be careless with a gun, the logical conclusion would be to get rid of all people who insist on owning guns. Since apparently people and not guns are the problem, that seems like a logical follow up. That is, if those people even see gun violence as an issue.
Oh, not just inner cities. Let’s not forget this model citizen.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/loud-music-case-dunn-portrayed-f-g-victim-article-1.1618186
Let’s not forget the retired LEO who shot and killed the guy in the movie theater for texting. Now I am sure he considered himself an extremely responsible gun owner.
They are all responsible gun owners until they are not and yet gun nuts think those of us who want stricter gun laws are somehow misguided.
Right. His victim was armed… With a cellphone and popcorn.
The Northern Arizona shooting and gun suicides are why I’m in favor of more strict gun laws.
It’s late at night. Fraternity guys are drinking. They get into a fight. Now, because a drunk 18-year-old had access to a gun, one person is dead, three are wounded, and a kid is a murderer. Nobody would be in jail, the hospital or the morgue if that kid hadn’t had a gun.
And the same thing happens with gun suicides. A guy gets drunk. He decides on the spur of the moment to kill himself. He grabs a gun and shoot himself. Because the gun was readily available to him, he’s dead. He’d still be alive if a loaded gun hadn’t been in reach.
People die because someone who shouldn’t have a gun (because he’s drunk, angry, depressed or some combination of all three) has a gun. I can’t just shrug this off.
Vlad, a ban on all guns is a pipe dream. I know it won’t happen. In the real world, if we get ANY sensible gun control I’ll be amazed. As others have said, if 20 babies massacred in their classroom didn’t convince this country, nothing ever will.
In addition to what vlad mentioned, a few posters clearly said they wanted a repeal of the 2nd amendment and/or that they believed the second amendment only applied to muskets. Hum… if that is not advocating for a gun-free America, I do not know what is.
Anyway, the video also applies to legislating any gun control, as the blamers of the NRA cannot even get past Step 1: electing a Congress that would pass legislation in your favor. Face it, your congress people do not take you as seriously as you would like.
Do you mean like the Afgans, a rag tad citizen military, who successfully stopped the annexation of their country by the then Soviet Union?
There are many examples throughout history of failed annexation because of successful citizen defense. The one thing an armed citizenry does is make it too expensive to govern, even to force govern. Why make it easy for someone to take over your country? That is just stupid.
I do not see why it is an insensitive to acknowledge that a defenseless people are physically easier to control and order around. The word “insensitive” seems like one of those words people use to try and stop an obvious statement from being said because they do not like the obviousness of the statement. Right up there with calling something, which is true, offensive. So what if you find it offensive. Sometimes the truth hurts. Live with it and deal with the reality of it.
Wow. That sure looks like a massive leap of faulty logic. Most attempts to address gun control get met head-on with the “its my constitutional right. and this is America, dad gummit” type argument. So, if it wasn’t a constitutional right, then maybe there could be some better gun safety laws enacted. No one believes that all guns will disappear, personal weapons or otherwise. But tighter safety rules and regulations, like those on drivers licenses and required auto insurance, might be able to be explored with reason.
[Quote]
I think the idea is just to get rid of people, not guns. Since you can’t tell who will snap or be careless with a gun, the logical conclusion would be to get rid of all people who insist on owning guns. Since apparently people and not guns are the problem, that seems like a logical follow up.
[/Quote ]
No no @intparent , we don’t need to get rid of people. We just need 100% of gun owners to be 100% perfect 100% of the time. Every single gun owner should store their gun safely, every moment. Every single gun owner should be trained to LEO standards. Every single gun owner should be in perfect mental health. No gun owner ever should, for even one second, be careless. No gun owner ever should snap. No gun owner ever should get drunk. No gun owner should ever commit a crime.
So there’s your problem. Not that imperfect people have access to guns, but that people aren’t perfect. All we have to do is solve that problem, because that is a more realistic goal than doing something about the guns.
If you think the Afghanis fought off the Russians with their own guns like some ragtag citizen uprising, that could not be more wrong. The US supported the Taliban for years with millions of dollars worth of arms. Or do you think the Afghanis bought their portable anti aircraft missiles from a local CVS?
Maybe they’re from toysMissles 'r us
Protesters at President Obama’s visit to Roseburg OR; disgraceful, obnoxious and bordering on vile, particularly the ignoramus whom brought two guns to the protest. In a TV interview he said he was not making a statement, “just asserting my Second Amendment rights.” In the context of the reason for the President’s visit, the actions of ‘pistol Pete’ and other protesters was particularly offensive.
Regarding the comment that the second amendment only applies to muskets, I didn’t say that. They had dueling pistols, too – so that could have also been in their minds. But semi-automatic weapons and large magazines, no. They had no idea that such weapons would be turned on civilians by other civilians to commit mass murder, including killing children or people in churches. The second amendment would not stand if the founding fathers could see what we have come to.
What is offensive is to claim something is true about the Holocaust when it is grossly inaccurate. And then to twist that untruth into an attack on gun control advocacy in the U.S. today.
Carson’s fact-free assertion — or “gossip nonsense” is another way to put it — that if Jews had been able to arm themselves they would have been able to thwart the genocide perpetrated by the Nazis is not new. It’s been debunked before, along with the utterly preposterous claim by gun rights extremists that the Holocaust was possible because Hitler imposed sweeping gun control laws to keep the population from fighting back.
http://www.salon.com/2013/01/11/stop_talking_about_hitler/
Also, pointing out the obvious in regard to the Jewish population:
So even if arms had been distributed to every member of Germany’s Jewish population — which in the early 1930s numbered some 500,000 out of a total population of 65 million — they would have been severely outgunned by their vicious and far more numerous enemies.
…
*Outside Germany, armed Jewish resistance to the Nazis merely underlined its futility, and the fatuity of Carson’s call to arms. The Warsaw Ghetto uprising in the Spring of 1943 ended with 13,000 Jews dead, while the Nazis who crushed it lost just 20 lives. *
Bravo, Jazzymom.
Yes, bravo.
Note that this statement from the Abraham Foxman of the JDL is from 2013. So this BS about gun control and Hitler is nothing new.
Wow, victim blaming Nazi Holocaust victims is a whole new level of low. (I’ve been avoiding the news recently so hadn’t heard about this until this thread.)