Colorado Governor Hickenlooper won’t blame gun laws for theater shooting

[Teh One Who Knocks]

by Eli Stokols - FOX 31 Denver


DENVER – Pressed by interviewers to comment on Colorado’s gun laws during three appearances Sunday morning on national news shows, Gov. John Hickenlooper just wouldn’t go there, expressing doubt that tougher gun control laws would have prevented suspected shooter James Holmes from mowing down 70 unsuspecting moviegoers just after midnight Friday.

“This person, if there were no assault weapons available, if there were no this or no that, this guy’s going to find something, right? He’s going to know how to create a bomb,” Hickenlooper said when pressed by CNN’s Candy Crowley on her show, “State of the Union”.

“Who knows where his mind would have gone? Clearly a very intelligent individual, however twisted.”

Hickenlooper noted that Holmes isn’t cooperating with police and described the 24-year-old neuroscience student as “diabolical” and a “twisted, really delusional individual.”

On ABC’s “This Week”, Hickenlooper similarly refocused questions about gun laws on the disturbed individuals who put them to deadly use.

“I’m sure [a conversation about gun control] is going to happen but this wasn’t a Colorado,” Hickenlooper said. “This is a human problem and how we can have such a warped individual and no one around be aware.”

Congressman Ed Perlmutter, D-Golden, took a different view.

On Sunday’s episode of CBS’s “Face the Nation”, Perlmutter said that Congress should reinstate a ban on assault weapons in the U.S. that included the AR-15 semiautomatic that Holmes used inside the theater.

That assault weapons ban expired in 2004; and while President Obama talked about renewing it on the campaign trail in 2008, he hasn’t followed through.

Pointing out that the suspect had enough ammunition “for a small army,” Perlmutter said “there’s something wrong with that.”

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has been the most outspoken public official calling for stricter gun control laws since the Aurora shooting, as has Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.
Denver Mayor Michael Hancock is a member of the “Coalition of Mayors Against Illegal Guns”, but hasn’t touched on the subject of gun laws since the Aurora theater shooting and declined FOX31′s request to interview him on the subject.

[Acid Trip]

Good on the governor.

[Noilly Pratt]

A motivated killer will find a way to get a gun if that's what they want, laws or no laws. The laws are needed for more crimes of opportunity, rather than the plotted, premeditated ones.

[Acid Trip]

A motivated killer will find a way to get a gun if that's what they want, laws or no laws. The laws are needed for more crimes of opportunity, rather than the plotted, premeditated ones.

That and the fact Aurora, CO has some of the strictest gun laws on the books already.

[Arkady Renko]

seems like this particular killer would indeed have been able to use bombs instead if he hadn't gotten his hands on an assault rifle, seeing how he booby-trapped his flat. But by and large it would seem like a good idea to ban assault rifles for private buyers. They make killing large numbers of people a lot easier and I can't really see any reasonable explanation why someone would need one.

[Hal-9000]

seems like this particular killer would indeed have been able to use bombs instead if he hadn't gotten his hands on an assault rifle, seeing how he booby-trapped his flat. But by and large it would seem like a good idea to ban assault rifles for private buyers. They make killing large numbers of people a lot easier and I can't really see any reasonable explanation why someone would need one.

Using a gun will always be easier than trying to build a device that may not work...or using a knife to try and take down 50 people within 10 seconds...

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Using a gun will always be easier than trying to build a device that may not work...or using a knife to try and take down 50 people within 10 seconds...

For $30 someone could have killed everyone in the theater....chains, padlocks, and 5 gallons of gasoline...no firearm needed.

[PorkChopSandwiches]

If the gun laws allowed carry and concealed he would have killed 1 person.

[Hal-9000]

:lol:

unbelievable...you guys are hilarious

[PorkChopSandwiches]

Im serious :-k

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Im serious :-k

So was I :dunno:

[Muddy]

Using a gun will always be easier than trying to build a device that may not work...or using a knife to try and take down 50 people within 10 seconds...

I agree..

[Hal-9000]

I'll paraphrase Meur's post....assault rifles make killing large numbers of people easier.


Using examples of chaining theater doors shut while somehow coating the theater with gasoline is absurd in comparison...it's the ease of killing we're talking about.

:lol: I had a few other lines but will not post...there's no point anymore.

You guys keep worshiping the altar of the gun, love the gun...for it's never the problem when 20 people die :tup:

[Teh One Who Knocks]

And you keep pushing the guns are evil agenda, so I guess we're even :agreed:

[Hal-9000]

I know you are but what am I? :lol:


I don't think that's accurate or fair Lance. I don't push any agenda. I read a story like this, see the common denominator and comment. I guess if some guy busted into a theater with a whiffle bat and killed and injured over 50 people within 60 seconds, I'd make the same observation about whiffle bats.

[Acid Trip]

You guys keep worshiping the altar of the gun, love the gun...for it's never the problem when 20 people die :tup:

My guns don't have ammo unless someone loads them. My guns don't aim at people unless someone aims them. My guns doesn't fire unless someone pulls the trigger.

So how is it that my guns are the problem again?

[Muddy]

I think we should give the black people Canada and they can have their own chocolate country..

[PorkChopSandwiches]

As long as they stay unarmed

[Hal-9000]

My guns don't have ammo unless someone loads them. My guns don't aim at people unless someone aims them. My guns doesn't fire unless someone pulls the trigger.

So how is it that my guns are the problem again?

I'll assume you're serious and I'll bite...


I want to hurt someone or a group of people. I live in Canada so it's pretty hard for me to procure a gun on short notice. But since my resolve is strong, I will find a gun and commit my heinous act.

Same example except I live in the States. Guns are easier to get there. If you want to argue that point, don't do it with me....


Now if anyone cares to read and acknowledge what Meurasault posted and I agreed with, it's that guns are the easiest/fastest way for cowards to commit crimes of this nature against multiple targets. You don't have to be big or strong or clever or have training in martial arts... to kill people with a gun.


Now let's take a step back...let's say that we all live in Hal's Utopia and guns are so hard to get, that if a civilian is seen with one, they get the death penalty/no appeal. Only military and law enforcement can have guns.Logic dictates that yes, people will find other methods to kill people. They'll use knives, create bombs and find select whiffle ball bats that will kill people.

Having exposure to guns (ease of procurement) makes the criminal's job that much easier. If he absolutely does not have access to semi automatic firearms one of two things will happen: He'll back down from his plan or he will have to find another method to execute it. I've NEVER said that a criminal WON'T walk into a theater and try and stab 50 people with a knife. In my Utopia, that may become the norm for news stories.....


What I have said is this - Guns are an easy and fast method to kill people. This is not about how diligent you guys are with your licensing/training/actions that you have carried out with your personal firearms.


So AT when you make a post about 'your' guns aiming, loading, discharging themselves without your help.....you're really not addressing my post or thoughts on the subject. You're making a sarcastic comment in the guise of defending your own actions with guns. The moment I read about you, or Kevin, or Lance mowing down multiple people in public, we'll have that conversation :tup:

[Acid Trip]

I'll assume you're serious and I'll bite...


I want to hurt someone or a group of people. I live in Canada so it's pretty hard for me to procure a gun on short notice. But since my resolve is strong, I will find a gun and commit my heinous act.

Same example except I live in the States. Guns are easier to get there. If you want to argue that point, don't do it with me....


Now if anyone cares to read and acknowledge what Meurasault posted and I agreed with, it's that guns are the easiest/fastest way for cowards to commit crimes of this nature against multiple targets. You don't have to be big or strong or clever or have training in martial arts... to kill people with a gun.


Now let's take a step back...let's say that we all live in Hal's Utopia and guns are so hard to get, that if a civilian is seen with one, they get the death penalty/no appeal. Only military and law enforcement can have guns.Logic dictates that yes, people will find other methods to kill people. They'll use knives, create bombs and find select whiffle ball bats that will kill people.

Having exposure to guns (ease of procurement) makes the criminal's job that much easier. If he absolutely does not have access to semi automatic firearms one of two things will happen: He'll back down from his plan or he will have to find another method to execute it. I've NEVER said that a criminal WON'T walk into a theater and try and stab 50 people with a knife. In my Utopia, that may become the norm for news stories.....


What I have said is this - Guns are an easy and fast method to kill people. This is not about how diligent you guys are with your licensing/training/actions that you have carried out with your personal firearms.


So AT when you make a post about 'your' guns aiming, loading, discharging themselves without your help.....you're really not addressing my post or thoughts on the subject. You're making a sarcastic comment in the guise of defending your own actions with guns. The moment I read about you, or Kevin, or Lance mowing down multiple people in public, we'll have that conversation :tup:

Yes I am, you said guns are the problem. I clearly showed that my guns (like all guns) cannot harm anyone without being manipulated. So again, explain how guns (inanimate objects) are responsible.

Nobody is denying that you can kill people faster with a gun. The entire premise of a weapon is to kill. Who or what gets killed is entirely up to the wielder.

[Hal-9000]

Yes I am, you said guns are the problem. I clearly showed that my guns (like all guns) cannot harm anyone without being manipulated. So again, explain how guns (inanimate objects) are responsible.

Nobody is denying that you can kill people faster with a gun. The entire premise of a weapon is to kill. Who or what gets killed is entirely up to the wielder.

I think my post may have said - guns are never the problem. I'll stand by that because again....this is not about you or even the crazy user. You're diluting the argument to read - It's all about the user, not the weapon. A different discussion once again.

If the semi-auto gun wasn't available, he couldn't have gunned down over 50 people in that period of time. Speed and ease is the contention, not your will to do the right thing when you hold a gun.

[Acid Trip]

I think my post may have said - guns are never the problem. I'll stand by that because again....this is not about you or even the crazy user. You're diluting the argument to read - It's all about the user, not the weapon. A different discussion once again.

If the semi-auto gun wasn't available, he couldn't have gunned down over 50 people in that period of time. Speed and ease is the contention, not your will to do the right thing when you hold a gun.

Sorry Hal but anyone who blames inanimate objects for the actions of a human being has lost their f'ing mind.

When a car kills a pedestrian do we charge the car with murder? No, so why are you doing that with firearms?

[Hal-9000]

Sorry Hal but anyone who blames inanimate objects for the actions of a human being has lost their f'ing mind.

When a car kills a pedestrian do we charge the car with murder? No, so why are you doing that with firearms?



GUNS KILL PEOPLE QUICKER AND EASIER THAN OTHER WEAPONS



\

:lol: we're not on the same page, peace out brother..I gotta buy a whiffle ball bat

[Muddy]

People should be allowed to own nuclear weapons..

[Hugh_Janus]

People should be allowed to own nuclear weapons..

its only a matter of time.... hell, this thing is legal to own over there :lol:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSp7CipN1pw

[Muddy]

Shiiiiit!!!

[Hugh_Janus]

I know right!! I'm so jealous :lol:

I wonder if lance will get one for his new "back yard" :-k

[KevinD]

Here's my problem with the "Assault Weapons Ban"

Define for me an Assault weapon.

Let's be clear. An AR-15 is NOT a military rifle in the sense that it is fully automatic. It LOOKS like an AR-16 which is fully automatic (or was when I was active duty, now they have that silly 3 round bust pos) I do believe that there is no conceivable reason why a private citizen needs a fully auto weapon. Semi auto on the other hand, yes, those should be available. Take away semi auto weapons, and you are left with pump action, lever action, revolvers or single shot weapons. These are not viable means of defense, as referenced by the 2nd amendment imho.
Being as this guy used firearms ( for lack of evidence otherwise, I will assume he got them legally) you can make a case that he shouldn't have had the ability to do so. But, how do you decide that? He was not a prior criminal, so, he did in fact have the right to purchase firearms. There is already a background check required before you can purchase a firearm from a dealer, plus whatever else my be local to Aurora, what more do you need/want? Do you want firearms taken away totally? Only way this can happen in the US is to change the 2nd amendment, which due to what would be needed, won't happen in our lifetime, and will in my opinion, only result in criminals having firearms. That's gonna work well too.

For those who blame the guns (or ease of access to such) I'd like to see a well thought out reply to how you would legally, and legitimately stop something like this from happening again. Let's not forget Norway (about a year ago iirc) and what happened there with some of the most strict firearms laws in the western world.

I really would like to know your opinion on how to prevent these things from happening.

[Jezter]

I know everyone already knows my views are very much like Hal's on this matter. I do understand "guns don't kille people, people kill people" is true. However, it is just made a little bit too easy for even the pettiest crimial to start act tough by getting a huge arsenal of guns. The gun laws enables people to have the attitude that everything can be solved with guns. Soon even the smallest arguments will be solved with guns. It is still the wielders act, yes, but it just is that much easier decision to start doing something when you can so easily get your hands on big guns. So kinda like Hal said... much easier to mow down 50 people in a blink of an eye or shoot down your neighbor in the heat of the moment after having an argument about his dog shitting on your lawn.

Peace out.

[Jezter]

For those who blame the guns (or ease of access to such) I'd like to see a well thought out reply to how you would legally, and legitimately stop something like this from happening again.

The kind of things will never stop happening. There will always be crazy people and bad people. Insane things will always happen. Guns, bombs, car bombs, suicide bombs, kamikaze strikes...what ever it is, a crazy, resolute motherfucker will find a way to do it. There's no question about that.

However, like Hal well put it here "Having exposure to guns (ease of procurement) makes the criminal's job that much easier. If he absolutely does not have access to semi automatic firearms one of two things will happen: He'll back down from his plan or he will have to find another method to execute it. " So when a heartbroken mofo gets an idea to kill his ex gf and her new bf, the ease of getting the gun(s) to do it might just drive him over the edge. If it were not so easy, he might just back down on the idea or atleast give the victims a chance to fight back instead of just gunning them down from distance.

[Arkady Renko]

Here's my problem with the "Assault Weapons Ban"

Define for me an Assault weapon.

Let's be clear. An AR-15 is NOT a military rifle in the sense that it is fully automatic. It LOOKS like an AR-16 which is fully automatic (or was when I was active duty, now they have that silly 3 round bust pos) I do believe that there is no conceivable reason why a private citizen needs a fully auto weapon. Semi auto on the other hand, yes, those should be available. Take away semi auto weapons, and you are left with pump action, lever action, revolvers or single shot weapons. These are not viable means of defense, as referenced by the 2nd amendment imho.
Being as this guy used firearms ( for lack of evidence otherwise, I will assume he got them legally) you can make a case that he shouldn't have had the ability to do so. But, how do you decide that? He was not a prior criminal, so, he did in fact have the right to purchase firearms. There is already a background check required before you can purchase a firearm from a dealer, plus whatever else my be local to Aurora, what more do you need/want? Do you want firearms taken away totally? Only way this can happen in the US is to change the 2nd amendment, which due to what would be needed, won't happen in our lifetime, and will in my opinion, only result in criminals having firearms. That's gonna work well too.

For those who blame the guns (or ease of access to such) I'd like to see a well thought out reply to how you would legally, and legitimately stop something like this from happening again. Let's not forget Norway (about a year ago iirc) and what happened there with some of the most strict firearms laws in the western world.

I really would like to know your opinion on how to prevent these things from happening.

it's all about the odds. Even in a country like Norway, a guy like Breivik who set his mind to it and spent years planning the attacks in Utoya island, will have a good chance of accomplishing what he set out to do. It would require a nightmarish police/surveillance state to prevent crimes like Breivik's altogehter and even so the odd particularly clever madman would find a way to proxy the safeguards. BUT what they do achieve there is that a case like Breivik's is the one case they've had since their country was founded. In the US on the other hand, there's a history of killing sprees in fairly close succession, to a point where people have somehow gotten used to it. Only the most drastic cases such as Columbine, Virginia Tech or the current case make waves anymore. Someone snaps and goes berzerk, odds are it'll get a lot uglier if they have easy access to guns, more so when it's assault rifles. After all, there's a reason soldiers don't go into battle with a baseball bat or a hunting rifle.

[FBD]

no, it doesnt require a nightmarish police state. :roll: ffs, I'm at a loss to understand why non-americans just dont seem to get this.

look, the dude came heavily armored and had an exit plan. he didnt want to die in that movie theater.

as is proven time and again, the greatest deterrent to some fuck doing something like this is the notion that there is likely half a dozen concealed carry motherfuckers in the location he is thinking of attacking. that changes all of the odds hugely right there, does not require any police state -

all it requires is that the government trust its citizens with rights they already have.

[Acid Trip]

no, it doesnt require a nightmarish police state. :roll: ffs, I'm at a loss to understand why non-americans just dont seem to get this.

look, the dude came heavily armored and had an exit plan. he didnt want to die in that movie theater.

as is proven time and again, the greatest deterrent to some fuck doing something like this is the notion that there is likely half a dozen concealed carry motherfuckers in the location he is thinking of attacking. that changes all of the odds hugely right there, does not require any police state -

all it requires is that the government trust its citizens with rights they already have.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mm9o3vhKoF8

[Arkady Renko]

ffs, I'm at a loss to understand why non-americans just dont seem to get this.

easily explained for me: because guns are not our national fetish, cars are.

Apart from that, your logic is too simplistic. You assume blindly that somehow magically guns will regularly end up in the hands of responsible people with the odd exception.

[Jezter]

no, it doesnt require a nightmarish police state. :roll: ffs, I'm at a loss to understand why non-americans just dont seem to get this.

look, the dude came heavily armored and had an exit plan. he didnt want to die in that movie theater.

as is proven time and again, the greatest deterrent to some fuck doing something like this is the notion that there is likely half a dozen concealed carry motherfuckers in the location he is thinking of attacking. that changes all of the odds hugely right there, does not require any police state -

all it requires is that the government trust its citizens with rights they already have.

So arming everyone up to their teeth to make you all one man/woman armies is the answer? Shoot first or be shot? Yeah...that's awesome.

[PorkChopSandwiches]

So arming everyone up to their teeth to make you all one man/woman armies is the answer? Shoot first or be shot? Yeah...that's awesome.

Not exactly, but when an asshole like this walks in and opens fire, you have a way to retaliate.

[Jezter]

Not exactly, but when an asshole like this walks in and opens fire, you have a way to retaliate.

Provided you have not already been hit, that you can aim in the chaos, you have not already shat yourself trying to get cover, can function in the chaos and panic... all the while dude is laying down a barrage out of his automatic weapon.

[FBD]

Sorry Jez, your argument is still swiss cheese.

What is the only thing that stops these mass murder events from continuing? The arrival of firepower on the 'good' side.

Concealed carry is not one being "armed to the teeth" by any sense of the word. Like Porky said, it is a means for honest, law abiding citizens to protect themselves. The perps dont give two shits about the law, and these restrictions merely guarantee that the nutjob hellbent on a sensational event is going after an unarmed crowd. Like in my example, what if there were two...three...six concealed carry operators in the fully packed theater? Changes the equation just a bit, dunnit?

I know, its nice to imagine a peaceful world with no guns, bad guys, full of hope, love, and unicorns, but let's be honest - that's a fkn fairytale and you know it.

And..."somehow" guns wind up in the hands of responsible people?? wth? :lol: That is called an informed and responsible citizenry going forth and exercising their right to protect themselves. If there werent such a stigma from the progressives who want a disarmed citizenry, you wouldnt have "guns are bad, mkay, only evil people have guns," you'd have knowledgeable and experienced everyday people right there in the woodwork, the vast majority you never even know are packing...until the shit hits the fan and instead of the entire crowd cowering at the sight of one person with a firearm, you have a good handful or more that are well prepared to protect the lives of innocents.

Provided you havent already been hit my ass - one can come up with endless little revisions to the story that attempt to throw a monkey wrench into the argument. They dont work, they do not even so much as chip away at the premise of my argument.

:)

[Acid Trip]

If nobody but "the authority" has guns then what's to stop said authority from imposing their will on the people? Nothing.

Let's look at Syria. The Syrian people started protesting and the government started killing them. Now the rebels have weapons and the established authority is starting to collapse. It took organization and guns before the Syrian people could get their point across to their armed masters. So without weapons a revolution (good or bad) cannot happen.

Free speech and everything else you Europeans/Australians/Asians/Africans/Americans take for granted were won for you by people who were carrying guns!

Ironic isn't it?

[Jezter]

There couldn't be much more different views and people than me vs. AT & FBD... and well, pretty much anyone else than HAL and JoeyB. I feel so alone at times trying to bring my views just get walls of text telling me my why opinion is so wrong. It is almost funny at times. :D So that is the good thing. And that I don't get butthurt too easy.

[PorkChopSandwiches]

http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/095/554/Surprise-buttsecks.jpg

[Jezter]

http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/095/554/Surprise-buttsecks.jpg

http://i722.photobucket.com/albums/ww221/TehFoxxeh/Random/buttsechs.jpg

[Hugh_Janus]

Not exactly, but when an asshole like this walks in and opens fire, you have a way to retaliate.
this is the bit I like....

what if as FBD says, there are 6 people retaliating and in the confusion, every motherfucker starts shooting at every other motherfucker?

[Muddy]

this is the bit I like....

what if as FBD says, there are 6 people retaliating and in the confusion, every motherfucker starts shooting at every other motherfucker?

Well... guns are legal and no one retaliated so it's a moot point...

[Teh One Who Knocks]

this is the bit I like....

what if as FBD says, there are 6 people retaliating and in the confusion, every motherfucker starts shooting at every other motherfucker?

If "ifs and buts" were candy and nuts, every day would be Christmas ;)

[FBD]

There couldn't be much more different views and people than me vs. AT & FBD... and well, pretty much anyone else than HAL and JoeyB. I feel so alone at times trying to bring my views just get walls of text telling me my why opinion is so wrong. It is almost funny at times. :D So that is the good thing. And that I don't get butthurt too easy.

You know I respect ya, Jez - I just try to be comprehensive by nature. The thing is, given the reality on the ground over here and the history that made everything as it stands basically necessitates us "gun aficionadoes" point of view here. Any other way simply creates a ton of victims when its some asshole crazy with wanton violence, and it is a shame. Now, when someone's hellbent on killing you, specifically...you're going to have a very tough time accounting for every situation - see knife crime in britain. (I dunno about you but I'd rather go by shooting than stabbing...unless the stabber really knew what he was doing :lol:) So its really a neverending set of restrictions as government attempts to "solve" these "problems" - as opposed to society spontaneously self-organizing and acting in a free manner.

Its an individual responsibility thing. Please - 'splain to me your point in general terms, as I have with my point. I mean, to have what I'm seeing your view as, you basically need the entire country to be a freakin singapore police state with vicious punishment meted out by the government on a regular basis just to keep people in line. (An idea which is abhorrent to "any red blooded american.")

(Then again, any attempts to apply that to america...well, we see what progressives attempt to do at every turn, control the populace...clinton, daley, obama, dc, look at places where they restrict people's access and it is always just restricting almost entirely otherwise law abiding people. The control mechanisms are simply incompatible with this country...)

[Lambchop]

There couldn't be much more different views and people than me vs. AT & FBD... and well, pretty much anyone else than HAL and JoeyB. I feel so alone at times trying to bring my views just get walls of text telling me my why opinion is so wrong. It is almost funny at times. :D So that is the good thing. And that I don't get butthurt too easy.
You're being true to yourself and everyone can respect that. I saw quite a few people change their views just to fit in with the consensus in the past over at AS.

[Hal-9000]

You're being true to yourself and everyone can respect that. I saw quite a few people change their views just to fit in with the consensus in the past over at AS.

And I shot each and every one of those turncoats in the back :x

[Lambchop]

btw I'm a liberal hippy who agrees with social benefits for the poor/ill. Long live the warm hearted kind folk of the shire!!11!one!

[Hal-9000]

btw I'm a liberal hippy who agrees with social benefits for the poor/ill. Long live the warm hearted kind folk of the shire!!11!one!

:copout:

Tell the kind folks your views on guns and gun control you wuss :lol:

[Lambchop]

:copout:

Tell the kind folks your views on guns and gun control you wuss :lol:
They should have metal detectors and armed guards at every public venue at a minimum. Increased taxes to pay for all of the required security and equipment, frequent random frisk searches, a ban on any firearm that can kill an entire group of people in mere seconds, a more comprehensive assessment for prospective gun owners. No point saying that all guns should be removed because that will never happen (as much as I would like this). Scrap the NRA, a gun is a weapon and not an idol for worship.

imo

[Hal-9000]

They should have metal detectors and armed guards at every public venue at a minimum. Increased taxes to pay for all of the required security and equipment, frequent random frisk searches, a ban on any firearm that can kill an entire group of people in mere seconds, a more comprehensive assessment for prospective gun owners. No point saying that all guns should be removed because that will never happen (as much as I would like this). Scrap the NRA, a gun is a weapon and not an idol for worship.

imo

If you were female, I'd be banging you right now. Thanks...I agree with much that you've wrote.

[FBD]

They should have metal detectors and armed guards at every public venue at a minimum. Increased taxes to pay for all of the required security and equipment, frequent random frisk searches, a ban on any firearm that can kill an entire group of people in mere seconds, a more comprehensive assessment for prospective gun owners. No point saying that all guns should be removed because that will never happen (as much as I would like this). Scrap the NRA, a gun is a weapon and not an idol for worship.

imo
gahdam...and I thought the police state we already live in is bad, where cops apply law selectively and abuse the power of their position to apply the law as they see fit - so what of the huge amount of abuses that happen under such a system, and the resultant class separation of favored and not? you dont escape it either way, imbalance is the norm, not the exception.

hm, no 4th amendment, government can abuse you at will and to whatever extent...

we already have a ban on automatic weapons...

and people can no longer freely associate? (nra)

no offense to you personally, but PC brainwash has really done a number on ya englishmen. turn a nation of men into pansies in a generation or two, just make sure you send yer youngens to public school...

and its not the 'peacenik' part of it...I may come across a little harsh at times but honestly I'm a rather gentle person, but I have a strong suit for individual responsibility, especially as a counter to over-parenting, over-governing, basically taking away the freedoms that makes being a human a wonderful and desirable thing - but what galls me is the utter lack of any desire to stand up for oneself that's rampant in the politically correct culture. ya dont do jack shit about anything - ya go raise your hand and tell, instead. I see it with the generation growing up in america today, and it is a saddening thing - the government treats citizens like cattle that need to be herded around into doing the proper things, and the educational system is indoctrinating kids into believing this is the proper right way to do things.

sorry if that sounded harsh, but often times speaking plainly...is harsh.

[Muddy]

Pretty good writing there fbd... Helped me understand your views a little better..

[KevinD]

Okay, still not seeing any comprehensive solution to said problem:

How do you prevent someone from killing others with gun(s)

Oh, and BTW, there were NO automatic weapons involved here (or any other recent one that I can remember) Average Joe, cannot at get a automatic weapon legally.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Average Joe, cannot at get a automatic weapon legally.

That's not true, US citizens that are legally allowed to own firearms can also apply to get an NFA firearm (in this case, a fully automatic weapon):


Legal possession of an NFA firearm by an individual requires transfer of registration within the NFA registry. An individual owner does not need to be an NFA dealer to buy Title II firearms. The sale and purchase of NFA firearms is, however, taxed and regulated, as follows:

All NFA items must be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF). Private owners wishing to purchase an NFA item must obtain approval from the ATF, obtain a signature from the Chief Law Enforcement Officer (CLEO) who is the county sheriff or city or town chief of police (not necessarily permission), pass an extensive background check to include submitting a photograph and fingerprints, fully register the firearm, receive ATF written permission before moving the firearm across state lines, and pay a tax. The request to transfer ownership of an NFA item is made on an ATF Form 4.[14] Many times law enforcement officers will not sign the NFA documents. There have been several unfavorable lawsuits where plaintiffs have been denied NFA approval for a transfer. These lawsuit include; Lomont v. O'Neill 2002 9th circuit, Westfall v. Miller 1996 5th circuit, and Steele v. National Firearms Branch 1985 11th circuit. In response Tennessee and Alaska have passed state laws which require the CLEO to execute the NFA documents. On October 28, 2010 in response to a writ of mandamus a Tennessee Williamson County Chancellor Robbie Beal found that the sheriff or CLEO is not required to execute NFA documents according to Tenn. Code Ann. 39-17-1361

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act

[KevinD]

I understand that, and perhaps should have worded it better: Automatic weapons are harder to get legally. Average Joe doesn't have one due to the process to legally obtain an automatic weapon.

[Lambchop]

gahdam...and I thought the police state we already live in is bad, where cops apply law selectively and abuse the power of their position to apply the law as they see fit - so what of the huge amount of abuses that happen under such a system, and the resultant class separation of favored and not? you dont escape it either way, imbalance is the norm, not the exception.

hm, no 4th amendment, government can abuse you at will and to whatever extent...

we already have a ban on automatic weapons...

and people can no longer freely associate? (nra)

no offense to you personally, but PC brainwash has really done a number on ya englishmen. turn a nation of men into pansies in a generation or two, just make sure you send yer youngens to public school...

and its not the 'peacenik' part of it...I may come across a little harsh at times but honestly I'm a rather gentle person, but I have a strong suit for individual responsibility, especially as a counter to over-parenting, over-governing, basically taking away the freedoms that makes being a human a wonderful and desirable thing - but what galls me is the utter lack of any desire to stand up for oneself that's rampant in the politically correct culture. ya dont do jack shit about anything - ya go raise your hand and tell, instead. I see it with the generation growing up in america today, and it is a saddening thing - the government treats citizens like cattle that need to be herded around into doing the proper things, and the educational system is indoctrinating kids into believing this is the proper right way to do things.

sorry if that sounded harsh, but often times speaking plainly...is harsh.
How do you know that you haven't been indoctrinated and that your train of thought isn't merely the recycled ideologies of others who wanted you to think in the exact manner that you do?

Not sure about the nation of pansies but personally I wasn't over-parented, I was educated privately (~£19,000 per year - thanks daddy), the majority of my health care has been private with the exception of a few blood tests and an MRI scan. I was surrounded by conservative people growing up due to the nature of my father's work but I try to form my own opinions and if anything, I give more than I take as far as society is concerned.

I could never take anything you say harsh at all. I just find it amusing that you think that anyone who opposes your views must have been indoctrinated, is lazy and wants everything for free. That, to me, is a true sign of someone who has been brainwashed.

[Jezter]

You know I respect ya, Jez - I just try to be comprehensive by nature. The thing is, given the reality on the ground over here and the history that made everything as it stands basically necessitates us "gun aficionadoes" point of view here. Any other way simply creates a ton of victims when its some asshole crazy with wanton violence, and it is a shame. Now, when someone's hellbent on killing you, specifically...you're going to have a very tough time accounting for every situation - see knife crime in britain. (I dunno about you but I'd rather go by shooting than stabbing...unless the stabber really knew what he was doing :lol:) So its really a neverending set of restrictions as government attempts to "solve" these "problems" - as opposed to society spontaneously self-organizing and acting in a free manner.

Its an individual responsibility thing. Please - 'splain to me your point in general terms, as I have with my point. I mean, to have what I'm seeing your view as, you basically need the entire country to be a freakin singapore police state with vicious punishment meted out by the government on a regular basis just to keep people in line. (An idea which is abhorrent to "any red blooded american.")

(Then again, any attempts to apply that to america...well, we see what progressives attempt to do at every turn, control the populace...clinton, daley, obama, dc, look at places where they restrict people's access and it is always just restricting almost entirely otherwise law abiding people. The control mechanisms are simply incompatible with this country...)
I agree that the control mechanisms are incompatible with your country as is many other things that work well here in Scandinavia for example. That is one of the reasons why it is sometimes hard to understand why you all do things like you do... It takes generations and generations of people thinking differently and wanting to change things.

Maybe towards the anarchist, no government, everyone fight for oneself type of Mad Max scenario that I often picture you wanting when I see your posts. I am sorry, but that is what I really picture in my head. Everyone is an individual, no proper society rules and everyone left to cope on their own without outside help, no one trusting one another, everyone armed and ready to shoot for a barrel of precious oil. Maybe a bit harsh that, but really, somehow I get a bit of anarchist vibe out of you...for what ever reason that may be.

I don't know what you mean by wanting me to explain to you my views in any more simple terms. I've kept my posts short and simple this far... Basically what I like is the kind of gun laws that we have here. I like the conversation that has been going on about changing them further, maybe even a little bit more strict than they are now. Im fine with that. To me, the only persons that need guns are the law enforcement, hunters and those who legitimately do competitive shooting and/or hunt. I don't care for people owning guns just for the sake of owning guns. To me, the ones who use guns need to be well trained with using the gun(s), actively and in controlled environment keep up their skills of using it. And while the gun(s) is/are not in use, they remain locked in a gunsafe. Don't know how more simplistic you can get... Oh and yea, I left out the army, cuz in my perfect world, the entire world wouldn't need armies cuz there wouldn't be wars...but we all know that aint gonna happen, so yea..army needs guns too. Unfortunately.


You're being true to yourself and everyone can respect that. I saw quite a few people change their views just to fit in with the consensus in the past over at AS.
Thank you. :hug:



(...)
a strong suit for individual responsibility, especially as a counter to over-parenting, over-governing, basically taking away the freedoms that makes being a human a wonderful and desirable thing - but what galls me is the utter lack of any desire to stand up for oneself that's rampant in the politically correct culture. ya dont do jack shit about anything - ya go raise your hand and tell, instead. I see it with the generation growing up in america today, and it is a saddening thing - the government treats citizens like cattle that need to be herded around into doing the proper things, and the educational system is indoctrinating kids into believing this is the proper right way to do things.

Im lucky the Nordic model, and especially Finnnish version of it, is very much pro individual responsibility and freedom. So I do agree with the stuff you said above. Finally something we agree on. ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model



How do you prevent someone from killing others with gun(s)


There is no way that is going to happen in this world anymore. We are WAY WAY beyond that point. That will always happen for as long as firearms exist. I have said that many times in my posts that I realize and understand that.


How do you know that you haven't been indoctrinated and that your train of thought isn't merely the recycled ideologies of others who wanted you to think in the exact manner that you do?

Not sure about the nation of pansies but personally I wasn't over-parented, I was educated privately (~£19,000 per year - thanks daddy), the majority of my health care has been private with the exception of a few blood tests and an MRI scan. I was surrounded by conservative people growing up due to the nature of my father's work but I try to form my own opinions and if anything, I give more than I take as far as society is concerned.

I could never take anything you say harsh at all. I just find it amusing that you think that anyone who opposes your views must have been indoctrinated, is lazy and wants everything for free. That, to me, is a true sign of someone who has been brainwashed.
Good stuff, Lamby. :tup:

[Muddy]

You guys better hope the Ruskies don't try to annex you all again..

[Jezter]

You guys better hope the Ruskies don't try to annex you all again..

They've tried many enough times to know there is no use... ;)

[Muddy]

We're you guys unarmed at the time though?

[KevinD]

Hiya Jezzie! Don't take any offense at what I write.. I read the wiki article on the Finnish Model you gave me a bit back. I can see where that's nice, but, don't think it would work over here. I actually don't think I'd be comfortable with it either, but who knows, could be. lol Does it come with a blond haired blue eyed Finn girlie?

[Jezter]

We're you guys unarmed at the time though?
No. I did say in the previous post a thing about the army, didn't I? And which kind of people I'd let near firearms? And that I realize that guns will keep on killing people? I don't know what to say to you guys anymore...if you don't bother reading what I write.

[Jezter]

Hiya Jezzie! Don't take any offense at what I write.. I read the wiki article on the Finnish Model you gave me a bit back. I can see where that's nice, but, don't think it would work over here. I actually don't think I'd be comfortable with it either, but who knows, could be. lol Does it come with a blond haired blue eyed Finn girlie?

I don't take any offence in that. I agree that it would not work over there if it were tried to apply all at once in one go. Like said in the previous post, it takes generations and generations to achieve such profound change. And generations of people who want to change things. However, like in any country, any society, in any corner of the world, the is no one single model that will satisfy each and everyone one of us. We all have our own idea of the perfect world and society. I don't think any person on this earth is 100% happy with their system and society. There is always something we'd like to change and have be better. Mostly cuz we want the society and things work for us and according to our own ideology...we are all a bit selfish in the end.

[DemonGeminiX]

Jez, what happens when your government becomes more corrupt, starts whittling away your civil rights, and no one will defend your rights anymore? When you have no access to firearms to defend yourselves against an increasingly tyrannical government that has no respect for it's citizens, that uses military and police power to keep you in line, how will you fight back?

Don't say that can't happen today. It could happen very easily and very quickly.

[Jezter]

Jez, what happens when your government becomes more corrupt, starts whittling away your civil rights, and no one will defend your rights anymore? When you have no access to firearms to defend yourselves against an increasingly tyrannical government that has no respect for it's citizens, that uses military and police power to keep you in line, how will you fight back?

Don't say that can't happen today. It could happen very easily and very quickly.

If you live and spend your days contemplating on scenarios like this...then...okay. I don't. That can happen and happens in the middle east and some other volatile countries (African countries for example), but do you seriously think that could happen over here? I don't think so... so I have no need to worry myself thinking things like that. I really don't.

[DemonGeminiX]

If you live and spend your days contemplating on scenarios like this...then...okay. I don't. That can happen and happens in the middle east and some other volatile countries (African countries for example), but do you seriously think that could happen over here? I don't think so... so I have no need to worry myself thinking things like that. I really don't.

Jez, I said don't say it can't happen... it can. And it'll happen faster than you realize. Now answer my question: How are you going to fight back after having given up your right to own firearms?

How are you going to win back your freedoms?

[Jezter]

Jez, I said don't say it can't happen... it can. And it'll happen faster than you realize. Now answer my question: How are you going to fight back after having given up your right to own firearms?

How are you going to win back your freedoms?

Well, anything can happen in this world. A meteorite the size of a pea can fly down and go through your skull today. That tyranny scenario can happen too. Most unlikely, but it can. I just am not the kind of person who always thinks about the worst case scenario and automatically believes the government is up to no good. That their sole purpose is to enslave us and become a tyranny. I do believe in the good in people and I believe the government is actually trying to help us live happily and as full life as we can.

The kind of scenario you are thinking about is very unfortunate. It is also reality that in that kind of situations guns would be needed and a lot of blood spilled. I have not any point said I don't realize the reality of the situation and the fact that we can not get rid of guns completely. People have fought with and without guns throughout the history of man. That has and unfortunately will probably always be a part of man. Yet I somehow can not have my opinion about guns cuz it somehow sparks the pro-gun people to tell me all the worst possible situations out there to try to convince me I just better become a pro-gun person. I will not. I do believe a world would be a better place without guns, or at the very least less guns and better control of them. I do believe that a society can exist peacefully, without having to worry about the government trying to take over. The world can try to evolve to be a better place with less war if the message of peace would just go through better and the revolutions that are happening around the world achieve what they are set out to do: create a better society. I know it is all pretty utopistic, but why can't I believe in that? Why can't I be postive and have a positive outlook on life and humanity? Why must I bend to the gloom and doom and arm myself just in case?

[Jezter]

I would've never believed it is such a big deal to have anti-gun views on this board...seriously. I think I get less understanding about my views on this than I give to the pro-gun peeps here. Very rare on this forum.

[DemonGeminiX]

I think you need to learn how the United States came to be, bro. I think you need to really understand that the right to bear arms isn't a decision we made for ourselves recently, but one that was made for us over 200 years ago by our founding fathers and the reasons why they saw fit to give us such a right. We understand why they made that decision for us and hold it close to our hearts.

Now, I understand that you guys have great faith in your government, but things change over time. Someday, maybe not in your lifetime, but maybe someday your country's citizens will come to have reason to change their minds on the issue and your government will be the reason.

[Jezter]

I think you need to learn how the United States came to be, bro. I think you need to really understand that the right to bear arms isn't a decision we made for ourselves recently, but one that was made for us over 200 years ago by our founding fathers and the reasons why they saw fit to give us such a right. We understand why they made that decision for us and hold it close to our hearts.

Now, I understand that you guys have great faith in your government, but things change over time. Someday, maybe not in your lifetime, but maybe someday your country's citizens will come to have reason to change their minds on the issue and your government will be the reason.

And maybe if you knew how Finland came to be and how much fighting we had to do over our indepence...first Sweden, then Russia...and how young nation we are. Yet, our gun policy is entirely different. So I think in a way that speaks for my views and opinions. You could easily think that we Finns would be all about guns and arming ourselves just in case Russia tries to come again, like Muddy hinted there, or for some other kind of crazy commie conspiracy. But no, we choose to believe otherwise and live differently.

Well, the exact same can be said right back at you, with only slight change: Now, I understand that you guys haven't got a great faith in your government, but things change over time. Someday, maybe not in your lifetime, but maybe someday your country's citizens will come to have reason to change their minds on the issue and your government will be the reason.

[FBD]

How do you know that you haven't been indoctrinated and that your train of thought isn't merely the recycled ideologies of others who wanted you to think in the exact manner that you do?

Not sure about the nation of pansies but personally I wasn't over-parented, I was educated privately (~£19,000 per year - thanks daddy), the majority of my health care has been private with the exception of a few blood tests and an MRI scan. I was surrounded by conservative people growing up due to the nature of my father's work but I try to form my own opinions and if anything, I give more than I take as far as society is concerned.

I could never take anything you say harsh at all. I just find it amusing that you think that anyone who opposes your views must have been indoctrinated, is lazy and wants everything for free. That, to me, is a true sign of someone who has been brainwashed.Well, as far as the indoctrination goes, when certain ideologies take over an area and you see the youngens of one generation just about indistinguishable from those a generation or two before in certain areas - the thought does come to mind. PC has gotten a hold in too many places and imho, PC is a means of glossing over things and bullshitting, painting a rosy picture and leaving just about no responsibility to the individual outside of paying whatever taxes the state requires of you to go however far it wants to. (Same goes for corporate.) That's cool if you came to that by way you describe, we are of course all free to come to our own conclusions on things, what is best and what not. Sometimes I just ask because it plainly doesnt compute in my head, it goes against what I have come to believe of my own accord. I'm largely self taught on a lot of things - if I want to know something I research until full, put the books down, then ponder on my own - and with things like second amendment and gun ownership, my ideas are the culmination of what makes sense to me. Given the vast amount of guns in the country, you're never going to put the lid on pandora's box and the only way to have it safe is to have as many responsible, well educated, law abiding gun owners as possible. Not necessarily armed to the teeth, but knowing how to operate, carry deterrent, use it if the need ever arises. That and target shooting is fun as hell :D


I agree that the control mechanisms are incompatible with your country as is many other things that work well here in Scandinavia for example. That is one of the reasons why it is sometimes hard to understand why you all do things like you do... It takes generations and generations of people thinking differently and wanting to change things.

Maybe towards the anarchist, no government, everyone fight for oneself type of Mad Max scenario that I often picture you wanting when I see your posts. I am sorry, but that is what I really picture in my head. Everyone is an individual, no proper society rules and everyone left to cope on their own without outside help, no one trusting one another, everyone armed and ready to shoot for a barrel of precious oil. Maybe a bit harsh that, but really, somehow I get a bit of anarchist vibe out of you...for what ever reason that may be.

I don't know what you mean by wanting me to explain to you my views in any more simple terms. I've kept my posts short and simple this far... Basically what I like is the kind of gun laws that we have here. I like the conversation that has been going on about changing them further, maybe even a little bit more strict than they are now. Im fine with that. To me, the only persons that need guns are the law enforcement, hunters and those who legitimately do competitive shooting and/or hunt. I don't care for people owning guns just for the sake of owning guns. To me, the ones who use guns need to be well trained with using the gun(s), actively and in controlled environment keep up their skills of using it. And while the gun(s) is/are not in use, they remain locked in a gunsafe. Don't know how more simplistic you can get... Oh and yea, I left out the army, cuz in my perfect world, the entire world wouldn't need armies cuz there wouldn't be wars...but we all know that aint gonna happen, so yea..army needs guns too. Unfortunately.funny the impressions - hyper police state vs mad max! the more power police have, the less chance there is for their authority to be questioned, the more it is abused. back to the ol power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. I trust my neighbor more than I trust the police, unless it happens to be a 'mass murder' scenario, then in which case - ideally the situation is already resolved by the time those asses even show up. very few and far between there's the mythical friendly neighborhood man of the law that will shake your hand like a man, not a god...

not so much an anarchist streak in me - I'm pragmatic and recognize the need for a certain amount of government. but when the situation comes about where "government" can just swipe your resources at will to fund their pet projects - fuck you, what's the difference between that and stealing? I see that as stealing my resources. A certain amount I am ok with parting, for society's sake - but I am NOT ok with funding arbitrary levels of other people's grandiose visions of "what the government can do for each and every one of us."

I agree about gun safes and a lot of the other stuff you mention, training and such, the part I dont agree with is locking them away until its time to fire them - at least for the sidearm. everything else, absolutely. I mostly asked because plenty often there are commonalities and I seek to make sense of them - so while on one hand we appear to have diametrically opposed views, there's quite a bit that rationally overlaps.

now with regard to the government going crazy...well, we already have that here to varying extents. finances are blown up like crazy. the government is not going to be able to continue this trajectory forever and sooner or later its going to leave a lot of people broke and starving - and while I trust the guy living next to me, I dont know about a whole lot of other people, and if the situation arises, then dammit I will defend my shit. who knows how bad things will get in the month's worth of time when the world seizes up, and by all indications there's unfortunately a LOT of prerequisites for that to happen already in the works.

bah, time for work.

as always, have nice day :mrgreen:

[Muddy]

Jez, what happens when your government becomes more corrupt, starts whittling away your civil rights, and no one will defend your rights anymore? When you have no access to firearms to defend yourselves against an increasingly tyrannical government that has no respect for it's citizens, that uses military and police power to keep you in line, how will you fight back?

Don't say that can't happen today. It could happen very easily and very quickly.

Look at North Korea.

[Acid Trip]

If you live and spend your days contemplating on scenarios like this...then...okay. I don't. That can happen and happens in the middle east and some other volatile countries (African countries for example), but do you seriously think that could happen over here? I don't think so... so I have no need to worry myself thinking things like that. I really don't.

Are you serious? We aren't contemplating anything. Human history has THOUSANDS of examples of tyranny and tyrants. History is wrought with oppression, slavery, and death. We fight wars over skin color, religion, land, water, beliefs and natural resources.

I seem to remember 3 distinct times in Europe where a country decided "We are taking over Europe" and millions of people died. You might think military coups are a thing of the past but they are very real. Egypt is a prime example. And guess what, now that the military is in power in Egypt they don't want to give it up!

[Muddy]

Meanwhile in Finland...

http://i.imgur.com/qlIzJ.jpg

[Arkady Renko]

Jez, what happens when your government becomes more corrupt, starts whittling away your civil rights, and no one will defend your rights anymore? When you have no access to firearms to defend yourselves against an increasingly tyrannical government that has no respect for it's citizens, that uses military and police power to keep you in line, how will you fight back?

Don't say that can't happen today. It could happen very easily and very quickly.

that's an irrational strawman argument. you use a paranoid delusion about the government turning into a dictatorship at some remote point in the future to justify a terrible state of things in the present. Besides, if the government somehow went evil in the future, handguns and a few kalashnikovs won't be much help against the army.

[Arkady Renko]

Meanwhile in Finland...

http://i.imgur.com/qlIzJ.jpg

because there aren't any morbidly obese people in the US?

[Muddy]

that's an irrational strawman argument. you use a paranoid delusion about the government turning into a dictatorship at some remote point in the future to justify a terrible state of things in the present. Besides, if the government somehow went evil in the future, handguns and a few kalashnikovs won't be much help against the army.

They sure were in 1776...

[DemonGeminiX]

that's an irrational strawman argument. you use a paranoid delusion about the government turning into a dictatorship at some remote point in the future to justify a terrible state of things in the present. Besides, if the government somehow went evil in the future, handguns and a few kalashnikovs won't be much help against the army.

It's not an irrational argument. It's the exact reason the framers of the constitution saw fit to put the right to bear arms into the constitution... because it can and will happen, just like it happened over and over before in history.

But whatever, I'm done arguing.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

that's an irrational strawman argument. you use a paranoid delusion about the government turning into a dictatorship at some remote point in the future to justify a terrible state of things in the present. Besides, if the government somehow went evil in the future, handguns and a few kalashnikovs won't be much help against the army.

I'm sure the average Libyan or Syrian citizen never thought they would get annihilated by their government either...but oh well :dunno:

[Acid Trip]

that's an irrational strawman argument. you use a paranoid delusion about the government turning into a dictatorship at some remote point in the future to justify a terrible state of things in the present. Besides, if the government somehow went evil in the future, handguns and a few kalashnikovs won't be much help against the army.

Go back and read my post. History has thousands of examples of what you call an "irrational strawman argument".

As for the bold part, have you not been following Syria? Seems a few handguns and AKs are making Assad run for cover. Imagine that. An armed populace over throwing a tyrannical government.

So much for your strawman theory.

[Arkady Renko]

They sure were in 1776...

that was 236 years ago, it has no practical significance for today's problem.



I'm sure the average Libyan or Syrian citizen never thought they would get annihilated by their government either...but oh well :dunno:

To my best knowledge, both countries never had democracy in the first place. Syria was run by the french before it gained independence (went straight to a brutal dictatorship) and before that by the ottoman empire. Lybia was an italian colony and Gaddafi came to power in a brutal coup some 45 years ago and never was anything but a tyrant.


Go back and read my post. History has thousands of examples of what you call an "irrational strawman argument".

As for the bold part, have you not been following Syria? Seems a few handguns and AKs are making Assad run for cover. Imagine that. An armed populace over throwing a tyrannical government.

So much for your strawman theory.

I've been following the events in Syria. Seems to me the protesters got butchers, handguns or no handguns. Things only began to take a turn for the better once more and more soldiers defected because they couldn't bear killing defenseless civilians any more. And let's not forget that there are credible reports that the syrian insurgents have been getting logistical and tactical support from the outside even though it was done discreetly so as not to opiss off the russians and chinese too much.

[Muddy]

that was 236 years ago, it has no practical significance for today's problem.




You really need to watch "Red Dawn" again.. :lol:

[Teh One Who Knocks]

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

He was a much smarter man than me, so I will defer to his wisdom...which is still relevant more than 200 years after he wrote it.

[Jezter]

Meanwhile in Finland...

http://i.imgur.com/qlIzJ.jpg
I don't get it. :blink: What is that supposed to mean?

They sure were in 1776...
AR wrote it the way I think about it too:

that was 236 years ago, it has no practical significance for today's problem.




To my best knowledge, both countries never had democracy in the first place. Syria was run by the french before it gained independence (went straight to a brutal dictatorship) and before that by the ottoman empire. Lybia was an italian colony and Gaddafi came to power in a brutal coup some 45 years ago and never was anything but a tyrant.



I've been following the events in Syria. Seems to me the protesters got butchers, handguns or no handguns. Things only began to take a turn for the better once more and more soldiers defected because they couldn't bear killing defenseless civilians any more. And let's not forget that there are credible reports that the syrian insurgents have been getting logistical and tactical support from the outside even though it was done discreetly so as not to opiss off the russians and chinese too much.

:+1:

[Jezter]

He was a much smarter man than me, so I will defer to his wisdom...which is still relevant more than 200 years after he wrote it.

So since I don't own a gun, nor do I want to, I don't deserve safety and freedom? That's a bit cruel, isn't it? :lol:

[Muddy]

I don't get it. :blink: What is that supposed to mean?



Nothing.. just having some fun..

[Jezter]

Nothing.. just having some fun..

Okay... Just had to ask incase my opinion was wanted. :D

[Teh One Who Knocks]

So since I don't own a gun, nor do I want to, I don't deserve safety and freedom? That's a bit cruel, isn't it? :lol:

:shakehead:

It's not just about guns, it's about giving up any freedom in a knee-jerk reaction just to feel temporarily safer

[Jezter]

:shakehead:

It's not just about guns, it's about giving up any freedom in a knee-jerk reaction just to feel temporarily safer

I see...

[Acid Trip]

Here's a short list of government mass murder carried out throughout history, almost always immediately following the disarmament of the public (and usually involving staged false flag events to justify the disarmament):

50+ million dead: Mao Ze-Dong (China, 1958-61 and 1966-69, Tibet 1949-50)
12+ million dead: Adolf Hitler (Germany, 1939-1945) - concentration camps, civilian deaths and dead Russian POWs
8+ million dead: Leopold II of Belgium (Congo, 1886-1908)
6+ million dead: Jozef Stalin (USSR, 1932-39)
5+ million dead: Hideki Tojo (Japan, 1941-44)
2+ million dead: Ismail Enver (Turkey, 1915-22)
1.7 million dead: Pol Pot (Cambodia, 1975-79)
1.6 million dead: Kim Il Sung (North Korea, 1948-94)
1.5 million dead: Menghistu (Ethiopia, 1975-78)
1 million dead: Yakubu Gowon (Biafra, 1967-1970)
900,000 dead: Leonid Brezhnev (Afghanistan, 1979-1982)
800,000 dead: Jean Kambanda (Rwanda, 1994)

But wait, that's not possible in a Democracy! :roll:

[PorkChopSandwiches]

Here's a short list of government mass murder carried out throughout history, almost always immediately following the disarmament of the public (and usually involving staged false flag events to justify the disarmament):

50+ million dead: Mao Ze-Dong (China, 1958-61 and 1966-69, Tibet 1949-50)
12+ million dead: Adolf Hitler (Germany, 1939-1945) - concentration camps, civilian deaths and dead Russian POWs
8+ million dead: Leopold II of Belgium (Congo, 1886-1908)
6+ million dead: Jozef Stalin (USSR, 1932-39)
5+ million dead: Hideki Tojo (Japan, 1941-44)
2+ million dead: Ismail Enver (Turkey, 1915-22)
1.7 million dead: Pol Pot (Cambodia, 1975-79)
1.6 million dead: Kim Il Sung (North Korea, 1948-94)
1.5 million dead: Menghistu (Ethiopia, 1975-78)
1 million dead: Yakubu Gowon (Biafra, 1967-1970)
900,000 dead: Leonid Brezhnev (Afghanistan, 1979-1982)
800,000 dead: Jean Kambanda (Rwanda, 1994)

But wait, that's not possible in a Democracy! :roll:

Where did you get those stats :lol:

[Muddy]

Acidtripopedia..

[MrsM]

Here's a short list of government mass murder carried out throughout history, almost always immediately following the disarmament of the public (and usually involving staged false flag events to justify the disarmament):

50+ million dead: Mao Ze-Dong (China, 1958-61 and 1966-69, Tibet 1949-50)
12+ million dead: Adolf Hitler (Germany, 1939-1945) - concentration camps, civilian deaths and dead Russian POWs
8+ million dead: Leopold II of Belgium (Congo, 1886-1908)
6+ million dead: Jozef Stalin (USSR, 1932-39)
5+ million dead: Hideki Tojo (Japan, 1941-44)
2+ million dead: Ismail Enver (Turkey, 1915-22)
1.7 million dead: Pol Pot (Cambodia, 1975-79)
1.6 million dead: Kim Il Sung (North Korea, 1948-94)
1.5 million dead: Menghistu (Ethiopia, 1975-78)
1 million dead: Yakubu Gowon (Biafra, 1967-1970)
900,000 dead: Leonid Brezhnev (Afghanistan, 1979-1982)
800,000 dead: Jean Kambanda (Rwanda, 1994)

But wait, that's not possible in a Democracy! :roll:

Not sure if I would say most of these were democratic societies

[Hal-9000]

Acidtripopedia..


:lol:

[Acid Trip]

Not sure if I would say most of these were democratic societies

I wasn't suggesting they were. AR noted that Syria and Egypt weren't Democracies as if Democracies were somehow immune to revolution.

Stats taken from http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DBG.CHAP1.HTM#TOP

Follow the reference links throughout the page.

[Acid Trip]

http://i.imgur.com/uvho4.gif

[Jezter]

Not really sure what those numbers prove really... But I guess they do tell something that I don't fully get.

Maybe the numbers would've been even higher and the timeline of the events longer had the opposition had access to more/better weapons. Not sure. All I know is that those numbers are not nice and tell how evil some regimes have been. Luckily most are from quite long time ago and the more recent ones have lesser casualties.

[PorkChopSandwiches]

They show what governments historically do once the citizens are forced to give up their arms.

[Jezter]

They show what governments historically do once the citizens are forced to give up their arms.

What happens if they are forced to give their legs too? :shock: :lol:

Kidding aside... like said before, those examples aren't from very democratic regimes and from quite long time ago most of them. But yeah, you will all keep saying "Don't say it can't happen in democracy too!". Like said before, anything can happen. But I think like AR said before, with the current size of the armies, not sure if any country will be much of an opponent really if shit like that starts to happen. So I don't know... And your boys are actively "training" all over the world knocking down countries and raiding their resources so they don't have to raid yours, so they are extra good at it. ;)

[Noilly Pratt]

FBD said
the greatest deterrent to some fuck doing something like this is the notion that there is likely half a dozen concealed carry motherfuckers in the location he is thinking of attacking. that changes all of the odds hugely right there, does not require any police state -

That was the way of the old west...you had a frontier town, and 1 sherrif...banks were being robbed left right and center...so it was allowed that all carried firearms and then no one dared attempt a robbery because they thought they would get mowed down by the townsfolk even if the sherrif did nothing.

But we're talking a different type of person...this isn't a guy who decides to take what isn't his, then would think twice. This is a raving psychotic. Morals and "gee, I might get shot too" have no meaning for this individual. He does not believe he can fail. He does not think like you or I do. His moral compass has been stomped on and deactivated.

God, or whatever voice inside his head motivated him will protect him, he believes. A synapse misfires, he looks at the lightbulb (or wherever) for his inspiration and believes he's the Joker on a killing spree or whatever motivated this latest man to kill senselessly.

I don't think gun controls are the real answer. We need to identify these psychotics, the ones that fall through society's cracks and earlier detect them, and treat them and bring down their numbers to instead of a percentage of our population, to just an occasional few.

So many psych wards are being closed down due to budget restraints, and these people are let loose on the streets like so many time bombs just waiting to explode. And this is in safe, Canada. I can only imagine in the U.S. it's worse.

We need to educate the educators and when they see signs of mental illness, we treat it well before they act out. We need to teach to all people how to identify mental illness. No one wakes up normal one day and BANG...I'm the Joker, let's kill a bunch of people in a theatre...it takes a mental breakdown, then a series of events, then a psychotic mind to interpret those events.

I don't want a police state giving me an illusion of protection. You can't protect against someone that motivated. Random psychotics will always fall through the cracks...but we have to make their deeds be an unlikely event.

Which, looking at cold hard facts, it's true - more than likely I won't be shot going to my movie theatre tonight. Neither will you. But, since there's more we can do with treatment and prevention, we need to focus attention on that aspect, not just on Gun control.

[Hal-9000]

well said Noilly

[Loser]

No offence to anyone, but there is literally no winning this argument. For either side. Not in this instance.

Here is a guy that set off no bells, alarms, whistles. One day he snaps. He knew what he wanted to do, he planned it out, and succeeded.

There was no stopping him.

Would stricter gun control have stopped him from killing people? No. He would of just found a different way to accomplish his task. Possibly killing more if it had been bombs.

Could some CCW citizen have stopped him? Honestly, the thought of this happening frightens me even more. Ask any police officer that has had more than 4 years in, and they will tell you, low light fight or flight scenarios are 'THE' scariest situations to be in. These are trained individuals. So unless some super human with built in night vision and reflexes faster than superman... No, it would of just made a scary situation even more terrifying.

Would the thought of other people carrying firearms have stopped him? Obviously not. He was wearing body armor and TAC helmet. ;)



Obviously, both sides of the political spectrum will skew this in their direction, but the fact of the matter is, there was just no winning in this situation, for anyone, flat out.

[Muddy]

No offence to anyone, but there is literally no winning this argument. For either side. Not in this instance.

Here is a guy that set off no bells, alarms, whistles. One day he snaps. He knew what he wanted to do, he planned it out, and succeeded.

There was no stopping him.

Would stricter gun control have stopped him from killing people? No. He would of just found a different way to accomplish his task. Possibly killing more if it had been bombs.

Could some CCW citizen have stopped him? Honestly, the thought of this happening frightens me even more. Ask any police officer that has had more than 4 years in, and they will tell you, low light fight or flight scenarios are 'THE' scariest situations to be in. These are trained individuals. So unless some super human with built in night vision and reflexes faster than superman... No, it would of just made a scary situation even more terrifying.

Would the thought of other people carrying firearms have stopped him? Obviously not. He was wearing body armor and TAC helmet. ;)



Obviously, both sides of the political spectrum will skew this in their direction, but the fact of the matter is, there was just no winning in this situation, for anyone, flat out.

Exactly.. *thread closed*

[MrsM]

No offence to anyone, but there is literally no winning this argument. For either side. Not in this instance.

Here is a guy that set off no bells, alarms, whistles. One day he snaps. He knew what he wanted to do, he planned it out, and succeeded.

There was no stopping him.

Would stricter gun control have stopped him from killing people? No. He would of just found a different way to accomplish his task. Possibly killing more if it had been bombs.

Could some CCW citizen have stopped him? Honestly, the thought of this happening frightens me even more. Ask any police officer that has had more than 4 years in, and they will tell you, low light fight or flight scenarios are 'THE' scariest situations to be in. These are trained individuals. So unless some super human with built in night vision and reflexes faster than superman... No, it would of just made a scary situation even more terrifying.

Would the thought of other people carrying firearms have stopped him? Obviously not. He was wearing body armor and TAC helmet. ;)



Obviously, both sides of the political spectrum will skew this in their direction, but the fact of the matter is, there was just no winning in this situation, for anyone, flat out.

Well put :tup:

[Acid Trip]

Exactly.. *thread closed*

*thread open*

[Hal-9000]

No offence to anyone, but there is literally no winning this argument. For either side. Not in this instance.

Here is a guy that set off no bells, alarms, whistles. One day he snaps. He knew what he wanted to do, he planned it out, and succeeded.

There was no stopping him.

Would stricter gun control have stopped him from killing people? No. He would of just found a different way to accomplish his task. Possibly killing more if it had been bombs.

Could some CCW citizen have stopped him? Honestly, the thought of this happening frightens me even more. Ask any police officer that has had more than 4 years in, and they will tell you, low light fight or flight scenarios are 'THE' scariest situations to be in. These are trained individuals. So unless some super human with built in night vision and reflexes faster than superman... No, it would of just made a scary situation even more terrifying.

Would the thought of other people carrying firearms have stopped him? Obviously not. He was wearing body armor and TAC helmet. ;)



Obviously, both sides of the political spectrum will skew this in their direction, but the fact of the matter is, there was just no winning in this situation, for anyone, flat out.


That's the whole point. He had access so he used a gun. Killing and wounding over 50 people with a gun. Would he have used a bomb without access to firearms? That's pure speculation and brings up the question - Why don't more of these idiots use bombs to begin with? Because guns are the easier choice....

[PorkChopSandwiches]

That's the whole point. He had access so he used a gun. Killing and wounding over 50 people with a gun. Would he have used a bomb without access to firearms? That's pure speculation and brings up the question - Why don't more of these idiots use bombs to begin with? Because guns are the easier choice....

So is it impossible for someone to get an illegal gun? Are there ZERO guns in Canada? :lol: All banning guns does is keep them from law abiding citizens. If there never were guns and they were never manufactured, thats another story, but thats not the case.,

[minz]

That's the whole point. He had access so he used a gun. Killing and wounding over 50 people with a gun. Would he have used a bomb without access to firearms? That's pure speculation and brings up the question - Why don't more of these idiots use bombs to begin with? Because guns are the easier choice....

Correction, he used 4 guns.


When the ammo ran out in one he used the next, yes I personally believe that tighter gun laws would have helped to lessen the impact of this particular event, had he only had access to one firearm would there have been as many victims?

[Hal-9000]

So is it impossible for someone to get an illegal gun? Are there ZERO guns in Canada? :lol: All banning guns does is keep them from law abiding citizens. If there never were guns and they were never manufactured, thats another story, but thats not the case.,

ZERO guns in Canada? Of course not, we need something to bring down those moose and beaver! :x

All banning guns does is create less stories like this in our local papers, as opposed to your country :) Banning guns is not accurate, different gun control laws and inherent morals in the population would be a better way to phrase it...

[Hal-9000]

and Porky? I just made that post because it was rather quiet in here this afternoon :lol:

[PorkChopSandwiches]

:lol:

[RBP]

ZERO guns in Canada? Of course not, we need something to bring down those moose and beaver! :x

All banning guns does is create less stories like this in our local papers, as opposed to your country :) Banning guns is not accurate, different gun control laws and inherent morals in the population would be a better way to phrase it...

Canadians are more moral then Americans? That's a pretty bold statement. :|

[Hal-9000]

Canadians are more moral then Americans? That's a pretty bold statement. :|


please don't make me answer............... :lol:

[FBD]

Correction, he used 4 guns.


When the ammo ran out in one he used the next, yes I personally believe that tighter gun laws would have helped to lessen the impact of this particular event, had he only had access to one firearm would there have been as many victims?

:-k given the amount of time he waited in amassing things and booby trapping his house...tighter gun laws would have done jack crap when faced with patience of deranged mind on that level.

[Iffy]

That's the whole point. He had access so he used a gun. Killing and wounding over 50 people with a gun. Would he have used a bomb without access to firearms? That's pure speculation and brings up the question - Why don't more of these idiots use bombs to begin with? Because guns are the easier choice....

I would rather someone like this have the easy option of a gun which has limited potential of destruction rather than resorting to explosives or chemical weaponry that has as much (and usually more) killing power. Explosives or chemical weaponry that can be made from every day household items. Single person killings would hold a stronger argument for gun control than this particular incident

12 killed is unfortunate but is a small price to pay (even when compounded over all gun shootings involving "innocent" victims every year) to protect one's freedoms which have been mentioned in numerous posts in this thread already. Compare that to the 14 killed in a truck crash this Monday and yet no one mentions stricter vehicle ownership laws. Is one any worse than the other? Both were caused by people not using sound judgement.


Correction, he used 4 guns.


When the ammo ran out in one he used the next, yes I personally believe that tighter gun laws would have helped to lessen the impact of this particular event, had he only had access to one firearm would there have been as many victims?

This is a bit of a stretch but..


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLk1v5bSFPw&feature=related


On a personal note...

I do not see any appeal in firearms. I do not own one and hopefully never will. I think they are impersonal and make bad decisions too easy to make. I do not have anything worth protecting. If the unfortunate robbery/random shooting occurs most likely I will die. I sleep just fine at night knowing that this is a possibility as is a meteorite falling out of the sky into my skull or suffering an aneurism while taking a shit. My one exception is the loss of freedom. Whether through invasion or tyranny I will take up arms when that freedom is threatened.

Having said that I do believe that an individual has the right to own a gun or as many as they want I suppose. I have no issue with people wanting to defend themselves, their family, or their property. In fact I applaud them for it. They are a necessary evil as long as a single person has access to one.

I wish we lived in the world that Jez believes is possible. Of course as soon as we have total peace and harmony we will be invaded by extra terrestrials and have no idea how to defend ourselves anymore. Anal probes for all :cheerlead:

[Hal-9000]

"....and make bad decisions too easy to make."

smartest thing to ever come out of your mouth Iffy (besides my dick)

[Iffy]

"....and make bad decisions too easy to make."

smartest thing to ever come out of your mouth Iffy (besides my dick)

It's cool. Had plenty of room to talk around it :thumbsup:

[Hal-9000]

good to see you bro, hang around for the weekend...Mom and Dad will be away :lol:

[KevinD]

I know who Dad is, who's Mom?

[Jezter]

I know who Dad is, who's Mom?

Lance's girlie?

[DemonGeminiX]

:hand:

Lance is a hermaphrodite. He's both Mom and Dad.

[minz]

:hand:

Lance is a hermaphrodite. He's both Mom and Dad.

:lol:

[Arkady Renko]

He was a much smarter man than me, so I will defer to his wisdom...which is still relevant more than 200 years after he wrote it.

but that's merely a general maxim. You need to apply it within reason or else you'd end up with anarchy. As usual, the question is not which of two extremes to go for because that almost always ends badly, but rather to work out which of the many shades of grey is the best compromise.


Here's a short list of government mass murder carried out throughout history, almost always immediately following the disarmament of the public (and usually involving staged false flag events to justify the disarmament):

50+ million dead: Mao Ze-Dong (China, 1958-61 and 1966-69, Tibet 1949-50)
12+ million dead: Adolf Hitler (Germany, 1939-1945) - concentration camps, civilian deaths and dead Russian POWs
8+ million dead: Leopold II of Belgium (Congo, 1886-1908)
6+ million dead: Jozef Stalin (USSR, 1932-39)
5+ million dead: Hideki Tojo (Japan, 1941-44)
2+ million dead: Ismail Enver (Turkey, 1915-22)
1.7 million dead: Pol Pot (Cambodia, 1975-79)
1.6 million dead: Kim Il Sung (North Korea, 1948-94)
1.5 million dead: Menghistu (Ethiopia, 1975-78)
1 million dead: Yakubu Gowon (Biafra, 1967-1970)
900,000 dead: Leonid Brezhnev (Afghanistan, 1979-1982)
800,000 dead: Jean Kambanda (Rwanda, 1994)

But wait, that's not possible in a Democracy! :roll:

So jog my memory - which one of the countries mentioned was a democracy before the respective genocides or other mass killings began? Unless I'm missing something, the only place with a sort of democracy in place before things got ugly was germany with the Weimar Republic. Ironically, people in the time between the end of WW 1 and 1933 had very easy access to guns because the country was lousy with them after the surrender of the german imperial army. I believe that in no small part the government's trouble in subduing the nazi, communist and imperialist movements that eventually brought down the republic was due to the fact that they didn't have much of an advatage in firepower.

On an aside, it seems the numbers stated for Uncle Joe are far too small.


http://i.imgur.com/uvho4.gif

what does that stat prove in the present context?


No offence to anyone, but there is literally no winning this argument. For either side. Not in this instance.

Here is a guy that set off no bells, alarms, whistles. One day he snaps. He knew what he wanted to do, he planned it out, and succeeded.

There was no stopping him.

Would stricter gun control have stopped him from killing people? No. He would of just found a different way to accomplish his task. Possibly killing more if it had been bombs.

Could some CCW citizen have stopped him? Honestly, the thought of this happening frightens me even more. Ask any police officer that has had more than 4 years in, and they will tell you, low light fight or flight scenarios are 'THE' scariest situations to be in. These are trained individuals. So unless some super human with built in night vision and reflexes faster than superman... No, it would of just made a scary situation even more terrifying.

Would the thought of other people carrying firearms have stopped him? Obviously not. He was wearing body armor and TAC helmet. ;)



Obviously, both sides of the political spectrum will skew this in their direction, but the fact of the matter is, there was just no winning in this situation, for anyone, flat out.

I agree with you, this particular case is not a good example for the debate on gun laws. key questions for the legal framework of a country should be pondered with a long term perspective in mind and not under the impression of an isolated recent disaster.


Exactly.. *thread closed*

you wish...:nana:

[Acid Trip]

but that's merely a general maxim. You need to apply it within reason or else you'd end up with anarchy. As usual, the question is not which of two extremes to go for because that almost always ends badly, but rather to work out which of the many shades of grey is the best compromise.



So jog my memory - which one of the countries mentioned was a democracy before the respective genocides or other mass killings began? Unless I'm missing something, the only place with a sort of democracy in place before things got ugly was germany with the Weimar Republic. Ironically, people in the time between the end of WW 1 and 1933 had very easy access to guns because the country was lousy with them after the surrender of the german imperial army. I believe that in no small part the government's trouble in subduing the nazi, communist and imperialist movements that eventually brought down the republic was due to the fact that they didn't have much of an advatage in firepower.

On an aside, it seems the numbers stated for Uncle Joe are far too small.



what does that stat prove in the present context?



I agree with you, this particular case is not a good example for the debate on gun laws. key questions for the legal framework of a country should be pondered with a long term perspective in mind and not under the impression of an isolated recent disaster.



you wish...:nana:

History shows the gruesome nature of human beings and that was the point of my graphs. It's insane, irrational, and down right dumb to think that Democracies are immune from revolution or government imposed killings.

Our current president used the military to kill 4 American citizens without due process. It's not a huge number but it proves that even modern Democracies kill their own citizens.

[Acid Trip]

I would rather someone like this have the easy option of a gun which has limited potential of destruction rather than resorting to explosives or chemical weaponry that has as much (and usually more) killing power. Explosives or chemical weaponry that can be made from every day household items. Single person killings would hold a stronger argument for gun control than this particular incident

12 killed is unfortunate but is a small price to pay (even when compounded over all gun shootings involving "innocent" victims every year) to protect one's freedoms which have been mentioned in numerous posts in this thread already. Compare that to the 14 killed in a truck crash this Monday and yet no one mentions stricter vehicle ownership laws. Is one any worse than the other? Both were caused by people not using sound judgement.



This is a bit of a stretch but..


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLk1v5bSFPw&feature=related


On a personal note...

I do not see any appeal in firearms. I do not own one and hopefully never will. I think they are impersonal and make bad decisions too easy to make. I do not have anything worth protecting. If the unfortunate robbery/random shooting occurs most likely I will die. I sleep just fine at night knowing that this is a possibility as is a meteorite falling out of the sky into my skull or suffering an aneurism while taking a shit. My one exception is the loss of freedom. Whether through invasion or tyranny I will take up arms when that freedom is threatened.

Having said that I do believe that an individual has the right to own a gun or as many as they want I suppose. I have no issue with people wanting to defend themselves, their family, or their property. In fact I applaud them for it. They are a necessary evil as long as a single person has access to one.

I wish we lived in the world that Jez believes is possible. Of course as soon as we have total peace and harmony we will be invaded by extra terrestrials and have no idea how to defend ourselves anymore. Anal probes for all :cheerlead:

Nice post Iffy.

[Arkady Renko]

History shows the gruesome nature of human beings and that was the point of my graphs. It's insane, irrational, and down right dumb to think that Democracies are immune from revolution or government imposed killings.

Our current president used the military to kill 4 American citizens without due process. It's not a huge number but it proves that even modern Democracies kill their own citizens.

As a dyed-in-the-wool misanthropist, I concur with your original assessment of humans and society. I just draw different conclusions from it. There certainly is a slight risk that even governments that are stable democracies now might turn tyrannical in the future. In that unlikely event, there is a small chance that an insurrection might succeed in bringing down that hypothetical tyranny by using guns. What are the odds of that acutally happening?

Meanwhile, day after day, actual people actually die or get wounded in armed robberies, gunshot accidents or spontaneous outbursts of violence that got much uglier with guns than without them.

So in my book the benefits of stricter gun laws (I don't even think a complete ban is warranted or acceptable) outweigh the risks and restrictions of individual freedom by far.