Another Mall Shooting

[Michael Redman]

Wait the lefties are saying that the US Armed Forces cannot possibly defeat a few thousand armed Iraqis, yet could easily take out a few million americans?

ok

Two strawmen for the price of one.

 

[lionking]

Who says it has to be disciplined, well-trained, and commanded? The thing can be effective even if it's disorganized and chaotic. Like the internet, or a plague of locusts.

Well I do. If you are going to be silly so can I.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

We aren't. Just like we aren't going to outlaw cigarettes. We believe in freedom and sometimes that freedom includes the right to kill yourself or others with a legally purchased product.

Freedom!!!

 

[lionking]

Thanks for your contribution US. Back to the humor section where, if anything, you make more sense.

 

[pipelineaudio]

As I said, rationality out the window. A few thousand armed Iraqis? You did a count? And you think that Americans would fight with the suicide-bomber ethos of jihadists? I think you have been watching too many John Wayne movies.

I think you underestimate the resourcefulness of the average American when good and pissed and fighting for his house

You really can't have it both ways

 

[lionking]

And it is likely that ordinary americans will fight for their houses? And this is justification for gun ownership?

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Thanks for your contribution US. Back to the humor section where, if anything, you make more sense.

Well, you're not going to like my sincere answer much better.

The problem isn't citizens owning guns. The problem isn't even law abiding citizens carrying guns. And the problem, contrary to the claims of some reactionary elements in the U.S., isn't too few guns in the hands of law abiding citizens*

The problem is our mental health system and how Americans approach citizens with mental health problems - in this case people with sociopathic tendencies. If a husband said he'd like to kill his wife we'd take it more seriously than a teenaged to middle-aged male saying he wanted to kill people or kill himself... even all these years after Columbine.

I don't mean to be trite, but the guns aren't responsible for these shootings/massacres, it's the failings our mental health care system that are.

* With as much as I cringe, I imagine Euros and Aussies would flip out of they could hear some of the talk radio hosts and callers whistfully pining for a "well-trained, armed, good citizen" who could have stopped shootings.

 

[chocolatepossum]

Uh, the weapons ARE available, they're called "guns." If it's necessary to get bigger weapons, guns give you better leverage than bananas. If the guns themselves are enough to do the job, the job is done.

A handful of uneducated nobodies mounted a pretty successful assault on the Pentagon with nothing more than box cutters and the element of surprise. I think a couple of hundred million guns in the hands of a couple of hundred million angry Americans defending their freedom is probably enough to prime the pump if it ever comes to that.

It still doesn't make sense to me that you would support the proliferation of all these weapons in case of the unlikely event that you will have to fight a war against your own government, but not support the proliferation of weapons which might help you to effectively fight such a war. Why do you draw the line at pistols and rifles and not at box cutters or flamethowers or explosives? Seems to me it's because people think pistols and rifles are cool and (perhaps justifiably) want them for self defence and hunting, so why not make the argument on these grounds?

I don't know, maybe you're right. It is true, I suppose, that a government might find it hard to impose its will on 300 million armed americans spread right across the country, but I don't think any country could really acheive that anyway, whether the americans are armed or not.

ETA - They could probably wipe most of them out, though, hunting rifles or no.

 

[lionking]

Seriously respect your views US, but how do you explain the lack of mass shootings in Australia since the ban of semi-automatics?

 

[Plantfoam]

So are we talking about banning all guns, or just semi and full automatic guns?

The last time I checked, there were not many problems being caused by people who legally owned class 3 automatic weapons.

If you want to make crime a one-faceted issue, then I guess you don't want to travel to other gun-friendly countries, such as Switzerland, Finland, and New Zealand....which all allow the ownership of fully automatic weapons....and heavier things.

I know personally that there is someone in Finland that has the 4th largest private gun collection in the world. He keeps everything in a warehouse.....and he has a warehouse full of tanks next to that.

In Switzerland, it's not uncommon to see people riding motorcycles with SIG-90 assault rifles slung on their back while driving to the range to practice. There are many places such as this where guns are much more available than in the US, but the crime rate does not match.

There is much more to the equation than the legal ownership of firearms.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Seriously respect your views US, but how do you explain the lack of mass shootings in Australia since the ban of semi-automatics?

I'm not familiar with your mental health care system enough to contribute a worthwhile comment. If you clue me in I'll see if I have one.

 

[BPSCG]

Despotic governments?? Peh! We just voted one out; it was easy. No guns required or used.

But the US, according to some, it seems, can only get rid of them by retaining huge battalions of heavily armed civilian militia. What were those comments about "democracy" again?

(We really DO need some sarcasm smilies...)

No, what we need is for someone to explain to you the meaning of the word "despotic."

 

[BPSCG]

* With as much as I cringe, I imagine Euros and Aussies would flip out of they could hear some of the talk radio hosts and callers whistfully pining for a "well-trained, armed, good citizen" who could have stopped shootings.

"If someone had been carrying a concealed weapon, he could have stopped that maniac. What's trump?"

"I agree, but other innocents could have gotten hurt. Spades, I think."

"But surely not as many innocents as got killed by the gunman. No, it's diamonds. See? the four is face-up."

"Yeah, but when the police arrive, they'll end up accidentally shooting the guy who took out the gunman. My lead. What's trump again?"

Oh, you meant wistfully...

 

[Tailgater]

Seriously respect your views US, but how do you explain the lack of mass shootings in Australia since the ban of semi-automatics?

There have been no attacks on the US since 911, therefore the war......err wait, wrong thread.

 

[Tailgater]

There is much more to the equation than the legal ownership of firearms.

Ding ding ding!! You win!

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Oh, you meant wistfully...

Ribbing and more importantly point taken, but, despite all the ink spilled in American Rifleman, I cannot think of any mass murder prevented by having more people carrying guns, while I hear a lot of emotionalism (Texas' concealed carry law was because the daughter of one of the victims left hers in her car during the Luby's massacre), frustration bordering on vigilanteism (see the Pasadena, TX case {sorry for forgetting the guys name}), or tragic tales of hero wannbes getting cut down by their own zeal (Kaufman Co. TX shootings).

And yes, my view and experience might be tainted a bit, but have you noticed my location lately.

To take our exchange back to the OP, the problem isn't guns, the problems is guns in the hands of the mentally ill wrt mass murders, and criminals when it comes to gun crime in general.

 

[bokonon]

It still doesn't make sense to me that you would support the proliferation of all these weapons in case of the unlikely event that you will have to fight a war against your own government, but not support the proliferation of weapons which might help you to effectively fight such a war. Why do you draw the line at pistols and rifles and not at box cutters or flamethowers or explosives? Seems to me it's because people think pistols and rifles are cool and (perhaps justifiably) want them for self defence and hunting, so why not make the argument on these grounds?

As I've said, I don't own a gun. I think hunting is a stupid hobby for rednecks, and while I concede the value of having a shotgun for perimeter defense, and a semi-automatic pistol in case the perimeter is breached, I prefer to delude myself with the thought that I'll be able to slip out the back door when trouble comes a knockin.

I think the weapons we've proliferated now would be pretty darn effective, and I don't see any need to go overboard. I'm sorry it doesn't make sense to you, but that's my position, and I've explained the reasons for it.

I don't know, maybe you're right. It is true, I suppose, that a government might find it hard to impose its will on 300 million armed americans spread right across the country, but I don't think any country could really acheive that anyway, whether the americans are armed or not.

ETA - They could probably wipe most of them out, though, hunting rifles or no.

True, but wiping them out kind of negates the thrill of being a despot. "King of the Cockroaches on the Glassy Slab formerly known as the US of A" doesn't give you a lot of bragging rights among your despotic drinking buddies.

 

[BPSCG]

...I cannot think of any mass murder prevented by having more people carrying guns,

Here ya go.

And yes, my view and experience might be tainted a bit, but have you noticed my location lately.

Yup. I suspect your neighbors talk a lot behind your back...

To take our exchange back to the OP, the problem isn't guns, the problems is guns in the hands of the mentally ill wrt mass murders, and criminals when it comes to gun crime in general.

Agree. I suspect the Brady law and background checks do more to keep guns out of the hands of the deranged than out of the hands of your everyday holdup punk.

 

[BPSCG]

...while I concede the value of having a shotgun for perimeter defense, and a semi-automatic pistol in case the perimeter is breached, I prefer to delude myself with the thought that I'll be able to slip out the back door when trouble comes a knockin.

Perhaps. But why should you have to?

And what would be the social ramifications if every homeowner thought that way?

Consider what happens during a natural disaster - a hurricane or an earthquake. People who would not normally steal a pack of gum get caught on the 5:00 news lugging TVs out of Frank's Electronics Emporium. Why? Because the rule of law has temporarily broken down and they calculate that they can get away with it.

How many of those people would break into your house and steal your widescreen TV if they knew that you'd "slip out the back door when trouble comes a knockin"? What would happen if everyone slipped out the back door?

I honestly believe that fear of finding themselves looking at the wrong end of a shotgun is all that keeps a lot of people from breaking into houses every night.

 

[EagleEye]

I cannot think of any mass murder prevented by having more people carrying guns

That's seriously like saying "I can't remember any serious blackouts because of there being more than enough electricity."

If a mass murder is prevented, it gets absolutely ZERO attention in the national media. You can't know how many people WOULD HAVE been killed by a gunman who is shot by a private gun owner before he gets to commit his infamous acts! Seriously, think about what you're saying here...