Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And let's remember that the Fort Hood shooting involved a single perpetrator who killed 13 and wounded 29 on a U.S. military base where there was surely no shortage of either guns or trained users. Columbine had armed law enforcement on call; Virginia had an armed security service. Two armed Samaritans were present when Congresswoman Giffords was shot; one mistook the other for the shooter and almost added another innocent to the toll.
People may believe they have a gun for protection, and in a nation of over 300 million there will be thousands of stories of heroism, but the data are clear: Their decision to "protect themselves" by keeping a gun is a decision to endanger themselves and everyone else in their household, and it's a decision they make unilaterally for everyone else around them, innocent people endangered by their decision.
To the bold part above, this has to be one of the dumbest comments ever made...
You are not allowed to CC or open carry on a any Army instillation.....are there thousands of people who are trained, of course...yet they do not have the ability to help themselves such as the situation you have described, such a sad ass remark...
Columbine, on call...Yea...so are the police...
What is an armed security service? On call, like the police?
The rest of your statement is nothing more than your opinion<<<< yea, now go show me the stats that show guns in a house make people more dangerous, yet you won't show me and cannot show me who's households those people were killed in....gang banger, drug dealers.... I know that is inconvenient to you, but oh well.....
Ohhhhhhhh and keep up the great job for your anti gun side, you are showing so much amazing nonsense....congrats....
And let's remember that the Fort Hood shooting involved a single perpetrator who killed 13 and wounded 29 on a U.S. military base where there was surely no shortage of either guns or trained users.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mag3.14
Columbine had armed law enforcement on call; Virginia had an armed security service. Two armed Samaritans were present when Congresswoman Giffords was shot; one mistook the other for the shooter and almost added another innocent to the toll.
People may believe they have a gun for protection, and in a nation of over 300 million there will be thousands of stories of heroism, but the data are clear: Their decision to "protect themselves" by keeping a gun is a decision to endanger themselves and everyone else in their household, and it's a decision they make unilaterally for everyone else around them, innocent people endangered by their decision.
You really need to do some research before you post this stupidity. Soldiers at Fort Hood were not allowed to carry firearms on base. The only people who were allowed to do so were military police, the average soldier had to store even his personal firearms in the armory.
Oh, man. Can we stop with the silly cars v guns argument?
Regulation in one area does not necessitate regulation in all conceivable areas. We could immediately reduce the number of car accidents to a trivial amount, for example, if we lowered the speed limit to 10 mph, but such a policy would have unacceptable consequences for productivity loss, economic growth, police enforcement, and so on. This framework is eminently valuable because it forces policymakers to rely on data and cost-benefit analysis, rather than intuition. It’s tempting to reduce policy proposals to argument ad absurdum by invitation of analogy, but this is not how good policy is formed. That something appears absurd in a completely different context is not an argument. Hence your "cars kill people" analogy.
The fundamental purpose of a car, at its most basic level, is to convey someone from point A to point B. The purpose of a gun, on the other hand, is to inflict a significant amount of damage on whatever or whomever the gun is aimed at once the trigger is pulled. This is true regardless of whether a gun is used for self-defense, hunting, recreation, or murder. Although a life is a life, killing somebody by accident is not the same as killing somebody on purpose. Except in rare circumstances, killing somebody with a car is an accident. Even when intoxicated, the driver’s intent is not to harm another person. When a shooter fires his or her weapon at another person, whether it be in self-defense or not, the intent is to seriously injure or kill the target. Although gun accidents do happen, they result in a distinct minority of the casualties from gun violence. Guns are weapons, cars are a mode of transportation.
I have always had guns around and never shot anybody. Should I be punished because of others? They have given me peace of mind; I know that I can protect myself and my family.
It has to be terrible to cower under a desk or in a closet because you have no means to defend yourself against an attacker. Your sitting there, not making a noise, and hoping that your hiding place will be overlooked. Ten people thought they were 'safe' on this campus and they died. It did not matter how good our police were trained; because they could not get to were they were needed fast enough.
Firstly, regulations or restrictions on guns would not be a "punishment" to you. Its a little selfish to just think about your right to own whatever you want, but banning guns completely is out of the question; so I am sure you would be ok. And nor will they protect you or your family - countless studies, experiments and research has proven that guns do not protect you, they endanger the lives of everyone else in society.
Cowering under a desk, running or getting low are much safer options than getting involved in an actual gun fight.
Oh, man. Can we stop with the silly cars v guns argument?
I will if you can provide some common sense guns laws...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mag3.14
Regulation in one area does not necessitate regulation in all conceivable areas. We could immediately reduce the number of car accidents to a trivial amount, for example, if we lowered the speed limit to 10 mph, but such a policy would have unacceptable consequences for productivity loss, economic growth, police enforcement, and so on. This framework is eminently valuable because it forces policymakers to rely on data and cost-benefit analysis, rather than intuition. It’s tempting to reduce policy proposals to argument ad absurdum by invitation of analogy, but this is not how good policy is formed. That something appears absurd in a completely different context is not an argument. Hence your "cars kill people" analogy.
So more laws won't actually work, congrats....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mag3.14
The fundamental purpose of a car, at its most basic level, is to convey someone from point A to point B. The purpose of a gun, on the other hand, is to inflict a significant amount of damage on whatever or whomever the gun is aimed at once the trigger is pulled. This is true regardless of whether a gun is used for self-defense, hunting, recreation, or murder. Although a life is a life, killing somebody by accident is not the same as killing somebody on purpose. Except in rare circumstances, killing somebody with a car is an accident. Even when intoxicated, the driver’s intent is not to harm another person. When a shooter fires his or her weapon at another person, whether it be in self-defense or not, the intent is to seriously injure or kill the target. Although gun accidents do happen, they result in a distinct minority of the casualties from gun violence. Guns are weapons, cars are a mode of transportation.
I've shown you at at least 2 where a car was used to kill innocent people....children....
You won't respond to that, because you cannot, because it makes your argument absurd...
Guns are weapons, that shoot holes in millions of holes in paper daily....
Care are not needed, there are buses, taxis, uber....
Firstly, regulations or restrictions on guns would not be a "punishment" to you. Its a little selfish to just think about your right to own whatever you want, but banning guns completely is out of the question; so I am sure you would be ok. And nor will they protect you or your family - countless studies, experiments and research has proven that guns do not protect you, they endanger the lives of everyone else in society.
Cowering under a desk, running or getting low are much safer options than getting involved in an actual gun fight.
Should we then have armed guards at children's playgrounds, day cares, 4-H clubs, athletic events, theaters, malls, bowling allies, public swimming pools, Sunday school, etc.....???
Firstly, regulations or restrictions on guns would not be a "punishment" to you. Its a little selfish to just think about your right to own whatever you want, but banning guns completely is out of the question; so I am sure you would be ok. And nor will they protect you or your family - countless studies, experiments and research has proven that guns do not protect you, they endanger the lives of everyone else in society.
Cowering under a desk, running or getting low are much safer options than getting involved in an actual gun fight.
I'll bet if one could ask the dead of Columbine if they could have a do over but this time they are armed, they would gladly take up that challenge.
I say that not as one who wants to arm school kids, I don't but rather it was said to simply dismiss your argument.
I'll bet if one could ask the dead of Columbine if they could have a do over but this time they are armed, they would gladly take up that challenge.
I say that not as one who wants to arm school kids, I don't but rather it was said to simply dismiss your argument.
Again, reverse logic and crystal ball. Firstly, mass shootings like the one at Columbine occur (to the victims) out of the blue. One second its normal, the next chaos, confusion, panic - maybe instant death. The evidence on whether a gun actually adds to personal protection is that it doesn't. I will reiterate the point that you are equating guns with safety - there is literally an infinite amount of evidence to the contrary.
Your point is a silly one (and hypothetical as usual).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
