I think the gun control discussion in this thread is relevant with the argument “lone psychos will find it much easier to kill people if they have access to guns so guns should be harder to get.”
Though the timing was wrong, the sentiment was right. The fact is that guns are a part of our culture, they will never NOT be a part of our culture. You can handwring about the lack of rules and laws, but those rules and laws that exist now are being broken to commit horrible crimes like this one.
You can wail about “too many guns” in our society, and to a point, you’d be right, but that’s the right-now reality. We play the cardds we’re dealt.
It is clear in case after case that the police are not able to proactively protect you, ANY of you, from an armed assailant. If you have a gun against someone else who has a gun, you have a fighting chance. None of those 32 people had a fighting chance. They all died cowering under desks and chairs with fear in their hearts and no way to stop this maniac. THAT is bullshit. No one deserves to die like that, and if you take the guns out of the hands of MORE people, this will continue to happen.
Still, let’s say that guns were suddenly banned and taken away. Does anyone think this would have gone another way? Could he have walked into a classroom with a homemade bomb strapped to him, or in a bookbag, and done the same thing? Yep, and then everybody dies at once instead of allowing someone to retreat into a position of cover, draw their weapon and put a stop to it.
I don’t think we should descend into the old west-style of street shootouts, and I don’t think everyone is qualified to own and use a firearm, but I think if there were more tested, competent and background-checked concealed carriers out there, that America would be a safer place, and things like this wouldn’t be able to get as far as they did.
Consider that if there were an armed citizen in the classroom that perhaps 10, 15, or even 20 lives may have been saved. Perhaps not, but what if? Or, if there were an armed person near where the first shootings took place that 30 lives may have been saved.
Even if, at the most extreme end of this particular example, the two (armed citizen and maniac) engaged in a shootout, it would give those trapped by the madman time to escape, and maybe save even one life.
Sorry, I don’t even feel like reading past this. I’ve got better things to do than have a “cutting contest” with you. Bye.
The reason I don’t think it’s relevant is that it doesn’t matter, to the lone psycho, how easy it is. He’s willing to do something harder, so the same amount of people end up dead. Now if we were talking about some dudes shooting each other in a bar fight, I’d agree with you.
Why would anyone ever get the idea you are a weasel?
Aren’t you clever - yawn. :rolleyes:
Why should the rules of a society be structured around what a lone psycho might do? If we go down that road then all things are outlawed.
If a lone psycho is able to easily kill large quantities of people with device X, it is in indication of the dangers inherent in device X. So people outside of the lone psycho category could use it wittingly or unwittingly to cause great harm.
Not necessarily the same amount of people. If I have two methods for killing people, and method A is quicker and easier than method B, it stands to reason that I will be able to get to more people with method A - I will get more bang for the buck than with method B.
Why exactly is it that you think we have to go through all those security procedures at airports?
You are making this appear far more black and white than it is. You are certainly less able to stop someone if you do not have a gun, but you are certainly not helpless. Look back at the examples I listed. It seems not uncommon that it is an unarmed person that stops a school shooter.
First, that’s Mister Butthole, to you. Second, you might be aware that you wrote something (though at this point, I’d say the jury was still out on that point), you’re apparently not aware of what it said.
It is evidence of something. It is evidence that the blanket declaration that some folks were making that people of college age are too young and immature to handle weapons is, in fact, false.
Every university gives students a “code of conduct” which they must follow. Violation of this code can lead to expulsion. Furthermore, an individual who chooses to own a firearm is subject to addtional rules, and violation of those rules can lead to jail time.
Earth. Third planet from the star known as Sol by the denizens of that planet. You, obviously, are unfamiliar with the place.
A student can be expelled, placed on academic suspension, and if they’re employed by the university, they can lose their job.
And yet, those incidences are a distinct minority. Alcohol is strictly controlled and regulated, yet people still obtain it when they shouldn’t, become alcoholics, and/or get behind the wheel when they’re impared and kill people. Should we not only ban alcohol, but also cars, because there’s a chance that someone could get drunk and kill someone?
Not nearly as stupid as you apparently are. I never said that college students should be handed weapons willy nilly. I never indicated that there should be any lessening of the controls as to who can own a firearm, or that I was satisfied with the current methods of preventing guns from getting nto the wrong hands. You, OTOH, have been hopping all over your Jump to Conclusions Mat[sup]TM[/sup] like a motherfucker. Frankly, I think that it would be a good idea if people wanting own a gun not only underwent background checks, but also intense training akin to what military soldiers go through.
Ha, that’s a good one! 
And I disagree, for the reasons stated above. Guess we’ll have to leave it at that. Still don’t know what you think I mis-stated about your position, but that sounds like an anal-rententive argument I don’t have the time nor inclination to get into.
Although I do take issue with one thing:
A soldier can be sentenced to hard labor in prison. I’m just not seeing the parallel here. Sorry.
No it isn’t. It is an indication of the danger posed by a lone psycho. Device X is irrelevant. I could easily kill hundreds with what I learned in my high school Chemistry class, using items available in any hardware store and supermarket. Does that make the hardware store inherently dangerous? Of course not. If we spent our efforts identifying and treating people who do things like this instead of haring off down side streets barking at things we find scary we as a society would be a lot better off.
By your reasoning, then, it would be acceptable for people to have access to nuclear weapons.
Better check, because last time I looked, people do have access to them. They are all employees of the Government, true, but they still have access. Why do you gun-control nutballs always head for the bottom of the slippery slope? Every freaking time? By your logic, any woman who has ever kissed a guy is a slut, because we know that once you acknowledge “A,” then “B,” then all the way to “Z.” Forget the fact that no sane person in the US wants to personally own a nuke. By God, if we let them have rifles then they’ll want nukes!
Yes, I know the extremists on the other side use the same faulty reasoning, just reversed. Doesn’t make it right for you to do it, now does it?
It’s YOUR reasoning, bub. Did you or did you not say, “Device X is irrelevant”?
If you are truly arguing that it is the person who is responsible, and that the device is irrelevant, then the inescapable conclusion from that line of reasoning is that there is no inherent danger in people possessing nuclear weapons.
Yeah, it IS faulty reasoning. Unfortunately for you, it’s YOUR reasoning.
lowbrass, you really need to take a debate class.
silenus, I hear what you’re saying, and I’m not really trying to start a big argument here. Of course what you say is true: many commonly available items are dangerous. If I were to make the decision on the restricted availability of Device X, here are some of the criteria I would use:
[ol][li]danger to the public (including the amount of effort and specialized knowledge required to make item X dangerous) when someone (the lone psycho) uses the item for harm[/li][li]danger to the public (including the amount of effort and specialized knowledge required to make item X dangerous) when someone (the run-of-the-mill criminal) uses the item for harm - I would actually include this in item 1. but the distinction is being made in this thread[/li][li]danger to the public when a well-meaning member of the public uses the item carelessly[/li][li]the benefits offered by item X when used by the general public for its intended purpose[/ol][/li]
I think the gun debate really centers about #4, and not the first three. But item 1 should not be irrelevant to the discussion.
Why? I kicked your ass.
If I were ever in a situation like the campus shootings, I’d love having Airman as one of my classmates, because he could protect me whilst I defecated myself with my hands over my ears. You on the other hand seem like the type who’d knock me to the ground running for the exit.