3 killed, 2 wounded in Seattle shooting; gunman still at large

[Lamplight]

Wow, a thread about a single incident in Seattle has turned into a debate about a civil war involving nuclear weapons.

[BellevueNative]

Originally Posted by tablemtn

California and Washington have dozens of military installations with all kinds of hardware, from jets to nuclear submarines. I don't think that would be a major problem.

Yes, I'd just like to point out that Naval Base Kitsap is the third largest Navy base in the country. It's also home to the Navy's largest fuel depot, and all the Trident nuclear submarines in the U.S. Pacific Fleet. There is only one other nuclear sub base in the U.S. (Georgia). Then there's Joint Base Lewis-McChord, which has only gotten bigger and bigger.

I'm not trying to say anything by this, just point of information for anyone who didn't know.

[backdrifter]

Originally Posted by JesseJB

Everyones a law-abiding gun owner. Until they aren't. How convenient. It's the classic "no true Scotsman" logical fallacy.

Glad to know gun nuts with their semi-automatics think that this kind of stuff is some kind of collateral damage for their "freedumb." Every kid who blows his head off, every massacre...worth it for them.

Case in point? Here:

Originally Posted by ShrikeArghast

I don't really give a damn about other countries. Take my guns away; take my right to own a gun away, and it isn't America anymore. At that point, expect the southern tier to secede, and then swiftly turn around and conquer the northern half of the country. That's what a law banning guns would mean -- civil war. How many people would die then, smart guy?

Yes, exactly. Freedom to own guns is the ONLY thing that makes this country what it is...

[415_s2k]

A few points...

1. The gummint is never gonna come for everyone's guns, and it's not because a bunch of fat guys wearing reproduction camo and carrying guns that they call their "NOBAMA's" get together on weekends and pretend they're the last line of defense against the NWO and brown people are spooking away a bunch of highly-trained career soldiers who not only have the latest and greatest in body armor, full-automatic weapons, etc. but also spend many of their waking hours training in how to use them to their fullest.

It's because there is no social, political, or economic support to take them away. Also, it is unconstitutional.

2. Were guns to be banned, it would do very little to keep incidents like this from happening. There is absolutely no way that the United States will ever, or could ever be a firearm-free nation, and for the most part, the people who would go out of their way to buy firearms on the black market or otherwise illegally obtain them are the same people who do it that way now: criminals, extremists, and the insane - often times, individuals who are all of the above.

3. If one of the patrons in that bar had a licensed conceal-carry, or had just happened to have been transporting their handgun in their waistband, there's no saying how it would have ended up. They may have just run out. They may have opened fire and shot dead the guy before he had a chance to open fire. They may have shot him dead after he'd already shot everyone. They may have gotten shot themselves and been another casualty. They may have opened fire and hit someone running for safety.

I've never really been able to get behind the whole notion that having more civilians carrying guns will make society safer. People use nations like Sweden, Switzerland, or Norway, which have high percentages of firearm ownership but super-low instances of firearm killings as an example of this. However, these nations are totally different from the US: largely-homogenous, smaller, with vastly-different cultures going back much, much longer than the US'. They are also, on the whole, better-educated and more socially liberal.

FTR, I own a few guns and grew up around them. I don't inherently have a problem with guns, but I do have a problem with the piecemeal laws all across the country that are a result of lobbyists pushing agendas one way or the other.

[Botev1912]

Originally Posted by ShrikeArghast

I don't really give a damn about other countries. Take my guns away; take my right to own a gun away, and it isn't America anymore. At that point, expect the southern tier to secede, and then swiftly turn around and conquer the northern half of the country. That's what a law banning guns would mean -- civil war. How many people would die then, smart guy?

the typical American ignorant attitude. This is why simple problems never get a solution.

[415_s2k]

Originally Posted by Botev1912

the typical American ignorant attitude

No, I don't think that's necessarily "typical" if you're talking about a median point for all Americans. I think it's typical of chickenhawk, right-winger libertarians - people who were "neocons" under Bush, but lost value on their precious property and are now driven by paranoia and obsession with the castle doctrine to make themselves feel better about their inability to cope with the realities of life in the modern world.

I think that even the average Romney voter would find such statements to be a bit unnecessary and far-reaching - after they'd clapped to it for a few moments.