Church shooting in "gun-free" Illinois

[ditchdj]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29582081/

-----I remember before Assholivich got booted out of office there he vowed to make Illinois "Gun-Free" and NEVER budge one MILLIMETER when it came to the NRA. :cool:

Too bad some people there don't obey the gun laws, especially in a state where you have to get an approved permit just to own a gun in your own home. :(

[AdminAssistant]

especially in a state where you have to get an approved permit just to own a gun in your own home. :(

What's wrong with this? A firearm, of any kind, is extremely dangerous, and I'm glad that places have application processes when it comes to gun ownership. Anyone who wants to own a gun, of any kind, should have to go through an application process, extensive background check, and a training program - PERIOD. An openly carried shotgun can kill someone just as easily as a concealed pistol. (Granted, there is more warning to others when the weapon can be seen).

That said, I think this is an extremely sad situation that someone would feel the need to kill someone in such a public (and sacred) place, and then have the cowardice to attempt to kill themselves. I'm glad he wasn't successful, hopefully the police can get some answers and send this person to prison for a very very very long time.

[ditchdj]

That said, I think this is an extremely sad situation that someone would feel the need to kill someone in such a public (and sacred) place, and then have the cowardice to attempt to kill themselves. I'm glad he wasn't successful, hopefully the police can get some answers and send this person to prison for a very very very long time.


EXACTLY!!!! It's also more sad when it's them that don't obey these laws. You know, I remember being in line at Wendy's a long time ago and hearing a cop having a conversation with someone at a table about gun control. The cop himself said that the only thing these laws do is take guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens. He's right.

Now, yes, I AM for the regulation of guns and other weapons. BUT, I am NOT in favor of ouright banning them under the guise of "Only police and the military should have guns" and simply relying off the government to secure my safety and security. 9/11 pretty much soured me on that entirely.

[MadMike]

I wrote an editorial about this sort of thing ages ago -- that gun laws will only affect law-abiding citizens, as criminals, by definition, don't obey gun laws, or any other laws.


What's wrong with this? A firearm, of any kind, is extremely dangerous, and I'm glad that places have application processes when it comes to gun ownership.


99% of the time, I'd say that makes sense, but what if someone is being stalked, and they got killed because they applied for a permit and were waiting the required amount of time? The stalker may already have a gun, or is going to get one thru illegal means, without going thru any application process or waiting period.

[Evandril]

Now, yes, I AM for the regulation of guns and other weapons. BUT, I am NOT in favor of ouright banning them under the guise of "Only police and the military should have guns" and simply relying off the government to secure my safety and security. 9/11 pretty much soured me on that entirely.

While I agree in general about the banning of weapons, I am curious about this statement. How did 9/11 sour you on the matter? I know aircraft, and I do *NOT* want anyone but a trained air martial or the flight crew to have weaponry on the plane.

[Amethyst Hunter]

How did 9/11 sour you on the matter? I know aircraft, and I do *NOT* want anyone but a trained air martial or the flight crew to have weaponry on the plane.

Just guessing, but I think what Ditchdj meant by that is that the government - at least, the one at the time - did fuck-all to stop 9/11. (Granted, I'm not entirely sure it *could* have been prevented, but I think they could at least have done SOMEthing being that they had all these warnings and information left to them from the Clinton administration. Bush just chose to sit on his ass with his thumb up it and let shit happen, which unfortunately it did, and then the bastard took advantage of that to settle a pissing grudge match at everyone else's expense.)

I don't fly (HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE planes! Even well before 9/11) but if I did, I wouldn't want anybody but air marshals/flight crew (properly trained of course) to have guns on a plane. Depressurization is not fun, not to mention the likelihood of worse...!

[Slytovhand]

Ummm - don't we already have a series of threads running about gun control?? Is there really a need to do another one?

Or was there different point to this thread?

As for (and sacred) place... to whom?

No, I meant that seriously. Just because something may be sacred to you, does not mean that something is going to be treated as sacred by someone else. And, if someone is going to be violent, they'll use any excuse - so sacred be damned..(hahaha :p)

[AdminAssistant]

A church is a sacred place to Christians, and I hope that even non-Christians would recognize it as such. Just as a synagogue is sacred to Jews, mosques are sacred to Muslims, etc. I'm not Jewish, but I recognize the importance of the temple. I'm not a pagan, but I'm not going to go up to somebody's home altar and start fiddling with it.

[Slytovhand]

Perhaps... but the point I was making was more that if someone is going to go shooting people, I think the 'sacredness' of a place would become irrelevant to that person.. that's all.

[ditchdj]

Anyone notice that the majority of these mass shootings tend to take place in "Gun-Free Zones" like schools, universities, churches, day care centers??? Interesting they NEVER take place at places like police stations or shooting ranges. Gee go figure......

[Rapscallion]

Ever notice how the majority of these mass shootings tend to take place in countries where the citizens have easier access to guns?

Rapscallion

[The Shadow]

Ever notice how the majority of these mass shootings tend to take place in countries where the citizens have easier access to guns?

Out of curiosity, how many mass shootings have taken place in countries like Switzerland or Finland?

[ditchdj]

Heh, a lot less than in "Gun Free Zones".

[Rapscallion]

Out of curiosity, how many mass shootings have taken place in countries like Switzerland or Finland?

I suspect far less, though I don't get news from there despite being closer. Last I heard, the US didn't get much news from outside its borders.

So, what does that thought say about the American culture?

So, just how many mas shootings have taken place over there? I'm interested.

Rapscallion

[Slytovhand]

Switzerland's culture... (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1566715.stm)

I found this interesting little report...World School shootings (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777958.html) - you will, I hope, notice the vast number of US shootings compared to the rest of the world - not just compared to any 1 other country, but the whole rest of the world!!

The basic problem with the gun laws in the US vs Finland/Switzerland (as your 2 main comparisons) is that in those 2 countries, there is mandatory armed services training - so the people there are trained properly to use such weapons - not just walk in off the street and decide to buy one.

Also - Finland's gun law regulations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Finland#Regulation). Note the various requirements.... Now - do you think there is some bearing on those requirements, and the low gun crime??

[Rapscallion]

The basic problem with the gun laws in the US vs Finland/Switzerland (as your 2 main comparisons) is that in those 2 countries, there is mandatory armed services training - so the people there are trained properly to use such weapons - not just walk in off the street and decide to buy one.


I note that the BBC article about Switzerland also points out that they don't have such pronounced areas of crushing debt or drugs. Guns there are a way for Switzerland to remain a free state, not for individuals to gun down someone who didn't show them 'spec' (as it tends to be pronounced).

Again, we run into cultural differences that really make a mockery of the points trying to be made through anecdotes.

Quite frankly, if I lived permanently in the US, I'd probably buy a gun as well for my own protection. The lunatics seem to be too easily able to get their own, so I'd need to try and defend me and mine.

Rapscallion

[AdminAssistant]

It would depend on where you live, Raps. My neighborhood is incredibly safe - well patroled, small town, big university. The main crime issues here are mostly related to a high population of 18-22 year olds - drinking, partying, that kind of thing. There have been quite a few sexual assaults, but generally, if you watch what you do and who you do it with, you're fine. I mean, when they won the championship last year, 100,000 people swarmed to downtown (5-6 block area). People were everywhere! And there were no riots, no shootings, just a couple of fistfights and a few broken car windows.

Big city? Completely different story. When I lived in KC, gang activity was everywhere, there were armed robberies on campus in daylight, drive-by shootings, assaults, you name it. If you go to KC, don't leave anything of ANY value in your car, because then you won't have it very long. And yes, this was in the "good" part of town. And it is aggravated by the extreme segregation of rich and poor. Yes, there were times when I was scared to go to the grocery store or walk home at night. But instead of arming myself with a deadly weapon, I drove to Johnson County to do night shopping and tried to avoid walking at night.

[ditchdj]

Quite frankly, if I lived permanently in the US, I'd probably buy a gun as well for my own protection. The lunatics seem to be too easily able to get their own, so I'd need to try and defend me and mine.

Rapscallion

I have would have no objection. Besides, as a Libertarian, anyone can do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't violate my basic rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

[Slytovhand]

So, going by the anecdotal stories on this forum, combined with a few of the stats provided, it's not really the laws of a country that are in issue ('laws' being in the US, and 'country' being the US...), but it's 'culture'.

I would suggest that 'culture' includes forms of entertainment (lots of TV violence, radio stations reporting mostly negative stuff), general society (rich, middle class, poor, drugs, alcohol, homelessnessetc), and national economics (recession/depression, high debt, high unemployment, foreclosures). I would also suggest that these things aren't about to magically disappear, and as far as the last item on that list, will get significantly worse over the next few years (again, we have threads about this...).

So, very simple question which I'm expecting an answer to... if you give more and more people guns, and more and more people find things far more difficult to live in their society, and the government becomes less and less able to allow people to sustain thier lifestyle (such as being able to provide adequate policing- including basic rights to lfie, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - what will happen?


Personally, I perceive a state of happiness, peace and stable, workable democracy and socialisation... after a bitter, intense, and painful era of terror and warfare, leaving a country with only a fifth it's population, and the rest of the world horrified. But perhaps I'm a bit pessimistic??

[Rapscallion]

I have would have no objection. Besides, as a Libertarian, anyone can do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't violate my basic rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I wasn't seeking your permission. If guns were as rife over here as over there, I'd probably break the laws over here to protect myself.

However, with so few guns over here, it's simply not necessary.

Rapscallion

[ditchdj]

Oh don't get me wrong. I'm trying to make friends here so I can open myself up for you to gladly spit in my face. I don't play that game. Just saying you have a right to defend yourself and I wouldn't object to it, just like I would hope you or anyone else would reciprocate.

[Rapscallion]

I prefer to have the right to walk down the street knowing that there's very little chance that some lunatic has been easily able to get a gun. You know, the right not to have to bear arms due to lax legislation designed to appease the gun manufacturers.

Want to make friends? We're not Gaiaonline - we're a debate forum. Join in on a few topics - you might find yourself agreeing with people that you disagree with on certain topics.

Rapscallion

[ditchdj]

I prefer to have the right to walk down the street knowing that there's very little chance that some lunatic has been easily able to get a gun. You know, the right not to have to bear arms due to lax legislation designed to appease the gun manufacturers.

I don't know about "lax". When a gun owner uses a gun in self-defense the same protocol is used as when cops use one: They take your weapon and they thoroughly investigate it. If the prosecutor feels that it wasn't warranted or appropriate then you're facing some really serious charges.

With that in mind, being a gun owner, I do NOT want to be in a situation where I may feel I have to use it. And I try to avoid situations where I feel that I may be put in that spot. More live I'm living NOT to use it than living to use it.

[Rapscallion]

When a gun owner uses a gun in self-defense...

That means that they've already got a gun. The laws over there are lax compared to the ones here.

Rapscallion

[protege]

The laws over there are lax compared to the ones here.

Rapscallion

That's why I'm not in favor for gun control laws. Why introduce more legislation...when we don't enforce the laws we already have? Also, if stricter laws were put into place, it wouldn't be hard to argue that they violate our Constitutional rights...the right to bear arms. In fact, that's *exactly* what happened in Washington, DC.

In 1975, they enacted a law banning residents from owning handguns except those registered prior to 2/5/77. That was overturned in 2007, because it violated citizens Second Amendment rights. Odd that, if guns were banned, how did DC have a high murder rate--nearly 500 in 1990 alone? If the guns were banned, how did that happen?

Simple, criminals ignored the law. They either bought them illegally, or went to other states to get them. Again, by their very nature, even if we do enact stricter laws, criminals will find a way to get them. All we'd be doing is taking them out of lawful citizens hands.

[Rapscallion]

Simple, criminals ignored the law. They either bought them illegally, or went to other states to get them. Again, by their very nature, even if we do enact stricter laws, criminals will find a way to get them. All we'd be doing is taking them out of lawful citizens hands.

Police in the US still arrest burglars, but that doesn't stop people burgling - just cuts down the numbers to reduce the risk to property owners.

Shrug - I don't have to live there. Quite frankly, if you wanted to get to a similar situation as we have over here where even criminals are very unlikely to be armed with guns, it would take a huge culture shift. It would also result in a large amount of bloodshed in the decade or three it would take to get illegal weaponry out of the hands of criminals. It would also take a solid will for a long period of time, which isn't going to happen.

From what I can tell, the US is stuck with the cycle of gun culture for the remainder of its existence.

Rapscallion

[Rapscallion]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29582081/

-----I remember before Assholivich got booted out of office there he vowed to make Illinois "Gun-Free" and NEVER budge one MILLIMETER when it came to the NRA. :cool:

Too bad some people there don't obey the gun laws, especially in a state where you have to get an approved permit just to own a gun in your own home. :(

I'm trying to work out what point you're making in this thread, actually - something that you might not have made elsewhere.

Are you saying that preachers and congregations should be armed? Is that desireable?

News came out within the last two days of a school shooting in Germany. Quite a few fatalities. What's your answer to that? Arm the students and teachers just in case?

Rapscallion

[MadMike]

Police in the US still arrest burglars, but that doesn't stop people burgling - just cuts down the numbers to reduce the risk to property owners.


OK, I'm going to jump in here...

Guns have legal uses, particularly defending your life, or the lives of your loved ones.

Robbing someone house is illegal no matter what.

You're comparing apples and oranges here.

[AFPheonix]

Not really. He's comparing something illegal with something else illegal.
You can break and enter to do good things too, like get into a burning building to get a kid out or get back into your house if you managed to lock yourself out.

[MadMike]

I don't think anyone would fault someone for "breaking and entering" a burning building to save someone's life. And I don't think "breaking into" your own house is illegal.

I stand my my comment about "apples and oranges."

[Rapscallion]

I can see where you're coming from, Mike, but I think it does stand. See, I was more talking about the illegal use of guns rather than the legal one, though I didn't make that quite clear. Police are supposed to deal with people who have illegally held weaponry, but with the apparent ease of obtaining for ... unsuitable people that exists in the US, I can't see this as anything other than an uphill struggle.

If people use guns legally within the confines of the laws of their nation, that's up to them. I'm just glad I don't feel that I have to arm myself in this country.

Rapscallion

[Slytovhand]

I don't suppose it's worth anything to add to this argument the statistics that the 2 countries with the highest rates of suicide by shooting are also the ones with the highest rates of gun ownership???

[Boozy]

Odd that, if guns were banned, how did DC have a high murder rate--nearly 500 in 1990 alone? If the guns were banned, how did that happen?


I wish people on both sides of this debate would stop attributing every single change in crime rates to gun control laws (or lack thereof).

Here are some factors involved in crime rates in any given neighbourhood:

Poverty levels
Education levels
Unemployment levels
Gap between the rich/poor, especially in cities heavily segegrated by class
Racial segregation
Policing strategies/police presence
Access to birth control
Age demographics
Incarceration rates
Drug availability/usage rates

...and, of course, availability of guns.

But given all those other factors, it's a bit simplistic to take random bits of crime data and apply it to gun laws. It's impossible to control for all those other factors. Criminology experts have been known to take decades studying very small sub-sections of neighbourhoods looking to isolate factors and draw conclusions.

Statistics on this subject need to be taken with a grain of salt, if they're applicable at all.

[Pedersen]

Statistics on this subject need to be taken with a grain of salt, if they're applicable at all.

Personally, Boozy, I like this version instead: Correlation does not imply causation (http://xkcd.com/552/) :)

I don't suppose it's worth anything to add to this argument the statistics that the 2 countries with the highest rates of suicide by shooting are also the ones with the highest rates of gun ownership???

As for you, Slyt, in addition to the above, I'll point this out: The most effective way to kill yourself is with a gun. People who are going to kill themselves know this. Therefore, if you truly wish to die, and live in a country where guns are easily obtainable, what method would you choose?

So, I'll quote and link it again, because it so strongly bears repeating and considering: Correlation does not imply causation (http://xkcd.com/552/)

[Slytovhand]

Hey Ped.

Yeah, I get it. I could also refer back to the link to the Australian stats that indicated that shooting suicides in Australia dropped after the new gun laws were imposed (I linked it in the UK laws don't work thread). But yes, I agree - if a gun is readily available, you use it. If not... the stats seemed to imply that, without a gun, some people chose to stay alive, rather than try something messier and more painful (or just plain slower).

But, when I said "I don't suppose it's worth anything...", I was more implying that suicides weren't really going to be an 'acceptable' reason to change gun laws... at least, not in the gun control debate threads.

[protege]

Boozy, you can see some "cause/effect" in areas.

For example, the neighborhood I live in, has always had a low crime rate. For years, you could leave your doors unlocked, and nothing would happen. Small borough, where everyone knows everyone.

Then about 6-7 years ago, one of the housing complexes started taking Section 8 tenants. (For those who don't know, Section 8 is government assisted housing.) Within a year, the crime rate in that section of town literally soared. Why? Simple, the scum (when I say "scum," I mean the criminal element) from the poor areas moved out to the 'burbs, and brought their problems with them. When I say problems, I mean the drugs, gangs, and even a prostitution ring. They moved out here to not only escape the problems of their neighborhoods...but to ply their trades out here as well.

With all that going on, it wasn't long before we started hearing gunshots over there, and the complex was referred to as the "Green Ghettos" (the sign said Green Gables...) By then, the police had set up a substation in the middle of the complex.

However, those of us in the surrounding neighborhoods had enough. Got a petition together, and forced the complex to stop taking Section 8. As soon as the Section 8 people moved on...the crime rate went back to normal. Coincidence? I don't think so.

[PepperElf]

Ever notice how the majority of these mass shootings tend to take place in countries where the citizens have easier access to guns?

Rapscallion
Yeah but in countries where there's no guns allowed for citizens there's always other means.

In Japan they used Serin Gas. Killed a hell of a lot more people than they'd have killed if they had guns.

The most effective way to kill yourself is with a gun.
Since I was already thinking about Japan, I believe in that country the most popular way is by train... pretty effective too.

[Flyndaran]

...
Since I was already thinking about Japan, I believe in that country the most popular way is by train... pretty effective too.

But darn hard to reload.

[PepperElf]

yeah but you don't normally have to reload with that one

though... i am kinda considering getting a gun eventually.
ironically not because i don't feel safe... but because I'd like to keep up my target skills.

and im in an apartment that i feel isn't as easy to break in as my old one. So I do feel safer here.

Isn't that weird, eh? The apartment I felt less safe in is the one where I didn't want a gun. that's just me I guess... my first thought isn't about defending myself but about ensuring my firearm is safe from being stolen.

then again, like it was mentioned about the people in switzerland.. I too have had military training and know how to properly handle a firearm. good old "treat never keep keep"

but now i'm in the mood to watch some Gunny vids. He had a great series about gun laws... but hell his series was so well worded it could almsot go on the main site. Basically... politely questioning some of the laws while saying 'still obey them, just fight them legally' etc. gotta love gunny

[RecoveringKinkoid]

Raps is right in that the US is stuck in a cycle of having guns available to everyone. We could never go back to not having guns. It's too late.

And since that is our reality, trying to limit gun ownership for us is pretty much suicide. Violent crime skyrockest when guns are outlawed, or when carry permits are not allowed, or what have you. Non-violent crimes, such as breaking and entering, or theft, goes up because the crackheads and such have to get money for their next fix somewhere, and they know they can't just rob someone outright. But armed robbery, rape, assault, these things plummet.

Bottom line: the scumbags get bolder when they know we can't defend ourselves. And that should be a no-brainer for the people making our laws.

Go to google and simply do a casual search:
carry permit +drop in violent crime

Here's an particularly relevant article:
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/IBDGunConFailure.html

[Rapscallion]

Yeah but in countries where there's no guns allowed for citizens there's always other means.

In Japan they used Serin Gas. Killed a hell of a lot more people than they'd have killed if they had guns.


Well, there are other methods, but gas isn't usually the first one to be used. There were maybe one or two such attacks from memory? I've not looked it up, but I rather suspect that sarin is profoundly illegal, what with it being a nerve gas, especially as it's very difficult to make safely (I looked on wikipedia and apparently it attacks the seals of the preparation equipment). It's not readily available, and I've yet to hear of lobby groups campaigning for its availability.

Sure, if someone wants to kill others, they'll find a way, but there's no real reason to make it easy for them.

I still think the US is condemned to guns all the way, though.

Rapscallion

[RecoveringKinkoid]

We are, Raps. I am in favor of our right to bear arms, but I am in favor of it because we can never, ever go back. Pandora's box is open and we'll never get rid of them all now. It would be impossible. So yeah, we are condemned to NEED guns.

I kind of envy countries where nobody has guns. Yeah, people will find other means, but I'm not likely to be hit with a stray knife or ball bat.

We've always had guns, so we are condemned to always need them.

[Slytovhand]

No, I don't think you are at all.

Sure, it will take time, but I certainly envisage a century where peace will be world-wide, as well as a society where such things really are a thing of the past....

Just not likely in our lifetimes.

[AFPheonix]

I doesn't hurt my feelings to live in a place that has guns, even needs them in places.
I fail to see why any attempt to clean up leaks on illegal guns or preventing people that shouldn't have them in the first place (Mexican cartels, people with violent history or suicide attempts) infringes on Joe Schmoe's ability to apply for and own a hunting rifle or handgun. It shouldn't. It most likely wouldn't, but seeing as a lot of people freak out about something as benign as a waiting period, it will be a long time before we see any pragmatic reform in our gun laws.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

If people really want to kill each other, they'll find a way, and if they're really dead set on using a gun, they'll find a way to get one. And while most all information must be taken with a grain of salt these days, the most individually devestating gun crimes tend to take place where no one is so armed legally or otherwise.

People seem to like connecting the U.S. love of all things firearm to the high numbers of related violence, but if you look carefully, these incidents are more or less contained to areas of extreme poverty, etc. and that most places worldwide with the same conditions have this exact same problem.

It's also worth note, I think, that in most countries it's quite possible to buy firearms, it's just not as common or as easy as in some areas in the U.S.

[PepperElf]

and i was astonished to find out that one of the actors who played a minor role in the next Harry Potter film is dead.

He died trying to protect his brother who was being attacked at knife point.


apparently england is having a large issue with knife attacks...
i wonder if they'll start making a knife registration law now

[Slytovhand]

You're a bit late on that Pepper - there was a thread about it already (yes, there have been new knife laws in the UK). Not talking about registration, but I seriously don't see the need to carry a machete around town at 2 am... unless you're likely to be involved in something you shouldn't be anyway (not, self defence is not a sound 'reason').

[EmiOfBrie]

I've said it before. if the USA were to suddenly repeal the 2nd Amendment and ban firearms outright, it won't stop the criminals from obtaining and using them.

Why? Simply put, they are criminals. if they didn't let other laws go unbroken, they wouldn't let this one go unbroken either.

There's a reason why the majority of these shootings take place in "gun-free" zones. Criminals see those signs and read, "easy unarmed victims found here, bring your gun".

[MadMike]

Why? Simply put, they are criminals. if they didn't let other laws go unbroken, they wouldn't let this one go unbroken either.


Thank you! Some people seem to think that if guns were suddenly outlawed, all the murderers, rapists, armed robbers, etc. would go, "Oh shit! Guns are illegal now! We can't use them to commit our crimes anymore!"

There's a reason why the majority of these shootings take place in "gun-free" zones. Criminals see those signs and read, "easy unarmed victims found here, bring your gun".

Sounds logical to me. I was going to carjack someone, and my choice of targets was one car that had a bumper sticker that said "Ban guns now!" or one that said "Fight crime, shoot back!", I know which one I'd pick.

[BroomJockey]

There's a reason why the majority of these shootings take place in "gun-free" zones. Criminals see those signs and read, "easy unarmed victims found here, bring your gun".

You know, I've always taken exception to this kind of comment. No, that's NOT why that's where the shootings take place. The shootings take place because that's where the people they want to kill are located. Columbine, V-Tec, etc. all because the people "responsible" for the killer's issues are located there in high concentrations. If it happens to be a truly insane person just going for "the high score," again, it's because there is simply a higher concentration of people there, not because it's "gun-free." Also, schools tend to be more defensible with narrow corridors, and more cover in the way of corners, stairwells, solid objects like lockers, and more rooms to hide in, so when the police show up, they can't just surround you and turn you in to a lead pencil.

I've never heard of any mass-shooter going 'yeah, it was a gun-free zone, so I knew I could just open up on the crowd.'

[Slytovhand]

Man goes to Jewish Holocaust museum to start a shooting match, knowing there are armed guards there.... yep... "easy unarmed victims found here".


Hmm - something doesn't quite make sense there, does it?

[Wingates_Hellsing]

If everyone could stop acting like 12-year-olds arguing with each other and understand that not one opinion stated ANYWHERE about ANYTHING has EVER been applicable as an absolute.

Yeah, the museum guy chose a place where there were armed guards, and yeah the shooters elsewhere had a specific group in mind, but isn't it also true that we don't know what the shooter did or didn't consider when planning their actions, and that a location's status as a "gun free" zone might have possibly entered into it at some point?

This argument should have begun and ended at the fact that only law-abiding citizens follow these rules, they are the only ones harmed by them and when the people who break them are caught, we have much bigger fish to fry than it being a "gun free zone".

Yeah, guns in the hands of criminals are bad. But placing restrictions on already low-risk, law-abiding people is NOT achieving ANYTHING useful. CCL holders are among if not the least likely group of people to use their weapon illegally. If I have been qualified and judged safe and trustworthy enough to carry a 9 in my jacket, why does it make a difference if I'm in a school?

End of Song.

[Flyndaran]

I prefer schools to be free of guns. That does not make me a crazy rights bashing psycho.
I don't trust strangers to wield firearms around me or those I care about.

[Slytovhand]

Wait wait wait... ummm, what??

If everyone could stop acting like 12-year-olds arguing with each other and understand that not one opinion stated ANYWHERE about ANYTHING has EVER been applicable as an absolute.

Fair enough (well, about the 'absolute' bit at any rate...), but then you follow up with this absolute line of thought:This argument should have begun and ended at the fact that only law-abiding citizens follow these rules, they are the only ones harmed by them and when the people who break them are caught, we have much bigger fish to fry than it being a "gun free zone".

Yeah, guns in the hands of criminals are bad. But placing restrictions on already low-risk, law-abiding people is NOT achieving ANYTHING useful.

No, you don't get to have it both ways... No absolutes include in your own arguments!

Yes, there have been assertions regarding usefulness of gun laws... particularly made by people living in areas where there are lax gun laws towards areas (ie, countries) where there are more stringent gun laws. And there's no legitimate reason for that to happen!

[Wingates_Hellsing]

I never said that there aren't exceptions to what I said, my beef is that people take one instance as an excuse to do whatever they want. The Assault Weapons Ban is a prime example of a useless gun law.

I don't want any stranger to be armed either, but making it illegal for the licensed CCL holder to exercise their rights in certain places doesn't in the least effect those who are carrying illegally. I don't know about you, but I'd much rather have the possibility that there is a CCL holder carrying in a school as well as some random gangsta, rather than just the gangsta.

The flaw is in the overlap. The random high-school gangsta is already nail-able for carrying concealed without a license, underage possession, unregistered ownership, etc. It's just not needed to add another infraction on top of that, especially when this infraction also applies to the people who should have their weapon with them.

If you want I can edit my earlier statements so as to make it blindingly obvious in every other word that it's not meant as an absolute, or you can see that I don't like absolutes and accept that I am moving forward with the assumption that everything I say can be wrong, as well as the assumption that there are exceptions.

[Slytovhand]

I never said that there aren't exceptions to what I said, my beef is that people take one instance as an excuse to do whatever they want. The Assault Weapons Ban is a prime example of a useless gun law.

Actually, that's a rather interesting.. and ironic... point.

It's those 'one instances as an excuse' that many people suggest that guns should be legalised.

What I think you missed was the 'Gun laws in UK a complete fail' thread. It was suggested there, as per the title, various things... which had absolutely nothing to do with gun laws in the US... despite some person's attempts to make connections.


If you want I can edit my earlier statements so as to make it blindingly obvious in every other word that it's not meant as an absolute, or you can see that I don't like absolutes and accept that I am moving forward with the assumption that everything I say can be wrong, as well as the assumption that there are exceptions.

No, it's fine... just when you add things like "If everyone could stop acting like 12-year-olds arguing with each other ", and then make a faux pas, expect to get yourself shot down... combined with the irony of saying "There are NO ABSOLUTES"...and then making an absolutist comment.... ooops!

[BlaqueKatt]

I don't trust strangers to wield firearms around me or those I care about.

then I'd say don't ever go anywhere where there are armed guards(banks usually have them), or police, and better not call the police if anything happens because that would be "strangers wielding firearms"

Sorry the average CCL holder has more firearm training/practice than a police officer.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

I am saying that the single instance justifications are used for gun laws, and that kind of thing is stupid. When pro gun people highlight an incident it's because there is an overarching belief that guns are never used in self-defense when in fact they are numerous times. A single event used for an argument isn't a crime, but whole peaces of legislation? Or worse, restrictions based on absolutely nothing, like anti .50 cal legislation.

Don't pin it on me that you chose to take my entire post outside the context of there being no absolutes, only generalities. In fact the clause 'there are no absolutes' is an absolute, does that mean I am contradicting myself? no it means I'm speaking in generalities which read more or less the same as absolutes.

Back on the main topic, I'd like to add in that I personally don't trust the police as a whole that much. Seeing some of the stuff that they can get away with, makes me a strong supporter of not relying on the cops to protect you just like one shouldn't simply abandon a grease fire in their skillet because they aren't firefighters.

[Flyndaran]

then I'd say don't ever go anywhere where there are armed guards(banks usually have them), or police, and better not call the police if anything happens because that would be "strangers wielding firearms"

Sorry the average CCL holder has more firearm training/practice than a police officer.

Calling the police in emergency situations would obviously be the lesser of two evils.
Also some cops are excellent shots. My father won numerous trophies for it.