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 you think that if only government is "allowed" to have guns, you will be safer how?
With the aftermath of Friday's tragedy, the howls from the disarmament fringe have risen, on cue. But frankly, how would more limits on gun ownership have prevented the attack? A criminal who disregards the law will acquire weapons, regardless. The only ones who benefit from a disarmed public are the predators who prey on them.
If all adults at the school had been trained and had access to firearms, would that armed man-child have succeeded in his plans?
I doubt it.
But
Let's face the unspoken issue - fear of guns. Those who are afraid of guns think that by banning them, they will be safe. Of course, when stronger bullies and thugs don't have to fear you having guns, they won't fear attacking you.
The logical resolution would be for universal training in the responsible use of firearms, starting from childhood. Those who do not fear guns will not be so easily goaded into surrendering them, in the hopes of safety and security. For a disarmed populace is never safe nor secure.
A society that is intolerant of predators will be "civilized."
Tolerance of predators is unmerciful to their next victim.
Disarming a society is uncivilized, and a dangerous grant of power to the predators.
"Last month, Greenleaf, Idaho, adopted Ordinance 208, calling for its citizens to own guns and keep them ready in their homes in case of emergency. It’s not a response to high crime rates..."
Greenleaf is following in the footsteps of Kennesaw, Ga., which in 1982 passed a mandatory gun ownership law in response to a handgun ban passed in Morton Grove, Ill. Kennesaw’s crime dropped sharply, while Morton Grove’s did not."
"To some degree, this is rational. Criminals, unsurprisingly, would rather break into a house where they aren’t at risk of being shot. As David Kopel noted in a 2001 article in The Arizona Law Review, burglars report that they try to avoid homes where armed residents are likely to be present."
Last edited by KickAssArmyChick; 12-15-2012 at 11:44 AM..
If all adults at the school had been trained and had access to firearms, would that armed man-child have succeeded in his plans?
I doubt it.
Probably. By the time others figured out what was going on (they were probably in shock) the gunman would have already accomplished his goal. Things like this happen pretty quickly.
Paranoia is a symptom of mental disease. Should paranoid people be allowed to play with guns? I vote no.
The only type of background checks that might work and that I would support would involve psychological exams. Under our current "background checks," for instance, the Aurora shooter never would have been stopped. A comprehensive exam probably would have stopped him. I think comprehensive psychological exams fall well within "well regulated," how about you?
I think that guns are owned almost exclusively by the government in all other developed countries. I think it's because their citizens aren't terrified of their own elected government. I think Americans pretend to be frightened of their elected government because it's a convenient and deliciously bad-ass excuse to own as many weapons as possible.
And I think Americans want to own as many weapons as possible because they can impress their friends, brag about self-protection and feel important.
What other possible reason can people have for worshipping a machine made to kill?
It's rather simple. Take lawn darts and quaaludes out of the market= less lawn dart and quaalude deaths. How is that confusing?
If banning lawn darts and quaaludes is analogous to banning guns, "Houston, we have a problem...."
Disarming a stronger predator is not going to protect the weaker prey.
If anything, you would want the weaker party to have access to firearms (and other weaponry).
How is that confusing?
Remember, these senseless attacks are not made upon targets who are armed and dangerous. We do not hear of men with assault rifles marching on police stations nor armories. They target the helpless and disarmed. They avoid targets where there's a good chance they'd be shot dead in a New York minute.
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.
