And another shooting.

Remove all ads!

School bus shooting in Las Vegas: http://enews.earthlink.net/article/top?guid=20071212/475f6ad0_3ca6_1552620071212339058999

 

The problem with covering this stuff in the news is that it might provoke other people with similar thoughts to follow suit. It's a bad week for the pro-gun-ownership lobby in America.

 

Barmy,
no, it's a good week. Had the people on the bus been armed they could have shot the assaulter. If anything all the cases prove the need for more guns on the streets.

 

My condolences.

 

Fox & Friends debate: Should all Americans carry guns?

 

People, there should be at least a 1-day period before arguments for and against gun control are brought up in such threads. I really don't think it shows good taste.

 

The problem is not guns. The problem is not even the number of people who have access to guns. The problem is the number of crazy people who have access to guns.

I'm not sure how arming the rest of the population will help either. If these people are mentally unstable (and it appears they are), then I doubt they are going to follow a logical, reasoned approach to the situation. If you're f'ing crazy, it may not bother you at all that there are other armed people. From what we've seen of most of these shootings, the perpetrator assumed that he would be killed in the process, so a more heavily armed populace would not be an effective deterent to carrying out the attacks.

 

Well, given that the three incidents this week all took place in the US, I assumed the "in the US" part was a given. I assumed that the Las Vegas being referenced in the article was the one in Nevada, which last I checked was part of the US.

 

teenage boys with hormones raging fighting over a girl. i can remember fighting over girls in school but never with weapons.

 

@Aldeth: I think what Tal was getting at was that the problem isn't the number of crazy people with access to guns, but with the fact that crazy people have access to guns at all...and the ease with which the aforementioned crazies can access them.

 

ummm, drew, how do you tell the crazy people from the sane ones if they havent been commited?

 

Exactly. Martaug, I believe you're slowly coming round to the correct view point...

 

so barmy to you the correct point of view is to punish everybody for a thing that a few might do? (yeah, i saw the smiley however with you i never know!!)

 

martaug,
is not giving a weapon to you punishment? *ominous theatrical music* Interesting. */ominous theatrical music*

 

As Ragusa said, it's hardly a form of punishment to make firearms less widely available.

Besides, even if your mindset says it is, I'm sure you know that the actions of a few often mean repercussions for everybody.

 

I find the idea of everyone carrying guns very, very scary. It would only create more violence. Wild, wild west here we come.

Assault weapons and hand guns are not necessary to the general population. I do not believe in a blanket prohibition of guns but it should be limited and strong, enforced laws in place. They may not stop the hard-core criminals from getting them but I really would prefer that my neighbor didn't have a gun unless there is some valid reason. IE: Law enforcement agent, security guard, jeweler.

 

I realize that this is but I couldn't resist the bait.

Actually according to the Constitution they are. The Second Amemdement is about far more than being able to defend yourself from criminals or hunting game. The entire premise behind the amendement is that a government fears an armed populace and is less likely to become tyrannical. The entire Second Amendment is a check on the power of the government. When the amendment was written, the arms available to both the government and the citizenry were the same; they were muzzle loading rifles and muskets. There was no technology gap and, should armed resistance have become necessary, the citizenry had a reasonable chance against the powers that be.

Now fast forward to today. There have been many laws enacted over the years restricting the types of weapons available to the citizenry. As a result, the gap between the military and the citizenry is huge. Assault rifles versus bolt-action hunting rifles, shotguns and handguns. Hardly a parity of arms as these arms are vastly inferior to the arms used by the government. With every law passed restricting gun ownership, the gap widens and the Second Amendment becomes weaker and weaker. By extension, the citizenry becomes weaker in relation to government. When the Federal Government has a monopoly of force, then we cease to be truly free. At this point our liberty only exists at the whim of those in power since we have no effective method of resisting them should they decide to, say, suspend our First Amendment rights or declare martial law. With all the harping about George Bush's actions lately this should be painfully obvious to everyone. So the question is this: Do you trust the government implicitly or not? If so then go ahead and support gun control. If not then gun control in any form should be looked upon with extreme suspicion.

Guns only become a problem becuase of other issues. Guns are tools and can be used for good or evil. The problem is that there are too many bad folks who have no compuntion about using them evilly. As martaug mentioned in one of these threads, guns are used to foil thousands of crimes every year, usually without having to be discharged. That's not interesting news, though. Only the misuse of guns is newsworthy. The media hype about these mass shootings (and many other things for that matter) result in an increase in their occurrence. These nut jobs see it as a way to be famous. The freak in Omaha even said that he would be famous. Without the media saturation then that incentive isn't there and he probably just kills himself. In this case, it seems to be another loser who doesn't know right from wrong...or just doesn't care.

 

Well, it's not the ENTIRE premise. We didn't exactly have a huge standing federal army at the time the Constitution was written. Local militias were absolutely necessary for defense of the country. While I agree that it can be looked upon as a check on the government, the 2nd Amendment also served a far more practical issue. I will concede that currently the need for local militias is far less than what it was a couple hundred years ago.