Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by skottichan, Dec 24, 2012.
ABC News reports;
Okay, seriously. We need to somehow deal with the gun problem in the country.
On second thought, I do not feel that getting myself into this debate is a good way to honor those who were involved. Merry Christmas everyone!
My guess is that anyone who would massacre small children did not obtain the guns legally. Oh wait....
In my area, when there is a working fire, police always respond in addition to fire and the police are usually on scene first.
Not sure if it is the same in Webster, NY - but what if it is?
If the police responded first and were there when the FD got there, why couldn't they stop this shooting? They have guns and are trained to identify threats and use their firearms when necessary.
They question is rhetorical, of course and my idea of the police arriving first is, as yet, unknown. An unstable gunman (or woman) is going to shoot no matter what. My point here is to those who say we should have more guns to prevent violence. In this case, there may well have been guns already on the scene with people trained in how to use them and the shooting happened anyway. Shortly the NRA will be suggesting we arm firefighters. Just what we need. A firefighter going into a burning building with a beltful of ammunition ready to cook off.
More guns do not stop violence. Less guns do.
Or bought them at gun show.....
It is likely these were criminals and probably some drug stuff going on here. Banning certain kinds of guns won't change these things from happening just like banning drugs haven't stopped them. A fire... bad guys with guns shooting at first responders... Sounds like some meth lab operation going on to me.
More laws will not fix the problem because criminals don't give a a damn about law anyway.
In the end it is law abiding citizens that are punished.
Feel sorry about the firemen. WTH?
And where did these "illegal" guns come from ? I'd bet most of them were once bought perfectly legal only to be lost, stolen or sold for profit......
This is a tired argument.
You could say the same thing about texting while driving, which is now banned in most states. I never crashed or killed anyone while texting while driving, so I could say the laws banning texting while driving is just punishing me and others who texted while driving and never crashed or killed anyone.
Sometimes you have to give up certain things for the greater good.
Aside from people who live in extremely rural areas there really is no need for civilians to have firearms at this point.
The many european countries that have banned most personal firearm ownership and have firearm death rates that are extremely tiny compared to the US proves that reducing the amount of guns the in the population will help save lives.
I was a firefighter/EMT in a very rural area in the 1980s and we had responding apparatus fired upon several times; it's a rather disconcerting feeling to hear the bullet hit the equipment and see a hole by your head. As far as police response, from 8pm to 8am there were no more than 3 deputies on duty to cover a county of 670 square miles, so more often than not we would arrive 10, 20 or more minutes ahead of them .. if they even responded at all.
Those weapons that the criminals get illegally weren't homemade, probably they were stolen from someone who bought them legally, so stricter gun control would still get less guns out there and reduce violence like this.
Your logic eludes me.
Today a person legally buys a gun (passes background check, has it secure in house).
Gun gets stolen.
Stolen gun used in horrible crime.
This is exactly what is happening today.
So what is different?? Please give details.
How is it secure if it can get stolen?
It's pretty simple.
Eliminate your first line. "Today a person legally buys a gun".
If the person never buys the gun, "gun gets stolen" and "stolen gun used in crime" can't happen because said gun never existed in the first place.
Yes, it's on a bigger scale, but as that old saying goes, "a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step."
Welcome to the NRA's future.
That is an amazingly poor comparison, comparing texting and driving with gun control!
Now, if a person is loading his gun while drunk in a crowded room, you have a better comparison.
You see how incredibly bad your analogy is? Being distracted while driving a 4000lb car at 60mph (120 kph?) does not even compare to operating a gun, unless you are trying to load a gun traveling at 60 MPH in a 4000 lb car and you get a text message....
Better comparison might be the TSA, can't think of a better one ATM.
"A lock is to keep honest people honest."
Think about that for a bit.
mrkramer said "legally buys"
Stick with topic.
This is a totally unsubstantiated assumption anyway.
It simply doesn't follow that if you commit a gun crime, the gun was obtained illegally.
And the time has come to end this practice across the board, which harms everyone on every side of the argument.
Too many murders, accidents, suicides have occurred because gun owners didn't keep their guns secure. It seems so simple, yet it seems like daily we are hearing about another accidental shooting...
This news story was first up on prime time news here in the UK
You cant blame those outside of the US for having such low views of the US and its crazy right to firearms.
Everyday there's some major gun related incident coming out of the US
I'll be staying clear in 2013
Well from what I have read it appears that maybe he set the fire as a trap to get them there. If that is the case we really need to look at banning matches.
You might think I am being funny, but a few years ago there was a family that lost all of their children in a house fire where I used to live and the cause was a child playing with a lighter. If lighters had been banned there would have never been the fire and the kids would still be alive today.
I think we might look at the NRA's idea, if they want armed guards in the class room, how about helicopter gunships with first responders?
But not funny.
Edit: other illogical conclusions ...
He set fire to the house. So we really need to look at banning fire.
He set fire to the house. So we really need to look at banning houses.
Not really. They're both things that if used irresponsibly can lead to people getting killed.
Just because you're against gun control doesn't mean it's not a valid comparison. The point is that we have banned things that can lead to harm if used irresponsibly before, and we can do it again with guns.
And yes, there are people who use their guns responsibly, just like there are people who can text in their car responsibly. But like they say, one bad apple spoils the bunch.