Gun laws do they work (1 Viewer)

[Alc]

To my mind, mentally unhinged or not, I feel sure if the perpetrator thought he might get shot then he'd not take that route but an easier one where he might not.

If the death penalty isn't a deterrent, why would the threat of armed civilians be one? Especially if a person is 'mentally unhinged'.

 

[spikepl]

@Alc

You are trying to argue rationally, but the gun cult is a religion like any other, so logic does not enter into it at all.

As Dr.House said: If you could reason with religious people there would be no religious people

 

[Alc]

@Alc

You are trying to argue rationally, but the gun cult is a religion like any other, so logic does not enter into it at all.

It wasn't an attempt at riling anyone, honestly. I just don't see how everyone carrying a gun would help much when some lunatic starts shooting into a crowd. He (usually a he, no?) knows he's going to die or go to jail for a very long time before he carries out the act but it's no deterrent at all. If anything, wouldn't he possibly view someone else firing in the same crowd as a bonus? Unless the heo is standing next to the whack job when he starts firing - or somehow has a clear line of sight through all the screaming bodies - aren't more people at risk of dying from 'friendly fire'?

I understand to some extent the idea that if an armed person is going to rob someone the person at risk feels safer if they're also carrying a weapon. However, if I were going to rob a store/house/car or whatever else, and I believed that there was a good chance the victim was armed, I'd shoot them first. Why run the risk of letting them realise they're at risk, draw their gun, aim and fire when you could start the exchange by shooting them?

 

[Brianwarnock]

However, if I were going to rob a store/house/car or whatever else, and I believed that there was a good chance the victim was armed, I'd shoot them first. Why run the risk of letting them realise they're at risk, draw their gun, aim and fire when you could start the exchange by shooting them?

I've said this before but the gun nuts never respond to logic argument.

Brian

 

[Bladerunner]

I've said this before but the gun nuts never respond to logic argument.

Brian

OK, MR. Spock,,, enough of your usual logic which states if I do nothing to bother them, I will be alive when they leave.

I guess as terrorist go, that is no logic.. They will cut your head off anyway. Even though you never have hurt them in any way. That is just what thugs do.

As far as the gunman not worrying about getting shot, only a madman (psychologically imbalanced) would thing like that. Only a military, militia goes in with guns blazing and usually for pretty good reasons.

To be a person in a crowd with a gun is a person that just might have a shot (pun intended) at staying alive. I rem, one lady who lost both her parents in a restaurant where a gunman was on a shooting spree. The only problem, she had a permit but because the restaurant had a no gun sign out front, she left hers in the car. They were all huddled under the tables, and he just shot them. He was going to shoot her (had already shot her mother and father )but the police arrive which diverted his attention.You see you liberals have it all wrong. Its about survival. Believe me when I say , the US is in for a rude awakening when Isis shows it ugly face. SURVIVAL

 

[Brianwarnock]

OK, MR. Spock,,, enough of your usual logic which states if I do nothing to bother them, I will be alive when they leave.

I guess as terrorist go, that is no logic.. They will cut your head off anyway. Even though you never have hurt them in any way. That is just what thugs do.

As far as the gunman not worrying about getting shot, only a madman (psychologically imbalanced) would thing like that. Only a military, militia goes in with guns blazing and usually for pretty good reasons.

To be a person in a crowd with a gun is a person that just might have a shot (pun intended) at staying alive. I rem, one lady who lost both her parents in a restaurant where a gunman was on a shooting spree. The only problem, she had a permit but because the restaurant had a no gun sign out front, she left hers in the car. They were all huddled under the tables, and he just shot them. He was going to shoot her (had already shot her mother and father )but the police arrive which diverted his attention.You see you liberals have it all wrong. Its about survival. Believe me when I say , the US is in for a rude awakening when Isis shows it ugly face. SURVIVAL

You've used that incident before. You quote isolated incidents to bolster your arguments, I hope they are isolated if not I guess I was extremely fortunate in my numerous visits to the states, yeah I know visiting is not the same as living there but as you make out that these incidents are the norm surely I would have at least heard of a shooting whilst there.

Now you introduce terrorism and Isis to justify gun carrying, LOL, remember I've lived through the IRA troubles, America hasn't a clue.

Brian

 

[AnthonyGerrard]

Now you introduce terrorism and Isis to justify gun carrying, LOL, remember I've lived through the IRA troubles, America hasn't a clue.

Brian

Harsh - they funded it?!

 

[Brianwarnock]

Harsh - they funded it?!

LOL

I remember a cartoon, by Giles I think, it showed a downtrodden Indian smoking his pipe sitting outside his tent, he was being asked by a fat bling laden American who had got out of a large limo, "say buddy can you spare a dime to help the Irish reclaim their land from the English colonialists"

Brian

 

[Frothingslosh]

Let's face it, the "Liberlz want 2 tkae mi gunz soze da gubmint kin nslave us!" crowd are utterly convinced that if THEY were the ones in any crime, they would magically save the day simply by pulling their gun and drilling the bad guys between the eyes, with zero chance of getting killed or shooting a bystander. They like to pull out the most extreme events out there to show how an ice-cold professional could have obviously saved the day.

As virtually none of them have any actual combat experience, they assume that they are immune to the chaos and adrenaline rush that actually happens, and will therefore not make a single error. (Admission - my own combat experience consists of diving for cover when a would-be mugger started shooting wildly at me. Luckily for me, he couldn't hit the broad side of a barn. From the inside.)

Not only are they convinced they would never wind up in situations like THIS, but they additionally try to use the worst incidents they can find, despite the fact that they are, in reality, vanishingly rare, and use them to scare the rest of the population into giving them what they want. In effect, they use fear to get the political result they want.

What was it they call people who use fear against general populations to effect a desired political change again?

 

[AnthonyGerrard]

What was it they call people who use fear against general populations to effect a desired political change again?

Mr President?

 

[Frothingslosh]

What was it they call people who use fear against general populations to effect a desired political change again?

Mr President?

Hmm, I guess "Republicans" WOULD be a solid alternate answer.

 

[Frothingslosh]

Except their are not in power. They have been out of power for six years.

Which would make Mr. President an incorrect answer. Thank you for pointing that out to the class!

 

[Bladerunner]

You've used that incident before. You quote isolated incidents to bolster your arguments, I hope they are isolated if not I guess I was extremely fortunate in my numerous visits to the states, yeah I know visiting is not the same as living there but as you make out that these incidents are the norm surely I would have at least heard of a shooting whilst there.

Now you introduce terrorism and Isis to justify gun carrying, LOL, remember I've lived through the IRA troubles, America hasn't a clue.

Brian

Yes Brian, I have. Its about the only one that stuck with me for some reason. In the cities, it is more prevalent. Here in the country, less so. Most people know they would get shot without question!!!.

No need to justify owning or carrying a gun. It is in our constitution, a right provided for the people by the people. You might have lived through the IRA, but I believe even you have something to learn when the Muslims in your country start raining down on you. Will make the IRA look like kindergarteners.

 

[Bladerunner]

Hmm, I guess "Republicans" WOULD be a solid alternate answer.

Ye must be one of those northern liberals. Last time I looked, Detroit was in ruins because of your policies.Now your are trying to make everyone use them. Believe it or not, the republicans have passed about 200 bills of which the senate and Harry Reid have not even allowed them to be in committee or voted upon. Now who is disrupting the country now.

 

[Brianwarnock]

No need to justify owning or carrying a gun. It is in our constitution, a right provided for the people by the people.

I have never said that you should not own a gun, I have said that it should be controlled. I doubt your founding fathers envisaged the assault weapons owned by the populace and used in the crazy massacres we read about.

You might have lived through the IRA, but I believe even you have something to learn when the Muslims in your country start raining down on you. Will make the IRA look like kindergarteners.

Terrorists do not carry guns and wear a target on their chest, they use suicide bombers and hidden devices, such as the one that killed the two boys not far from where I live. Carrying a gun does not protect you. That was the point I was making

Brian

 

[Bladerunner]

I have never said that you should not own a gun, I have said that it should be controlled. I doubt your founding fathers envisaged the assault weapons owned by the populace and used in the crazy massacres we read about.



Terrorists do not carry guns and wear a target on their chest, they use suicide bombers and hidden devices, such as the one that killed the two boys not far from where I live. Carrying a gun does not protect you. That was the point I was making

Brian

No this was not aimed you.I sorry you took it that way.

 

[Frothingslosh]

Ye must be one of those northern liberals. Last time I looked, Detroit was in ruins because of your policies.

Last time I looked (and bear in mind that I LIVE there), Detroit was in ruins due to urban flight, the more or less collapse of the auto industry, and decades of corruption under Coleman Young and Kwame Kilpatrick, who, while Democrats, were both startlingly conservative in outlook and, more importantly, running the city as their own personal fiefs.

Now your are trying to make everyone use them.

As opposed to the House shutting down the government every couple years because the Dems no longer bend over and do everything the GOP tells them? If you actually understood what is going on in this country (rather than obediently parroting every single word the GOP-paid spin doctors vomit up), you would know that Koch-brother-backed candidates won control of every level of the Kansas state government, put into place at a state level everything they've pushed for at a national level, and the state economy immediately TANKED. Meanwhile, once Dems got Bush out of office and started bludgeoning through measures to actually FIX things, the national economy finally pulled out of the freefall Bush's 'make the rich richer' economic plans put it into.

Believe it or not, the republicans have passed about 200 bills of which the senate and Harry Reid have not even allowed them to be in committee or voted upon. Now who is disrupting the country now.

This would include the 54 votes to repeal the Affordable Care Act, right, despite GOP leadership saying that it is now here for good? Also, how many of these bills were more pushes for even more investigation into Benghazi, despite the GOP's own investigation saying no wrongdoing occurred? Oh, let's not forget the budgets that included mandatory repeals of everything Democrats have managed to push through in the last 6 years. I'd have to do some investigation to get hard numbers to actually confirm this, but I'm confident enough to say that it's almost a certainty that these 200 bills are almost all partisan politicking with zero attempts at actually effectively governing our country.

If I were you, I'd be more concerned about the recent audio leak from the GOP leadership's meeting with the Koch brothers where, in between suck-up sessions, they agreed that the GOP's goal for the next two years would be to continue to shut down the process of government as much as humanly possible. The fact of the matter is that over the last 6 years, more legislation and more appointments have been blocked than in any 6 year span in our history. The government has been shut down more often than any comparable period. The right is leading a concerted attack on freedom of religion (unless it's an approved variant of Christianity, of course), freedom of speech, and freedom of assembly. It's using threats of terrorist attacks, brown people, and other religions to terrorize the American people into supporting them, and they don't care about the actual facts.

I'm not as liberal as lunatics like you make me appear. I tend to the right on gun control, and until Bush Jr. I was actually a Republican. I'm far more a proponent of capitalism than planned economies. I know full well the Dems aren't saints - Guantanimo still being used as a prison really pisses me off - but the Dems aren't the ones blatantly betraying this nation and everything it stands for in order to enrich their corporate masters. That would be the GOP, and they are enabled by people like you, who mindlessly suck up and bleat out every lie, fabrication, and distortion of truth endlessly vomited out by the GOP propaganda machine. People who equate disagreement with treason, and have endlessly called for all those who disagree with you to leave the country. People who will obediently do what their masters tell them to do, and believe what their masters tell them to believe.

Now, while I'm positive you will respond to this post in extreme detail, but this derail has gone on long enough. Any future posts by me will be on the thread topic - gun control. If you really want to argue which political belief system is worse, it needs to be its own topic.

Edit: Removed personal attacks. I should never post to political discussions on Monday mornings - it never ends well.

 

[Frothingslosh]

Ugh, I apologize for the tone of my last post. It's Monday, it's morning, I'm in a crappy mood, and I'm dealing with familiy illness, but it doesn't excuse attacking you directly.

 

[Alc]

Terrorists do not carry guns and wear a target on their chest, they use suicide bombers and hidden devices, such as the one that killed the two boys not far from where I live. Carrying a gun does not protect you. That was the point I was making

This is where the disconnect between real terrorist attacks and terrorist attacks as viewed by the pro gun lobby becomes apparent. Like yourself, I was in the UK when a lot of the IRA attacks occurred. I also saw the coverage of and read descriptions of the World Trade Center bombing in '93, the Oklahoma City bombing in '95, the events of 9/11, the failed NY bomb in 2010, the Florida bomb in 2010 and the explosives found on the cargo planes in 2010. Unless there were more I didn't hear about - and this may well be the case - I don't see how any sane person could argue that gun ownership would have prevented any of these occurrences?

1) Even if you love your gun and feel yourself to be the best trained person on Earth, for the safety of normal people you can't take them on board civilian aircraft.

2) How the hell would owning a gun stop someone from hiding a bomb which is, as Brian pointed out, how terrorists tend to work?

 

[AnthonyGerrard]

This is where the disconnect between real terrorist attacks and terrorist attacks as viewed by the pro gun lobby becomes apparent. Like yourself, I was in the UK when a lot of the IRA attacks occurred. I also saw the coverage of and read descriptions of the World Trade Center bombing in '93, the Oklahoma City bombing in '95, the events of 9/11, the failed NY bomb in 2010, the Florida bomb in 2010 and the explosives found on the cargo planes in 2010. Unless there were more I didn't hear about - and this may well be the case - I don't see how any sane person could argue that gun ownership would have prevented any of these occurrences?

1) Even if you love your gun and feel yourself to be the best trained person on Earth, for the safety of normal people you can't take them on board civilian aircraft.

2) How the hell would owning a gun stop someone from hiding a bomb which is, as Brian pointed out, how terrorists tend to work?

I have to agree somewhat - except that a Mumbai, Nairobi style attack with guns is a big threat at the moment.

However - for terrorists to get such weapons for mass killing in the UK for example, takes some planning - and coming by the fire arms would be more difficult than in the US. I would doubt the usual ways the underworld can get weapons would like to get involved if they thought it was terror related.

However in the US - its easy - school/college kids do it regularly. Simply because the weapons are easy to get hold of.

Blade may be right that ISIS or someone wakes them up. Wakes them up to the madness of the relative lack of gun control.