It's Really Hard to Be a Good Guy With a Gun

[DEAD7]

Gun violence is down even though Ownership is way up... so what is needed is a measure to combat mental illness(the main contributor in mass shootings) not guns themselves.

I dont think mental health checks will do enough though... many of these loons may actually pass.

 

[unit321]

I zoned out after one paragraph.
Not to sound elitist, but if you want to be effective with a gun and protect yourself, you need tactical training. That dude who tried to stop the shooting, well, he just flat out approached the person with a gun, and he had a gun. Zero situational awareness. No cover or concealment.
For those with cop training or military training, you know there's a difference between movies and reality. You don't just stand out there like it's downtown Dodge City and having a pistol drawing duel.

The argument for gun ownership it to protect yourself against the criminal element. The "HUGE" liberal argument is that the small number of "NUT CASE" shootings is making people think if you take away guns, you take away violence. The UK, with it's not gun laws, has a ton of violence, just without guns. Thugs use other weapons. It is what it is.

 

[Insensitive]

So is it guns should be legal because you want maximum freedom for yourself or is it because they are a deterrent from government tyranny? It seems like I press one of those arguments and you skate right back to the other one. Either way, you are saying that you are willing to have thousands die so that you can enjoy your freedom to own a gun. This is a practical outcome of your belief system, so don't hide behind your ideology. The selfishness and ridiculousness of this position cannot be understated.

Good day, sir.

I get your point but I think you're removing humans from the equation.
I think violence where a gun is involved would just become violence
with a different weapon altogether.
Thousands of people would likely still lose their lives yearly to violence.

 

[tmonster]

I get your point but I think you're removing humans from the equation.
I think violence where a gun is involved would just become violence
with a different weapon altogether.
Thousands of people would likely still lose their lives yearly to violence.

todays gun is a special tool of violence friend
it can't be compared to other mediums of violence
its efficiency makes it a tyrant in the public space, neutralizing the victim's option to run or establish distance from the assailant
it makes it easier for one man to solely and easily decide the fate of many, making it inherently antidemocratic
it works faster than the speed of human remorse and human revision
it requires so little energy that it invites the lazy and the coward to enter the realm of violence
and those people tend to be also, the callous

it is a very different tool

 

[Insensitive]

todays gun is a special tool of violence friend
it can't be compared to other mediums of violence
its efficiency makes it a tyrant in the public space, neutralizing the victim's option to run or establish distance from the assailant
it makes it easier for one man to solely and easily decide the fate of many, making it inherently antidemocratic
it works faster than the speed of human remorse and human revision
it requires so little energy that it invites the lazy and the coward to enter the realm of violence
and those people tend to be also, the callous

it is a very different tool

I agree, gun ownership can embolden people who would otherwise
be cowards but I think mass shootings turned suicides, would just become mass stabbings
or bombings turned suicides, people crazy enough to go through with such things clearly want to
hurt a lot of people and would do whatever is necessary to fulfill that goal.
Elliott Rodgers and his rampage is a good example, he had tons of ammo and guns but instead
of shooting his way out of his apartment, the guy drugged and stabbed his roommates to death.
For him it didn't matter HOW he did it, he just wanted it done.

 

[tmonster]

Refuting Anti-Gun Control Arguments
http://theprogressivecynic.com/debu...g-gun-enthusiasts-anti-gun-control-arguments/

 

[tmonster]

I agree, gun ownership can embolden people who would otherwise
be cowards but I think mass shootings turned suicides, would just become mass stabbings
or bombings turned suicides, people crazy enough to go through with such things clearly want to
hurt a lot of people and would do whatever is necessary to fulfill that goal.
Elliott Rodgers and his rampage is a good example, he had tons of ammo and guns but instead
of shooting his way out of his apartment, the guy drugged and stabbed his roommates to death.
For him it didn't matter HOW he did it, he just wanted it done.

do you know how rare and less fatal those are?
there is a reason for that

 

[Insensitive]

do you know how rare and less fatal those are?
there is a reason for that

I think they're only rare because people have guns at least in America
because I don't know about other countries.
I personally think Guns allow violent irrational people to be more efficient
in their violent outbursts but removing them wouldn't cure said people
from their mental illness or whatever else would drive them to violent
crime of any sort.
Which is why I made sure to say that there is a chance the
murders won't just stop once the amount of guns available is restricted.

 

[tmonster]

I think they're only rare because people have guns at least in America
because I don't know about other countries.

you don't need data to figure this out
the nature of the weapon tells the story

I personally think Guns allow violent irrational people to be more efficient

nothing like efficient irrationality :youthink:

in their violent outbursts but removing them wouldn't cure said people

from their mental illness or whatever else would drive them to violent
crime of any sort.

:wuthello:
look I don't know how to take comments like this seriously
so I'm gonna bounce before I start being sarcastic

 

[Futuristic Eskimo]

I get your point but I think you're removing humans from the equation.
I think violence where a gun is involved would just become violence
with a different weapon altogether.
Thousands of people would likely still lose their lives yearly to violence.

If the gun didn't increase the efficiency of killing, then it would be an obsolete tool, as it serves no other purpose. To claim that the same amount of people would die from stabbings or whatever else is not something that I think can really be supported by reality.

 

[tmonster]

Tuesday, April 2, 2013
The Presence of Firearms Did Not Keep Texas DA From Being Assassinated In His Own Home



Texas prosecutor Mike McLelland
A common belief among many Americans seems to be that the possession of firearms somehow makes us secure in a dangerous world. Some have argued that the Newtown massacre in Connecticut might have been averted if teachers had been armed in their classrooms.

Those who hold such beliefs might want to consider the experience of Mike McLelland, who was district attorney of Kaufman County, Texas. I say was because McLelland and his wife, Cynthia, were shot and killed on Saturday by an intruder at their home some 20 miles southeast of Dallas. The slayings came less than two months after one of McLelland's chief assistants, Mark Hasse, was killed by one or more gunmen in the courthouse parking lot.

In the wake of Hasse's murder, McLelland made a number of tough public statements, vowing to apprehend the "scum" who were responsible. McLelland even made it clear that he had taken extra precautions to protect himself. The message that McLelland sent, in so many words, was this: "I am heavily armed, and I am a professional who knows how to use weapons."

Did that help keep him alive? Not exactly. Authorities say McLelland was shot multiple times while wearing his pajamas. Here is how The Dallas Morning News described McLelland's mindset after the Hasse murder:

McLelland himself had said he was taking no chances after Hasse was assassinated.

He said he carried a gun everywhere he went and always took extra care when answering the door of his home.

“I’m ahead of everybody else because, basically, I’m a soldier,” the 23-year Army veteran boasted less than two weeks ago.
How could a heavily armed "soldier," on high alert, wind up being shot to death in his own home? Here are details of the crime scene from The Dallas Morning News:

Investigators said little publicly about the crime or possible suspects. But a law enforcement official, speaking only on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the case, called the attacks at the McLellands’ home “brazen.”

The shootings appeared to be premeditated, well-orchestrated and anything but a random burglary that went bad, several law enforcement officials said.

Cynthia McLelland’s body was found near the front door, and it appeared she had answered the door, the officials said. At least two officials said Mike McLelland’s body was found toward the rear of the house. He was dressed in pajamas.

Both were shot more than once, apparently with a large-caliber assault-style rifle. “They found the bodies and a lot of shell casings,” a law enforcement official said.

“It’s a bad deal. This is brazen. It’s revenge. You don’t go in there and do the stuff that’s been done if it’s not revenge motivated.”
Texas is known for its gun-toting, cowboy culture--and McLelland seemed to revel in his tough-guy image. But that did not help much--not when a bad guy with an assault weapon made him, and his home, a target.

http://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-presence-of-firearms-did-not-keep.html​

 

[Insensitive]

If the gun didn't increase the efficiency of killing, then it would be an obsolete tool, as it serves no other purpose. To claim that the same amount of people would die from stabbings or whatever else is not something that I think can really be supported by reality.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-26402367



Reality supported.
29 people dead from a mass stabbing, there's high chance
you'll die from a stab wound just like you'd die from a gun shot
especially if the person attacking you hits vital parts of your body
like the arteries, lungs, heart etc.

Two more mass stabbings for good measure :
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...dy-hook-china-s-terrifying-knife-attacks.html

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-t...ained-in-Lone-Star-College-campus-4420907.php

look I don't know how to take comments like this seriously
so I'm gonna bounce before I start being sarcastic

Don't try to play me like some Higher Learning NRA loving government fearing
conspiracy theorist, if we're going to talk about guns and violent people
I think it'd be safe to say that violent people will be violent guns or not.
"Guns don't kill people, people do" is a valid statement...because..well..it's true
and I think going forward we'd need not only stricter gun laws but a way to pick up on
and diffuse situations before they ever reach the point of murder.
Elliott Rodgers is again another good example, he as well as several other mass shooters
were pretty vocal about how they felt before going to do something crazy, it was only
after the fact that people realized just how serious they were.

 

[tmonster]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-26402367

Reality supported.
29 people dead from a mass stabbing, there's high chance
you'll die from a stab wound just like you'd die from a gun shot
especially if the person attacking you hits vital parts of your body
like the arteries, lungs, heart etc.

:wuthello:yeah....I need to move on

Don't try to play me like some Higher Learning NRA loving government fearing
conspiracy theorist, if we're going to talk about guns and violent people
I think it'd be safe to say that violent people will be violent guns or not.
"Guns don't kill people, people do" is a valid statement...because..well..it's true
and I think going forward we'd need not only stricter gun laws but a way to pick up on
and diffuse situations before they ever reach the point of murder.
Elliott Rodgers is again another good example, he as well as several other mass shooters
were pretty vocal about how they felt before going to do something crazy, it was only
after the fact that people realized just how serious they were.

breh...when you "inform" me that removing guns does not cure mental illness as if
1. someone said it did
2. you saying something (I mean breh you elaborated on the comment, paragraph and all:zfg
then friend, you are in the act of playing yourself

 

[Futuristic Eskimo]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-26402367

Reality supported.
29 people dead from a mass stabbing, there's high chance
you'll die from a stab wound just like you'd die from a gun shot
especially if the person attacking you hits vital parts of your body
like the arteries, lungs, heart etc.

This is also intuitive. If guns and knives are equally effective in killing another person, then a knife wielding public should be equally capable of protecting itself from government tyranny and defending their homes. One mass stabbing proves absolutely nothing, as there is a mountain of dead bodies on the other side of the argument that I can easily pull up links to.

Let's backtrack a bit. If you're saying that knives are just as effective as a killing tool, why the fukk do guns even exist in the first place? Why does every military use them? I haven't seen SEAL Team 6 operating in Afghanistan with steak knives in the past 10 years breh.

I can't believe some of the arguments people come up with for this shyt. It's mind boggling.

 

[Ronnie Lott]

I suppose we shouldn't have traffic laws since criminals won't obey those either.

No need for a laws against theft/burglary either since, like you said, criminals won't obey them anyway right?


To be honest, I'm starting to wonder what the point of having laws is anyway. I mean if somebody is a criminal they're going to disregard laws they don't want to obey regardless right? Might as well get rid of all of them. What's the point of even having laws, since obviously some people might not abide by them?

Are you bein sarcastic