Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 142
  1. naivete's Avatar
    Posts
    636 Posts
    Global Posts
    640 Global Posts
    #21  
    The argument of arming everyone will definitely wash. It's like arming every country in the world with nuclear weapons in response to Iran making a nuclear bomb.
  2. #22  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Interesting perspective....

    Although I do wonder if NRA-lobbied and weakened gun laws failed to serve the public interest because this a-hole could buy the gun to begin with?
    Definitely. I think the right to bear arms was one of the biggest mistakes the Founders made, and I think today's loose gun control laws result in too many murders, injuries, robberies, and accidents.
  3.    #23  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    Definitely. I think the right to bear arms was one of the biggest mistakes the Founders made, and I think today's loose gun control laws result in too many murders, injuries, robberies, and accidents.
    LOL. Not sure I take you seriously....but OK....I'll roll with that.

    Seriously....as I said in another thread, I believe the intent was for a bunch of farmers to be able to organize a militia and defend the country or overthrow the government when/if it had become too corrupt/powerful to serve the newly formed democracy well. But since our government won't allow you to buy F16s, tanks, and other modern military weapons it seems they have removed that right from you anyway.....unless you think you can take on an F16 with your Desert Eagle?
  4. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by naivete View Post
    The argument of arming everyone will definitely wash. It's like arming every country in the world with nuclear weapons in response to Iran making a nuclear bomb.
    A bit backwards there. Iran wants to have a nuclear arsenal because it's the only denomination that the world-wide players who have them recognize (Israel, Pakistan, India, etc, etc, etc).
  5. #25  
    Sorry if I sounded sarcastic. I actually do believe it was a huge mistake for the country. We're now stuck with a well-armed population, and there's no easy way out. Guns are a permanent part of our culture, and we're going to continue to have incidents like VT, Columbine, and the Amish schoolhouse because a large portion of the country likes to hunt and wants to "protect" themselves, and they'll oppose anyone who tries to restrict gun ownership.
  6. #26  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    Sorry if I sounded sarcastic. I actually do believe it was a huge mistake for the country. We're now stuck with a well-armed population, and there's no easy way out. Guns are a permanent part of our culture, and we're going to continue to have incidents like VT, Columbine, and the Amish schoolhouse because a large portion of the country likes to hunt and wants to "protect" themselves, and they'll oppose anyone who tries to restrict gun ownership.
    I understand your concern. I think, however, that you are making a "cause/effect" argument where it does not exist. It is not a proliferation of guns that "causes" people to kill. As cellmatrix pointed out, our society glorifies violence. I think the "effect" of that is having a growing population with less inclined to show restraint (whether they use guns, bats, explosives, fists, extortion...)
  7. #27  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    Sorry if I sounded sarcastic. I actually do believe it was a huge mistake for the country. We're now stuck with a well-armed population, and there's no easy way out. Guns are a permanent part of our culture, and we're going to continue to have incidents like VT, Columbine, and the Amish schoolhouse because a large portion of the country likes to hunt and wants to "protect" themselves, and they'll oppose anyone who tries to restrict gun ownership.

    If everyone there is a gun totin' redneck... Don't you think it would have ended long before 30 people were killed.

    Someone should have taken him out long before that many lives were deystroyed...
  8. #28  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    I understand your concern. I think, however, that you are making a "cause/effect" argument where it does not exist. It is not a proliferation of guns that "causes" people to kill. As cellmatrix pointed out, our society glorifies violence. I think the "effect" of that is having a growing population with less inclined to show restraint (whether they use guns, bats, explosives, fists, extortion...)
    If no one posessed guns, we'd have fewer murders, despite the wide availability of bats, knives, and fists. The proliferation of guns enables people to kill. I think blaming people and society dodges the issue of gun control. Yeah sure, people are ultimately responsible for their actions, but that doesn't change the fact that fewer guns would mean fewer deaths.
  9. #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg View Post

    If everyone there is a gun totin' redneck... Don't you think it would have ended long before 30 people were killed.

    Someone should have taken him out long before that many lives were deystroyed...
    And if Cho wasn't allowed to purchase guns so easily, there would have been no mass attack to thwart.

    You're suggesting that guns are the solution to a problem that only exists because of guns.
  10. #30  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    And if Cho wasn't allowed to purchase guns so easily, there would have been no mass attack to thwart.

    You're suggesting that guns are the solution to a problem that only exists because of guns.
    You can't be serious

    Do you think his clearly delusional thoughts were manifested while opening his shiny new ever so easy to aquire gun?
  11. #31  
    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg View Post
    You can't be serious

    Do you think his clearly delusional thoughts were manifested while opening his shiny new ever so easy to aquire gun?
    How do you suppose he would go on a rampage without guns? Most likely he would have just quietly committed suicide or maybe taken out one or two people with him.
  12. #32  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    How do you suppose he would go on a rampage without guns? Most likely he would have just quietly committed suicide or maybe taken out one or two people with him.
    OMG

    History proves that masacres were not only possible but in fact did occur long before the invention of guns.
  13. #33  
    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg View Post
    OMG

    History proves that masacres were not only possible but in fact did occur long before the invention of guns.
    OMG
    What's possible is not the same as what's likely.

    If Cho didn't have guns, there'd likely be 32 more people alive today.
  14. #34  
    Speculation...
  15. #35  
    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg View Post
    Speculation...
    Without guns, he wouldn't have shot all those people. That's not speculation; that's fact.

    If you're going to claim that he would have still carried out over 30 murders without guns, then that's speculation.
  16. #36  
    Correct! They would not have been shot. Earlier your comment was that 32 more people would be alive. Hence my "speculation" comment. I hadn't realized that we had already narrowed senseles murders down to being only those deaths which were carried out by the use of guns.

    My mistake, carry on...
  17. #37  
    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg View Post
    My mistake
    True.
    Since the shots from the guns killed them, it's correct to say that they'd still be alive. Unless you believe that their fate was to die that day one way or another.

    You seem to want to speculate that he could have carried out 32 murders without guns. That's possible, but unlikely. It's also possible that without access to guns, he would have gotten past this difficult period without harming anyone and he would have eventually gone on to live a normal life. In fact, there are many people who are as mentally unstable as he was, but most of them don't resort to murder.
  18.    #38  
    Guns are an enabling technology. Sort of like cell phones with unlimited long distance. I would never have thought to call my wife long distance while traveling so much if I didn't have the cell phone with an unlimited LD plan. I'm sure I am not alone and the result of wide spread access to cell phones is why we deal with idiots talking in theaters, while driving, etc. Are all of these people that important? Of course not - but cell phones enable them to behave in a way they may not without them.

    Turning to guns, the evidence is overwhelming that industrial leading societies that have gun control have markedly less gun crimes. So yes you are right guns don't kill people do - but its the widespread proliferation of guns coupled with our utter detachment from violence due to poor parenting, crappy TV, violent and yet socially acceptable video games, etc. that allows angry and/or disturbed people do things they may not normally do.

    Moreover, it takes a lot more to kill someone with a knife then with a gun. Pulling a trigger is like pushing a button on a game controller when compared to sticking a knife deep into someone's heart six inches several times to kill them. Again, it allows someone to be more detached than perhaps more conventional psychos have been in the past (e.g. Jack the Ripper).
  19. #39  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    True.
    Since the shots from the guns killed them, it's correct to say that they'd still be alive. Unless you believe that their fate was to die that day one way or another.

    You seem to want to speculate that he could have carried out 32 murders without guns. That's possible, but unlikely. It's also possible that without access to guns, he would have gotten past this difficult period without harming anyone and he would have eventually gone on to live a normal life. In fact, there are many people who are as mentally unstable as he was, but most of them don't resort to murder.
    So then, you admit that this is possible even in our gun ridden society?
  20. #40  
    You seem to be suggesting that Cho's delusional state is not the core problem and that without access to guns, his resulting behavior wouldn't have been nearly as horrific.

    Lets assume that this is true, and that this
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    How do you suppose he would go on a rampage without guns? Most likely he would have just quietly committed suicide or maybe taken out one or two people with him.
    is also true.

    Which 30 deaths should we be outraged by as being senseless, or rather, which two families should accept thier loss as being acceptable?
Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions