Guns

[RodeoX]

I'm guessing this thread is active because of the nut in Colorado. What a sad event. The only thing that could have made a difference is if the audience had guns. That particular theater did not allow people to protect themselves and obviously had no way to protect their customers.
I am checking local theaters where I live so that I never make the mistake of patronizing such a place. If they allowed CC weapons, that guy would have never been able to kill so many. Why do you think these whackos choose schools and such? Because they are safe zones for mass murder.  

[1714797608]

1714797608

[1714797608]

1714797608

[1714797608]

1714797608

[1714797608]

1714797608

[vampire]

I'm guessing this thread is active because of the nut in Colorado. What a sad event. The only thing that could have made a difference is if the audience had guns. That particular theater did not allow people to protect themselves and obviously had no way to protect their customers.
I am checking local theaters where I live so that I never make the mistake of patronizing such a place. If they allowed CC weapons, that guy would have never been able to kill so many. Why do you think these whackos choose schools and such? Because they are safe zones for mass murder.  

That's silly. Smoke bombs, panic, cross fire - many more would die.

[FirstAscent]

Food kills far more people than guns.
Alcohol kills far more people than guns.
Cars kills far more people than guns.
I could go on.
Why are we allowing people to eat, drink, drive, swim, etc. ? Is it just because those are things you do? What are YOU doing that should be banned?

Statistics wise you're wrong:

USA, per 100,000:

firearm deaths: 10.27
traffic related: 12.3
alcohol related (except traffic): 8.03
food related: 1.63

Logically, he's wrong as well. Consider:

Sensible person: "Speeding kills. Thus a ban on speeding."

Wacko: "Food kills. Why don't we ban food?"

Sensible person: "You really don't know why we don't ban food?"

[RodeoX]

Food kills far more people than guns.
Alcohol kills far more people than guns.
Cars kills far more people than guns.
I could go on.
Why are we allowing people to eat, drink, drive, swim, etc. ? Is it just because those are things you do? What are YOU doing that should be banned?

Statistics wise you're wrong:

USA, per 100,000:

firearm deaths: 10.27
traffic related: 12.3
alcohol related (except traffic): 8.03
food related: 1.63

well, food should include all deaths from obesity. Firearms/traffic should not include suicide. And alcohol should include long term disease.
The point is why are we picking this one risk? Why not the many more serious problems.?

[RodeoX]

I'm guessing this thread is active because of the nut in Colorado. What a sad event. The only thing that could have made a difference is if the audience had guns. That particular theater did not allow people to protect themselves and obviously had no way to protect their customers.
I am checking local theaters where I live so that I never make the mistake of patronizing such a place. If they allowed CC weapons, that guy would have never been able to kill so many. Why do you think these whackos choose schools and such? Because they are safe zones for mass murder.  

That's silly. Smoke bombs, panic, cross fire - many more would die.

No way. I shoot 3 times a week. I would have killed him.
I have been shot at by trained soldiers on three continents. Ask them.

[FirstAscent]

Food kills far more people than guns.
Alcohol kills far more people than guns.
Cars kills far more people than guns.
I could go on.
Why are we allowing people to eat, drink, drive, swim, etc. ? Is it just because those are things you do? What are YOU doing that should be banned?

Statistics wise you're wrong:

USA, per 100,000:

firearm deaths: 10.27
traffic related: 12.3
alcohol related (except traffic): 8.03
food related: 1.63

well, food should include all deaths from obesity. Firearms/traffic should not include suicide. And alcohol should include long term disease.
The point is why are we picking this one risk? Why not the many more serious problems.?

We don't ban food because it is useful for living. Assault weapons, not so much.

[vampire]

well, food should include all deaths from obesity. Firearms/traffic should not include suicide. And alcohol should include long term disease.
The point is why are we picking this one risk? Why not the many more serious problems.?

LOL tweaking statistics to your liking? Really stop posting crap.

A gunman killed twelve people in a MILITARY base:

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

[vampire]

No way. I shoot 3 times a week. I would have killed him.
I have been shot at by trained soldiers on three continents. Ask them.

Can you name these 3 continents?

[FirstAscent]

It appears that Jason Alexander is saying the same thing I am. Note the paragraphs in nearly the exact middle of the document: http://www.twitlonger.com/show/if2nht

[nimda]

Lastly, there are these well-intended realists that say that people like this evil animal would get these weapons even if we regulated them. And they may be right. But he wouldn't have strolled down the road to Kmart and picked them up. Regulated, he would have had to go to illegal sources - sources that could possibly be traced, watched, overseen. Or he would have to go deeper online and those transactions could be monitored. "Hm, some guy in Aurora is buying guns, tons of ammo and kevlar - plus bomb-making ingredients and tear gas. Maybe we should check that out."

Hmmm... so this unemployed student got his $20K of weapons and weapon-related items legally? Wow. Can I see a receipt?

[Explodicle]

But drop this silly "it's a meme!" nonsense, it's irrelevant.

No. Because it's not irrelevant. You can't build and defend a political ideology on memes which upon evaluation are misleading. But people try - witness the meme we just discussed and many others prevalent within this forum.

It sounds like your problem should be with misleading statements, not memes. Wasn't your original claim "guns are the tool to kill"? It's misleading because you apparently mean "tool to kill HUMANS", and I bet when pressed your definition will narrow more and more. It's transparent that you're working backwards from some idea that you wish was simpler.

You've made it clear that you support neither the status quo nor radical gun rights. So where do you stand? Who should decide what's allowed and what isn't, and what policy do they use?

[nimda]

well, food should include all deaths from obesity. Firearms/traffic should not include suicide. And alcohol should include long term disease.
The point is why are we picking this one risk? Why not the many more serious problems.?

LOL tweaking statistics to your liking? Really stop posting crap.

A gunman killed twelve people in a MILITARY base:

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

From your link:

However, Lt. General Cone stated: "As a matter of practice, we do not carry weapons on Fort Hood. This is our home." Military weapons are only used for training or by base security, and personal weapons must be kept locked away by the provost marshal.

As a spectator and the OP, I applaud this post. So far, the "shooting sprees with armed 'victims' have fewer victims" argument is holding up fairly well. I'd like to draw everyone's attention back to that other Colorado shooting spree where the shooter was shot.

[vampire]

However, Lt. General Cone stated: "As a matter of practice, we do not carry weapons on Fort Hood. This is our home." Military weapons are only used for training or by base security, and personal weapons must be kept locked away by the provost marshal.

Still weapons are there. Police was there. The point that such shootings are hard to prevent:

Colorado shooting started at 12:38am, police was there at 12:40am, and at 12:45am the suspect was already in custody.

It's pretty much 2 minutes of carnage. Noone would have done anything to stop it.

[TheBitcoinChemist]

Food kills far more people than guns.
Alcohol kills far more people than guns.
Cars kills far more people than guns.
I could go on.
Why are we allowing people to eat, drink, drive, swim, etc. ? Is it just because those are things you do? What are YOU doing that should be banned?

Statistics wise you're wrong:

USA, per 100,000:

firearm deaths: 10.27
traffic related: 12.3
alcohol related (except traffic): 8.03
food related: 1.63

Logically, he's wrong as well. Consider:

Sensible person: "Speeding kills. Thus a ban on speeding."

Wacko: "Food kills. Why don't we ban food?"

Sensible person: "You really don't know why we don't ban food?"

Logical fallacy.  Those statements are not equivilant.  Your 'sensible' person would have to ban cars, not ban speeding.  Like speeding, murder is already illegal regardless of the tool employed.

[vampire]

Did this lone old man prevent a massacre? The world, of course, will never know what might have happened had he not stopped the two thugs.

This is one old man carrying a concealed weapon, mind you.

http://youtu.be/KjH3ZMUks1o

Holmes had AR-15, armed in body armor and on drugs... He wasn't planning to rob anyone.  

The old guy shot like 6-7 times, missed most of them. No imagine if he killed someone else with a stray bullet. Whoops.

[TheBitcoinChemist]

Food kills far more people than guns.
Alcohol kills far more people than guns.
Cars kills far more people than guns.
I could go on.
Why are we allowing people to eat, drink, drive, swim, etc. ? Is it just because those are things you do? What are YOU doing that should be banned?

Statistics wise you're wrong:

USA, per 100,000:

firearm deaths: 10.27
traffic related: 12.3
alcohol related (except traffic): 8.03
food related: 1.63

well, food should include all deaths from obesity. Firearms/traffic should not include suicide. And alcohol should include long term disease.
The point is why are we picking this one risk? Why not the many more serious problems.?

We don't ban food because it is useful for living. Assault weapons, not so much.

Please define "assault weapon" for this conversation, because I'd wager that you don't really know what that means.

[vampire]

Please define "assault weapon" for this conversation, because I'd wager that you don't really know what that means.

AR-15 is an assault weapon.

[vampire]

AR-15's need reloaded after 30 rounds (with your typical magazine). A witness reported that everything would go quiet when he was reloading. Sounds like a great time to return fire to me. Imagine 3 people with concealed weapons in that crowd and we might have a very different outcome.

He had a drum magazine with 200 rounds.

Anyway, the argument is moot, I own guns, I carry guns, and nothing will change that. I won't force you to carry a gun, how about you don't attempt to force me to give up mine? Sound fair? Thanks!

Don't care, I am in NYC. Just don't mind if you get shot by NYC cops when you bring your gun here.

[vampire]

Is a Marlin Classic Model 1895 an assault weapon?

Lever-action. Nope.

[TheBitcoinChemist]

Did this lone old man prevent a massacre? The world, of course, will never know what might have happened had he not stopped the two thugs.

This is one old man carrying a concealed weapon, mind you.

http://youtu.be/KjH3ZMUks1o

Holmes had AR-15, armed in body armor and on drugs... He wasn't planning to rob anyone.  

The old guy shot like 6-7 times, missed most of them. No imagine if he killed someone else with a stray bullet. Whoops.

The key point here is that he didn't.  We can muse all day about what an armed citizen or two in that theater would have changed the outcomes, but the truth is that it would depend upon the citizens.  The vast majority of concealed carry licencees wouldn't have been able to stop this rampage early because it was so quick and the odds of the licencees being able to properly identify the orginally shooter from another CC, and without getting shot himself, are long.  But that's not the point.  Rampaging lone nutjobs are hard to prevent in any case, and guns are old tech, easily reproduced by one machinist.  Making them illegal is not going to prevent people who are motivated to possess them from aquiring them.  After all, most guns are illegal in Mexico & Britain, and in both cases the culture has changed enough that wise police keep firearms nearby, if only in their squad car.  The greatest factor in the use of firearms in violent crimes is not the legality of the firearms, but the culture in question.   Gun violence is very rare in Canada, but that still isn't an argument in faovr of doing the same in the United States.  Canada is a relatively uniform culture, while the US is a mix of amny cultures of varying degrees of conflict.  Feel free to do whatever you think that you can to change that culture, but if your plan involves using the force of government to restrict my ability to defend my own family from harm, by restricting my access to the best tools for the job or by any other method, you are already wrong.