I don’t think gun owners or advocates have any responsibility here at all. That goes without saying really.
But I do think having guns around necessarily leads to this kind of thing. You have to ask yourself, would this guy have killed those cops with a knife if he didn’t have any guns? I can’t be sure, but I doubt it - instead he probably would have just thrown himself off a tall building. A gun really makes it easier, both physically and psychologically, to kill people.
So what’s my point? Nothing really, I just wonder why people are shocked when things like this happen.
By helping make sure that he had access to such weapons, for one. And from gun advocates in general, the rants about how Obama is going to take everyone’s guns away, about how everything else is secondary to gun ownership, and about how one of the primary reasons to own guns is to kill government officials. Like cops.
I think the ability to shoot cops and soldiers is the best reason for the second amendment. I prefer a country in which the police know they are not the only ones with firearms.
Proof that the gun lovers are preparing for something and blame Obama for it. It seems like the right wing gun lobby has fallen down the rabbit hole and is about to pass Alice on the way down.
I’ve seen this first hand. I live in central Florida and there is a real, and overt stance among retailers that Obama is going to do something unspecified, but terrible to your guns, so you’d better buy while you can. That was pretty much verbatim what I was told while at my local shop buying a pocketknife by the clerk. Ammunition is double or triple the regular wal-mart price, and wal-marts are consistently sold out due to the local gun retailers buying up all their product and breaking it up to sell at mark-up. Several people around here are flying upside down flags. It’s weird.
While I own a handgun, and would like to purchase a nice rifle for hunting, I have little issue with gun control and don’t see the big deal about it. The second amendment is terribly vague in wording and I doubt that the drafters ever envisioned the advances in firearms that we enjoy today. People should have the right to protect themselves from criminals and tyrannical governments; as well as be able to enjoy more leisurely uses like hunting or historic collecting. I don’t understand why placing external controls on guns, like high purchase taxes, registration, or mandatory insurance policies would be an issue. None of those things is limiting anyone’s access to the weapons any more than my having to pony up the money to purchase it is. It is just another level of safegaurds against the random crazies.
I haven’t seen a peep from any anti-gun person on here that they bear responsibility for every person victimized, assaulted, or murdered because they were denied having a firearm to defend themselves.
I’m sure in response, instead of people stepping up to the plate and taking responsibility, we’ll get the usual SDMB anti-gun duck-and-weave, goalpost moving, “nuclear strawmen”, claims that guns somehow are completely ineffective in defense because criminals will “jump you from behind” like ninjas dropping out the fucking trees, deliberate misuse of the terms “machine gun” and a failure to understand the difference between semi and fully-automatic (which is so basic they fucking teach it on Blue’s Clues), slurs that gun owners are sexually attached to their guns, and the usual cavalcade of idiocy that I’ve seen over 9 years.
But surprise me - which anti gun posters will admit “If gun owners bear some responsibility for misuse of guns, then I bear some responsibility for people being victimized because they were denied access to a firearm?”
Una
please quote the law that says providing a link to a newspapers website is a copyright infringement?
If those reports are not proof that the right is agitated and stockpiling guns and ammo, I really do not know what it would take for you.
You may take note that others here report the same thing from other areas of the country - AcidLamp in Florida a post above yours just being the latest.
You sure you only provided a link and didn’t repost most, if not all, of the article being linked? Because GFactor, who is a lawyer, seems to think you did.
I stand ready for the police from the Library of Congress to come crashing through my door to confiscate my computer for such transgressions. But be forewarned - I will be armed with chocolate cream pies and will not go quietly or neatly.
We should not forget to include the 8 victims of the lone nut in the recent North Carolina nursing home shootings and the 13 victims of the lone nut in the recent Binghampton, New York immigration center shootings as we pause to thank those who have given their lives for our rights to ready access to firearms.
Spurious logic. Obviously, if Joe Blow and John Doe are both contemplating murder, and Joe lives in a society where murderers are efficiently punished and John lives in a society where they have a significant chance of getting away with it, John is more likely to actually kill. Ergo, features of the legal system that make acquittal more likely (whether they are simple inefficiencies or principled protections of the rights of the accused) do, in fact, result in more killings.
Nor should we forget killer cops like the one we heard about so recently in Oakland.
I would prefer to live in a world where such assholes in authority must at least pause and ask themselves “can that innocent I’m about to harass defend themselves”?
Wow. I don’t want that for a minute. The police are agents of us, the public, trying to do a job that’s already deadly enough.
Furthermore, what would the logical response to increased fears on the part of the police be? As one retired office suggested on the local news here in Pittsburgh last night, the police will want increase their ability to go up against AK47s by increasing their own firepower. SWAT would become the standard level of police response.
Your original post in this thread was a quote of nearly the entire article. If this is somehow still unclear to you, ask Gfactor or a Moderator to explain why he had to edit your original post in this thread.
You really don’t get it - is the concept of “proof” really that unclear? You think that a few self-selected folks chiming in on a message board and a link or two is “proof?”