But you are not looking at it from the reverse angle. Take away the guns, that lefty nut job finds another method to murder 6 innocents. Maybe it's with his car or a bomb. Maybe even more are hurt. But the innocent man is left open to crime, because criminals know he is defenseless.
This is terrible logic. How is injury even close in comparison to death?! This comment is laughable and ridiculous. It’s almost as if this person got confused and decided to argue against guns here. I might have been brainwashed into saying this from too much CNN though.
Imagine I typed killed instead of hurt. To me, getting hurt includes getting killed. It's just semantics. You're really not focusing on the right things. That's why you guys are impossible to debate with, you focus in on one tiny thing and run with it like a mad man. Instead you just refuse to look at my point, which was:
-Take away guns, and MAYBE it stops this incident, most likely it will not. I also believe that using other means would have resulted in more injury and death (Injury and death, hopefully that is specific enough). This is true because the gun was not a lunatic, the gun did not commit a crime, the man did.
-Take away guns and you DEFINITLY leave the innocent law abiding man unprotected, leading to more crime, injury, and deaths.
That trade off is ridiculous! You want to have this knee jerk reaction to ban guns, but want to ignore the negative consequences of doing so.
But seriously, do you agree with what this Major is saying here in this paragraph? That dying is somehow comparable to serious injury? What sense does this make at all? he says it is fallicious to say that lethal gun confronataions that would otherwise result in injury have anything to compare with overwhelming injury? You gotta question this guys motives if he seriouslty believes this.
I just don't understand where you get this comparison stuff from? He doesn’t use the word compare or any synonym in the excerpt you quote. I just don’t understand what you are inferring from this.
But since you want to compare the two… Compare overwhelming injury to your family, your wife and kids. (Injury that could affect them their entire lives, physically and mentally, or possibly even kill them) Versus the death of a law breaking stranger who wants to do them harm. Since you seem to think that using a gun automatically makes it lethal, let’s go with that false premise. Let’s ignore the fact that the gun itself could be enough of a deterrent to stop all injury from every party involved until the police arrive, or that you could incapacitate someone without killing them.
So are you basically saying that you would let a criminal seriously injure your loved ones before you would use a gun to protect them? You would send that person back out on the street to do it to someone else?
Imagine I typed killed instead of hurt. To me, getting hurt includes getting killed. It's just semantics. You're really not focusing on the right things. That's why you guys are impossible to debate with, you focus in on one tiny thing and run with it like a mad man. Instead you just refuse to look at my point, which was:
-Take away guns, and MAYBE it stops this incident, most likely it will not. I also believe that using other means would have resulted in more injury and death (Injury and death, hopefully that is specific enough). This is true because the gun was not a lunatic, the gun did not commit a crime, the man did.
-Take away guns and you DEFINITLY leave the innocent law abiding man unprotected, leading to more crime, injury, and deaths.
That trade off is ridiculous! You want to have this knee jerk reaction to ban guns, but want to ignore the negative consequences of doing so.
I've been focused on all sides of the debates, but my point was that you post some gun loving Marine saying things that are kinda ludicrous comparing injury to death, it doesnt back your stance much.
Also, I NEVER said band guns, and it certainly isnt a knee jerk reaction. I've thought this through for years.
-Take away guns, and MAYBE it stops this incident, most likely it will not.
^^ this is all I'm looking for (but not taking away guns altogether). I just would like for some gun advocates to consider that MAYBE, just maybe less people would've died if there were stricter laws, 10 limit rounds in magazines, or longer waiting periods. Thats all I want is a 'maybe'.
I honestly believe that the kid in AZ was going to do this no matter what. BUT, if handguns were banned (just handguns, not rifles, shotguns, etc..), maybe he wouldve used a shotgun and oly got off two rounds.
or if magazine limits were at 10 rounds, he wouldv'e been tackled after gettting off 10 rounds instead of 30. People say he would've just got two guns .. thats still only 20 rounds, and who is to say he could even afford two guns? Remember, he did purchase these legally.
OR, if there were mandatory 2-3 month waiting periods on gun purchases, maybe that would've been long enough for someone to realize he was a little off-balance and maybe the sale ultimatley doenst go through.
There are too many little things that could be done to just attempt to get to that 'maybe'.
I think this kids went to the mall in AZ that day just to shoot Giffords and create havoc, hoping the police would kill him. I think our lousy laws made it easier for him to kill 6 people and wound the other 16 (or whatever it was). Stricter laws could've prevented some injury and death.
By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)
Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.
People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.
Ok MG79, sorry I wasnt clear.
But I wasnt clear becasue its so hard to make any sense out of this guys paragraph^^.
Hes' REALLY stretching it in this one. He is suggesting that an attacker with a bat can do as much damage as with a gun. Yes, the potential is there, but there is no comaprison.
My point is that I'd MUCH rather have a confrontation with an attacker that has bat, knife, or fists that a gun. I'd rather have 10 guys with fists than ONE guy with a gun. DEATH is wwwaaaaaaaaay more likely with a gun that with fists, and I didnt get that from watching tv like he suggests, I used common sense.
He says 'its fallicious in several ways', and follows with nothing to make sense of his first claim.
Seriosly, he sounds like he's suddenly arguing against guns!
If removing a large amount of the weapons in your country will allow criminals to run rampant over the rest of the society . Please explain why this has not happened in Australia.
Martin Bryant killed a lot of people in Port Arther Tasmania with Semi Automatics. After this attack the then Howard government cracked down on all semi automatics ( banned) and also gun ownership (storage issues)
at the time the message you are sprouting was screamed from everyrooftop.
Guess what
sure baddies still ave guns ( they will get them from somwhere) but our society has not been affected.
so the basis of your argument is proven wrong
sure people still kill people with whatever they gety their hans on ( or even justvtheir hands) but at least the easiest and most deadly option has been removed
If removing a large amount of the weapons in your country will allow criminals to run rampant over the rest of the society . Please explain why this has not happened in Australia.
Martin Bryant killed a lot of people in Port Arther Tasmania with Semi Automatics. After this attack the then Howard government cracked down on all semi automatics ( banned) and also gun ownership (storage issues)
at the time the message you are sprouting was screamed from everyrooftop.
Guess what
sure baddies still ave guns ( they will get them from somwhere) but our society has not been affected.
so the basis of your argument is proven wrong
sure people still kill people with whatever they gety their hans on ( or even justvtheir hands) but at least the easiest and most deadly option has been removed
Your point seems to be that since Australia did not descend in to total anarchy, that it was OK to ban guns. I had always thought that when guns got taken away, crime increased, I'd heard that and it just makes sense. But I am open minded and figured I could be wrong, so I did some research. Everything I found while searching the net says that crime has gone up in Australia since the ban. It also appears to be consistent with other countries that have done similar bans. I think you just because you personally haven't seen a noticeable difference doesn't mean that it hasn't happened. Obviously this depends on where you live and other factors. If you were pro-gun ban, that would only taint your opinion, especially if your definition of success for a gun ban was avoiding total anarchy.
I also disagree that a gun is the easiest and most deadly option, that is so subjective and is just your opinion. For example, a knife is easier to buy and learn to use. A bomb would be more deadly.
Ok MG79, sorry I wasnt clear.
But I wasnt clear becasue its so hard to make any sense out of this guys paragraph^^.
Hes' REALLY stretching it in this one. He is suggesting that an attacker with a bat can do as much damage as with a gun. Yes, the potential is there, but there is no comaprison.
My point is that I'd MUCH rather have a confrontation with an attacker that has bat, knife, or fists that a gun. I'd rather have 10 guys with fists than ONE guy with a gun. DEATH is wwwaaaaaaaaay more likely with a gun that with fists, and I didnt get that from watching tv like he suggests, I used common sense.
He says 'its fallicious in several ways', and follows with nothing to make sense of his first claim.
Seriosly, he sounds like he's suddenly arguing against guns!
I don't think that death is way more likely with a gun. Would you rather get shot in the leg, or beat in the head with an aluminum baseball bat 40 times? I agree an attacker with a bat can do as much damage as with a gun. But if the victim has a gun, the attacker can do no damage. If you had to confront an attacker with a bat, knife, or fists, or 10 guys with fists, they can't really do anything if you have a gun. I agree that no one wants the bad guys to have guns, but banning law abiding citizens from gun ownership doesn’t change what the bad guys have. All that does is assure the bad guys that you can't protect yourself from them.
I don’t read it the same way you do in regards to the “fallacious” part. We’ll have to agree to disagree.
I don't think that death is way more likely with a gun. Would you rather get shot in the leg, or beat in the head with an aluminum baseball bat 40 times? I agree an attacker with a bat can do as much damage as with a gun. But if the victim has a gun, the attacker can do no damage. If you had to confront an attacker with a bat, knife, or fists, or 10 guys with fists, they can't really do anything if you have a gun. I agree that no one wants the bad guys to have guns, but banning law abiding citizens from gun ownership doesn’t change what the bad guys have. All that does is assure the bad guys that you can't protect yourself from them.
I don’t read it the same way you do in regards to the “fallacious” part. We’ll have to agree to disagree.
I guess so.. (agree to disagree)..But I think you are giving the assailant with the bat the worst case scenario, while giving the assailant with the gun the best case scenario.
Given the worst case scenario with a gun = Death.
Given the best case scario witha bat = I get the bat away from assailant and break his knees and call the cops.
I don't think that death is way more likely with a gun. Would you rather get shot in the leg, or beat in the head with an aluminum baseball bat 40 times?
how can you even justify that?
and your 'would you rather get shot..." example is very very poor indeed... at least make it like for like... either you get hit on the head with the bat once compared to being shot in the head once... or you shoot someone in the leg then the other comparison is to hit the person in the leg with a bat...
your example is horrendously weak... it's like me saying "would you rather get shot in the foot or have an anvil land on your head"
if you are going to compare things then at least make them like for like.
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
I don't think that death is way more likely with a gun. Would you rather get shot in the leg, or beat in the head with an aluminum baseball bat 40 times?
Well... in this case 6 people got shot before others subdued the madman. If, in this situation, this madman had a bat and was beating someone's head in enough to kill, do you honestly think he would have been able to kill all 6 people before being subdued? Even with a knife? Honestly.... Would have have been able to even kill a second person? If he was not armed, this little girl (and others) would probably still be alive.
I don't think that death is way more likely with a gun. Would you rather get shot in the leg, or beat in the head with an aluminum baseball bat 40 times?
how can you even justify that?
and your 'would you rather get shot..." example is very very poor indeed... at least make it like for like... either you get hit on the head with the bat once compared to being shot in the head once... or you shoot someone in the leg then the other comparison is to hit the person in the leg with a bat...
your example is horrendously weak... it's like me saying "would you rather get shot in the foot or have an anvil land on your head"
if you are going to compare things then at least make them like for like.
It wasn't meant to be a direct comparison, it was meant to show that a bat can be worse than a gun. Either can be lethal or not, both are a tool, and the person decides how to use it.
Ok, so a guy breaks in to your house, he has only a baseball bat. He beats you within an inch of your life with a bat, and then does the same thing to your wife and kids. Then he takes most of your valuables, your PJ vinyl too. If you and your entire family survive the savage beating, you are scarred physically and emotionally for life. Let’s say your son has a limp for life, and your daughter can’t sleep at night, your wife dies from complications due to her injuries. Meanwhile the guy is out on the street; the only lead the detectives had from the crime scene was a “vote Obama” pin the intruder dropped.
If you had a gun, best case you confront the intruder while your wife calls the cops. Nobody gets hurt. Or maybe the guy won’t stop, you shoot him in the leg, which incapacitates him until the cops arrive. Worst case with a gun, the intruder dies. Nobody wants that to happen.
So would you rather get beaten in the above scenario with a baseball bat, and hold on to your silly “guns are bad” talking points? Or would you rather stop the intruder, using only as much force as necessary, to protect your family? Is the health and well being of a criminal intruder (and your anti-gun agenda), worth more than the health and well being of your family?
I don't think that death is way more likely with a gun. Would you rather get shot in the leg, or beat in the head with an aluminum baseball bat 40 times?
Well... in this case 6 people got shot before others subdued the madman. If, in this situation, this madman had a bat and was beating someone's head in enough to kill, do you honestly think he would have been able to kill all 6 people before being subdued? Even with a knife? Honestly.... Would have have been able to even kill a second person? If he was not armed, this little girl (and others) would probably still be alive.
That makes no sense. The guy had an intent to kill, he was crazy. He would have certainly brought more than a bat if he had no gun. He probably would have used a vehicle, or bomb, or something more destructive than a gun, and MORE people would have been killed and injured.
some people actually think it's a good idea that ordinary citizens can walk around packing heat all day? ... it gets scarier by the moment ...
That is such a biased view of the world. Someone could carry a gun legally for 90 years of their life and never fire it once for protection. You'd have to be a moron to think that just because you have it that you have to use it. If more people were carrying guns, someone could have stopped this lunatic. If you take away guns from the law abiding citizens, the bad guys know that you can't stop them!
I don't think that death is way more likely with a gun. Would you rather get shot in the leg, or beat in the head with an aluminum baseball bat 40 times?
how can you even justify that?
and your 'would you rather get shot..." example is very very poor indeed... at least make it like for like... either you get hit on the head with the bat once compared to being shot in the head once... or you shoot someone in the leg then the other comparison is to hit the person in the leg with a bat...
your example is horrendously weak... it's like me saying "would you rather get shot in the foot or have an anvil land on your head"
if you are going to compare things then at least make them like for like.
It wasn't meant to be a direct comparison, it was meant to show that a bat can be worse than a gun. Either can be lethal or not, both are a tool, and the person decides how to use it.
Ok, so a guy breaks in to your house, he has only a baseball bat. He beats you within an inch of your life with a bat, and then does the same thing to your wife and kids. Then he takes most of your valuables, your PJ vinyl too. If you and your entire family survive the savage beating, you are scarred physically and emotionally for life. Let’s say your son has a limp for life, and your daughter can’t sleep at night, your wife dies from complications due to her injuries. Meanwhile the guy is out on the street; the only lead the detectives had from the crime scene was a “vote Obama” pin the intruder dropped.
If you had a gun, best case you confront the intruder while your wife calls the cops. Nobody gets hurt. Or maybe the guy won’t stop, you shoot him in the leg, which incapacitates him until the cops arrive. Worst case with a gun, the intruder dies. Nobody wants that to happen.
So would you rather get beaten in the above scenario with a baseball bat, and hold on to your silly “guns are bad” talking points? Or would you rather stop the intruder, using only as much force as necessary, to protect your family? Is the health and well being of a criminal intruder (and your anti-gun agenda), worth more than the health and well being of your family?
if you answer Redrock's scenario then I'll answer yours
anyway, where i live your above scenario wouldnt happen. I live in a civilised country dude, not fucking Rwanda or Somalia or heavens forbid Philadelphia... I can't fear something that might happen... if that was the case i'd be stocking up on canned meat for the impending World War 3, which will of course be caused by the glorious militia of the US rising up against their overpowering and restrictive democracy.
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
I don't think that death is way more likely with a gun. Would you rather get shot in the leg, or beat in the head with an aluminum baseball bat 40 times?
Well... in this case 6 people got shot before others subdued the madman. If, in this situation, this madman had a bat and was beating someone's head in enough to kill, do you honestly think he would have been able to kill all 6 people before being subdued? Even with a knife? Honestly.... Would have have been able to even kill a second person? If he was not armed, this little girl (and others) would probably still be alive.
That makes no sense. The guy had an intent to kill, he was crazy. He would have certainly brought more than a bat if he had no gun. He probably would have used a vehicle, or bomb, or something more destructive than a gun, and MORE people would have been killed and injured.
Of course it makes sense. You say he would have used something more destructive than a gun - a bomb for example (now how easy is it to get your hands on a bomb? Not very). He was crazy, he had a gun. Nothing says that if he didn't have that readily available, he would have acted on his impulse. It's making way too many assumptions.
If more people were carrying guns, someone could have stopped this lunatic.
Or, as most people do not know how to react in an emergency and panic, there would have been even more bullets flying all over the place and more people killed and hurt. Having had basic training on how to shoot your gun does not prepare you for such situations. And this is not just for guns but also for self defense, etc.
It wasn't meant to be a direct comparison, it was meant to show that a bat can be worse than a gun. Either can be lethal or not, both are a tool, and the person decides how to use it.
Ok, so a guy breaks in to your house, he has only a baseball bat. He beats you within an inch of your life with a bat, and then does the same thing to your wife and kids. Then he takes most of your valuables, your PJ vinyl too. If you and your entire family survive the savage beating, you are scarred physically and emotionally for life. Let’s say your son has a limp for life, and your daughter can’t sleep at night, your wife dies from complications due to her injuries. Meanwhile the guy is out on the street; the only lead the detectives had from the crime scene was a “vote Obama” pin the intruder dropped.
If you had a gun, best case you confront the intruder while your wife calls the cops. Nobody gets hurt. Or maybe the guy won’t stop, you shoot him in the leg, which incapacitates him until the cops arrive. Worst case with a gun, the intruder dies. Nobody wants that to happen.
So would you rather get beaten in the above scenario with a baseball bat, and hold on to your silly “guns are bad” talking points? Or would you rather stop the intruder, using only as much force as necessary, to protect your family? Is the health and well being of a criminal intruder (and your anti-gun agenda), worth more than the health and well being of your family?
Come on man, we can make up a million different "What ifs"...
but you want my answer? it all depends on if you're caught by surprise or not. If I have a gun, and this guy with the bat catches you by suprise with his Obama pin, I am still fucked and my family is fucked, because as a responsible gun owner, my gun is locked up and if I'm caught by surprise it is useless.
But I dont own a gun, and if someone came into my house with a bat and I wanst surprised, he'd have along night ahead of him and he'd be eating his meals through a straw for the rest of his life. If he had a gun, I'd still be fucked.
Remeber that thing you posted about the MArine saying that when both have a gun, the playing field is level - -well, no its not. Too many factors.
And I honestly cant believe I am discussing the differences between usiong a bat and a gun. You seriously dont get the difference?
I don't think that death is way more likely with a gun. Would you rather get shot in the leg, or beat in the head with an aluminum baseball bat 40 times?
Well... in this case 6 people got shot before others subdued the madman. If, in this situation, this madman had a bat and was beating someone's head in enough to kill, do you honestly think he would have been able to kill all 6 people before being subdued? Even with a knife? Honestly.... Would have have been able to even kill a second person? If he was not armed, this little girl (and others) would probably still be alive.
That makes no sense. The guy had an intent to kill, he was crazy. He would have certainly brought more than a bat if he had no gun. He probably would have used a vehicle, or bomb, or something more destructive than a gun, and MORE people would have been killed and injured.
something MORE destructive? but i thought his point was that he wanted to destroy as many people as possible? If so then why did he use a gun? why not a bomb? Maybe it was because he could legally acquire a gun and that as Columbine showed its actually pretty difficult to make a bomb?
but his point was to kill as many as possible... thats why he tried to reload... don't you see the pattern? All these multiple death massacres are by people using guns... because its the easiest and most effective way of doing it... if it wasnt they'd use that hallowed 'something else' surely?
but, as usual, you have skipped the point of Redrock's post... the scenario is the same as Arizona, but instead its set in ohhhhh lets say leafy Buckinghamshire in England... instead of the gun, the mental guy has a bat... how many people would he kill before being tackled by the crowd?
Probably nil.
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
If more people were carrying guns, someone could have stopped this lunatic. If you take away guns from the law abiding citizens, the bad guys know that you can't stop them!
Well... coming to think about it, I guess I need to assume that Loughner was one of those 'law abiding citizens' as he purchased his gun legally?
if you answer Redrock's scenario then I'll answer yours
anyway, where i live your above scenario wouldnt happen. I live in a civilised country dude, not fucking Rwanda or Somalia or heavens forbid Philadelphia... I can't fear something that might happen... if that was the case i'd be stocking up on canned meat for the impending World War 3, which will of course be caused by the glorious militia of the US rising up against their overpowering and restrictive democracy.
I've already fully addressed Redrock's scenario, and having dealt with him in the past, know that was already too much time spent on him.
Again, you look at just one aspect of the picture. You don't own a gun for just one reason. Part of having one is to be prepared if the worst is to happen. You act like being the slight bit prepared for emergencies makes you a lunatic. I guess I'm crazy for having an emergency flashlight and weather radio too. I'm sorry, it's the duty of any responisible parent/spouse to protect their family. You have no idea what your future holds. No one thinks that it's going to happen them, and when it happens, no one thought it would happen to them. Might as well be prepared, hope for the best, prepare for the worst.
Oh, and for the one millionth time, the US is not a democracy.
Come on man, we can make up a million different "What ifs"...
We could, but the point is, the health and well being of some criminal intent to harm you is meaningless compared to the health and well being of your family. Faced with that situation, you would use whatever was at your disposal to protect them. Even Barrack himself said recently, “If They Bring a Knife to the Fight, We Bring a Gun” If the criminal brings a gun, the playing field will at worst be level.
If more people were carrying guns, someone could have stopped this lunatic.
Or, as most people do not know how to react in an emergency and panic, there would have been even more bullets flying all over the place and more people killed and hurt. Having had basic training on how to shoot your gun does not prepare you for such situations. And this is not just for guns but also for self defense, etc.
Or the guy next to him could have put him down the instant he drew his weapon. Who knows in a crowd?
Take the VT shootings a few years ago, it wasn't a crowd situation, it was one guy walking from class room to class room killing defenseless people. He knew that you couldn't have a gun on campus, so it was easy for him. Without a doubt that would have ended better if more people would have had weapons.
But you guys keep missing the point that banning all guns MIGHT have saved lives here, it might have cost more. BUT the repercussions of that are the problem. More lives lost and more crime due to the lack of guns in the right hands.
Of course it makes sense. You say he would have used something more destructive than a gun - a bomb for example (now how easy is it to get your hands on a bomb? Not very). He was crazy, he had a gun. Nothing says that if he didn't have that readily available, he would have acted on his impulse. It's making way too many assumptions.
You can't be serious. My first real job as a teenager was working in a hardware store. We were actually briefed on what suspicious purchases looked like, because someone could pretty easily buy the pieces to make a bomb. They make those IED bombs in the Middle East out of stuff that would make Macgyver proud.
something MORE destructive? but i thought his point was that he wanted to destroy as many people as possible? If so then why did he use a gun? why not a bomb? Maybe it was because he could legally acquire a gun and that as Columbine showed its actually pretty difficult to make a bomb?
but his point was to kill as many as possible... thats why he tried to reload... don't you see the pattern? All these multiple death massacres are by people using guns... because its the easiest and most effective way of doing it... if it wasnt they'd use that hallowed 'something else' surely?
but, as usual, you have skipped the point of Redrock's post... the scenario is the same as Arizona, but instead its set in ohhhhh lets say leafy Buckinghamshire in England... instead of the gun, the mental guy has a bat... how many people would he kill before being tackled by the crowd?
Probably nil.
Again, I have completely addressed Redrock's silly post. Sorry if you missed it.
I thought his goal was to hurt the senator? This is the first time I have heard anyone say his intentions were to just hurt people in general.
But you guys keep missing the point that banning all guns MIGHT have saved lives here, it might have cost more. BUT the repercussions of that are the problem. More lives lost and more crime due to the lack of guns in the right hands.
Again... where is this mention of banning all guns? But you do admit 'might' have saved lives
And again... guns in the right hands - I suppose those are the hands of law abiding citizens as it would seem the discussion returns to those people who can legally purchase guns (ie after 'checks' they have no police record, etc. therefore 'law abiding').
You mention the VT massacre. Cho was yet another law abiding citizen who had his guns legally, just like Loughner. Food for thought, maybe?
And yes, I remember crossing paths with you when you got all flustered and ruffled about someone posting a certain link to a certain show. But that was ages ago. And also, I'm a she, not a he. Thank you.
And again... guns in the right hands - I suppose those are the hands of law abiding citizens as it would seem the discussion returns to those people who can legally purchase guns (ie after 'checks' they have no police record, etc. therefore 'law abiding').
You mention the VT massacre. Cho was yet another law abiding citizen who had his guns legally, just like Loughner. Food for thought, maybe?
you are right, as soon as someone proves they are no longer a law abiding citizen they should not be allowed to own firearms. But you cannot have thought police. you cannot ever know the motivations of a nut. Until someone proves otherwise they should have the rights the rest of us all enjoy...and all of our rights should not be limited because of a small amount of dopes...otherwise no one would be able to leave their house...which they probably wouldn't be able to own because some people by houses and commit crimes in them...If I use my house to sell drugs do I forever forfeit my right to own a house? Do we limit housing sales to everyone because of it?
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Or the guy next to him could have put him down the instant he drew his weapon. Who knows in a crowd?
Take the VT shootings a few years ago, it wasn't a crowd situation, it was one guy walking from class room to class room killing defenseless people. He knew that you couldn't have a gun on campus, so it was easy for him. Without a doubt that would have ended better if more people would have had weapons.
it would have ended better if NO-ONE had a weapon.
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
something MORE destructive? but i thought his point was that he wanted to destroy as many people as possible? If so then why did he use a gun? why not a bomb? Maybe it was because he could legally acquire a gun and that as Columbine showed its actually pretty difficult to make a bomb?
but his point was to kill as many as possible... thats why he tried to reload... don't you see the pattern? All these multiple death massacres are by people using guns... because its the easiest and most effective way of doing it... if it wasnt they'd use that hallowed 'something else' surely?
but, as usual, you have skipped the point of Redrock's post... the scenario is the same as Arizona, but instead its set in ohhhhh lets say leafy Buckinghamshire in England... instead of the gun, the mental guy has a bat... how many people would he kill before being tackled by the crowd?
Probably nil.
I thought his goal was to hurt the senator? This is the first time I have heard anyone say his intentions were to just hurt people in general.
way to skip the point... how many people would Loughner have killed with just a bat?
also... if his goal was to only hurt the senator then why not stop after he shot her first? why did he try and reload?
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
something MORE destructive? but i thought his point was that he wanted to destroy as many people as possible? If so then why did he use a gun? why not a bomb? Maybe it was because he could legally acquire a gun and that as Columbine showed its actually pretty difficult to make a bomb?
but his point was to kill as many as possible... thats why he tried to reload... don't you see the pattern? All these multiple death massacres are by people using guns... because its the easiest and most effective way of doing it... if it wasnt they'd use that hallowed 'something else' surely?
but, as usual, you have skipped the point of Redrock's post... the scenario is the same as Arizona, but instead its set in ohhhhh lets say leafy Buckinghamshire in England... instead of the gun, the mental guy has a bat... how many people would he kill before being tackled by the crowd?
Probably nil.
I thought his goal was to hurt the senator? This is the first time I have heard anyone say his intentions were to just hurt people in general.
way to skip the point... how many people would Loughner have killed with just a bat?
also... if his goal was to only hurt the senator then why not stop after he shot her first? why did he try and reload?
what about this bat?
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
i'll have you a race right... you take that bat into a crowded mall tomorrow and I'll take a gun... lets see who kills the most the quickest right? you on?
I'm now off to the betting shop to place the deeds of my house and all my money on me winning.
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
i'll have you a race right... you take that bat into a crowded mall tomorrow and I'll take a gun... lets see who kills the most the quickest right? you on?
I'm now off to the betting shop to place the deeds of my house and all my money on me winning.
I can do mine silently, where as you will attract a lot of attention...wait, should we be talking about this?
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Or the guy next to him could have put him down the instant he drew his weapon. Who knows in a crowd?
Take the VT shootings a few years ago, it wasn't a crowd situation, it was one guy walking from class room to class room killing defenseless people. He knew that you couldn't have a gun on campus, so it was easy for him. Without a doubt that would have ended better if more people would have had weapons.
it would have ended better if NO-ONE had a weapon.
Weapons do not cause people to committ crimes. The violent crime rate is higher in the UK than in the US, how is that possible without guns... :roll:
way to skip the point... how many people would Loughner have killed with just a bat?
also... if his goal was to only hurt the senator then why not stop after he shot her first? why did he try and reload?
Let that stupid point go. It's been addressed, it's meaningless. How many people would he have killed with a bomb, or if he ran them over with his van, or with a chemical? The answer is more. Let's look at this logical (it'll be tough for you, but try). This guy was crazy, do you think access to a gun was going to stop him? Do you think he was just going to give up? Probably not, and chances are he would show up with something like a bomb, and not a bat. So drop it.
Well, I'll take your word on that he was reloading. If that was true, common sense would say he was trying to finish the job. Last I heard she was in the hospital and her condition was improving.
Comments
Imagine I typed killed instead of hurt. To me, getting hurt includes getting killed. It's just semantics. You're really not focusing on the right things. That's why you guys are impossible to debate with, you focus in on one tiny thing and run with it like a mad man. Instead you just refuse to look at my point, which was:
-Take away guns, and MAYBE it stops this incident, most likely it will not. I also believe that using other means would have resulted in more injury and death (Injury and death, hopefully that is specific enough). This is true because the gun was not a lunatic, the gun did not commit a crime, the man did.
-Take away guns and you DEFINITLY leave the innocent law abiding man unprotected, leading to more crime, injury, and deaths.
That trade off is ridiculous! You want to have this knee jerk reaction to ban guns, but want to ignore the negative consequences of doing so.
Is it even up for debate that most of the mainstream media on the US is liberal? That's why you had the emergence of Fox news and talk radio.
I just don't understand where you get this comparison stuff from? He doesn’t use the word compare or any synonym in the excerpt you quote. I just don’t understand what you are inferring from this.
But since you want to compare the two… Compare overwhelming injury to your family, your wife and kids. (Injury that could affect them their entire lives, physically and mentally, or possibly even kill them) Versus the death of a law breaking stranger who wants to do them harm. Since you seem to think that using a gun automatically makes it lethal, let’s go with that false premise. Let’s ignore the fact that the gun itself could be enough of a deterrent to stop all injury from every party involved until the police arrive, or that you could incapacitate someone without killing them.
So are you basically saying that you would let a criminal seriously injure your loved ones before you would use a gun to protect them? You would send that person back out on the street to do it to someone else?
I've been focused on all sides of the debates, but my point was that you post some gun loving Marine saying things that are kinda ludicrous comparing injury to death, it doesnt back your stance much.
Also, I NEVER said band guns, and it certainly isnt a knee jerk reaction. I've thought this through for years.
^^ this is all I'm looking for (but not taking away guns altogether). I just would like for some gun advocates to consider that MAYBE, just maybe less people would've died if there were stricter laws, 10 limit rounds in magazines, or longer waiting periods. Thats all I want is a 'maybe'.
I honestly believe that the kid in AZ was going to do this no matter what. BUT, if handguns were banned (just handguns, not rifles, shotguns, etc..), maybe he wouldve used a shotgun and oly got off two rounds.
or if magazine limits were at 10 rounds, he wouldv'e been tackled after gettting off 10 rounds instead of 30. People say he would've just got two guns .. thats still only 20 rounds, and who is to say he could even afford two guns? Remember, he did purchase these legally.
OR, if there were mandatory 2-3 month waiting periods on gun purchases, maybe that would've been long enough for someone to realize he was a little off-balance and maybe the sale ultimatley doenst go through.
There are too many little things that could be done to just attempt to get to that 'maybe'.
I think this kids went to the mall in AZ that day just to shoot Giffords and create havoc, hoping the police would kill him. I think our lousy laws made it easier for him to kill 6 people and wound the other 16 (or whatever it was). Stricter laws could've prevented some injury and death.
Ok MG79, sorry I wasnt clear.
But I wasnt clear becasue its so hard to make any sense out of this guys paragraph^^.
Hes' REALLY stretching it in this one. He is suggesting that an attacker with a bat can do as much damage as with a gun. Yes, the potential is there, but there is no comaprison.
My point is that I'd MUCH rather have a confrontation with an attacker that has bat, knife, or fists that a gun. I'd rather have 10 guys with fists than ONE guy with a gun. DEATH is wwwaaaaaaaaay more likely with a gun that with fists, and I didnt get that from watching tv like he suggests, I used common sense.
He says 'its fallicious in several ways', and follows with nothing to make sense of his first claim.
Seriosly, he sounds like he's suddenly arguing against guns!
Martin Bryant killed a lot of people in Port Arther Tasmania with Semi Automatics. After this attack the then Howard government cracked down on all semi automatics ( banned) and also gun ownership (storage issues)
at the time the message you are sprouting was screamed from everyrooftop.
Guess what
sure baddies still ave guns ( they will get them from somwhere) but our society has not been affected.
so the basis of your argument is proven wrong
sure people still kill people with whatever they gety their hans on ( or even justvtheir hands) but at least the easiest and most deadly option has been removed
Your point seems to be that since Australia did not descend in to total anarchy, that it was OK to ban guns. I had always thought that when guns got taken away, crime increased, I'd heard that and it just makes sense. But I am open minded and figured I could be wrong, so I did some research. Everything I found while searching the net says that crime has gone up in Australia since the ban. It also appears to be consistent with other countries that have done similar bans. I think you just because you personally haven't seen a noticeable difference doesn't mean that it hasn't happened. Obviously this depends on where you live and other factors. If you were pro-gun ban, that would only taint your opinion, especially if your definition of success for a gun ban was avoiding total anarchy.
I also disagree that a gun is the easiest and most deadly option, that is so subjective and is just your opinion. For example, a knife is easier to buy and learn to use. A bomb would be more deadly.
I don't think that death is way more likely with a gun. Would you rather get shot in the leg, or beat in the head with an aluminum baseball bat 40 times? I agree an attacker with a bat can do as much damage as with a gun. But if the victim has a gun, the attacker can do no damage. If you had to confront an attacker with a bat, knife, or fists, or 10 guys with fists, they can't really do anything if you have a gun. I agree that no one wants the bad guys to have guns, but banning law abiding citizens from gun ownership doesn’t change what the bad guys have. All that does is assure the bad guys that you can't protect yourself from them.
I don’t read it the same way you do in regards to the “fallacious” part. We’ll have to agree to disagree.
I guess so.. (agree to disagree)..But I think you are giving the assailant with the bat the worst case scenario, while giving the assailant with the gun the best case scenario.
Given the worst case scenario with a gun = Death.
Given the best case scario witha bat = I get the bat away from assailant and break his knees and call the cops.
apples and oranges to me.
how can you even justify that?
and your 'would you rather get shot..." example is very very poor indeed... at least make it like for like... either you get hit on the head with the bat once compared to being shot in the head once... or you shoot someone in the leg then the other comparison is to hit the person in the leg with a bat...
your example is horrendously weak... it's like me saying "would you rather get shot in the foot or have an anvil land on your head"
if you are going to compare things then at least make them like for like.
Well... in this case 6 people got shot before others subdued the madman. If, in this situation, this madman had a bat and was beating someone's head in enough to kill, do you honestly think he would have been able to kill all 6 people before being subdued? Even with a knife? Honestly.... Would have have been able to even kill a second person? If he was not armed, this little girl (and others) would probably still be alive.
It wasn't meant to be a direct comparison, it was meant to show that a bat can be worse than a gun. Either can be lethal or not, both are a tool, and the person decides how to use it.
Ok, so a guy breaks in to your house, he has only a baseball bat. He beats you within an inch of your life with a bat, and then does the same thing to your wife and kids. Then he takes most of your valuables, your PJ vinyl too. If you and your entire family survive the savage beating, you are scarred physically and emotionally for life. Let’s say your son has a limp for life, and your daughter can’t sleep at night, your wife dies from complications due to her injuries. Meanwhile the guy is out on the street; the only lead the detectives had from the crime scene was a “vote Obama” pin the intruder dropped.
If you had a gun, best case you confront the intruder while your wife calls the cops. Nobody gets hurt. Or maybe the guy won’t stop, you shoot him in the leg, which incapacitates him until the cops arrive. Worst case with a gun, the intruder dies. Nobody wants that to happen.
So would you rather get beaten in the above scenario with a baseball bat, and hold on to your silly “guns are bad” talking points? Or would you rather stop the intruder, using only as much force as necessary, to protect your family? Is the health and well being of a criminal intruder (and your anti-gun agenda), worth more than the health and well being of your family?
That makes no sense. The guy had an intent to kill, he was crazy. He would have certainly brought more than a bat if he had no gun. He probably would have used a vehicle, or bomb, or something more destructive than a gun, and MORE people would have been killed and injured.
That is such a biased view of the world. Someone could carry a gun legally for 90 years of their life and never fire it once for protection. You'd have to be a moron to think that just because you have it that you have to use it. If more people were carrying guns, someone could have stopped this lunatic. If you take away guns from the law abiding citizens, the bad guys know that you can't stop them!
if you answer Redrock's scenario then I'll answer yours
anyway, where i live your above scenario wouldnt happen. I live in a civilised country dude, not fucking Rwanda or Somalia or heavens forbid Philadelphia... I can't fear something that might happen... if that was the case i'd be stocking up on canned meat for the impending World War 3, which will of course be caused by the glorious militia of the US rising up against their overpowering and restrictive democracy.
Of course it makes sense. You say he would have used something more destructive than a gun - a bomb for example (now how easy is it to get your hands on a bomb? Not very). He was crazy, he had a gun. Nothing says that if he didn't have that readily available, he would have acted on his impulse. It's making way too many assumptions.
Or, as most people do not know how to react in an emergency and panic, there would have been even more bullets flying all over the place and more people killed and hurt. Having had basic training on how to shoot your gun does not prepare you for such situations. And this is not just for guns but also for self defense, etc.
Come on man, we can make up a million different "What ifs"...
but you want my answer? it all depends on if you're caught by surprise or not. If I have a gun, and this guy with the bat catches you by suprise with his Obama pin, I am still fucked and my family is fucked, because as a responsible gun owner, my gun is locked up and if I'm caught by surprise it is useless.
But I dont own a gun, and if someone came into my house with a bat and I wanst surprised, he'd have along night ahead of him and he'd be eating his meals through a straw for the rest of his life. If he had a gun, I'd still be fucked.
Remeber that thing you posted about the MArine saying that when both have a gun, the playing field is level - -well, no its not. Too many factors.
And I honestly cant believe I am discussing the differences between usiong a bat and a gun. You seriously dont get the difference?
something MORE destructive? but i thought his point was that he wanted to destroy as many people as possible? If so then why did he use a gun? why not a bomb? Maybe it was because he could legally acquire a gun and that as Columbine showed its actually pretty difficult to make a bomb?
but his point was to kill as many as possible... thats why he tried to reload... don't you see the pattern? All these multiple death massacres are by people using guns... because its the easiest and most effective way of doing it... if it wasnt they'd use that hallowed 'something else' surely?
but, as usual, you have skipped the point of Redrock's post... the scenario is the same as Arizona, but instead its set in ohhhhh lets say leafy Buckinghamshire in England... instead of the gun, the mental guy has a bat... how many people would he kill before being tackled by the crowd?
Probably nil.
Well... coming to think about it, I guess I need to assume that Loughner was one of those 'law abiding citizens' as he purchased his gun legally?
I've already fully addressed Redrock's scenario, and having dealt with him in the past, know that was already too much time spent on him.
Again, you look at just one aspect of the picture. You don't own a gun for just one reason. Part of having one is to be prepared if the worst is to happen. You act like being the slight bit prepared for emergencies makes you a lunatic. I guess I'm crazy for having an emergency flashlight and weather radio too. I'm sorry, it's the duty of any responisible parent/spouse to protect their family. You have no idea what your future holds. No one thinks that it's going to happen them, and when it happens, no one thought it would happen to them. Might as well be prepared, hope for the best, prepare for the worst.
Oh, and for the one millionth time, the US is not a democracy.
Or the guy next to him could have put him down the instant he drew his weapon. Who knows in a crowd?
Take the VT shootings a few years ago, it wasn't a crowd situation, it was one guy walking from class room to class room killing defenseless people. He knew that you couldn't have a gun on campus, so it was easy for him. Without a doubt that would have ended better if more people would have had weapons.
But you guys keep missing the point that banning all guns MIGHT have saved lives here, it might have cost more. BUT the repercussions of that are the problem. More lives lost and more crime due to the lack of guns in the right hands.
You can't be serious. My first real job as a teenager was working in a hardware store. We were actually briefed on what suspicious purchases looked like, because someone could pretty easily buy the pieces to make a bomb. They make those IED bombs in the Middle East out of stuff that would make Macgyver proud.
Again, I have completely addressed Redrock's silly post. Sorry if you missed it.
I thought his goal was to hurt the senator? This is the first time I have heard anyone say his intentions were to just hurt people in general.
Again... where is this mention of banning all guns? But you do admit 'might' have saved lives
And again... guns in the right hands - I suppose those are the hands of law abiding citizens as it would seem the discussion returns to those people who can legally purchase guns (ie after 'checks' they have no police record, etc. therefore 'law abiding').
You mention the VT massacre. Cho was yet another law abiding citizen who had his guns legally, just like Loughner. Food for thought, maybe?
And yes, I remember crossing paths with you when you got all flustered and ruffled about someone posting a certain link to a certain show. But that was ages ago. And also, I'm a she, not a he. Thank you.
you are right, as soon as someone proves they are no longer a law abiding citizen they should not be allowed to own firearms. But you cannot have thought police. you cannot ever know the motivations of a nut. Until someone proves otherwise they should have the rights the rest of us all enjoy...and all of our rights should not be limited because of a small amount of dopes...otherwise no one would be able to leave their house...which they probably wouldn't be able to own because some people by houses and commit crimes in them...If I use my house to sell drugs do I forever forfeit my right to own a house? Do we limit housing sales to everyone because of it?
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
it would have ended better if NO-ONE had a weapon.
way to skip the point... how many people would Loughner have killed with just a bat?
also... if his goal was to only hurt the senator then why not stop after he shot her first? why did he try and reload?
what about this bat?
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
yep.. that bat.
i'll have you a race right... you take that bat into a crowded mall tomorrow and I'll take a gun... lets see who kills the most the quickest right? you on?
I'm now off to the betting shop to place the deeds of my house and all my money on me winning.
I can do mine silently, where as you will attract a lot of attention...wait, should we be talking about this?
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Let that stupid point go. It's been addressed, it's meaningless. How many people would he have killed with a bomb, or if he ran them over with his van, or with a chemical? The answer is more. Let's look at this logical (it'll be tough for you, but try). This guy was crazy, do you think access to a gun was going to stop him? Do you think he was just going to give up? Probably not, and chances are he would show up with something like a bomb, and not a bat. So drop it.
Well, I'll take your word on that he was reloading. If that was true, common sense would say he was trying to finish the job. Last I heard she was in the hospital and her condition was improving.
Maybe a Unicorn could have flown down from the sky on a rainbow and stopped it from happening too.