frozenman on 17/4/2007 at 05:03
Quote Posted by Ko0K
As of now, it makes me feel vulnerable to know that daily routines I take for granted may come to an abrupt end with no warning what-so-ever.
I had a lengthy conversation with a strongly liberal girl this evening who was so shocked and upset by this that she felt like the only option was for people to carry guns ALL the time, or to enforce some sort of police state.
I guess my take on this (which I admit sounds tactless and no one need reply) is that people are no more vulnerable now than they were 2 days ago. Tragedies like this will always have a non-zero probability regardless of its awareness, and regardless of measures taken to prevent it.
Aerothorn on 17/4/2007 at 05:09
Quote Posted by AR Master
Yes I bet many are now going out and purchasing a self defense weapon
You're probably right. People are really fucking stupid when it comes to deciding to own firearms (statistics have already shown that the whole "self-defense" concept is ludicrous, but no one listens to statistics.
And StD: As you can see, I totally sympathize with your view on guns. That said, the folks are right - now is NOT the time to try and win people for the cause. Which includes my previous post (and the top of this one!).
And yes, it's probably a futile cause. Even if most Americans decided they were in favor of stricter gun control, the NRA is such a ridiculously powerful lobby that it would never happen. People who oppose the NRA don't get re-elected.
Finally, frozenman: Unless you friend was somehow directly involved in the shooting, I can't imagine why she'd think that way. Even here in the gun-ridden USA, such shooting sprees are relatively rare - 99.9999% of people simply don't have the desire to go and mow down civilians (at least, not American civilians!). Police state is not the answer, and would arguably just result in more of this kind of thing (see: Israel).
scumble on 17/4/2007 at 08:01
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
So what say rather than just banning the possession of guns, we ban the
manufacture of guns. If guns don't exist, then people can't get shot. Of course, it would need to be a worldwide initiative, and something would need to be done about the military. I'm surprised nobody thought of this earlier.
In general it helps to think of something that's at least remotely practical and acheivable in the next few hundred years. In fact, I think it's almost self-contradictory to suggest removing the means of enforcing the ban you propose. Might need a bit more thought?
TBE on 17/4/2007 at 08:37
"When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny." Thomas Jefferson
I'd rather live in a society where there's a small chance I'll be mowed down in a mall shooting, than the alternative. People who don't know history are doomed to repeat it. We've lived in a free society for a couple hundred years, and there's not a huge need for every citizen at this point to have firearms. Who knows what will happen in the future though? Our current society is a tiny part of the world's history. How many times in the past have people or groups taken over a country and changed it for the worse? Fiji recently had a military coup. Frank Bainimarama, the leader has become a tyrant it seems. (
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200704/s1895858.htm) Link Here. At any point in the world, a government or military can take over a country. If those citizens are vehemently against that action, they will take every action to disarm the military and government. Having firearms will make that more feasible. That was the intent of the right to bear arms. The right shall not be infringed. I'll see to that myself, along with all patriots who believe in the Constitution and Bill of Rights of this country.
Vivian on 17/4/2007 at 08:40
And of course, thats the sort of paranoid, isolationist attitude that we love to see in people who have access to deadly weapons. You're basically saying that if your government does something you disagree with you'll shoot them? No offence, but are you a massive twat?
TBE on 17/4/2007 at 08:45
I'm not saying I would shoot the government. But if myself and about 250 million more people in the USA seem to disagree with something like taking away all firearms, we'll do it.
I guess you've never taken history classes, huh? Jeez, why did the French kill Mary Antoinette? Why did the Russians kill the Czar? Why did Great Britain, America, and all the other Allies step in when Germany was running all over Europe? When a majority of the society doesn't approve of the actions of tyrants, they kill them. This is why the founders of the United States of America included the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution.
(
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) Second Amendment
Vivian on 17/4/2007 at 09:03
Ah-hah, so you'll only shoot the government if they try to take your guns away? Just like in WWII, correct? (what?)
So in the end, you explicitly associate both personal and national power with these deadly little toys (this may be debatably true, but it's not a good thing to have kicking around your national psyche), and think that this is a good thing that should be protected by shooting those who disagree?
(
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29833) I hate to be all smartass and "I read the onion!", but yeah
TBE on 17/4/2007 at 09:10
Quote:
I'm not saying I would shoot the government. But if myself and about 250 million more people in the USA seem to disagree with
something like taking away all firearms, we'll do it.
Yeah, I'm taking the world over with my 40 cal handgun because they want to take my guns away. :nono:
Did you read a thing I typed? I gave examples of when people take back the government from tyrants. You give me explicit crap because you cannot maintain an intelligent conversation with real world examples.
I'm saying, if the USA became a tyrant government, there would be enough people with guns to take it back over. Yeah, the military has bigger guns, tanks, planes, etc. But if you kill enough of the people manning those things, you can actually take the equipment away from them. How many revolutions have there been in history? Do you think we could overpower a tyrant state if we didn't have arms?
Vivian on 17/4/2007 at 09:34
duhhhh....
Anyway, this supersucks, and Lee Van Cleef (not his real first name but i'm lazy) from the NRA is a fucking idiot.
scumble on 17/4/2007 at 09:48
Things are turning out as expected in the thread then. Carry on...
Incidentally, it has been said that the nutter was actually wearing a bulletproof vest, which would have made it tricky to take him down I would have thought. In this case, even if there was someone in the area with a gun this guy may well have just ploughed on through.
In a way I think the gun control issue is only of partial importance, as your average gun owner would probably not be in a good position to deal with a seriously armed assailant with body armour.
Elimiating the motivation to violence is more important, and what people use to kill each other is a side issue relating to the degree of violence that can be inflicted.
