9 year old girl shot yesterday...

Blockhead · January 2011

dunkman wrote:

MG79478 wrote:

dunkman wrote:

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?

Maybe you should do some reasearch on the psych of murders

MG79478 · January 2011

redrock wrote:

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.

Your memory is better than mine! I just remembered the picture.

I apologize, I usually default to using the masculine pronoun.

MG79478 · January 2011

HeidiJam wrote:

Maybe dunkman should do some reasearch on the psych of murders

It's a bit scary. The in depth details he seems to know about the incident and this guy's thoughts. Hopefully he's not another lefty extremist plotting a similar attack. Maybe in his sick mind, the best way to ban guns is to keep incidents like this happening?

JonnyPistachio · January 2011

MG79478 wrote:

dunkman wrote:

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.

dunkman wrote:

it would have ended better if NO-ONE had a weapon.

Maybe a Unicorn could have flown down from the sky on a rainbow and stopped it from happening too.

From what I've read and heard, a lot of these 'crazy people' who go on mass shootings are often commiting suicide by police.

If the Az shooter (or many like him -- columbine, Virginai tech, etc) had a harder time getting a gun, its not likely they would've used a car or a bomb. They would've used a knife or a machete or a blowtorch and killed less people. And often times, if they arent killed by the police, they kill themselves, so a gun is their best choice.

The point is, the perpetrators in these mass shootings choose a gun because it is easiests and it will often bring return gunfire.

So, if their main goal is to get a gun, a few stricter laws do actually target them rather than the law abiding 'resposible' gun owners. With that I mean magazine limits, longer waiting periods/background checks, saftey classes, etc.. many of these could delay their ability to get a gun, or raise awarness of their 'craziness' before they are able to carry out their death sentences on the innocent.

and yes, the Az shooter was only stopped because he was reloading after firing 30+ rounds. Mag limits might have prevented a few deaths.

ONCE DEVIDED · January 2011

MG79478 wrote:

ONCE DEVIDED wrote:

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.

JonnyPistachio wrote:

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.

Of course crime has grown,
please show one country where it hasnt. Our countrys population is increasing massively as we get more and more people coming here.So Crime of course does the same.
What about Violent gun crime. Me personally have seen ( not really)
I watch listen and read al lot of news so I have a fair idea.

dunkman · January 2011

MG79478 wrote:

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.

ok then so why has there never been a multiple slaying other than the Oklahama bomber then? If its so easy to use van or chemicals or bombs... why do all the people in the US use a gun for mass murder rather than a van or pipe bomb?

why didnt Loughner just plant a bomb then? is it perhaps that a gun would be easier to get (clearly)... he knew it would work whereas most bombs when built by amateurs usually fail... a gun is more accurate (i.e. the Senator)

as for killing with a bomb, van or chemical... you said 'the answer is more' ... yet all you guys have done is lambast others for supposition... you have no idea if it would be more or less.... you show me one US mass killing where someone has used a bomb, van or chemical that has killed more than all the people killed by a gun combined... you cant... guns kill more people in one year than have ever, yes ever, been killed in the entire history of the US of A by either a bomb, chemical or van.

MG79478 · January 2011

dunkman wrote:

ok then so why has there never been a multiple slaying other than the Oklahama bomber then? If its so easy to use van or chemicals or bombs... why do all the people in the US use a gun for mass murder rather than a van or pipe bomb?

why didnt Loughner just plant a bomb then? is it perhaps that a gun would be easier to get (clearly)... he knew it would work whereas most bombs when built by amateurs usually fail... a gun is more accurate (i.e. the Senator)

as for killing with a bomb, van or chemical... you said 'the answer is more' ... yet all you guys have done is lambast others for supposition... you have no idea if it would be more or less.... you show me one US mass killing where someone has used a bomb, van or chemical that has killed more than all the people killed by a gun combined... you cant... guns kill more people in one year than have ever, yes ever, been killed in the entire history of the US of A by either a bomb, chemical or van.

A gun has never killed anyone. Only other men (or women). The tool they use to accomplish that is irrelevant. If their first choice of tool is not available, they will find another. So why take the ability to defend themselves away from everyone else? The concept is so simple a child can understand it.

The Nazis used poison gas (a chemical) to execute people in concentration camps. They had plenty of guns, but chose gas because it was more efficient. But according to your arguement, they should have just used their guns. Why didn't they? Guns are the easist and quickest... right? I do see that you wanted to arbitrarily limit the discussion to the US, but that is ridiculous. Oh, and I forgot, we should ignore history.

redrock · January 2011

MG79478 wrote:

dunkman wrote:

ok then so why has there never been a multiple slaying other than the Oklahama bomber then? If its so easy to use van or chemicals or bombs... why do all the people in the US use a gun for mass murder rather than a van or pipe bomb?

why didnt Loughner just plant a bomb then? is it perhaps that a gun would be easier to get (clearly)... he knew it would work whereas most bombs when built by amateurs usually fail... a gun is more accurate (i.e. the Senator)

as for killing with a bomb, van or chemical... you said 'the answer is more' ... yet all you guys have done is lambast others for supposition... you have no idea if it would be more or less.... you show me one US mass killing where someone has used a bomb, van or chemical that has killed more than all the people killed by a gun combined... you cant... guns kill more people in one year than have ever, yes ever, been killed in the entire history of the US of A by either a bomb, chemical or van.

A gun has never killed anyone. Only other men (or women). The tool they use to accomplish that is irrelevant. If their first choice of tool is not available, they will find another. So why take the ability to defend themselves away from everyone else? The concept is so simple a child can understand it.

The Nazis used poison gas (a chemical) to execute people in concentration camps. They had plenty of guns, but chose gas because it was more efficient. But according to your arguement, they should have just used their guns. Why didn't they? Guns are the easist and quickest... right? I do see that you wanted to arbitrarily limit the discussion to the US, but that is ridiculous. Oh, and I forgot, we should ignore history.

It is not a statement of fact that if one can't find a gun to go on a killing spree that they will find something else. If this spree is an impulse and one wants to go shoot everyone in sight, not having a firearm readily available could nip this in the bud. Sure, you can say this person could have a knife readily available at home but surely, he/she cannot create as much mayhem with one knife than with a gun with 30+ rounds? Simple concept.

Oh... and your reference to the nazis and their mass murder using gas chambers is silly. We're talking PRIVATE gun ownership, not government's 'cache' of bombs, chemicals, weapons of mass destruction, etc. Keep within the realms of this debate. Discussing the use/choice of weapons by governments (historical and contemporary use) can certainly be interesting, but would belong in a separate thread.

MG79478 · January 2011

redrock wrote:

It is not a statement of fact that if one can't find a gun to go on a killing spree that they will find something else. If this spree is an impulse and one wants to go shoot everyone in sight, not having a firearm readily available could nip this in the bud. Sure, you can say this person could have a knife readily available at home but surely, he/she cannot create as much mayhem with one knife than with a gun with 30+ rounds? Simple concept.

Again, a gun has never killed anyone; this point can not be ignored. People kill people, sometimes they use a gun.

It is not a statement of fact that this spree was an "impulse", and that "not having a firearm readily available" would have nipped this in the bud. Actually, it seems more likely that I am correct, and that he would have found another way. The guy was crazy enough to do what he did, and you think that if he was denied a gun he would have said, "I guess I just won't try to kill anyone"?

What do you propose? More government bureaucracy, more control over our constitutional rights? Have an agency that spends 6 months diving in to your background and wasting thousands of dollars trying to find something? What if someone had no trail before he did something crazy? What good would a super extensive check have done? What about the law abiding person getting threatened by a neighbor who gets killed because he had to wait for a 6 month check? You’ve traded one life for another, so you’ve accomplished nothing positive. But you have grown government, wasted money, and removed personal freedoms in the process. When does it end? People can use lots of things as weapon, so the government would have to grow and control more, doing background checks before you can have a driver’s license and buy a bottle of wine. Or before you buy a set of chef’s knives.

redrock wrote:

Oh... and your reference to the nazis and their mass murder using gas chambers is silly. We're talking PRIVATE gun ownership, not government's 'cache' of bombs, chemicals, weapons of mass destruction, etc. Keep within the realms of this debate. Discussing the use/choice of weapons by governments (historical and contemporary use) can certainly be interesting, but would belong in a separate thread.

It's an extremely relevant point. It disproves the silly notion that a gun is always the easiest and most deadly option. And it gave me another chance to bring up a historical reference, specifically from WW2, to give the history haters (not you) something to focus on, instead of the debate at hand.

dunkman · January 2011

MG79478 wrote:

Again, a gun has never killed anyone; this point can not be ignored. People kill people, sometimes they use a gun.

and airplanes don't fly people, people fly people... and wrecking balls don't wreck buildings, people wreck buildings... heroin doesnt kill people, people kill people.... and so and so on.

such a tired and poor argument... people do kill people, but if they had no gun it would just be a man pointing his finger at someone and shouting BANG!... so i think the gun plays quite a large and important part in the process.

MG79478 wrote:

It's an extremely relevant point. It disproves the silly notion that a gun is always the easiest and most deadly option. And it gave me another chance to bring up a historical reference, specifically from WW2, to give the history haters (not you) something to focus on, instead of the debate at hand.

its actually not relevant at all...

dunkman wrote:

MG79478 wrote:

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.

ok then so why has there never been a multiple slaying other than the Oklahama bomber then? If its so easy to use van or chemicals or bombs... why do all the people in the US use a gun for mass murder rather than a van or pipe bomb?

why didnt Loughner just plant a bomb then? is it perhaps that a gun would be easier to get (clearly)... he knew it would work whereas most bombs when built by amateurs usually fail... a gun is more accurate (i.e. the Senator)

as for killing with a bomb, van or chemical... you said 'the answer is more' ... yet all you guys have done is lambast others for supposition... you have no idea if it would be more or less.... you show me one US mass killing where someone has used a bomb, van or chemical that has killed more than all the people killed by a gun combined... you cant... guns kill more people in one year than have ever, yes ever, been killed in the entire history of the US of A by either a bomb, chemical or van.

and then you bring in Nazi gas chambers? how can you compare what i said about lone gunmen to that of a highly organised and ruthless regime slaying people on an industrial scale?

its like comparing apples to octopuses.

MG79478 · January 2011

dunkman wrote:

and airplanes don't fly people, people fly people... and wrecking balls don't wreck buildings, people wreck buildings... heroin doesnt kill people, people kill people.... and so and so on.

such a tired and poor argument... people do kill people, but if they had no gun it would just be a man pointing his finger at someone and shouting BANG!... so i think the gun plays quite a large and important part in the process.

Do airplanes fly themselves through taxi, take off, and landing? Or do they need a human to control it?
Do wrecking balls wreck buildings on their own, or does is need a human to control it?
Does heroin jump out of a dark alley and kill you, or does a human have to inject it?
Do guns load themselves, chamber a round, turn off safeties, aim at a target, and pull the trigger all by themselves, or does a human need to control it? Why are you liberals always so dead set on removing personal responsibility?

Wow, do you really think that airplanes fly people? Do these magical airplanes talk to you before you board? This really just proves what a waste of my time you are.

dunkman wrote:

its actually not relevant at all...

So a gun is always the easiest and most deadly option for killing someone? Because that is what you claim, and I showed you a case where it was not. Maybe if the nazis didn't have any guns the holocaust wouldn't have happened? Surely in your head they would have just given up?

Let us not forget that the first thing the Nazis did was disarm the citizens of Germany.

dunkman wrote:

and then you bring in Nazi gas chambers? how can you compare what i said about lone gunmen to that of a highly organised and ruthless regime slaying people on an industrial scale?
its like comparing apples to octopuses.

So do you actually even read anything, or do you just continually harp on insignificant points to push your agenda, while ignoring relevant points that you don’t want to address?

Jason P · January 2011

As many times as I've seen the "Nazi" comparison / parallel used on AMT (on a variety of topics), I'm surprised I'm not at a book burning party right now and rounding up Jews.

dunkman · January 2011

MG79478 wrote:

Do airplanes fly themselves through taxi, take off, and landing? Or do they need a human to control it?
Do wrecking balls wreck buildings on their own, or does is need a human to control it?
Does heroin jump out of a dark alley and kill you, or does a human have to inject it?
Do guns load themselves, chamber a round, turn off safeties, aim at a target, and pull the trigger all by themselves, or does a human need to control it? Why are you liberals always so dead set on removing personal responsibility?

Wow, do you really think that airplanes fly people? Do these magical airplanes talk to you before you board? This really just proves what a waste of my time you are.

I'm not a liberal.

the point of the above examples is that airplanes don't fly people, people fly people... but the airplane is a hugely integral fucking part of the equation. just as a gun is. thats the most basic logic i can explain it to you in... the same logic i would use to speak to a 5 year old child. If you can't understand that basic principal then I'm lost as to your vacuous ignorance.

as for the wast of your time comment...

So a gun is always the easiest and most deadly option for killing someone? Because that is what you claim, and I showed you a case where it was not. Maybe if the nazis didn't have any guns the holocaust wouldn't have happened? Surely in your head they would have just given up? its actually not relevant at all...

you showed me a case where mass murder was put upon a confined set of people using gas. That hardly equates to a lone gunman in Arizona. The comparison is so vastly moronic that I'm ignoring the Nazi comparison.. its that poor.

So do you actually even read anything, or do you just continually harp on insignificant points to push your agenda, while ignoring relevant points that you don’t want to address?

harp on insignificant points? This coming from the man who tries to push Nazi genocide into a debate on US gun crime? :wtf: Highly ironic... in fact if Alanis Morisette had read your post then that song she wrote might have been about proper irony rather than just bad luck.

Meh.. continue killing each other, i actually don't give a fuck. :thumbup:

MG79478 · January 2011

dunkman wrote:

the point of the above examples is that airplanes don't fly people, people fly people... but the airplane is a hugely integral fucking part of the equation. just as a gun is. thats the most basic logic i can explain it to you in... the same logic i would use to speak to a 5 year old child. If you can't understand that basic principal then I'm lost as to your vacuous ignorance.

People have multiple ways to travel, by boat, by car, by plane. An airplane is one way to get there, but an airplane is useless without a human to control it. Without a human, it just sits on the runway.

People have multiple ways of hurting other people, a knife, a bomb, a gun, etc. A gun is one way to accomplish this goal, but a gun is useless without a human to control it. Without a human, a gun can’t hurt anyone.

I can’t make it any simpler than that. You do understand that the logic you use on your 5 year old peers won’t work with an adult? It makes sense that you have this fantasy view of a gun free world, you probably discuss it with the 5 year olds right after you tell them about Santa Claus. I also find it funny that you call me ignorant, yet your posts are littered with spelling and grammar errors. You constantly perpetuate this thread after it has been dormant for a while, you have the time to make a good impression, but you don’t have the skill or intelligence. It’s like showing up to a job interview in ripped jeans, instead of a tie. Just another reason on a long list why no one should take you seriously.

dunkman wrote:

you showed me a case where mass murder was put upon a confined set of people using gas. That hardly equates to a lone gunman in Arizona. The comparison is so vastly moronic that I'm ignoring the Nazi comparison.. its that poor.

Glad to see you ignore my questions again to harp on a point that was never made. I never made the comparison you claim. I brought up the Nazis and the holocaust to prove that guns are not the easiest and most deadly option in any given situation. I’ve made that specific point many times, you just ignore it. How about you go back and quote where I directly equated the nazi gassings with a lone gunman in Arizona. I shouldn’t be surprised, it’s all you have. You just ignore relevant points and questions, and harp endlessly on insignificant shit.

dunkman wrote:

harp on insignificant points? This coming from the man who tries to push Nazi genocide into a debate on US gun crime? :wtf: Highly ironic... in fact if Alanis Morisette had read your post then that song she wrote might have been about proper irony rather than just bad luck.

Your ignorance of history is just astounding. I could have used multiple cases, keeping many references to one historical era was meant to keep it simple for you to understand. I was trying to be nice because you seem to struggle understanding even some of the most basic things, and in most cases you miss the point entirely. I’ve basically made 2 references that I can recall off the top of my head to 1930s Germany that are relevant to ANY gun debate:

1) The first thing the nazi’s did was take everyone’s guns. If that is not a huge warning flag of what can happen, then I don’t know what to tell you
2) To counter your argument that a gun is always the easiest and most deadly option to kill someone in any given situation. I provided one example of when it was not.

Alanis Morisette..... Burn! You sure got me. I see your taste in music is as bad as your uneducated opinions on guns.

dunkman · January 2011

MG79478 wrote:

People have multiple ways to travel, by boat, by car, by plane. An airplane is one way to get there, but an airplane is useless without a human to control it. Without a human, it just sits on the runway.

People have multiple ways of hurting other people, a knife, a bomb, a gun, etc. A gun is one way to accomplish this goal, but a gun is useless without a human to control it. Without a human, a gun can’t hurt anyone.

I can’t make it any simpler than that. You do understand that the logic you use on your 5 year old peers won’t work with an adult? It makes sense that you have this fantasy view of a gun free world, you probably discuss it with the 5 year olds right after you tell them about Santa Claus. I also find it funny that you call me ignorant, yet your posts are littered with spelling and grammar errors. You constantly perpetuate this thread after it has been dormant for a while, you have the time to make a good impression, but you don’t have the skill or intelligence. It’s like showing up to a job interview in ripped jeans, instead of a tie. Just another reason on a long list why no one should take you seriously.

yawn... ignorance is not something that is attached to spelling and grammatical errors on a forum... they are called 'mistakes', not that i've made many but then I'm not writing a paper that is to be subjected to University style scrutiny... but that pompous point kinda highlights the ignorance i was talking about.

But you're getting riled and I can see why. Your posts are spurious and filled with shallow puerile diatribe copied and pasted from a website where men play with guns to make up for their lack of bedroom action and inability to stand up for themselves in a 'real' fight no doubt. I also wouldn't wear a tie to a job interview... I find ties to be constrictive and boring...

Glad to see you ignore my questions again to harp on a point that was never made. I never made the comparison you claim. I brought up the Nazis and the holocaust to prove that guns are not the easiest and most deadly option in any given situation. I’ve made that specific point many times, you just ignore it. How about you go back and quote where I directly equated the nazi gassings with a lone gunman in Arizona. I shouldn’t be surprised, it’s all you have. You just ignore relevant points and questions, and harp endlessly on insignificant shit.

hmmmmmm... bit in bold is my question... your answer is in bold italics below it. Now where did I say in my argument that guns were quicker? I didnt... I said they are easier to get... i also said that handgun deaths in one year are more than all the gas and bomb attacks the US has ever suffered combined... so if the latter is such a formidable way of killing and murdering lots of people then why do you all still choose guns?

MG79478 wrote:

dunkman wrote:

ok then so why has there never been a multiple slaying other than the Oklahama bomber then? If its so easy to use van or chemicals or bombs... why do all the people in the US use a gun for mass murder rather than a van or pipe bomb?

why didnt Loughner just plant a bomb then? is it perhaps that a gun would be easier to get (clearly)... he knew it would work whereas most bombs when built by amateurs usually fail... a gun is more accurate (i.e. the Senator)

as for killing with a bomb, van or chemical... you said 'the answer is more' ... yet all you guys have done is lambast others for supposition... you have no idea if it would be more or less.... you show me one US mass killing where someone has used a bomb, van or chemical that has killed more than all the people killed by a gun combined... you cant... guns kill more people in one year than have ever, yes ever, been killed in the entire history of the US of A by either a bomb, chemical or van.

A gun has never killed anyone. Only other men (or women). The tool they use to accomplish that is irrelevant. If their first choice of tool is not available, they will find another. So why take the ability to defend themselves away from everyone else? The concept is so simple a child can understand it.

The Nazis used poison gas (a chemical) to execute people in concentration camps. They had plenty of guns, but chose gas because it was more efficient. But according to your arguement, they should have just used their guns. Why didn't they? Guns are the easist and quickest... right? I do see that you wanted to arbitrarily limit the discussion to the US, but that is ridiculous. Oh, and I forgot, we should ignore history.

dunkman wrote:

harp on insignificant points? This coming from the man who tries to push Nazi genocide into a debate on US gun crime? :wtf: Highly ironic... in fact if Alanis Morisette had read your post then that song she wrote might have been about proper irony rather than just bad luck.

Your ignorance of history is just astounding. I could have used multiple cases, keeping many references to one historical era was meant to keep it simple for you to understand. I was trying to be nice because you seem to struggle understanding even some of the most basic things, and in most cases you miss the point entirely. I’ve basically made 2 references that I can recall off the top of my head to 1930s Germany that are relevant to ANY gun debate:

1) The first thing the nazi’s did was take everyone’s guns. If that is not a huge warning flag of what can happen, then I don’t know what to tell you
2) To counter your argument that a gun is always the easiest and most deadly option to kill someone in any given situation. I provided one example of when it was not.

Alanis Morisette..... Burn! You sure got me. I see your taste in music is as bad as your uneducated opinions on guns.

1. the nazis thing is so incredibly moronic that nobody on here either answers it or gives it any credence...
2. The gun is still the easiest and deadliest way to kill someone... thats why more people have been killed by guns than any other form of murder in the world... ever. So you counter that with one argument when it's not? I also said that the gun was the easiest and most efficient way for SOMEONE to kill others... not an oppressive regime using Zyklon B... or dropping atom bombs on Japan.

as for my music taste... its a well known song for fucks sake... but someone like you on a Pearl Jam forum, now that is ironic.

JonnyPistachio · January 2011

dunkman wrote:

as for killing with a bomb, van or chemical... you said 'the answer is more' ... yet all you guys have done is lambast others for supposition... you have no idea if it would be more or less.... you show me one US mass killing where someone has used a bomb, van or chemical that has killed more than all the people killed by a gun combined... you cant... guns kill more people in one year than have ever, yes ever, been killed in the entire history of the US of A by either a bomb, chemical or van.

I have to agree with Dunk here..
What scares me the most about this whole thing is that one side can be very anti-gun and the othre pro-gun, but until we can both conclude that there is a problem in the U.S., nothing will change.

The recent trends are a problem. Guns are way to easy to get, legally and/or illegally.

Electric_Delta · January 2011

Two Rivers wrote:

I see that yesterday a 9-year old little girl was murdered together with 5 others by someone with a 9mm hand gun. When are we going to stop thinking its ok to live in a society where we tolerate the carrying of concealed or non-concealed guns in public?

If you think its madness then please use your voice so that other people like you who feel the same as you don’t feel they are alone.

This guy was a nut. You can't justify stripping law-abiding citizens of their Second Amendment rights because of his actions.

You want real chaos? Take guns away from those who mean no harm.

Electric_Delta · January 2011

Byrnzie wrote:

MG79478 wrote:

Did you form that opinion on your own,or did CNN tell you to say that?

I think it's a very sad day when CNN is regarded as representing left-wing thought in America.

It doesn't make a difference. Nobody watches it anyway.

redrock · January 2011

Electric_Delta wrote:

This guy was a nut. You can't justify stripping law-abiding citizens of their Second Amendment rights because of his actions.

And there were/are many more who own guns legally. This guy was a law abiding citizen since he had his gun legally. A nutter, perhaps, but still what the gun control laws consider a law abiding citizen. No one is saying that americans need to be stripped of their Second Amendment right but what is being called for is more stringent controls so that "law abiding citizens" such as Loughner and Cho can't get their hands on such weapons legally.

Looking at the past 15 or so mass shootings in the US, at least 2/3 of these were committed with LEGALLY held firearm (ie sold to law abiding citizens). Surely, there is something wrong here....

Electric_Delta · January 2011

redrock wrote:

Electric_Delta wrote:

This guy was a nut. You can't justify stripping law-abiding citizens of their Second Amendment rights because of his actions.

And there were/are many more who own guns legally. This guy was a law abiding citizen since he had his gun legally. A nutter, perhaps, but still what the gun control laws consider a law abiding citizen. No one is saying that americans need to be stripped of their Second Amendment right but what is being called for is more stringent controls so that "law abiding citizens" such as Loughner and Cho can't get their hands on such weapons legally.

Looking at the past 15 or so mass shootings in the US, at least 2/3 of these were committed with LEGALLY held firearm (ie sold to law abiding citizens). Surely, there is something wrong here....

Too many politicians are eager to take that right away from us. I'm not interested in this "rigorous" process being overseen by corrupt bureaucrats.

In theory, your idea is noble. In practice, and in the interest of maintaining the integrity of a Constitutional right, it is going to be very difficult to administer. This government does not have the ability.

9 year old girl shot yesterday...

Comments

Categories