3 killed, 2 wounded in Seattle shooting; gunman still at large (Pacific: transporting, home)

[jacobwilliam77]

Portrait of the gunman...

Seattle Cafe Shooter Kills 5, Self After Citywide Manhunt - Yahoo!

[jm31828]

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.

And the gun nuts think the solution is to have MORE guns out there, somehow thinking that a heavily armed society will somehow be a safer one. I know we are way past the point of no return now, but if guns would have been banned completely a long, long time ago before we got to the point we were at today, we would be a lot better off. Just look at other countries where guns are banned or heavily restricted- sure you hear of a random shooting every now and then, but by and large they have very little or close to no gun violence. Sure some whacko might get ahold of a knife and start stabbing people, but that person is easier to stop- and won't cause as much widespread desctruction- as they would with a gun.

[ShrikeArghast]

This brings the murder tally in Seattle to 21 so far this year -- same as the year-end total from 2011. I don't put a lot of stock in statistics, but this is shaping up to be a really, really black year for the city.

Originally Posted by jm31828

And the gun nuts think the solution is to have MORE guns out there, somehow thinking that a heavily armed society will somehow be a safer one. I know we are way past the point of no return now, but if guns would have been banned completely a long, long time ago before we got to the point we were at today, we would be a lot better off.

So your solution is to rob everyone of their firearms? I'm not a gun owner because they're expensive (plus you need a safe, proper training, etc.), but I plan to be one when I have money. I'm going to buy one less for self-defence than so I can shoot the person who comes to take it away when the law you're suggesting gets passed. I'm not interested in living in a country where the government is so infallible; so unquestionable that its citizens are banned from uniting to take it down. I mean, for Christ's sake, that's the entire PREMISE of the United States; the entire freakin' REASON we were founded in the first place -- because we are (supposedly) a nation of free-thinkers who don't believe in absolute authority.

Also, where exactly do you draw the line? Should we take people's cars away because every once in a while someone goes nuts with one and kills a bunch of people? Should we take baseball bats away because people can (and do) crack each other over the head with them (skip to 5:13)? Should we stop kids from participating in sports because every so often you see a video like this? When you begin to strip away the freedoms people enjoy, you ruin the party for everyone -- all in the interest of 'safety;' all with the goal of stoking fears so that you can gain just a bit more control -- make your rule just that more unassailable.

What would have happened yesterday if one of those people in the cafe had been licensed for concealed carry? Perhaps we're only talking about one murder. Perhaps we're only talking about a lone gunman being shot dead by a heroic citizen. Now, it's quite possible in that situation that everyone still dies. But at least they'd have gone from 'no chance' to a 'fighting chance.' If I'm sitting in that cafe, I like those odds.

You can't change people; you can't stop people from going insane and doing bad things. Maybe this time it was with a gun, but who knows what they'll use next time? Hell, last fall, some nut in Oregon killed a random guy with a sword. Should we ban sharp pieces of metal, then, too? The flaw isn't the gun; it's the person who chooses to use that gun for nefarious purposes. If they didn't have a gun, they'd use something else. And, hey, since nobody has any firearms in that hypothetical, 'pefect, European style world' you're advocating (because it definitely works so well over there), that means they have to wait for the police to catch up to defuse the situation -- which they apparently did SUCH A GOOD JOB OF yesterday.

That seems like a sound argument for MORE guns to me, not less.

[rainforest338]

Originally Posted by ShrikeArghast

The flaw isn't the gun; it's the person who chooses to use that gun for nefarious purposes.

Yes. I wish people would quit blaming the actual guns and look for real solutions. Criminals are going to get whatever they need, drugs come in from mostly overseas and guns could easily follow. Mexico has some tough laws and regulations regarding guns and they still get plenty. I've lived in states and overseas in some areas with extremely strict gun control--and crime still happened.
The area I live in now has lots of meth-heads doing home invasions and robberies...it takes the police about 15 minutes to respond to a 911 call if they hurry. A baseball bat wouldn't do much.

[movingwiththewind]

Originally Posted by ShrikeArghast

Also, where exactly do you draw the line? Should we take people's cars away because every once in a while someone goes nuts with one and
kills a bunch of people? Should we take baseball bats away because people can (and do) crack each other over the head with them

Cars are made to drive, and baseball bats are made to play baseball.

Guns, on the other hand, are made to kill. This is the (only) purpose of their existence.

Like another poster said in this thread, violent crime is much lower in (all industrialized) countries with stricter gun laws. Only an idiot would deny the fact.

[ShrikeArghast]

Originally Posted by movingwiththewind

Cars are made to drive, and baseball bats are made to play baseball.

Guns, on the other hand, are made to kill. This is the (only) purpose of their existence.

Like another poster said in this thread, violent crime is much lower in (all industrialized) countries with stricter gun laws. Only an idiot would deny the fact.

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?

[movingwiththewind]

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?

You don't give a damn about other countries? Well, I think you should. There are some things we can learn from other countries, like there are some things other countries can learn from us.

Whatever you say, there is a huge problem in this country that needs a solution. And the only solution is much stricter gun control.

[tablemtn]

and then swiftly turn around and conquer the northern half of the country.

How? We have these cute little devices called nuclear weapons, you know... in the game of armed paper/rock/scissors, nuke beats pistol.

Anyhow, the gunman in this case apparently did have a valid concealed-carry permit. He had been arrested several times, but never convicted of a serious felony.

[ShrikeArghast]

Originally Posted by tablemtn

How? We have these cute little devices called nuclear weapons, you know... in the game of armed paper/rock/scissors, nuke beats pistol.

Lol. So, you believe that, in a theoretical civil war, the military would side with the north?

That's amusing.

You'd have nothing -- no ships; no planes; and not 99% of the professional army. It'd be good game in a matter of a week or two.

You seem to forget that, in becoming extreme leftists, you've positioned yourselves on the opposite side of the map from the folks whose say actually matters in a shooting war.

[tablemtn]

in becoming extreme leftists

Washington is more of a moderate state than anything else, as is Oregon. Political extremism is generally frowned upon.

You'd have nothing -- no ships; no planes; and not 99% of the professional army.

It's a bit of a silly hypothetical, but a plurality of all members of the US military are from California. 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.