Community > Politics, Current News & Events

Topic: More Guns, More Mass Shootings—Coincidence?
JustDukkyMkII Joined Fri 11/12/10 Posts: 1462	Tue 12/18/12 08:10 PM
"Maybe this is crazy, but I think the right to own a gun is trumped by the right not to be shot by one." - Andy Borowitz It's crazy alright. The same logic can also apply to just about anything that could possibly hurt someone. the right to own a car is trumped by the right not to be run over by one. the right to own a baseball bat is trumped by the right not to be beaten by one. the right to own a dinner fork is trumped by the right not to be stabbed by one. the right to have hands is trumped by the right not to be strangled by them. Someone else's right to life is trumped by my right not to be killed by someone else. I think we're on a slippery slope. Wouldn't you agree? LOL in the end you said exactly the same thing you were disputing as a slippery slope... to damn funny It's ok....Maybe you just didn't read it right.

JustDukkyMkII Joined Fri 11/12/10 Posts: 1462	Tue 12/18/12 08:15 PM
Not valid because it would be main stream worthy. You'll know when something is worthy of the MSM when it doesn't show up on the MSM.

heavenlyboy34 Joined Fri 07/04/08 Posts: 17348	Tue 12/18/12 08:15 PM Edited by heavenlyboy34 on Tue 12/18/12 08:16 PM
It is obvious, they never save the day.... ahemBSahem http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/1/25/153427.shtml Two of the three Virginia law students who overpowered a gunman in a fatal school shooting were armed and used their weapons to disarm the shooter. Yet of the 280 stories written about the shooting, a mere four mentioned the fact that the heroic students were armed and used their guns to halt the rampage. They were off duty police or military so they don't count as average gun toters anyway I already said that. And the shooters ammo was gone so it was kinda not valid anyway "Don't count?" Who says? Off-duty officers are, for all intents and purposes, civilians.

heavenlyboy34 Joined Fri 07/04/08 Posts: 17348	Tue 12/18/12 08:17 PM


heavenlyboy34 Joined Fri 07/04/08 Posts: 17348	Tue 12/18/12 08:20 PM


Conrad_73 Joined Sat 09/29/07 Posts: 22488	Thu 12/20/12 01:47 AM
http://www.crazykens.com/Pages/to-go/Gun_Control/Why_Should_I_Carry_A_Gun.htm

Bushidobillyclub Joined Fri 05/11/07 Posts: 5689	Thu 12/20/12 11:51 AM Edited by Bushidobillyclub on Thu 12/20/12 11:54 AM
Remember the reasons why gun free school zone laws were imposed, not why they don't work. GFSZA was not meant to stop school shooters, it was to provide a means to federally prosecute gang members and the like who came packing to school. So point out that the law not only allows things like this to happen easier, but that it's failed in its intended role to boot The majority of the non-gun owning public thinks gun laws are stricter then they actually are ( this is one thing the brady campaign does right, provides me ideas) use this to your advantage. I want guns allowed "for those licensed to own firearms" (keep in mind the word license means many things, including simple permission, a law allowing you to buy and own firearms with no paperwork is, strictly speaking, a license to own and sell firearms) this will put in their minds the idea that these people are somehow trained or have official type of paperwork without actually lying. this will make things easier politically if people believe the law requires more then it does Firearms are only the most easy means to kill people, but not the only. a recent skrool massacre in China 22 people died from stab wounds. Bombs can be made easily from house hold products, official US military publications on how to make bombs are freely available for less then two dollars at surplus stores, so while guns are easy, there is plenty of firepower in regular household products sold with no restrictions. 30 dollars in cash I can get 8 gallons of gasoline and a book of matches... that's alot of potential deadly right there.... Finally I conclude with saying, the gun makes it easier for school shooters yes, but it also makes it easier for the 130 pound woman walking home at night to protect herself from the 200 pound rapist, it may be easier to off gang rivals with a gun, but it also makes it easier for a skinny middle age Korean just trying to keep his store open to protect himself against those who would kill him for 20 bucks in the register and a pack of smokes. Or for the outnumbered police officer to make it home to his family at the end of his shift. Guns are a morally neutral tool. they can sybomlize justice and equality just as they can symbolize fear and intimidation. It's important people understand that fact. A coda I usually use on liberals... this only works on leftists though.... "Is it ok for Brinks to arm their armored car drivers" and they always say "yes" and then I look at them and say "so it's ok for the big corporations to allow people to carry guns to protect their money but not ok for a single mom to carry one to protect her kids" they always look dumbfounded at that one See this is what happens when the public are unable to critically examine, or unwilling to critically examine the facts, both sides end up strategize how to frame the conversation in order to sound convincing regardless of the facts. It only harms critical thinking. The post itself has many good points, but see how the person talks about how to present the information to an uneducated group that are sure to have opinions? Silly. Makes my head hurt.

Sojourning_Soul Joined Fri 02/13/09 Posts: 10767	Thu 12/20/12 12:26 PM Edited by Sojourning_Soul on Thu 12/20/12 12:39 PM
Piers Morgan sure made an A$$ of himself on national TV when the real statistics are known about his own country with its strict gun laws he espouces as a solution and feels the USA should adopt! The other idiot saying we should arm teachers was no better for sure when perhaps armed security at schools would be a better (not by much) solution. Like Air Marshals on a plane. Talking heads on TV are for the most part brainless agenda seekers, regardless of the validity of their cause. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

Conrad_73 Joined Sat 09/29/07 Posts: 22488	Fri 12/21/12 02:42 AM


Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Fri 12/21/12 06:10 PM Edited by Jeanniebean on Fri 12/21/12 06:11 PM
Looking at Britain, I understand what is going on with gun control. The citizens are not allowed to have guns, and even the Bobbies (police) don't have guns. So who has them there? Her majesty's secret service and secret police, the CIA and the hard core criminals. (all of the above are criminals by the way.) When the world is run and controlled by cold blooded murderers and criminals and thieves, of course they want to disarm the rest of the world. The rest of the world's population are considered to be cattle. You don't want your cattle to have weapons. They might be more difficult to round up for the slaughter.

willowdraga Joined Sat 10/13/12 Posts: 957	Fri 12/21/12 06:26 PM
A civilian police state is no better than a state one.

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Fri 12/21/12 06:30 PM
What is a civilian police state? I don't think we need one if everyone has their own gun.

willowdraga Joined Sat 10/13/12 Posts: 957	Fri 12/21/12 07:00 PM
A civilian police state is what the NRA is pushing. Everyone armed and policing. Not a good thing.

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Fri 12/21/12 07:03 PM
A civilian police state is what the NRA is pushing. Everyone armed and policing. Not a good thing. How do you know? Where in the world will you find everyone armed and "policing?" Do you have any examples and why do you keep saying it is not a good thing? How would you know? Have you been watching death wish too much?

JustDukkyMkII Joined Fri 11/12/10 Posts: 1462	Fri 12/21/12 07:11 PM
Where in the world will you find everyone armed and "policing?" Switzerland.

Sojourning_Soul Joined Fri 02/13/09 Posts: 10767	Fri 12/21/12 07:16 PM
Heck! Have you been to Montana or Alaska?

FearandLoathing Joined Fri 12/28/07 Posts: 30121	Fri 12/21/12 07:21 PM
Why does your society fail to see the flaw in their ways? A good lot of you act as though this would not have happened if we couldn't get semi-automatic rifles, there is even a portion more radical believing that every gun should be taken off the streets. Because obviously...Nothing else can be fashioned a weapon. Columbine would have been a bigger tragedy without guns, because they would have spent more time on the bombs and less time training firearms and those bombs would have almost definitely went off and collapsed the school killing possibly hundreds. If you take guns away, the alternative isn't any better, if you take some guns away, they'll just make do with the others. You can kill someone with a pen, pencil, book, even a calculator can be done up to do some damage...Without guns they would only be replaced. What needs to be done is a wider social understanding of mental disorders, develop treatment programs for said disorders, talk to people, listen, and create something better together. All or nothing; either way, it isn't going to change and you're naive if you think it will.

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Fri 12/21/12 07:26 PM
Where in the world will you find everyone armed and "policing?" Switzerland. Really? Interesting.