New York Massacre

[got tonkaed]

I think you are trying to make something a political issue that isnt, at least in regards to current events.

Right to carry laws probably would have done diddly in the three recent shootings. One is in an immigration center where people are in class trying to learn English. I dont know a whole lot about what the standard would be, but i imagine there are far too many people who dislike immigrants enough to make right to carry difficult to apply in that situation.

The second case was a guy who lied in wait and shot 3 police officers, right to carry seems to apply absolutly zero here, as most people who argue that we should start arming our police officers are masters of the obvious.

The final case of the 5 children being shot appears to have been when the parents were not at home, and i cant remember a big push for arming children recently.

Stop calling things that arent ducks ducks.

[pmchugh]

I think you are trying to make something a political issue that isnt, at least in regards to current events.

Right to carry laws probably would have done diddly in the three recent shootings. One is in an immigration center where people are in class trying to learn English. I dont know a whole lot about what the standard would be, but i imagine there are far too many people who dislike immigrants enough to make right to carry difficult to apply in that situation.

The second case was a guy who lied in wait and shot 3 police officers, right to carry seems to apply absolutly zero here, as most people who argue that we should start arming our police officers are masters of the obvious.

The final case of the 5 children being shot appears to have been when the parents were not at home, and i cant remember a big push for arming children recently.

Stop calling things that arent ducks ducks.

But looking at the overall picture there would be far less gun deaths if they were illegal. Whether or not these are ducks, there are still plenty of ducks around.

Although I don't think it's really worth arguing as you can never change it due to public opinion, some people would never ever give up their guns.

[GabonX]

There is a universal failure to reduce gun violence in countries which have passed gun bans and in a larger sense there is a universal record of failure when government's try to ban just about anything (drugs, guns, alcohol, and even nuclear weapons in rouge nations). Gun violence in the UK has gone up since the 97 handgun ban and every state which recognizes people's right to carry sees a reduction in gun violence.

The situation at the immigration center is tragic, but had someone else there been armed 14 people who are dead today could still be alive.

The reason attributed to the man killing police officers in the second case is that the killer was afraid that Obama was going to take away his right to bear arms, hence we are already seeing an increase in violence just because of the suggestion of taking away people's civil rights.

The deaths of the children could have been avoided had they been taught how to properly handle firearms. Children should not go through school without taking a gun safety course, this is quite clearly a public health issue. Instead of teaching irrelevant science, advanced mathematics, literature, and other things which do not result in applicable life skills children should be learning important things like the proper function and maintenance of firearms.

The problem is the lack of knowledge about and proper use of firearms. It will only be corrected by an increase in responsible practices.

[joecoolfrog]

It strikes me, as a European observer, that this type of thing seems to be happening every week in the US. Don't any American's think that perhaps the gun laws need to be changed?
I know it happens in other places round the world too but definitely more often in US.

It's clear that the problem was that he was the only man in the building with a gun. The laws and culture need to change so that more people have the capability and will to defend themselves.

It's notable that in the UK and most other countries that pass gun restrictions violence has gone up, including gun violence, while every state which has adopted right to carry laws has seen a drop in violent crime within one year.

It is no coincedance that the city with the highest rate of gun violence in the country, Washington DC, also has the most restrictions placed on gun ownership.

How many innocent people must die before you wise up, the 3 cases mentioned prove your initial point to be redundant and what you further state as notable is in fact simply NRA propoganda. This has been pointed out to you several times in the past and backed up by statistics and links which you have chosen to ignore, more guns = more deaths and its nonsense to pretend otherwise.

[GabonX]

Nobody has provided a sufficient counter argument based on facts.

I have shown numerous times how gun restrictions have only ever resulted in an increase in gun violence and I have already addressed the three cases you're talking about.

There are also times of heightened social tension, which only occur once or twice a century, where having an armed populace is a very good thing for a nation. When these times come if the general population is not armed millions of people die without a means of defense.

Avoiding the holocaust would have been worth the limited violence which would have occurred prior to it had there been an armed populace.

[got tonkaed]

There is a universal failure to reduce gun violence in countries which have passed gun bans and in a larger sense there is a universal record of failure when government's try to ban just about anything (drugs, guns, alcohol, and even nuclear weapons in rouge nations). Gun violence in the UK has gone up since the 97 handgun ban and every state which recognizes people's right to carry sees a reduction in gun violence.

The situation at the immigration center is tragic, but had someone else there been armed 14 people who are dead today could still be alive.

The reason attributed to the man killing police officers in the second case is that the killer was afraid that Obama was going to take away his right to bear arms, hence we are already seeing an increase in violence just because of the suggestion of taking away people's civil rights.

The deaths of the children could have been avoided had they been taught how to properly handle firearms. Children should not go through school without taking a gun safety course, this is quite clearly a public health issue. Instead of teaching irrelevant science, advanced mathematics, literature, and other things which do not result in applicable life skills children should be learning important things like the proper function and maintenance of firearms.

The problem is the lack of knowledge about and proper use of firearms. It will only be corrected by an increase in responsible practices.

This reads like your just copypasting something off a talking points page for a gun rights advocacy group.

The hypotheticals you are providing are very distant from political and social realities and are about as useful as the arguments that gun crime went up by vastly large percentages after gun laws were passed in Australia (the real number of cases was minimally advanced).

I think anyone with a critical eye and not someone who is simply toeing the platform line can see how silly it is to argue right to carry out of these 3 situations. Right to carry is far from silly as a general rule and i wouldnt be surprised in the long run to see more states adopt more gun friendly laws. But to try and argue from these three cases that there should have been something done is basically just giving ammunition to anyone on this board who sarcastically replies to any thread "he should have had a gun". Your posting in this thread gives their baiting far more of a base in reality than it really should.

Your previously edited post has nothing to do with facts as it were, it is merely conjecture.

[GabonX]

The very essence of a gun, the reason why they are made, is to provide security. More guns in the hands of more people is infinitely more secure for the general population than only having guns in the hands of a few men with unknown intention and motivation.

The statistics and facts back the pro gun argument. Those who do not understand these things are choosing to ignore readily available facts.

[GabonX]

There is a universal failure to reduce gun violence in countries which have passed gun bans and in a larger sense there is a universal record of failure when government's try to ban just about anything (drugs, guns, alcohol, and even nuclear weapons in rouge nations). Gun violence in the UK has gone up since the 97 handgun ban and every state which recognizes people's right to carry sees a reduction in gun violence.

The situation at the immigration center is tragic, but had someone else there been armed 14 people who are dead today could still be alive.

The reason attributed to the man killing police officers in the second case is that the killer was afraid that Obama was going to take away his right to bear arms, hence we are already seeing an increase in violence just because of the suggestion of taking away people's civil rights.

The deaths of the children could have been avoided had they been taught how to properly handle firearms. Children should not go through school without taking a gun safety course, this is quite clearly a public health issue. Instead of teaching irrelevant science, advanced mathematics, literature, and other things which do not result in applicable life skills children should be learning important things like the proper function and maintenance of firearms.

The problem is the lack of knowledge about and proper use of firearms. It will only be corrected by an increase in responsible practices.

This reads like your just copypasting something off a talking points page for a gun rights advocacy group.

The hypotheticals you are providing are very distant from political and social realities and are about as useful as the arguments that gun crime went up by vastly large percentages after gun laws were passed in Australia (the real number of cases was minimally advanced).

I think anyone with a critical eye and not someone who is simply toeing the platform line can see how silly it is to argue right to carry out of these 3 situations. Right to carry is far from silly as a general rule and i wouldnt be surprised in the long run to see more states adopt more gun friendly laws. But to try and argue from these three cases that there should have been something done is basically just giving ammunition to anyone on this board who sarcastically replies to any thread "he should have had a gun". Your posting in this thread gives their baiting far more of a base in reality than it really should.

Your previously edited post has nothing to do with facts as it were, it is merely conjecture.

The three cases, all in different ways, demonstrate the need for a greater understanding and presence of firearms in society.

It's quite obvious that if someone else in New York had have been armed that the results would have been very different. There's really no arguing against this.

The deaths of the children could have been avoided had they been properly educated but to their grave misfortune they were not. Society failed them just as it failed the victims in New York and every other mass shooting.

The Pennsylvania incident is a prime example of what will become commonplace in the United States if there ever is a real effort to disarm the population, thereby violating a basic civil right.

[Snorri1234]

There is a universal failure to reduce gun violence in countries which have passed gun bans

Indeed. We got so much more gunviolence than the US. Every single criminal has a gun and everyone is terrified to leave their house over fear of getting shot. There is almost no economy anymore because people are afraid to go to work because 9 times out of ten they'll get shot anyway.

I read a story every single day about some nutjob who shot 20 people in his school. It is so sad that our government banned guns and then got themselves all killed because criminals had guns so killed them all because criminals had guns.


We should've totally let everyone have guns to fight back but because we are all commu-i mean socialist pussies we won't.

[got tonkaed]

The very essence of a gun, the reason why they are made, is to provide security. More guns in the hands of more people is infinitely more secure for the general population than only having guns in the hands of a few men with unknown intention and motivation.

The statistics and facts back the pro gun argument. Those who do not understand these things are choosing to ignore readily available facts.

that is all fine and good. It doesnt change your unnecessary politicizing of an issue to pursue your ideological gains. I find the whole more guns would be in more hands if there were no laws a little lukewarm of an argument at best. To assume that people who do not currently own guns would simply choose to do so and effectively train themselves to operate effectively in self defense if there were no laws against doing so is a pretty large leap. No one is going to make these people buy guns and if they do buy guns no one is going to make them use them safely.

On top of that it would require people to not only buy guns but essentially carry them most of the time. If we are talking about anything other than home invasion, simply owning guns is no guarantee of effective usage. So forgive most of us if we find your argument to essentially require continously gun carrying unrealisitic at best.


Its also quite obvious that in the New York case it would have been very unlikely that people would have given an immigrant of varying statuses possibly a gun. IF this was to start happening you would find numbers of people decrying the irresponsiblity of gun distributors for arming "illegals" as their argument would undoubtedly be tailored. Again it is fallacious to assume anyone would have been carrying their gun especially on the way to what is essentially a help center for various reasons.

And im sure that anyone of those children would have fired on their father. I think the pennsylvania incident shows that if people are misinformed and deluded enough to think whatever they would like to think, there will always be incidents no matter the level of carrying that is going on.

[joecoolfrog]

Here are some links that prove Gabon is just plain wrong, he has ignored them in the past though Note they were not cherrypicked but randomnly lifted from the first page of google.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/cr ... 32069.html

http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4210558.stm

[GabonX]

There is a universal failure to reduce gun violence in countries which have passed gun bans

Indeed. We got so much more gunviolence than the US. Every single criminal has a gun and everyone is terrified to leave their house over fear of getting shot. There is almost no economy anymore because people are afraid to go to work because 9 times out of ten they'll get shot anyway.

I read a story every single day about some nutjob who shot 20 people in his school. It is so sad that our government banned guns and then got themselves all killed because criminals had guns so killed them all because criminals had guns.


We should've totally let everyone have guns to fight back but because we are all commu-i mean socialist pussies we won't.

Holland is a very pacifist nation. It's hard to motivate the Dutch to do anything other than to pursue pleasure in my experience, and I know this first hand because of my family there.

As a direct result of this pacifism Holland has been conquered and divided many times over and millions of their people died as recently as the 40's as a result.

[joecoolfrog]

There is a universal failure to reduce gun violence in countries which have passed gun bans

Indeed. We got so much more gunviolence than the US. Every single criminal has a gun and everyone is terrified to leave their house over fear of getting shot. There is almost no economy anymore because people are afraid to go to work because 9 times out of ten they'll get shot anyway.

I read a story every single day about some nutjob who shot 20 people in his school. It is so sad that our government banned guns and then got themselves all killed because criminals had guns so killed them all because criminals had guns.


We should've totally let everyone have guns to fight back but because we are all commu-i mean socialist pussies we won't.

Holland is a very pacifist nation. It's hard to motivate the Dutch to do anything other than to pursue pleasure in my experience, and I know this first hand because of my family there.

As a direct result of this pacifism Holland has been conquered and divided many times over and millions of their people died as recently as the 40's as a result.

Yes and the British are even greater pacifists...ask anybody

[Nobunaga]

The very essence of a gun, the reason why they are made, is to provide security. More guns in the hands of more people is infinitely more secure for the general population than only having guns in the hands of a few men with unknown intention and motivation.

The statistics and facts back the pro gun argument. Those who do not understand these things are choosing to ignore readily available facts.

... Gabon, even as a Libertarian (so defined by that political test in other thread), I must disagree with the extent of your statement.

... Too many Americans are completely selfish bastards with very short tempers and a penchant for violence. Take for example a brawl I witnessed a few months back that resulted from some guy with his girlfriend (?) pulling out onto the street in front of another car. The second car pursued the couple to the red light, it's driver leapt out of the vehicle, as did the other ... violence ensued.

... What if these assholes had guns?

... Now, as for the carry permits, I am 100% for carry permits after rigid testing and training, but "More guns in the hands of more people is infinitely more secure for the general population" ... No way.

...

[GabonX]

Here are some links that prove Gabon is just plain wrong, he has ignored them in the past though Note they were not cherrypicked but randomnly lifted from the first page of google.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/cr ... 32069.html

http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4210558.stm

The first link provides no sources and I have provided numerous sources in the past which prove the exact opposite of what it says.

The second link is a picture which looks like it has sources but if you take the time to type in the web addresses you find that the pages do not exist. They depend on the laziness of the reader to not check their claims and I have addressed this very issue with this image before but apparently you did not take the time to read my post.

The third thing isn't even a link.

Trickery and lies, the defining characteristics of the anti gun argument.

[GabonX]

The very essence of a gun, the reason why they are made, is to provide security. More guns in the hands of more people is infinitely more secure for the general population than only having guns in the hands of a few men with unknown intention and motivation.

The statistics and facts back the pro gun argument. Those who do not understand these things are choosing to ignore readily available facts.

... Gabon, even as a Libertarian (so defined by that political test in other thread), I must disagree with the extent of your statement.

... Too many Americans are completely selfish bastards with very short tempers and a penchant for violence. Take for example a brawl I witnessed a few months back that resulted from some guy with his girlfriend (?) pulling out onto the street in front of another car. The second car pursued the couple to the red light, it's driver leapt out of the vehicle, as did the other ... violence ensued.

... What if these assholes had guns?

... Now, as for the carry permits, I am 100% for carry permits after rigid testing and training, but "More guns in the hands of more people is infinitely more secure for the general population" ... No way.

...

More guns in a society forces people to be civil. This is a good thing.

Those who are prone to violence and do not change this will be removed from the gene pool, social Darwinism at it's best.

[GabonX]

The very essence of a gun, the reason why they are made, is to provide security. More guns in the hands of more people is infinitely more secure for the general population than only having guns in the hands of a few men with unknown intention and motivation.

The statistics and facts back the pro gun argument. Those who do not understand these things are choosing to ignore readily available facts.

that is all fine and good. It doesnt change your unnecessary politicizing of an issue to pursue your ideological gains. I find the whole more guns would be in more hands if there were no laws a little lukewarm of an argument at best. To assume that people who do not currently own guns would simply choose to do so and effectively train themselves to operate effectively in self defense if there were no laws against doing so is a pretty large leap. No one is going to make these people buy guns and if they do buy guns no one is going to make them use them safely.

On top of that it would require people to not only buy guns but essentially carry them most of the time. If we are talking about anything other than home invasion, simply owning guns is no guarantee of effective usage. So forgive most of us if we find your argument to essentially require continously gun carrying unrealisitic at best.


Its also quite obvious that in the New York case it would have been very unlikely that people would have given an immigrant of varying statuses possibly a gun. IF this was to start happening you would find numbers of people decrying the irresponsiblity of gun distributors for arming "illegals" as their argument would undoubtedly be tailored. Again it is fallacious to assume anyone would have been carrying their gun especially on the way to what is essentially a help center for various reasons.

And im sure that anyone of those children would have fired on their father. I think the pennsylvania incident shows that if people are misinformed and deluded enough to think whatever they would like to think, there will always be incidents no matter the level of carrying that is going on.

Gun control would not increase the presence of guns in society but it would further skew the ratio of responsible gun owners to the number of not responsible ones.

In regards to immigrants having guns, somehow the shooter, who was an immigrant, got one legally. I do not believe that non Americans should be allowed to walk around armed in the United States but the fact is, apparently, that it is legal, which moots your point.

[Snorri1234]

Holland is a very pacifist nation. It's hard to motivate the Dutch to do anything other than to pursue pleasure in my experience, and I know this first hand because of my family there.

Actually, that's one of the most ignorant statements ever and it shows that even with your family you don't know the first thing about this county. We're pacifist because we have figured that being so small we might as well be better traders. We're pretty fucking rich for a country with only 16 million people and almost no natural resources.

As a direct result of this pacifism Holland has been conquered and divided many times over and millions of their people died as recently as the 40's as a result.

You got such a great knowledge of history. Seriously, it is awesome how you know so much. I wish I had learned about all the many times my country had been divided or conquered. And learned about the millions of "our" people who died in the '40s. (If you are referring to jews, it's just because we were far more friendly to nazi-thought since we loved the germans.)

I would love to see your explanation of history.

[Snorri1234]

More guns in a society forces people to be civil. This is a good thing.

The Wild West was the most civil place in the world.

Those who are prone to violence and do not change this will be removed from the gene pool, social Darwinism at it's best.

Ofcourse, your "social darwinism" society will basically have criminals on top.

[joecoolfrog]

Here are some links that prove Gabon is just plain wrong, he has ignored them in the past though Note they were not cherrypicked but randomnly lifted from the first page of google.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/cr ... 32069.html

http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4210558.stm

The first link provides no sources and I have provided numerous sources in the past which prove the exact opposite of what it says.

Not true - the article mentions the source of the data Also not true that you have provided any independent,unbiased data.

The second link is a picture which looks like it has sources but if you take the time to type in the web addresses you find that the pages do not exist. They depend on the laziness of the reader to not check their claims and I have addressed this very issue with this image before but apparently you did not take the time to read my post.

Dont know what you are looking at but this link has statistics, sources and links to further information

The third thing isn't even a link.

True this link doesnt work - take 10 seconds on google and you will find the article.

Trickery and lies, the defining characteristics of the gun lobby.

Yes you have proved that !

[Juan_Bottom]

If only there were Dutch Partisans during WWII.... if only... But alas, they are to pacafistic.... They didn't even help with the allied invasion for fear of participating.


Gee, I wish the Dutch would at least help with America's war on terror... but alas, they are to docile.... I can't even understand how they have their own nation...

[MeDeFe]

If only there were Dutch Partisans during WWII.... if only... But alas, they are to pacafistic.... They didn't even help with the allied invasion for fear of participating.


Gee, I wish the Dutch would at least help with America's war on terror... but alas, they are to docile.... I can't even understand how they have their own nation...

If you invade they'll flood you.

[Snorri1234]

The very essence of a gun, the reason why they are made, is to provide security. More guns in the hands of more people is infinitely more secure for the general population than only having guns in the hands of a few men with unknown intention and motivation.

The statistics and facts back the pro gun argument. Those who do not understand these things are choosing to ignore readily available facts.

... Gabon, even as a Libertarian (so defined by that political test in other thread), I must disagree with the extent of your statement.

... Too many Americans are completely selfish bastards with very short tempers and a penchant for violence. Take for example a brawl I witnessed a few months back that resulted from some guy with his girlfriend (?) pulling out onto the street in front of another car. The second car pursued the couple to the red light, it's driver leapt out of the vehicle, as did the other ... violence ensued.

... What if these assholes had guns?

... Now, as for the carry permits, I am 100% for carry permits after rigid testing and training, but "More guns in the hands of more people is infinitely more secure for the general population" ... No way.

...

Indeed. If you are going to have guns you need to very, very strict about it. Extensive background checks and rigid testing and training for carry permits are very much needed. Giving everyone a gun defeats the point behind "responsible, reasonable people having to right to own a gun". Now, I'm inclined to think that the only proper training is that of the police and military, but I'm open to the idea that some people could live up to it without becoming a police-officer. (Though with the amount of training I perceive to be neccesary I wonder why anyone but them would want to do it.)


If owning a gun is a civil right, okay. But unless you want a lawless society you need to make rules for that gun-ownership. If you do manage to pass the test and own a gun, the gun needs to be stored in an place which is easy to acces for you but difficult for anyone else. (i.e a locked save with a password only you know in your bedroom is okay, but just a cabinet in your basement isn't.)

[b.k. barunt]

The main problem i see in this country as far as gun violence is concerned, is not guns, but a marked failure on the part of the justice system to properly punish those who use them illegally. WTF is with paroling someone who has murdered someone? I have a friend who spent 3 years for armed robbery, and another who did 5 for smoking (not dealing) crack. Go figure.

The main reason for the 2nd amendment is to have an armed populace so that a tyrant could not easily take control of the country. I for one fear our government more than i do the criminals.


Honibaz

[Snorri1234]

If only there were Dutch Partisans during WWII.... if only... But alas, they are to pacafistic.... They didn't even help with the allied invasion for fear of participating.


Gee, I wish the Dutch would at least help with America's war on terror... but alas, they are to docile.... I can't even understand how they have their own nation...

Indeed. Considering the huge amount of countless times we've been run over or conquered it is very weird that we've managed to form a nation. I also wonder how we managed to keep a sort-off monopoly on eastern trade in the 17th century.


We totally would've supported the US in the war on terror, but we were too scared. And we were too busy pursueing pleasure and being conquered.