• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Another Mall Shooting

Banning guns may save lives (and it works more easily in Australia because we are an island). But ultimately doing so doesn't address the underlying issues that drive people to commit such atrocities, in any society.

M.
 
I would guess that there are more than 30,000,000 people in the US who have access to a hunting rifle and know how to use it. No government, foreign or domestic, could occupy this land and impose its will on a people determined to resist.

This is the purpose of the 2nd Amendment.

I don't know, personally, if this is necessary in the modern world, or if it is worth the cost our society pays. However, assuming that it is necessary, even prohibiting ownership of larger military weapons, the goal of the 2nd Amendment is met quite effectively.

(By the way, I don't buy, at all, the arguments that more guns make society safer. They don't. But that's an entirely different matter.)
 
chocolatepossum said:
.....Should people be allowed to stock up on explosives? Mines? Should they be allowed to own tanks and helicopter gunships?
Click to expand...

There are no federal laws stopping me from doing this now. Just fill out the form, pay the tax, then buy or make the explosive or large gun. We do not have gunship or tank problem here, although one guy did make his own armored personnel carrier and caused a bit of destruction last year.

Ranb
 
Cleon said:
And I know a guy with a Harley cruiser that can out-run a Honda CBR. That doesn't change the fact that cruisers (especially Harleys) are not particularly engineered for racing.
Click to expand...

Do you agree that there are handguns (encore, contender, striker, xp100, buckmark, ect) that are particularly well suited for hunting?

Ranb
 
Hey, I live in Omaha... let me give you guys a little something to chew on.

In Nebraska, we just recently passed a concealed/carry law. Part of that law is a provision that allows for private property owners to specifically restrict the carrying of concealed firearms on their property, OR to specifically restrict people from having ANY firearm on their property. My local community college, most grocery stores, and all of the malls, have signs posted around them saying that weapons are not allowed on their premises.

So really, for all intents and purposes, on that mall property there WAS a complete ban on firearms. It has nothing to do with the US's 2nd Amendment. In that micro situation, there was an absolute ban on firearms at that location.

But, as we know... law-abiding citizens, by their very definition, abide by the rules given to them. Criminals, by their very definition, BREAK THE RULES. Thus, the only people who are armed where firearms are banned, are the people we don't want to be armed in the first place.

This is no different from the shootings in Colorado or Virginia Tech... both of those places had weapons BANNED at those premises... making all of the victims easy targets, and potentially prolonging the shooting sprees, and increasing the body counts.

I'm just waiting for someone to say "Yeah, I usually carry my gun, but I left it in my car while in the mall that day... I was 20 yards away from the shooter thinking 'if only I didn't leave my gun in the car.'"
 
bokonon said:
We aren't. While the deaths in Nebraska are tragic, it would be more tragic if Americans relinquished their best hope for resisting a despotic government, should it ever become necessary.
Click to expand...

IED's are Americans best hope for resisting a despotic goverment, not handguns.
 
sackett said:
The NPR story I heard this morning said that this wretch used an SKS (modified to feed from an AK mag; I don't know if they got that detail right, but such things are on the market). Pretty hard to legislate against long arms, even a rinky-dink bullet-squirter like that.
Click to expand...

They also called the SKS an "assault rifle," which most gun enthusiasts will tell you is nonsense, since its standard fixed mag only holds 10 rounds, and it is incapable (short of massive modification that basically destroys the rifle) of being converted to full-auto. Although my radio listening leans pretty much exclusively towards NPR, any time their coverage moves into 2nd amendment issues their credibility suffers, and I pretty much ignore it.

I'd ignore their description here too -- it's unlikely (though not impossible) that the rifle used an AK mag. There are enough high-capacity mags specifically for the SKS that any modification would be unecessary.
 
BPSCG said:
Washington, DC has had an almost total ban on private gun ownership since 1976. Here are the murder statistics for DC 1960 - 1976 (rates are murders per thousand population). They don't make a terribly persuasive case that outlawing guns makes you safer. The murder rate dropped for a few years, but soon was higher - far higher - than it had been before the gun ban. Look at the horrifying rates beginning in 1988, which have only recently come back down to the level they were at before the ban. Source.
Click to expand...

ANd that is why local bannings are of very limited effect.
 
bokonon said:
I think a case could be made, but I'm not personally in favor of it. I prefer to see the power diffused among lots of "little people," rather than concentrated in the hands of a few. If it were legal to own tanks and missiles, only the rich HumVee-driving jerks and druglords would be able to afford them, which, in my opinion, would not be in keeping with the spirit of the 2nd amendment.
Click to expand...

So IED's and grenades should be legal then. Interesting to see the next mall bombing instead of shooting.
 
bokonon said:
No, I kind of like the idea of accountability too. A rifle has a range of a few hundred yards, and you have to be there in person to use it. When a hothead gets hold of one, and uses it inappropriately, chances are that he can be observed and held accountable.

I don't expect it to happen, but if it does ever come down to "People vs U.S. Government," there will be time to acquire cruise missiles and mines then. Right now, I think guns is the appropriate level of armament.
Click to expand...

So in other words you don't believe what you are saying, you just make the arguement because you think you can fool people with it?
 
ponderingturtle said:
So in other words you don't believe what you are saying, you just make the arguement because you think you can fool people with it?
Click to expand...
Wow, those "other words" don't seem anything like the words I actually wrote. Is that a standard tactic you learned in Strawman 101, or is there actually some tortured logic you've used to reach that conclusion?
 
ponderingturtle said:
So IED's and grenades should be legal then. Interesting to see the next mall bombing instead of shooting.
Click to expand...
There was a pipe bomb detonated in Paris today. When are the Parisians going to make pipe bombs illegal? Oh, wait, maybe they already have...

When you find the post in which I called for legalizing IEDs and grenades, let me know, and I'll try to find out who was using my computer without my permission when it was posted. Until then, don't waste my time with your straw men.
 
ponderingturtle said:
IED's are Americans best hope for resisting a despotic goverment, not handguns.
Click to expand...
IEDs are an effective way to slow troop movement, but may not be the best way to resist a despotic government. As the Unabomber and Timothy McVeigh have demonstrated, the fact that IEDs are illegal is no guarantee that they won't be I'ed.
 
EagleEye said:
This is no different from the shootings in Colorado or Virginia Tech... both of those places had weapons BANNED at those premises... making all of the victims easy targets, and potentially prolonging the shooting sprees, and increasing the body counts.
Click to expand...
As noted above, the entire District of Columbia is a "gun-free zone," a fact that comes as little comfort to the families of the 200 or so people shot to death there every year.
 
bokonon said:
Wow, those "other words" don't seem anything like the words I actually wrote. Is that a standard tactic you learned in Strawman 101, or is there actually some tortured logic you've used to reach that conclusion?
Click to expand...

What you basically admit that you do not believe what you are saying. Add to that the idea that you need to legalize more destructive weapons in the hands of a citizenry if the government gets worse. The whole point is that you need those weapons in the hands of the people to prevent the government from banning them and becoming more restrictive.

Your position as stated is nonsensical.
 
bokonon said:
There was a pipe bomb detonated in Paris today. When are the Parisians going to make pipe bombs illegal? Oh, wait, maybe they already have...

When you find the post in which I called for legalizing IEDs and grenades, let me know, and I'll try to find out who was using my computer without my permission when it was posted. Until then, don't waste my time with your straw men.
Click to expand...

It flows from your argument. You believe in the right to bear arms specifically for overthrowing the government. Then you need weapons that are most effective for overthrowing the government in the hands of the people at all times. You wait for the government to actually become one that you think needs to be overthrown and the tools for that will not be then legalized by that government.
 
bokonon said:
IEDs are an effective way to slow troop movement, but may not be the best way to resist a despotic government. As the Unabomber and Timothy McVeigh have demonstrated, the fact that IEDs are illegal is no guarantee that they won't be I'ed.
Click to expand...

And by many arguments presented in this fashion and using many quotes by say Jefferson, you can show that McVeigh was by those definitions the greatest patriot in modern times.

"The tree of liberty is watered with the blood of patriots" and all that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom