Is this guy serious?!
-
He's entitled to his opinion, obviously, however devoid of commons sense it may be, but the timing!
-
Sadly yes, he is being serious. What will probably come as a shock is his opinion is not the craziest, I have seen so many outrageous remarks that I'm starting to think I'm the only sane person around that finds our gun laws wrong.
Like this as an example.
-
So he says all children should bring guns to school, every day, because there could be a single evil adult in town who has a gun etc. …
The logic that worked in an anarchy (lack of state) doesn't apply anymore in a modern civilization that shares common resources (infrastructure, social systems) and security (police).
If we don't have enough trust in our police, then do we really think it is an increase of total security if everyone (ie. hundred millions) have a means to kill? -
I rest my case.
-
You ask what is wrong with the gun laws? I say this:
This is the weapon used to kill those kids, yes the owner has a legal permit to own one, no it's not a hunting rifle, it is in fact a military grade assault weapon.
-
@solo said:
I rest my case.
Absolutely! The flood of guns in the US, plus the poor state of the mental health system makes this kind of tragedy possible, and unfortunately far too common of an occurance...
-
@solo said:
I rest my case.
All too right! all those weapons shown were very specifically designed for one purpose and one porpose only.......to kill human beings!
ASSAULT weapons+ mainstream society..... difficult to reconcile......
Such a sad, sad thing
-
Evil exists in every society and we need to make sure whatever is done solves the real problem.
Do you really think evil cares what laws you pass.
Cars kill many more children than guns so why not outlaw them? Oh; that would cost money and make it too inconvenient for people.
In fact the rifle used was not an assault rifle but a look alike and I am sure you have not heard the same day some 20 children were attacked in China. Guess what was used? A knife? And then of course we have our own gov. selling real assault rifles to folks that should not have them and I wonder how many childern have been killed with those. Where is you indignation about that??
I am for action to solve the root cause but not just a knee jerk reaction from folks with a agenda. The law that has been attempted to pass was just putting a limit on high capacity mags but look at Oswald and the number of shots he fired from a single shot.
The per capita ownership in some countries is near the US and yet the gun death rate is much lower that ours. That proves guns is not the cause but the symptom.
My contention is someone wanting to kill a number of folks will find a way no matter what we do. They will use a knife, ax, sword , bow, shot gun etc.
It will then be argued less will be killed and I will answer how many is acceptable to you? -
@mac1 said:
Cars kill many more children than guns so why not outlaw them? Oh; that would cost money and make it too inconvenient for people.
Um, purpose of cars versus purpose of guns? You're comparing apples and oranges. Car accidents are just because we collectively drive billions of miles per year, with all the attendant human carelessness/ negligence (texting, drinking, aggressive driving.) Guns are for killing. Period.
-
"Root cause" what is that exactly? and what are your plans to solve it?
Broken people are always going to exist. Having access to automatic and semi automatic weapons with large magazines is the issue. The best that could have happened in this sad scenario is that if he was limited by a bolt action with a resultant massive reduction in these sad deaths.
The cost of not driving cars and trucks? well the whole of society and commerce would need a re-think.
The cost of banning assault type weapons? A few readneck do not get the chance to blow the hell out of 44 gallon drums on the weekend
Simple cost/benefit analysis.
"knee jerk reaction"??????..........
-
Sure, guns are foir killing, or maybe just intimidating. One could argue that ther is a valid reason for safety and personal protection to be able to carry a gun, so in a rare situation, you would be able to defend yourself.
Cars are different, they are not made for killing. and yet they kill all the time.
So which s worse, the item that kills according to its design, or the one the kills as an unwanted side effect of its common use?
-
@chris fullmer said:
Sure, guns are foir killing, or maybe just intimidating. One could argue that ther is a valid reason for safety and personal protection to be able to carry a gun, so in a rare situation, you would be able to defend yourself.
Well, reasonably, yes, regular guns can be used for self-protection. But I guess it just bothers me greatly that this country so fetishizes gun ownership, and especially military style weapons that are for killing large numbers of people. What is the point of those?
@unknownuser said:
Cars are different, they are not made for killing. and yet they kill all the time.
So which s worse, the item that kills according to its design, or the one the kills as an unwanted side effect of its common use?
So? high cholesterol kills millions of people. Cars are just part of our environment. I don't see why there's any reason to compare them to guns. Sure, cars are larger and more lethal, but we have risks in our environment all the time.
-
@unknownuser said:
I am for action to solve the root cause but not just a knee jerk reaction from folks with a agenda.
There have been 31 school shootings since columbine, hardly a knee jerk reaction but more of a way overdue reaction. I am also not suggesting removing guns or stripping rights.
The right to gun ownership in the Second Amendment is tied to being in a well-ordered militia. Militias that are organized have things like gun safety classes and other protections. The members, ideally, know each other fairly well, and one would hope they would report if one of their members seemed to be destabilizing.
So yes, let’s allow people to have guns – if they enroll in the local militia and show up to meetings at least once monthly. These meetings should be required to go over the basics of safety – locking rules, wearing orange in the woods, where to point and not point a weapon, keeping it unloaded, and so on.
If you can’t take the time and money to do that, you can’t afford to own a firearm.
-
@unknownuser said:
Cars kill many more children than guns so why not outlaw them?
And spoons make people fat, or is it fingers? maybe it's what they eat and how much they eat.
Again I am not suggesting removing spoons, fingers, cars or guns, I'm talking about regulating gun control, looking at the whole "gun show" factor where one can buy assault rifles, grenade launchers, etc off the shelf with minimal background checks, I'm about educating and vetting gun owners, removing the ability to own military weapons and extended magazines.
-
@unknownuser said:
In fact the rifle used was not an assault rifle but a look alike and I am sure you have not heard the same day some 20 children were attacked in China. Guess what was used? A knife?
Yes it was, it was that exact Bushmaster rifle as in photo.
Yes they were attacked with a knife, guess how many died? zero.
-
@solo said:
So yes, let’s allow people to have guns – if they enroll in the local militia and show up to meetings at least once monthly. (...)
Sounds fairly reasonable to me.
-
I'm a gun owner, shooter and supporter of the sport. That said, I find many gun owners willfully ignorant and blind supporters of the "arm everyone" mantra. There are a few tired platitudes often used by the gun lobby that I would like to address.
- Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
This argument... Man, where do I even start? I can't say in polite company the things I think about people that use this absurdity as an excuse for widespread gun ownership. Sure, people kill people and have done so since people were people. We kill each other with rocks, sticks, knives, swords, cars, cannons, you name it. But people with guns can kill a lot more people, more rapidly than any other privately owned device. Get it? People with GUNS. You don't wipe out a classroom full of kids, a bunch of staff and your mother in the space of an hour or so, with a ROCK.
-
Cars kill more people... Another foolish argument that doesn't compare to guns, a false comparison. Cars aren't designed to kill people. Quite the opposite, actually. Guns, on the other hand, are designed for the single sole purpose of killing. If you want to compare apples to apples, you must compare the rate of intentional homicide with a vehicle to the rate of intentional homicide with a firearm. Unfortunately for the purposes of this debate the rate of intentional vehicular homicide is so low there are no numbers available. The rate of intentional homicide with a firearm are very easily found. This argument also applies to cholesterol, alcohol and pretty much any other item where "X" kills more people than guns. Name the last time cholesterol wiped out a theater full of people in 5 minutes.
-
The second amendment says... Yes it does. But let's backtrack in history a little, shall we?
What does a drive by shooting in 1795 sound like?
Clip, clop, clip, clop, clip, clop...
BANG!
Clipclopclipclopclipclopclipclop...
They didn't have 75 round drum mags when this was written. They didn't have Columbine when this was written. They didn't have guns that spewed rounds as fast as you can pull the trigger, run out, and replace the magazine in the matter of seconds, when this was written. Also, look at the second amendment very, very closely. It says "AMENDMENT" right there in the title. Our forefathers were smart enough to know that they couldn't see the future and that our Constitution can be changed. That time needs to come sooner rather than later.
- There are enough gun laws... Yes, there are. And they're all wrong. Poked full of holes by a gun lobby. The slate needs to be wiped clean and started fresh. I have zero problem with people owning any kind of gun, I'm even open to full-auto ownership. BUT. Not everyone should be able to do so. Background checks, psych eval, Dr. examinations, should be the standard for gun purchase and become more rigorous with the level of lethality of the weapon sought for purchase. No history of chronic depression or mental issues whatsoever. Also, some standard of securing weapons in the home needs to be made. No loaded guns left in the closet, nightstand, etc. to be stolen or used in a deadly awful game by children. Gun owners should be held legally responsible for the crimes committed with those weapons should they fail to do so. Private sales of weapons should be held to the same standard and conducted through the local law enforcement agency where the gun can be held in "escrow" until the checks are completed.
There's much more I could write, but I can only type so fast on a mobile, I may revisit this later and add more.
-
A very thoughtful response. I agree 100%.
-
Interesting video, especially for those who think the teachers should have been armed.
PART 1
http://www.youtube.com/v=8QjZY3WiO9s#!
PART 2
-
Australia's Port Arthur Massacre occurred in 1996 where 35 people were killed with an automatic weapon. The Government moved fast to ban all automatic weapons by a "buy back scheme" automatic weapons were cut up and sold for scrap. There was bleating from our gun ownership groups. Well it happened anyway. Funny, but the sky did not fall in the the weather remained acceptable, no famine,or military coupe, that was 16 years ago.
"guns don't kill people, people kill people" that 'ism seems to sum up the stupidity of the US gun lobby, redneck wonderland.
"People with guns kill people"
For the record i own a BSA CF2 22/250 and a Beretta SV10 Perennia III
Advertisement