I am, however, tired of reading about people being tired of "hearing" about gun control.
You're actually "talking" about gun control when you state that you are tired of hearing about it so you are perpetuating a dialogue concerning a subject that you claim to be tired of.
Yes it is. They say we need to ban guns because guns kill people. Well you can kill a person with a baseball bat. So let's ban baseball bats and baseball. People die in car accidents all the time. So do we have to ban automobiles? You can go and strangle someone to death with your bare hands. Does that mean we have to go and chop off everyone's hands? Hey, people die in natural disasters such as Earthquakes, tornados, hurricanes, etc. all the time. Let's ban them! It's just stupid.
@TheCannon: You can walk in to a school with a baseball bat and hit maybe three pepole before you get took down but if you walk in with a gun you could literally kill every single person in the building. How many pepole can you kill with a car until it brakes? You can kill as many pepole with a gun as you have bullets. If someone walked in to a room and tried to strangle a person they wouldn't even get half way done before the next person hit them with a chair.
@TheCannon: You can walk in to a school with a baseball bat and hit maybe three pepole before you get took down but if you walk in with a gun you could literally kill every single person in the building. How many pepole can you kill with a car until it brakes? You can kill as many pepole with a gun as you have bullets. If someone walked in to a room and tried to strangle a person they wouldn't even get half way done before the next person hit them with a chair.
According to Joe Biden, even if they only save one life, it's worth banning guns. Then they need to ban everything that can kill a person.
You know, let's ban tall buildings. People can jump off of those and die.
@TheCannon: You can walk in to a school with a baseball bat and hit maybe three pepole before you get took down but if you walk in with a gun you could literally kill every single person in the building. How many pepole can you kill with a car until it brakes? You can kill as many pepole with a gun as you have bullets. If someone walked in to a room and tried to strangle a person they wouldn't even get half way done before the next person hit them with a chair.
According to Joe Biden, even if they only save one life, it's worth banning guns. Then they need to ban everything that can kill a person.
You know, let's ban tall buildings. People can jump off of those and die.
Obviously banning everything that could kill is completely stupid and impossible however guns make it far easier to kill pepole and are completely unnecessary. In China 30 pepole where attacked by man with a knife, none of them died, in the US 30 pepole where attacked by a man with a gun, they all died.
@TheCannon: You can walk in to a school with a baseball bat and hit maybe three pepole before you get took down but if you walk in with a gun you could literally kill every single person in the building. How many pepole can you kill with a car until it brakes? You can kill as many pepole with a gun as you have bullets. If someone walked in to a room and tried to strangle a person they wouldn't even get half way done before the next person hit them with a chair.
According to Joe Biden, even if they only save one life, it's worth banning guns. Then they need to ban everything that can kill a person.
You know, let's ban tall buildings. People can jump off of those and die.
Obviously banning everything that could kill is completely stupid and impossible however guns make it far easier to kill pepole and are completely unnecessary. In China 30 pepole where attacked by man with a knife, none of them died, in the US 30 pepole where attacked by a man with a gun, they all died.
Banning guns because someone can die is also stupid. Banning guns won't just let criminals say "Wow, guns are illegal now! I better not go and do anything!" They;ll just get something else and go killing.
@TheCannon: You can walk in to a school with a baseball bat and hit maybe three pepole before you get took down but if you walk in with a gun you could literally kill every single person in the building. How many pepole can you kill with a car until it brakes? You can kill as many pepole with a gun as you have bullets. If someone walked in to a room and tried to strangle a person they wouldn't even get half way done before the next person hit them with a chair.
According to Joe Biden, even if they only save one life, it's worth banning guns. Then they need to ban everything that can kill a person.
You know, let's ban tall buildings. People can jump off of those and die.
Obviously banning everything thcou
at
ld kill is completely stupid and impossible however guns make it far easier to kill pepole and are completely unnecessary. In China 30 pepole where attacked by man with a knife, none of them died, in the US 30 pepole where attacked by a man with a gun, they all died.
Banning guns because someone can die is also stupid. Banning guns won't just let criminals say "Wow, guns are illegal now! I better not go and do anything!" They;ll just get something else and go killing.
Why is it stupid when guns are completely unnecessary? Murder is is against the law but pepole still do it, shall we make that legal then? How about drugs? rape? Theft?
@TheCannon: You can walk in to a school with a baseball bat and hit maybe three pepole before you get took down but if you walk in with a gun you could literally kill every single person in the building. How many pepole can you kill with a car until it brakes? You can kill as many pepole with a gun as you have bullets. If someone walked in to a room and tried to strangle a person they wouldn't even get half way done before the next person hit them with a chair.
According to Joe Biden, even if they only save one life, it's worth banning guns. Then they need to ban everything that can kill a person.
You know, let's ban tall buildings. People can jump off of those and die.
Obviously banning everything thcou
at
ld kill is completely stupid and impossible however guns make it far easier to kill pepole and are completely unnecessary. In China 30 pepole where attacked by man with a knife, none of them died, in the US 30 pepole where attacked by a man with a gun, they all died.
Banning guns because someone can die is also stupid. Banning guns won't just let criminals say "Wow, guns are illegal now! I better not go and do anything!" They;ll just get something else and go killing.
Why is it stupid when guns are completely unnecessary? Murder is is against the law but pepole still do it, shall we make that legal then? How about drugs? rape? Theft?
Banning guns is stupid because that eliminates protection. It goes against the Bill of Rights.
@TheCannon: You can walk in to a school with a baseball bat and hit maybe three pepole before you get took down but if you walk in with a gun you could literally kill every single person in the building. How many pepole can you kill with a car until it brakes? You can kill as many pepole with a gun as you have bullets. If someone walked in to a room and tried to strangle a person they wouldn't even get half way done before the next person hit them with a chair.
According to Joe Biden, even if they only save one life, it's worth banning guns. Then they need to ban everything that can kill a person.
You know, let's ban tall buildings. People can jump off of those and die.
Obviously banning everything thcou
at
ld kill is completely stupid and impossible however guns make it far easier to kill pepole and are completely unnecessary. In China 30 pepole where attacked by man with a knife, none of them died, in the US 30 pepole where attacked by a man with a gun, they all died.
Banning guns because someone can die is also stupid. Banning guns won't just let criminals say "Wow, guns are illegal now! I better not go and do anything!" They;ll just get something else and go killing.
Why is it stupid when guns are completely unnecessary? Murder is is against the law but pepole still do it, shall we make that legal then? How about drugs? rape? Theft?
Banning guns is stupid because that eliminates protection. It goes against the Bill of Rights.
You don't need guns for protection, half the country's in the world get buy fine without them. When the bill of rights was first wrote up they where talking about flintlocks not automatics also it was just for "protestants" that's how outdated it is also it ends in "as allowed by law" well if the law didn't allow then it's not against anything.
@fesak: What you say is true but I'd also like to add that the people who who aren't mentally stable kill. Playing video games and listening to metal just gives them the edge. I play violent games and there is nothing wrong with me.
Several points: The Second Amendment to the US Constitution wasn't only talking about flintlock muskets, and rifles, it was also talking about cannons. The purpose the Second Amendment is NOT home defense, it's about resisting opressive goverments. I've discussed this at greater length in other threads so I'll stop here :)
@Jonny_Anonymous said:
@TheCannon: You can walk in to a school with a baseball bat and hit maybe three pepole before you get took down but if you walk in with a gun you could literally kill every single person in the building. How many pepole can you kill with a car until it brakes? You can kill as many pepole with a gun as you have bullets. If someone walked in to a room and tried to strangle a person they wouldn't even get half way done before the next person hit them with a chair.
No...a baseball bat would kill all that many..buuuutttt, a few pipe bombs you can buy ALL the parts for at ANY hardware store can. Releasing Gopher Gas into the air ducts might not kill all that many but it can cause serious, lasting...possibly permenant health affects to the targets (btw...I spend my time thinking about these things in order to think of ways to stop them...allllwwwaaayyyy put yourself in the mind of the bad guy to have a hope of beating him or her ;) ). And if you don't want to put THAT much effort into it? Rent a semi-truck (unless you're a truck driver already, fill the trailer with some gasoline (or home made napalm...no I'm not telling how to make it, though it's WAY too easy to find...and I'd request that those Viners who know it not share it) and just drive into whater school, business, government office you choose, and you'll kill a LOT more people (and children god dammit..sorry hope I don't get gigged for that, but that's just how I feel) that were killed by a little snot rag with a hand gun in Connecticut.
Again...we protect our MONEY with guns...why is it more important to use more protection for our MONEY than our CHILDREN?
@fesak: What you say is true but I'd also like to add that the people who who aren't mentally stable kill. Playing video games and listening to metal just gives them the edge. I play violent games and there is nothing wrong with me.
Didn't we learn our lesson when we banned alcohol?
Gun selling business sky rockets for criminals if we ban guns.
People will still have guns, millions of guns in the US aren't even registered.
I know about 5 people that I could buy a gun from within the next 30 minutes for under $100.
I hope no one here that supports banning guns is a drinker of alcohol. Drunk driving is also a huge problem that kills thousands a year. Why not ban alcohol?
But you may say "I am responsible enough and not stupid enough to drink and drive.'......Well, same thing goes for all the responsible gun owners getting sh!tted on if guns are banned.
Usually over 11,000 people die yearly from drunk driving.. I believe 16,000 people died due to drunk driving in 2006 alone.
@BiteMe-Fanboy: Are you saying if they made drink driving legal that number would decrease?
Wtf? No. lol. I added a sentence to that post for better understanding of my point I am trying to make.
EDIT: I am comparing the fact that people who drink alcohol probably wouldn't too much like the government trying to ban drinking alcohol just because of all the deaths due to drunk driving to the people who get pissed off because the government wants to ban guns because of the deaths due gun shootings.
Besides. I really don't think death rate due to guns will drop too much if guns were banned. Anyone who is willing to shoot and kill another person will and can definetely get their hands on an unregistered gun.
Regarding OP, I am always happy to talk about the important of freedom, but it does make me sick to my stomach to see so many people clamoring to have their freedom taken away. I'm also a little annoyed that the gun control crowd is exploiting the deaths of little kids to spread their message of gun hate, but that is in their nature. Never let a good tragedy go to waste.
@The Stegman said:
Guns don't kill people, people kill people, guns just make it really, really, /really/ easy for people to kill people.
Or make it really, really easy to kill a homicidal maniac.
Machine guns have been around since the early twentieth century. Strong gun control legislation has been around since the 1960's. Number of school shootings prior to gun control? Zero.
It's almost as if disarming good people makes bad people easier targets. Crazy!
For more news, reviews, and commentary for the entire Bat Family, check out BatWatch.net.
Guns don't kill people, people kill people, guns just make it really, really, /really/ easy for people to kill people.
Or make it really, really easy to kill a homicidal maniac.
Machine guns have been around since the early twentieth century. Strong gun control legislation has been around since the 1960's. Number of school shootings prior to gun control? Zero.
It's almost as if disarming good people makes bad people easier targets. Crazy!
I don't understand the point you're trying to make here, you're saying that if everyone was armed, public shootings would decrease? I don't see how. There are already armed people in schools, they're called police officers, my school had them patrolling constantly, who else do you want to arm? the students? the teachers? Even if others were armed, how do we know that will reduce shootings? Let's take for example the shooting in Colorado earlier this year, the guy came prepared with tear gas, and a bulletproof vest, he caused chaos before opening fire, even if everyone in the theater had a gun, they would probably end up shooting each other as opposed to the shooter. I'm not saying I'm for or against Gun control, My point is, that the whole "We shouldn't ban guns because they aren't the only thing that can kill us." excuse is very faulty, yes, they aren't the only thing that can kill us, but they are the easiest way to kill us, and designed specifically for that purpose.
There are numerous accounts of failed attempts of store robberies because the owners of the stores owned some sort of firearm. Those people who have never used a gun are more curios about it, and we all know what happened about the curios cat. Gun enthusiasts rarely make it to the news for robbing, or shooting random people. What happens when a man robs ones house, and the owner of said house has no firearm? Would you rather tangle and wrestle with the foe? Call Batman? Having a gun doesn't necessarily mean you have to shoot an intruder. By only pointing the gun at thief, one can already make the intruder think twice about what his doing.
Didn't we learn our lesson when we banned alcohol?
Gun selling business sky rockets for criminals if we ban guns.
People will still have guns, millions of guns in the US aren't even registered.
I know about 5 people that I could buy a gun from within the next 30 minutes for under $100.
I hope no one here that supports banning guns is a drinker of alcohol. Drunk driving is also a huge problem that kills thousands a year. Why not ban alcohol?
But you may say "I am responsible enough and not stupid enough to drink and drive.'......Well, same thing goes for all the responsible gun owners getting sh!tted on if guns are banned.
Usually over 11,000 people die yearly from drunk driving.. I believe 16,000 people died due to drunk driving in 2006 alone.
Guns don't kill people, people kill people, guns just make it really, really, /really/ easy for people to kill people.
Or make it really, really easy to kill a homicidal maniac.
Machine guns have been around since the early twentieth century. Strong gun control legislation has been around since the 1960's. Number of school shootings prior to gun control? Zero.
It's almost as if disarming good people makes bad people easier targets. Crazy!
I don't understand the point you're trying to make here, you're saying that if everyone was armed, public shootings would decrease? I don't see how. There are already armed people in schools, they're called police officers, my school had them patrolling constantly, who else do you want to arm? the students? the teachers? Even if others were armed, how do we know that will reduce shootings? Let's take for example the shooting in Colorado earlier this year, the guy came prepared with tear gas, and a bulletproof vest, he caused chaos before opening fire, even if everyone in the theater had a gun, they would probably end up shooting each other as opposed to the shooter. I'm not saying I'm for or against Gun control, My point is, that the whole "We shouldn't ban guns because they aren't the only thing that can kill us." excuse is very faulty, yes, they aren't the only thing that can kill us, but they are the easiest way to kill us, and designed specifically for that purpose.
Yes, I'm saying if more people were armed, shootings would decrease. If you believe otherwise, you must believe either A. that most people are fundamentally bad and would use their weapons to harm others or B. that people are wildly incompetent idiots. Everybody agrees that we are safer by giving police officer guns who have basic training and are given a simple test to make sure they are not nuts. It only stands to reason that we would be infinitely more safe if every sane, trained American were armed.
The situation in Colorado is the only time I can think of that an attacker ever used tear gas to blind people, and despite that, officers managed to kill the guy. If the officers could manage, (again, with very basic training) what makes you think a regular guy couldn't?
Yes, gun control can only logically increase gun crimes because criminals will disregard the law, and it will make good people easy prey. Haven't you noticed that these slaughters almost always happen in "gun free" zones. That's not a coincidence. The shooters choose those places because they know that no one will have the power to resist them. On the other hand, nobody ever shoots up a gun show.
I do not think students should be armed, but I know school staff should have the right. You really think any of the recent school slaughters would have managed to get half as far if teachers were armed? The principal saw the kid coming in, as best as I know with weapons on full display, She confronted the kid and got blown away sacrificed on the altar of the myth that "gun free" zones some how make us safer. She might have been able to stop it right there, but if not, don't you think one of a dozen other teachers could have helped instead of cowering in their rooms in fear?
Are there cops on school grounds? Yes, some school grounds have a police officer at the school. I worked as a teacher at a high school in one of the worst cities in America, and we had one police officer. God help us if someone had come into my classroom and he had been on the other side of campus.
Liberty is not only better in this specific situation, it is inherently moral.
Didn't we learn our lesson when we banned alcohol?
Gun selling business sky rockets for criminals if we ban guns.
People will still have guns, millions of guns in the US aren't even registered.
I know about 5 people that I could buy a gun from within the next 30 minutes for under $100.
I hope no one here that supports banning guns is a drinker of alcohol. Drunk driving is also a huge problem that kills thousands a year. Why not ban alcohol?
But you may say "I am responsible enough and not stupid enough to drink and drive.'......Well, same thing goes for all the responsible gun owners getting sh!tted on if guns are banned.
Usually over 11,000 people die yearly from drunk driving.. I believe 16,000 people died due to drunk driving in 2006 alone.
Yes, I'm saying if more people were armed, shootings would decrease. If you believe otherwise, you must believe either A. that most people are fundamentally bad and would use their weapons to harm others or B. that people are wildly incompetent idiots. Everybody agrees that we are safer by giving police officer guns who have basic training and are given a simple test to make sure they are not nuts. It only stands to reason that we would be infinitely more safe if every sane, trained American were armed.
The situation in Colorado is the only time I can think of that an attacker ever used tear gas to blind people, and despite that, officers managed to kill the guy. If the officers could manage, (again, with very basic training) what makes you think a regular guy couldn't?
Yes, gun control can only logically increase gun crimes because criminals will disregard the law, and it will make good people easy prey. Haven't you noticed that these slaughters almost always happen in "gun free" zones. That's not a coincidence. The shooters choose those places because they know that no one will have the power to resist them. On the other hand, nobody ever shoots up a gun show.
I do not think students should be armed, but I know school staff should have the right. You really think any of the recent school slaughters would have managed to get half as far if teachers were armed? The principal saw the kid coming in, as best as I know with weapons on full display, She confronted the kid and got blown away sacrificed on the altar of the myth that "gun free" zones some how make us safer. She might have been able to stop it right there, but if not, don't you think one of a dozen other teachers could have helped instead of cowering in their rooms in fear?
Are there cops on school grounds? Yes, some school grounds have a police officer at the school. I worked as a teacher at a high school in one of the worst cities in America, and we had one police officer. God help us if someone had come into my classroom and he had been on the other side of campus.
Liberty is not only better in this specific situation, it is inherently moral.
I couldn't disagree more. First, people are wildly incompetent, petty, and violent. I'm not saying that's the case for everyone, but people pick fights with one another enough as it is, imagine giving guns to those people, a harmless altercation can turn into a murder. And how exactly would you test someone to see if they aren't "nuts"? a Psych eval? that's easy enough to lie on. Even if the person is sane, what's to say they won't have something happen in their lives that will later change their outlook, make them go nuts?
The situation in Colorado can easy be duplicated again and again, people may be trained to use guns, but that doesn't mean panic won't set in when the firing starts, that doesn't mean they won't miss their target and hit a civilian, even well trained soldiers aren't always crack shots. I can only imagine the mistakes an average joe with a few shooting classes can make.
No one shoots up a gun show? really? of course not, because it's a freakin' gun show, that's like saying no one shoots up a police station, or no one shoots up a military base. To try and explain the actions of the person who decides to go on a shooting spree is basically beyond my comprehension, and is left to better people than I. Many people choose their locations at random, some do it thanks to some ties they have toward the place. Many school shootings are by students at the school, same for workplace shootings. It's not like the killer is saying "OH Hey, no guns here, I pick this place for that sole reason".
I absolutely would not go to a school where the teachers and faculty had guns. What happens if one of them goes crazy? then you have a bunch of students trapped in a room with a mentally unstable, gun toting professor. Not to mention what affect that might have on the students knowing their is a gun in every classroom, at all times.
I'm not gonna get into what is and isn't moral, since different people have different beliefs about that, it's basically an opinion. However, if I had to choose to live in a nation where a few shootings happened randomly here and there, or a nation where everyone carried gun holsters down the streets, and had shotguns sticking out of their car windows, I'd choose the former.
You are ignoring the fact that when people did have the right to carry wherever they chose, there were no shooting sprees.
Any criminal profiler will tell you these mass killers choose easy targets. You said it yourself. Nobody shoots police stations either because they know they wouldn't get too far. More guns in the hands of good people means more security.
You seem to say that psych tests and gun training is not sufficient to ensure gun safety, so do you wish to take guns away from cops since that is all that happens to them before getting a gun?
If a teacher goes crazy, they could just take their gun from home, steal a gun from an officer, poison some candy and give it to you. You can't sacrifice freedom for security...or a fake sense of security which is what you are actually talking about.
One last time since this is the main point which nobody can refute, when people were allowed to carry guns everywhere, this stuff didn't happens. More guns in the hands of good people means more safety.
Yes, I'm saying if more people were armed, shootings would decrease. If you believe otherwise, you must believe either A. that most people are fundamentally bad and would use their weapons to harm others or B. that people are wildly incompetent idiots. Everybody agrees that we are safer by giving police officer guns who have basic training and are given a simple test to make sure they are not nuts. It only stands to reason that we would be infinitely more safe if every sane, trained American were armed.
The situation in Colorado is the only time I can think of that an attacker ever used tear gas to blind people, and despite that, officers managed to kill the guy. If the officers could manage, (again, with very basic training) what makes you think a regular guy couldn't?
Yes, gun control can only logically increase gun crimes because criminals will disregard the law, and it will make good people easy prey. Haven't you noticed that these slaughters almost always happen in "gun free" zones. That's not a coincidence. The shooters choose those places because they know that no one will have the power to resist them. On the other hand, nobody ever shoots up a gun show.
I do not think students should be armed, but I know school staff should have the right. You really think any of the recent school slaughters would have managed to get half as far if teachers were armed? The principal saw the kid coming in, as best as I know with weapons on full display, She confronted the kid and got blown away sacrificed on the altar of the myth that "gun free" zones some how make us safer. She might have been able to stop it right there, but if not, don't you think one of a dozen other teachers could have helped instead of cowering in their rooms in fear?
Are there cops on school grounds? Yes, some school grounds have a police officer at the school. I worked as a teacher at a high school in one of the worst cities in America, and we had one police officer. God help us if someone had come into my classroom and he had been on the other side of campus.
Liberty is not only better in this specific situation, it is inherently moral.
I couldn't disagree more. First, people are wildly incompetent, petty, and violent. I'm not saying that's the case for everyone, but people pick fights with one another enough as it is, imagine giving guns to those people, a harmless altercation can turn into a murder. And how exactly would you test someone to see if they aren't "nuts"? a Psych eval? that's easy enough to lie on. Even if the person is sane, what's to say they won't have something happen in their lives that will later change their outlook, make them go nuts? The situation in Colorado can easy be duplicated again and again, people may be trained to use guns, but that doesn't mean panic won't set in when the firing starts, that doesn't mean they won't miss their target and hit a civilian, even well trained soldiers aren't always crack shots. I can only imagine the mistakes an average joe with a few shooting classes can make. No one shoots up a gun show? really? of course not, because it's a freakin' gun show, that's like saying no one shoots up a police station, or no one shoots up a military base. To try and explain the actions of the person who decides to go on a shooting spree is basically beyond my comprehension, and is left to better people than I. Many people choose their locations at random, some do it thanks to some ties they have toward the place. Many school shootings are by students at the school, same for workplace shootings. It's not like the killer is saying "OH Hey, no guns here, I pick this place for that sole reason". I absolutely would not go to a school where the teachers and faculty had guns. What happens if one of them goes crazy? then you have a bunch of students trapped in a room with a mentally unstable, gun toting professor. Not to mention what affect that might have on the students knowing their is a gun in every classroom, at all times. I'm not gonna get into what is and isn't moral, since different people have different beliefs about that, it's basically an opinion. However, if I had to choose to live in a nation where a few shootings happened randomly here and there, or a nation where everyone carried gun holsters down the streets, and had shotguns sticking out of their car windows, I'd choose the former.
I full heartily agree. I culture of violence fuels violence and not some kid playing games. Until I here about a turtle stomping spree brought on by Super Mario I say that blaming fantasy is simply ignoring reality. Encouraging people to carry around a weapon that gives any person the capacity to kill multiple people within seconds is the last thing we need.
We need to put more emphasis on mental health care to catch people who are dangerous to themselves and others before shooting occur.
@TheCannon: You can walk in to a school with a baseball bat and hit maybe three pepole before you get took down but if you walk in with a gun you could literally kill every single person in the building. How many pepole can you kill with a car until it brakes? You can kill as many pepole with a gun as you have bullets. If someone walked in to a room and tried to strangle a person they wouldn't even get half way done before the next person hit them with a chair.
Your not getting his message. It is HUMAN WILL That kills people, I Don't personally care if it's easier to kill a guy with a gun, If I wanted to I Could head to my local mall tomorrow and club a dozen people to death with a shoe, Just as easily with a gun. The reason is that I WANT To do it, And when a human WANTS To do something, He Does it. When you were a kid and they said you can do whatever you put your mind to, that didn't always mean good things.
Also, You're pretty government friendly for a guy who had a quote about Anarchy on his status for a while >.>... Just Saiyan.
@TheCannon: You can walk in to a school with a baseball bat and hit maybe three pepole before you get took down but if you walk in with a gun you could literally kill every single person in the building. How many pepole can you kill with a car until it brakes? You can kill as many pepole with a gun as you have bullets. If someone walked in to a room and tried to strangle a person they wouldn't even get half way done before the next person hit them with a chair.
Your not getting his message. It is HUMAN WILL That kills people, I Don't personally care if it's easier to kill a guy with a gun, If I wanted to I Could head to my local mall tomorrow and club a dozen people to death with a shoe, Just as easily with a gun. The reason is that I WANT To do it, And when a human WANTS To do something, He Does it. When you were a kid and they said you can do whatever you put your mind to, that didn't always mean good things.
Also, You're pretty government friendly for a guy who had a quote about Anarchy on his status for a while >.>... Just Saiyan.
Yea pepole will want to kill regardless if there is guns or not but the trick is to make it harder for them, you say you could club a dozen pepole with a shoe? I say you'd hit maybe be three pepole with it before someone kicks you in the face but if you had a gun, everybody in that building would be dead. Also wanting to get rid of guns isn't government friendly it's common sense also this isn't my government we'r talking about here.
Yes, I'm saying if more people were armed, shootings would decrease. If you believe otherwise, you must believe either A. that most people are fundamentally bad and would use their weapons to harm others or B. that people are wildly incompetent idiots. Everybody agrees that we are safer by giving police officer guns who have basic training and are given a simple test to make sure they are not nuts. It only stands to reason that we would be infinitely more safe if every sane, trained American were armed.
The situation in Colorado is the only time I can think of that an attacker ever used tear gas to blind people, and despite that, officers managed to kill the guy. If the officers could manage, (again, with very basic training) what makes you think a regular guy couldn't?
Yes, gun control can only logically increase gun crimes because criminals will disregard the law, and it will make good people easy prey. Haven't you noticed that these slaughters almost always happen in "gun free" zones. That's not a coincidence. The shooters choose those places because they know that no one will have the power to resist them. On the other hand, nobody ever shoots up a gun show.
I do not think students should be armed, but I know school staff should have the right. You really think any of the recent school slaughters would have managed to get half as far if teachers were armed? The principal saw the kid coming in, as best as I know with weapons on full display, She confronted the kid and got blown away sacrificed on the altar of the myth that "gun free" zones some how make us safer. She might have been able to stop it right there, but if not, don't you think one of a dozen other teachers could have helped instead of cowering in their rooms in fear?
Are there cops on school grounds? Yes, some school grounds have a police officer at the school. I worked as a teacher at a high school in one of the worst cities in America, and we had one police officer. God help us if someone had come into my classroom and he had been on the other side of campus.
Liberty is not only better in this specific situation, it is inherently moral.
I couldn't disagree more. First, people are wildly incompetent, petty, and violent. I'm not saying that's the case for everyone, but people pick fights with one another enough as it is, imagine giving guns to those people, a harmless altercation can turn into a murder. And how exactly would you test someone to see if they aren't "nuts"? a Psych eval? that's easy enough to lie on. Even if the person is sane, what's to say they won't have something happen in their lives that will later change their outlook, make them go nuts? The situation in Colorado can easy be duplicated again and again, people may be trained to use guns, but that doesn't mean panic won't set in when the firing starts, that doesn't mean they won't miss their target and hit a civilian, even well trained soldiers aren't always crack shots. I can only imagine the mistakes an average joe with a few shooting classes can make. No one shoots up a gun show? really? of course not, because it's a freakin' gun show, that's like saying no one shoots up a police station, or no one shoots up a military base. To try and explain the actions of the person who decides to go on a shooting spree is basically beyond my comprehension, and is left to better people than I. Many people choose their locations at random, some do it thanks to some ties they have toward the place. Many school shootings are by students at the school, same for workplace shootings. It's not like the killer is saying "OH Hey, no guns here, I pick this place for that sole reason". I absolutely would not go to a school where the teachers and faculty had guns. What happens if one of them goes crazy? then you have a bunch of students trapped in a room with a mentally unstable, gun toting professor. Not to mention what affect that might have on the students knowing their is a gun in every classroom, at all times. I'm not gonna get into what is and isn't moral, since different people have different beliefs about that, it's basically an opinion. However, if I had to choose to live in a nation where a few shootings happened randomly here and there, or a nation where everyone carried gun holsters down the streets, and had shotguns sticking out of their car windows, I'd choose the former.
I full heartily agree. I culture of violence fuels violence and not some kid playing games. Until I here about a turtle stomping spree brought on by Super Mario I say that blaming fantasy is simply ignoring reality. Encouraging people to carry around a weapon that gives any person the capacity to kill multiple people within seconds is the last thing we need.
We need to put more emphasis on mental health care to catch people who are dangerous to themselves and others before shooting occur.
Wouldn't violent video games be part of a kids culture?
I'm not saying ban violent video games, but I am saying games like Grand Theft Auto ain't helping anything.
@Blood1991: Here is a crazy thought. The first amendment, which includes the creation of intellectual properties such as grand theft auto, and the second amendment, which clearly gives citizens the right to carry whatever firearm the choose, are both good. Liberty is good. Slavery is bad.
Log in to comment