"Would Better Gun Control Have Stopped the SC Killings"

Parent Cafe
201

Now, this is the kind of friend I would like to have around if my family and I might find ourselves in a deadly situation. I definitely hopes it never happens, but if it does this is the outcome I rather have than trying to explain to family why no one did anything, while we got shot.

On the other hand, I leave the friends who would watch their friends get shot to others.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2015/06/21/my-son-was-committing-an-armed-robbery-but-i-want-the-person-who-shot-him-charged-n2015509

And this is also why the automatic assumption that such actions lead to shootouts is just false. Simply, the preps rarely see it coming, as they assume they are the only one with a gun at the time.

Given the seating at our church, if Roof tried what he did, the chances are extremely high that someone on either side or behind him at close range would have had a weapon, and he would have never known what hit him.

202

What an unusual church you must attend where people are so threatened by everyday life that they need to carry guns with them. Is this the Church of John Wayne Movie Worshippers? Aren’t churches supposed to be places of peace and goodwill?

Synagogues like the one I belong to are sometimes targets of threats especially around the High Holidays. But we do the civilized thing. On the High Holidays we get extra police protection in our parking lot. We don’t ask the members to pack their own heat.

I don’t think you have a clue that what you think is cool, macho behavior is really unspeakably tacky and uncivilized.

203

Awcdntb, out of curiosity do you believe people should be allowed to carry guns on airplanes? Why or why not?

204

You don’t seem to understand the circumstances of this shooting. They were not at a church service, with many people sitting around and behind the killer. They were sitting around a table, facing each other, for a Bible study group. You can see that in one of the victim’s snapchat photos. If you want to say that people in your church go to their Bible study groups carrying their guns, go ahead, but stop comparing what would happen at your church during a service to what happened in Charleston.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/18/dylann-roof-snapchat-church_n_7616990.html

205

“The only way to stop bad person with the gun is to have a good person with the gun”
I quoted it because, it is not my opinion, but I truly believe in it.
the fact is that the “bad person” will always find a way to have a gun, legal or illegal. If “bad person” will determine that he needs a gun, he WILL HAVE A GUN one way or another.
The fact also that the “good person” will not break the law if having gun is illegal .
So, the gun control will take guns only from the “good people”, while it will have no effect whatsoever on the guns in the hands of the “bad people”. If this is what we want, then we definitely should have a gun control law.
What I am saying is that we should define the desired outcome first, before we have a certain law that produces the desired outcome. The approach (the process) seems to be backward. But it has been backward with several other laws, like let’s have a law and then will we see what it is about. So, I am not surprised with the same approach for this law.

206

Since we know what happened after other countries imposed stricter gun laws I believe we should be able to extrapolate from that. Unless, of course, people believe US citizens are incapable of acting like people in other countries seem to be able to do. Are we a different species? I don’t think so.

All guns, at some point were legal. They do not come out of the manufacturing plant illegal. They are all bought legally at that point (from a store selling guns retail.) Depending on the state and it’s regulations the guns are purchased by someone legally entitled to purchase a gun in that state. Then they get stolen and sold on the black market or sold illegally by the first owner - either at gun shows or private channels. So, the legal owner of the gun, at some point, either did not take care to lock up their guns or disregarded gun laws regarding selling and transferring of the gun.

Then we have the problem of state’s with lax regulation that allow anyone with a pulse to buy a gun transporting those guns into states which have much stricter laws.

The legal gun owner/buyer is the source for all the subsequent “illegal” guns.

I hear over and over about “responsible gun owners.” If they were all responsible gun owners there wouldn’t be illegal guns. But, they are not responsible and obviously cannot be trusted or there would not be such of flood of illegal guns getting into the hands of “bad” guys. This is why we should ban guns. Will it take time to get rid of all 300 million guns in the US. Of course. But there is no other solution to getting guns out of the hands of bad guys.

207

No, better gun control would not have stopped it.

Better mental health screening and treatment might have.

I am for gun control. I am for removing any guns that can kill multiple people from the general public.

This guy is a mental case, a 9th grade education in a state where you have to attend school until age 17. I would be very interested to hear as to why he dropped out in 9th grade…

'Course you could blame his family’s involvement in the Lutheran church…

208

“This guy is a mental case,”

He is no more a mental case then the perpetrators who bombed the church in Birmingham in 1963 or any of the other church bombings. Or the person who murdered Tiller.

"When the son of her friend pleaded with the shooter to stop, Johnson said the gunman replied: "‘No, you’ve raped our women, and you are taking over the country … I have to do what I have to do.’

209

“Unless, of course, people believe US citizens are incapable of acting like people in other countries seem to be able to do.”- Very correct assumption. It is like comparing apples to oranges. Population in the USA and population in the USA prisons has absolutely nothing to do with the other countries, none whatsoever. Prison population reflect the criminal population. Also, the way we treat mentally ill has nothing to do with the ways in other countries. What work for some, may or may not work here. So, USA is much better taking this as an internal and unique issue and not rely on the results somewhere else.

210

^ In your opinion.

211

I cannot express anybody else’s opinion, of course, it is mine. As well as your post reflects your opinion and as well as all other posts reflect the opinions of respective posters.

212

Any argument for more control must take the 2nd Amendment into account. Other countries don’t have that hurdle.

While I am not a handgun owner nor an advocate for carrying them, it’s hard not to imagine that 8 of the AME victims would have survived, and 9/11 would not have happened, if everyone present was carrying one.

213

Until someone shows me where white supremacist lies in the DSM,
I’m not labeling this man as a mental case.

214

^I hope you have this stand EVERY single time the murder happens! I surely do!

215

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/19/world/us-australia-gun-control/

216

9-11 might not have happened if they just had locking doors to the cockpit — no need to arm pilots or flight attendants and risk shots flying around a crowded airplane in flight.

For you to say it’s not hard to imagine some would have survived is essentially advocating for everybody carrying rather than take ANY other steps toward decreasing the ridiculous ease of obtaining guns in this country. So now everyone is supposed to carry a gun or else its implied that their murder was preventable. Even churchgoing grandmas and grandpas and people who have taken a pastoral vocation. Everyone packing heat for safety in deference to the most extreme gun rights views and a self-serving distortion of the 2nd amendment (by gun manufacturers, retailers, NRA lobbyists and their lapdog legislators).

It’s this mainstream acceptance of gun rights with no restrictions that has to change for even modest gun control reforms to happen.

217

Huh? No I’m not. Non-sequitor. Sounds like you are looking for someone to argue against.

Huh? No. Another non-sequitur. The shooter is a murderer whether you have a gun on you or not. But if you had had one, you might have had a better chance of surviving. It doesn’t make the murderer any less of a murderer.

218

The one thing I find consistent on this thread is how many excuses a cabal of posters cites to make sure they are in a position not to defend themselves or others. Every excuse is made to ensure that whatever happens they can claim to be a helpless victim. It is as if they see some asinine virtue in the privilege not to be assaulted and some perverse power in being a victim.

What is even more interesting though is the jump to “preventable.” The poster presents a false set of choices - either the murders are preventable by one’s action at the time or nothing can be done. (Another gun control law is irrelevant because I am talking about the criminal who skirted every law, has a gun, and an assault is underway).

Well, the other glaring choice not mentioned is doing the most humane thing and limiting the effect and damage of the assault, and if possible, saving one’s life and the lives of others. Remember, once the assault is initiated, prevention has long been rendered moot. At the moment, the question then becomes what does one do now. Choosing to do nothing is the most coward and inhumane response one can take. One can choose this route if one wants, but understand the consequences. However, as an equal human being to you, you do not have the power or the right to tell other humans beings they should be rendered as equally cowed as you. Thus, I and others choose to have a weapon and try to help ourselves and others.

Another false construct is the use of the term “everyone.” No, not everyone needs to carry a weapon - only the people who want to. People who do not want to carry for whatever reason OR do not trust themselves to use a gun properly in a dangerous situation should be respected. Gun owners, and especially those with CCPs, totally get it that guns are not for everyone, and it is safer for those who do not want to carry not to.

This post also has that same the same weird mindset as previous posts, i.e., the concept of effective self-defense at the moment of danger is nowhere in the poster’s construct. It truly represents this dependency on government and others. Therefore, if government cannot create a law to stop such a person, then the poster chooses not to defend himself or others.

It is rather striking that people who call themselves the most tolerant and humane decide that at the time people need them most they, in advance, choose to be in a position where they can do effectively nothing. Go figure that logic out - “I am humane right up until you need me the most.” Yeah, thanks.

219

Wow @awcntdb that sure brought on the sounds of silence around here ;))

220

Or not…

With the exception of one poster whose position is that all guns should be banned from private ownership, I see no one who advocates for the inability to use guns in self defense. I certainly don’t. What has been questioned is the argument that having as many armed “law abiding citizens as possible”, will result in fewer gun deaths.

First of all. there are those of use who look askance at the unquestioned faith in the supposed “law abiding citizen”. To wit, many of us feel the naive belief in the panacea of more guns—in schools, sporting events, shopping malls, and houses of worship—flies in the face of logic, given what we know of human nature. Again, I personally believe there are just as many instances in which a plurality of guns in the hands of “law abiding citizens” would result in actually exacerbating an already bad situation, as there would be in deescalating one. To be sure, each scenario is different, with countless variables coming into play. But it is exactly the unpredictability of the intersection of those variables that makes active shooter situations so inherently chaotic . Sure, in some scenarios, events will coalesce in such a way as to work in favor of the good guys, in which case, we will all be glad fate, felicity, grace of God, a cool head in the face of adversity, etc., worked to save the day (whether a gun was used to take out the bad guy/nutcase/whatever, or pepper spray, or a few well-chosen words, or physically overpowering him/her in a moment of split-second timing). But sheer logic, and statistical probability says that the greater the number of variables (especially in the form of people capable of free agency), the less likely we can know what will happen, much less count upon a favorable outcome. Interesting how some of the same people who make excuses for the fear-driven, inappropriate use of firearms by law enforcement (so-called professionals who are assumed to have been imminently trained to handle situations of chaos), nevertheless place an outsized level of faith in the common citizen to cool-headedly respond to scenarios in which all hell literally breaks loose without a second’s notice. :open_mouth:

To again attempt to be clear where I personally stand: I believe in the 2nd Amendment right of lawful citizens to bear arms. But, I do not believe in unrestricted gun access, and certainly not in the absence of responsibility and strong accountability. Why there is such push-back to the concept that guns should be at least as regulated as automobile use and ownership, is beyond my comprehension.