• 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.

Gunman shoots 18 people.

What I am saying now is when do these repeated massacres become too much? Weekly? Daily? Several times a day? And this is where a Unique Person's analogy with 9/11 is not too far off track. 9/11 was too much and resulted in the War on Terror, right or wrong.

The massacres are not because of guns, they're enabled because of guns. The root causes of them are something else entirely.

Like I said, if you took away the guns they'd find another way to get their name splashed up on CNN and then you have to take away the 409 and Clorox.

Then something else.

Then something else.

It's like, "Take two aspirin and call me in the morning," when there's a brain tumor.
 
OK, watch where this finger points. See it? It's pointing at Steven P. Kazmierczak. When the Virgina Tech shooting happened it was pointing at Seung-Hui Cho.

I'm not pointing it at Glock, the NRA, Rockstar, Hollywood, or anyone else.

They did not the pull the trigger. They did not kill or wound the victims.

Something is wrong with these people. Something compels them to hurt as many people as they can before killing themselves. The gun makes it easy. There's others ways to do it, but the gun is spectacular and simple. If we take away the gun, who's to say they won't find another way.

We've had the gun control argument a thousand times. How about we discuss an actual plan of preventing these? Effective restriction of guns from the dangerously mentally ill. Mental health care. The stigma surrounding it. Something else that may spur these insane acts of violence.
 
We've had the gun control argument a thousand times. How about we discuss an actual plan of preventing these? Effective restriction of guns from the dangerously mentally ill. Mental health care. The stigma surrounding it. Something else that may spur these insane acts of violence.
Before deciding to ban those undergoing mental health treatment you need to decide why you let people have arms in the first place. Any decision on not allowing people to have guns must be with reference to why they don't fit into the 'allowed' category.

If you think people should be armed for self defence why should depressives not have the same rights ?

If you think it is for a militia should the unfit also be banned ?

If it is for hunting, should non hunters be banned ?

If it is for shooting at gun clubs should everyone be banned ? (The guns need not leave the club)

You can't decide who to deprive the right from having a gun without considering why you are letting others have the right.
 
Last edited:
I wish any one of the pro-gun posters would have the honesty to say:
"Yes in the US we have a liberal gun-ownership policy, supported by the Second Amendment which I am happy with. One of the consequences of this is mass murder by firearms. I am willing to accept this consequence". And please leave out red herrings like knives and motorcars.


Yes in the US we have a liberal gun-ownership policy, supported by the Second Amendment which I am happy with. One of the consequences of this is mass murder by firearms. I am willing to accept this consequence.

As to the later discussion, the idea that the Second Amendment only applies to the militia is by no means settled law.
 
Yes in the US we have a liberal gun-ownership policy, supported by the Second Amendment which I am happy with. One of the consequences of this is mass murder by firearms. I am willing to accept this consequence.
Could those who are happy with the mass murders in America please explain why they are happy.

Are you happy for people to be murdered as the price for your freedom to shoot for sport or are you happy for people to commit mass murder so you have the freedom to take them out with your own gun ?
 
Could those who are happy with the mass murders in America please explain why they are happy.

Are you happy for people to be murdered as the price for your freedom to shoot for sport or are you happy for people to commit mass murder so you have the freedom to take them out with your own gun ?

This is completely dishonest, and makes it pretty obvious you have nothing useful to contribute to intelligent conversation. *Ignore*
 
This is completely dishonest, and makes it pretty obvious you have nothing useful to contribute to intelligent conversation. *Ignore*
There is nothing dishonest and my point is quite clear. Lots of people are saying they are happy that mass murders are a price worth paying. I am asking what that price is for ?

If it is an uncomfortable question for you by all means ignore it. Alternatively if the point has offended you so much feel free to put me on ignore.
 
Sneaky though that q was, what is actually wrong with being "happy" with mass murders? As long as they are statistically infrequent overall, and a majority of people in a society wish to retain gun ownership, then they are the price paid for that freedom. The same cost/benefit choice occurs with cars, with power tools, with dangerous sports, even in health and safety risk assessments - you accept a low level of risk to allow for certain activities to take place.

Personally, I would struggle, simply because my own gun ownership (along with that of whoever else partook) would be strictly recreational and I would rather lose the right to possess (say handguns) than have anyone die.

However, there is mitigating risk by heavy restriction, and there is knee-jerk blanket ban where existing laws have not been implemented correctly. I speak of the UK laws in this regard - I would have no ethical problem at all with owning guns if I could only keep them at a suitably secured club. Many Americans feel different - I don't think we can condemn them for this - it's just that they believe the risk/benefit ratio to be positive. It's a cultural thing.
 
Sneaky though that q was, what is actually wrong with being "happy" with mass murders? As long as they are statistically infrequent overall, and a majority of people in a society wish to retain gun ownership, then they are the price paid for that freedom. The same cost/benefit choice occurs with cars, with power tools, with dangerous sports, even in health and safety risk assessments - you accept a low level of risk to allow for certain activities to take place.

Personally, I would struggle, simply because my own gun ownership (along with that of whoever else partook) would be strictly recreational and I would rather lose the right to possess (say handguns) than have anyone die.

However, there is mitigating risk by heavy restriction, and there is knee-jerk blanket ban where existing laws have not been implemented correctly. I speak of the UK laws in this regard - I would have no ethical problem at all with owning guns if I could only keep them at a suitably secured club. Many Americans feel different - I don't think we can condemn them for this - it's just that they believe the risk/benefit ratio to be positive. It's a cultural thing.
I agree with everything you say (apart from the sneaky bit:D).
 
Last edited:
If we take away the gun, who's to say they won't find another way.

What "other way" would that be? Killing 5, 10, 15 with a knife? With a bat? It's impossible. Or will these disillusioned folk all become experts at covert bomb-making and terrorism and go down that route?

This argument that things would be just as bad without guns is ridiculous and flies in the face of all the evidence.
 
Hi
There is nothing dishonest and my point is quite clear. Lots of people are saying they are happy that mass murders are a price worth paying. I am asking what that price is for ?

If it is an uncomfortable question for you by all means ignore it. Alternatively if the point has offended you so much feel free to put me on ignore.
I don't believe that anyone has said that they are, "happy," about mass murders.

Accepting a price for something of value does not equate with happiness over the price. Ask anyone who bought a new house in the US before the Fed brought down the prime rate. $2,000 a month is downright painful.

They're not happy about the price, but they get a HOUSE.

Freedom is a messy thing.

Part of that is pretty much having to wait until after someone has done something bad to punish them. This allows the possibility... indeed the CERTAINTY... that someone is going to jackassulate, but in a country that really believes in, "innocent until proven guilty," you're kind of obligated to allow that periodic and unhappy jackassulation.

Law abiding people in this country can purchase, own and carry firearms. That's a freedom. We also have the freedom to put bars on our windows and reinforce our doors to help keep us safe. We have the freedom to buy samurai swords if we want to. Part of the price we pay is that someone, somewhere, is going to be a jerk about the whole thing.

We're not happy about the price, but we get freedom.
 
The current offender was law abiding. Till he wasn't.

PS.

It seems to be a popular American notion that the world can be divided into those who are law abiding, and those who aren't. The transportation of criminals in the 1700's to Australia, in the apparent belief that if you got rid of them all, (the prisons were overflowing), then crime would be solved. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convictism_in_Australia

It wasn't.
 
Last edited:
Cure the Root Cause of Kazmierczak's "Problem"

The Roman Catholic priest(s) who molested Kazmierczak while he was an altarboy must be found and charged with his crimes at NIU.
 
Hi
What "other way" would that be? Killing 5, 10, 15 with a knife? With a bat? It's impossible. Or will these disillusioned folk all become experts at covert bomb-making and terrorism and go down that route?

This argument that things would be just as bad without guns is ridiculous and flies in the face of all the evidence.
I've got news for you: Firearms just make killing easier.

Not having a firearm just moves the target selection to more helpless targets or escalates the nature of the weapon.

...and as for having to become, "experts at covert bomb-making," there are books at the public library (this IS the USA, after all) and websites that will tell you how to make a very serviceable bomb with stuff you can pick up at the hardware store and the grocery.

Now, I'm a bloody-minded guy. It used to be my job (your tax dollars at work) to figure out how someone else might figure out how to kill a whole building full of people, and please believe me when I tell you that the number of ways YOU HAVEN'T thought of are staggering in both number and scope.

This does not speak badly of you!

I far prefer your, "Killing 5, 10, 15 with a knife? With a bat? It's impossible," world. I, however, live in a bloody-minded world where some bloody-minded jackass, is, even now, looking at the gasoline tanker refilling the tanks at the convenience store across the street and thinking about those road flares he has in the cellar.
 
Hi
The current offender was law abiding. Till he wasn't.

PS.

It seems to be a popular American notion that the world can be divided into those who are law abiding, and those who aren't. The transportation of criminals in the 1700's to Australia, in the apparent belief that if you got rid of them all, (the prisons were overflowing), then crime would be solved. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convictism_in_Australia

It wasn't.
So... what... we should treat anyone who CAN be a criminal AS a criminal?

Doesn't that wind up with EVERYONE living in Australia?

Everyone CAN be a criminal. The popular American notion is that we don't treat people as criminals until AFTER they DO something criminal. Those who manage to refrain from criminal actions, and those who simply don't get convicted, are considered, "law abiding."
 

Back
Top Bottom