Okay, I'll be the one to start it...
If there were more people carrying, he wouldn't have lasted 30 seconds. This one wasn't wearing body armor.





Okay, I'll be the one to start it...
If there were more people carrying, he wouldn't have lasted 30 seconds. This one wasn't wearing body armor.
Only in this country are people delusional enough to think the solution to gun violence is more guns.
"Well done. Here are the test results: You are a horrible person. I'm serious, that's what it says: 'A horrible person.' We weren't even testing for that."





When did this happen?
ETA: http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/12/justic...html?hpt=hp_t1
MANY MEN WANTED TO LAY ME DOWN, BUT FEW WANTED TO LIFT ME UP
-Eartha Kitt





Oh Trem - thanks for making it interesting. Let's review, shall we?Originally Posted by Trem
Argument #1 - the solution isn't more guns. Limiting the availability of firearms will solve problems with gun violence.
Well - let's see. What did Columbine High, VA Tech, a certain movie theater in Colorado, and this Mall in Oregon all have in common - besides being the scene of mass shootings? Anyone? They all have one very specific thing in common...
They were all posted no-carry zones. In other words, even if you HAD a CCW or the state (such as OR) was a legal open-carry state, you couldn't carry in those places. Please note - this SOMEHOW failed to prevent the violent criminals from bringing guns there, because for SOME reason the violent criminals didn't care that there were laws against it. In other words - the OTHER thing all these events had in common was that the innocent and law abiding citizens were deprived of their ability to protect themselves. I mean really - when was the last time there was a mass shooting at a gun show? I mean, the place is teaming with weapons, right out in the tables... Ammo everywhere, right out in the open... Most of the people there are carrying weapons around... Shouldn't they be blood baths on a regular basis? I mean - there are guns EVERYWHERE. It should be a madhouse of violence and death, right?
Argument #2 - the police have guns, so we don't need them!!
*sigh* Well - let's just get the OBVIOUS one out of th way, shall we? WHERE WERE THESE OMNIPOTENT PROTECTORS WHEN THIS SHIT WENT DOWN?!?! Hmm. The bad guys shot people up before they were able to respond? Wait - you mean they lack the ability to be everywhere at once?!?! Holy fuck - that never occurred to me!! I sure wish I had the ability to protect myse... Oh wait - I DO. But I think I already kicked that horse.
Next - I'm going to make this as succinct and unbiased as I know how. THE 2ND AMENDMENT EXISTS FOR ANY SITUATION THAT MAY ARISE WHEREIN THE *POLICE* ARE THE BAD GUYS!!!! Seriously - do your history. Societies that disarm their citizens and move toward a police state inevitably expand and abuse it. THAT IS WHY THE 2ND AMENDMENT EXISTS.
Okay - ball's in your court...
I've got to agree with you OP. Police response time is 5-10 minutes, a citizen carrying could have taken out the guy quickly.
I just got my CCW this week...definitely makes me feel a lot safer.
The second amendment exists because the constitution was written in the 1700s when something like that made sense. I know my history, I am also smart enough to realize that life in the 1700s has barely any significance to us now. In the end it doesn't matter that every single study not to mention common fucking sense points to the fact that there more guns there are around the less safe people are because guns are just popular here and we've decided easy access to guns is worth a killing spree every few months. That there is always someone around to tells us that more guns would lead to less gun violence irregardless of how many studies show otherwise is just the icing on the cake. Owning a gun makes you less safe, being around someone with a gun makes you less safe, the more guns there are around the more criminals with access to guns there will be and the more gun related deaths you will have, this are FACTS not straw man arguments.
"Well done. Here are the test results: You are a horrible person. I'm serious, that's what it says: 'A horrible person.' We weren't even testing for that."





AJ I agree with you. I am in Illinois, which has strict gun laws, yet Chicago is one of the most dangerous areas. Right now lawmakers are fighting about the concealed handgun law and I think we should be allowed to carry guns. Am I a gun fan? not at all, I don't own one but owning guns is in the Constitution and that needs to be obeyed.





Yes why not outlaw guns! In fact let's make sure no one has guns.
WRONG. In Chicago there is a handgun ban (or was)yet Chicago has one of the worst crimes. Why? because gangs still manage to get guns but law abiding can not. Is that fair? Nope in fact I am of the firm belief that cops should have the right and so should everyone else to shoot known gang members.
For fucks sake, there are like 270 million guns in the US, what does it matter that Chicago has strict gun laws when guns are trivial to find anywhere? the point is that if instead of 270 million guns there was 2.7 million there would be much less crime and death even if every single one of those guns was owned by criminals.
"Well done. Here are the test results: You are a horrible person. I'm serious, that's what it says: 'A horrible person.' We weren't even testing for that."





Why does it matter? Because gang members get guns illegally but law abiding citizens can't. Isn't that a problem? To me it is. Gangs are killing innocent people with guns they got illegally while law abiding citizens can't get them. If the law abiding citizens could get guns easier then they could shoot gang members.





Or to put it more simply - laws affect only the laws-abiding.
The "in 1776 they didn't have modern weapons" argument doesn't stand up my friend. In 1776, the general populace had access to weapons similar to those that the soldiers, etc, of the time could carry. Nowadays citizens can get weapons FAR in excess of what was available back then, true - but the gap between what a citizen - even with loads of money - can get and what the military and police can get is VASTLY wider. And nobody, no matter how gun crazy, is saying that the general populace should have access to chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons, LMAO!! In all fairness, the fact is that the "armed" populace is at far more of a disadvantage now than when the constitution was written. Next argument.
Stop quoting crap studies with slanted info. The fact is, when you remove violent criminals and gangs, there are very few gun deaths in the U.S. The majority are domestics. Further narrow that by domestic partners with a history of violence and/or abuse and the numbers drop even further. Owning a gun does NOT make you less safe. Being around guns does not make you less safe. Being an idiot with guns makes you less safe, just like being an idiot with anything makes you less safe.
All of which is beside the point. The constitution grants us the right to own weapons. I will never understand the fixation some people have with trying to attack that right based on all manner of negative justifications, rhetoric, and bullshit. The fact is that the founding fathers included it and included it as #2 for a reason. And anyone who knows history AT ALL knows why, and knows what happens when that right comes under attack. THAT'S WHY IT'S THERE.
Interesting new info in Oregon - the shooter was using a *STOLEN* rifle, so out the window goes the gun control argument once again. Note - the shooter used a standard AR-15 rifle. NOT an "assault rifle" - I hate that the media attaches that term to any sem-automatic rifle these days. The LA shootout happened with assault rifles. This and Colorado did not. Anyway - yet another case of someone determined to break the law, able to wreak havoc and death on unarmed people. ALso note that after firing a few shots, his weapon jammed. They found several additional loaded magazines on the shooters body. Note that one armed person with a cool head in that crowd carrying a concealed pistol could have saved many lives instead of dumb luck and a jammed weapon limiting the carnage. I can't believe there is even an argument to be made here.





as mentioned above,if some whack-job wants to go on a killing spree i dont think they will have any scruples about acquiring an illegal firearm. so proposing that normal, law abiding citizens who want to protect themselves should not be able to have any guns is totally ludicrous, sorry trem.. i find one of the best things about this country is our right to bear arms. furthermore if somebody wants to go on a killing spree they could use other weapons as well, the solution is not outlawing guns which normal people use for hunting and self-defense!





I have said before and will say again - Timothy McVeigh didn't use a gun. Not a single shot was fired in Oklahoma City. But I guess we should now have a 3 day waiting period for fertilizer purchases and a special permit to buy diesel fuel. Or better yet - only law enforcement and the military should have access to fertilizer or diesel. Or gasoline. Or butane. Or propane. Or Windex and Clorox. Or steak knives. Or meat cleavers. Or machetes. Or power tools. Or rusty nails and aluminum cans and fireworks. Or fireworks period. Or anything else that could potentially be used as a weapon easily more dangerous than a gun. Yup. That's the answer...
EDIT - oh Trem, this little tidbit is just delicious...
Please now back your point by showing that 99% of all firearms in the U.S. are involved in deaths. Because that's EXACTLY what you just said. But no, let's take that even further. You are actually stating that if 1 in 113 people in the U.S. were an armed criminal, and no innocents were armed, that there would be less crime and death? Like, are you drunk or high or something? Because that HAS to be a joke.Originally Posted by trem
FACT - violent crime and gun related death did NOT decrease with the weapons bans over the years. Not once.
FACT - states that have gone to "constitutional carry" have not seen an increase in violent crime or gun related deaths - and in fact, have seen decreases in certain areas.
FACT - cities with the laxest standards for issuing CCW's and issue the MOST CCW's also have lower violent crime and gun related crime than those with the strictest standards and fewest legal gun owners.
FACT - every one of the mass shootings that cause these debates has occurred in either a public government building where carrying is illegal for law abiding citizens or in a posted no-carry zone to the same effect.
FACT - the majority of gun related crimes in teh U.S. happen with illegally obtained weapons.
Seriosuly - there isn't a debate, just people who - like with cigarettes and fatty foods - want to pass laws to protect us from our poor little selves, because they know what's good for us better than we do, and Lord knows we're far too irresponsible to behave like adults much less own and safely operate a firearm!! After all - they're SO MUCH MORE DEADLY THAN A CAR!! Oh wait - no they're not. Fuck. Better ban those, too...
Last edited by Almost Jaded; 12-13-2012 at 12:38 AM.
I don't agree at all with gun ownership as I believe it leads to more violence but what do I know, I'm just some leftie living in a leftie country with no crime in comparison.
Love how facts backed up by actual studies are bullshit while facts pulled entirely out of your ass are irrefutable proof.
"Well done. Here are the test results: You are a horrible person. I'm serious, that's what it says: 'A horrible person.' We weren't even testing for that."





Except the studies you link to are bullshit, and anything I link to to refute them YOU will claim is bullshit. Non-partisan studies on this topic are hard to find. But the fact that gun control laws have never actually reduced gun violence is recognized even by left groups and media, FYI. Even CNN's latest piece acknowledges that fact.
Personally I'm more annoyed by the details that come out afterward about the shooter like glaring warning signs that no one heeded. Better action steps need to be taken before the crime is commited.
Tipping... it's not just for cows anymore!





What? I don't think it is fair that gangs have MORE rights when it comes to this than law abiding citizens.
I am waiting for someone to tell me that gangs are mistreated, had a rotten life, etc. You know, the issue PC crap. How about the fact that many people have awful lives yet don't join gangs. I couldn't care less about criminals who cause trouble, they shoot people, someone else has every right to shoot them. If one got into my house I would shoot first then ask questions. However I live in a very safe area where most of my neighbors are upper class and own guns so I don't worry.
How do gangs have more rights than you? They dont.





I see what she's trying to say Urban; essentially, that the criminals willingness to break the law gives them things that law abiding citizens can't have in her area. While this is always true to some extent - i.e., your bank robbing joke - her point is that in her city, lawmakers are actively taking away rights that American citizens have always had in the past - thus widening the gap as it were. The term "rights" isn't correct; however, I can see why she used it. The particular brand of government sweeping across the states these days - both liberal and conservative - is to make laws to fix everything. This has the effect of making more people into "criminals". Suddenly, formerly law-abiding citizens are breaking the law - laws which didn't exist before. When it comes to guns, these become very serious offenses. And to Joe Average American, having his right to carry a weapon infringed while he sees the bad guys carrying openly on the street stings. A lot.





Exactly. The lawmakers keep trying to enforce stricter gun laws while criminals aren't affected. It can be argued that law abiding citizens could purchase a gun illegally but the thing is a law abiding citizen won't usually do that. However criminals don't care.





and if the shooter didn't have a gun, this never would have happened in the first place.
Japan has very strict gun control laws and a very low gun ownership rate, and you never read about mass shootings there. Seems that every few months we have another one. Do you think this is just a coincidence?





Bookmarks