MASS SHOOTING reported at Oregon college campus 15 dead atleast MANY MORE INJURED

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: Answer
a reply to: Bicent76

Not to mention, if it wasn't a gun it would be a knife, or explosives, or a car, or any number of other methods insane people have used to commit mass murder.

Ya! That's why we read about mass pencil stabbings at schools all the time!!

If your logic begins with the premise that guns are not specifically designed to make killing easy and efficient..you might try again.

That argument always seems insanely flawed to me. Hey...If a knife or car works just as well...then why not get rid of guns? They are superfluous! Argument done? Whats the beef?

Thank you for taking my sentence out of context.

Of course guns are specifically designed to make killing easy and efficient. Only an idiot would argue otherwise.

As the rest of my post pointed out, mass killings are carried out all the time with items that are not guns. The premise is "take away guns and mass killings stop."

The truth is "take away guns and you create defenseless victims." The killers will find a way to kill. Access to firearms, carry permits, and proper training helps to level the playing field.

You may watch the video I posted on page 45 and listen carefully when he mentions the shooters that were stopped by carry permit holders. Heroes whose names no one remembers because it doesn't fit the anti gun agenda. In fact, I'll post that video again for you so you don't have an excuse to ignore it.

a reply to: Power_Semi

Here's the thing foreigners don't seem to get about America.

Britain has 65M people, Canada about 30M, and every little European country over there a few million over or under.

America has 380M people of every type of religion, philosophy, socio-economic status, race, and attitude....you get it.
It is not as easily controlled and managed as say a smaller more homogeneous country who does not hold individual freedom as sacred as we do.

You cannot control people! You have more control if the population is smaller and the government puts strict individual freedoms secondary. But in a demographic like the US, things are much different and what works for you WILL NOT work here.

originally posted by: vor78

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: vor78

'Intent' doesn't make much difference at the end of the day. The end result is the same. We have 30,000+ traffic-related fatalities in this this country every year. Once simple change in the law, dramatically reducing speed limits, would undoubtedly reduce this figure dramatically, all at the cost only of driver inconvenience. So why don't we do it? It would save thousands of lives.

OK, so go about changing the traffic laws to your hearts content - and get back to the topic at hand which is GUNS, not strawman arguments that deflect from the topic.

Its only a comparison. The point is, we have tens of thousands of traffic fatalities yearly, and my guess is, you exercise your right/privilege to operate a motor vehicle. You're shaming law-abiding gun owners for essentially the same thing.

Honestly, if you can't see why this statement is utterly flawed and the crassly most stupid "argument" posted here so far, then there really is no hope for humanity.

A car related death is completely different to a gun related death

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: vor78

Its only a comparison. The point is, we have tens of thousands of traffic fatalities yearly, and my guess is, you exercise your right/privilege to operate a motor vehicle. You're shaming law-abiding gun owners for essentially the same thing.

Sorry, but you cannot compare cars to guns, not even remotely. One was invented as a means of transportation and the other was invented as a means to kill living things.

Does it really matter? Last I checked, though, fatalities are fatalities. It doesn't matter a whole hell of a lot.

we realised a while ago that allowing civilians access to automatic assault rifles was a tad ridiculous.

Very few Americans have legal access to 'automatic assault rifles', They are not being used in these shootings.

Anyway to the people pointing our the UK and Australia as a example of gun control that worked, so it must work for the USA, your forgetting one flaw.


It worked for us as we never really had a gun culture to begin with. Even before the ban very few people had the guns that were banned.

The USA has hundreds of million of guns in circulation. If they banned guns in the USA those hundreds of millions of guns wont disappear magically will they?

You just turn 300 million legal gun into 300 million illegal guns. Doesn't seem much of a improvement to me.

Why would a dental student loose it this bad?
He's into SPORTS.

www.facebook.com...

originally posted by: queenofswords

who does not hold individual freedom as sacred as we do.

That's the bit where you lost me, and everyone else who is not American.

Whatever they teach you in America about the rest of us not having or valuing freedom is complete nonsense.

originally posted by: Power_Semi

Honestly, if you can't see why this statement is utterly flawed and the crassly most stupid "argument" posted here so far, then there really is no hope for humanity.


A car related death is completely different to a gun related death

You're right, I'm obviously mistaken. One group goes home to their families at the end of the day and the other doesn't. Got it.

originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: Power_Semi

Here's the thing foreigners don't seem to get about America.

Britain has 65M people, Canada about 30M, and every little European country over there a few million over or under.

America has 380M people of every type of religion, philosophy, socio-economic status, race, and attitude....you get it.
It is not as easily controlled and managed as say a smaller more homogeneous country who does not hold individual freedom as sacred as we do.

You cannot control people! You have more control if the population is smaller and the government puts strict individual freedoms secondary. But in a demographic like the US, things are much different and what works for you WILL NOT work here.

Not to mention our society is pretty sick right now. Most children grow up neglected raised by a single parent, living in a broken home, it is not all boobies and butterflies here in the states. Not to mention the economy does not help things either. This is a environment that can easily create mental illness..

originally posted by: Bicent76
a reply to: Indigo5

If someone wants to kill a bunch of people and kill themselves they are going to do it. With guns or not.

They are going to TRY with or without guns.

It is not debatable that a madman on a killing spree stabbing folks with a pencil is easier to subdue or stop than a madman with an AK-47 on a killing spree.

The argument of crazy is crazy and those with intent will successfully kill many despite the weapon is fundamentally flawed.

originally posted by: crazyewok

The USA has hundreds of million of guns in circulation. If they banned guns in the USA those hundreds of millions of guns wont disappear magically will they?

You just turn 300 million legal gun into 300 million illegal guns. Doesn't seem much of a improvement to me.

Tsk tsk mate. I thought you were smarter than this - the argument is not about taking ALL their guns, just the rapid fire assault style ones and implementing restrictions and background checks to keep the other guns away from the baddies as much as possible.

Nobody wants to take away ALL their guns, that's just propaganda from the nutters who want to distract and deflect from the actual argument.

originally posted by: Jansy
The criminal element in Chicago has absolutely no problem getting guns to commit violence...and yet Illinois/Chicago have some of the most stringent gun laws in the country.

I will admit that if you can walk into a sporting goods store or order on-line it might be slightly EASIER to obtain a gun. But gun control laws do NOTHING to prevent criminals, or those wishing to use a gun to harm others, from obtaining guns.

Sporting goods stores and online sales require paperwork and background checks. It is much easier for a criminal to get guns from their friends/family members/fellow criminals and the statistics indicate that's what they do.

I have no problem with legislation requiring registering firearms. I have no problem with more comprehensive background checks on those wishing to purchase firearms.

There's already a background check system. It's only partially effective because the government doesn't update it properly. They can't be relied upon to handle their own systems but people want to give them further control...

I have a problem with the pro-gun control crowd getting all jiggety over Roseburg or Sandy Hook, and completely overlooking Chicago or Detroit or any other inner-city war zone where gun control laws aren't controlling gun violence.

I agree completely. The only time we hear about gun control is when a white kid shoots other white kids. If 10 poor black people get shot in "the hood", nobody cares and it goes unreported.

Crack coc aine is illegal in this country...there are not just strong crack-control laws out there, the stuff is BANNED. Does it stop people from pushing it or using it? No. Stricter gun control laws will NOT prevent someone from going postal with a weapon...not now, not ever.

Excellent comparison. There are many parallels that can be drawn between the war on drugs, prohibition, and the push for gun control.

There is a lot of money to be made by banning a common item and the government knows this all too well.

You have to begin at the beginning. Take away the weapon...what is wrong with the PERSON??

That is how a rational person looks at the problem.

a reply to: crazyewok

Its a person issue to be sure.
I would think an APOLITICAL entity for a national mental health sytem.
Minus SSRI s of course which is what this one is looking more and more like another in a pattern of shooters who have used them.
SAY waht you will about weed in place of antidepressants,THEY don't kill for having used it.
I can tell you it GREATLY helps with depression.

a reply to: Indigo5

Nah their are more violent ways than guns to kill people.. It does not matter thou, if they want a gun they will get one.

originally posted by: crazyewok
Anyway to the people pointing our the UK and Australia as a example of gun control that worked, so it must work for the USA, your forgetting one flaw.


It worked for us as we never really had a gun culture to begin with. Even before the ban very few people had the guns that were banned.

The USA has hundreds of million of guns in circulation. If they banned guns in the USA those hundreds of millions of guns wont disappear magically will they?

You just turn 300 million legal gun into 300 million illegal guns. Doesn't seem much of a improvement to me.

And you, sir, are exactly correct! You can't compare the US to the UK or Australia because the cultures and levels of gun ownership were never the same to begin with. Further, as you also correctly point out, there's that pesky problem of confiscating 300+ million firearms.

a reply to: Answer

Pretty f'n pointless to have a no gun zone next to a gun zone don't you think..whether that zone is a zone or a whole city.
It's a bit late to try and control it now anyway.

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: vor78

I'm not responsible for what someone else does. My neighbor is not responsible for what someone else does. 100 million other law-abiding gun owners are not responsible for what someone else does.

You can try to play the shame/blame game, but its not going to work.

Actively helping to prevent laws that would reduce gun crime gives you a level of responsibility whether you like it or not.

You have no information to suggest that those laws would reduce gun crime so your statement is false.

There is no data in the US to suggest that mass shootings are reduced by stricter gun laws.

You're absolutely right.
Guns are already here...in many many homes...and have been for generations.
The government truly believes that the only way they ultimately stop gun violence is to literally go door to door and take away every single gun in the country.
Problem for them is this little thing called the constitution and it's second amendment.

Everything else they've done is pure politics and propaganda meant to pave the way for an eventual removal of that amendment.

Unfortunately for the citizens...if that would eventually happen, only the government will have firearms...exactly what the second amendment was written to avoid and protect them from.

originally posted by: crazyewok
Anyway to the people pointing our the UK and Australia as a example of gun control that worked, so it must work for the USA, your forgetting one flaw.


It worked for us as we never really had a gun culture to begin with. Even before the ban very few people had the guns that were banned.

The USA has hundreds of million of guns in circulation. If they banned guns in the USA those hundreds of millions of guns wont disappear magically will they?

You just turn 300 million legal gun into 300 million illegal guns. Doesn't seem much of a improvement to me.

Of course not, but over time it would improve.

With so many guns in circulation there is no quick fix, it's impossible, but they either carry on down the same road and see worse and worse attrocities like this, or accept it will still happen but will stop in several years time.

originally posted by: Answer

As the rest of my post pointed out, mass killings are carried out all the time with items that are not guns. The premise is "take away guns and mass killings stop.

NO...That is false premise put forward by the NRA et al.

The choice is not between nirvana and monthly mass killings.

It is about less people being killed. And inarguably the possession of guns designed well to kill people by people that should not own them facilitates more people dying.