|
Pulpsmack -> RE: Breaking, 25 People killed in V.T. shooting. (4/17/2007 4:05:10 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zensee
But people with guns kill more than people without guns. They are more likely to use the a gun than say a knife or other mele weapon. A gun is convenient, impersonal and effective. How much of a rampage could one go on with their bare hands by comparison?
This is complete nonsense that you have made up out of whole cloth to appease your sensibilities. "People with guns kill more than...? They are more likely to use a gun than another weapon?” BACK THAT UP! Complete bullshit! When I was younger and considerably dumber, I would grab a brick or a beer bottle quick as blinking if I was in a fight without a second thought. It wasn't until I got a little older when I got into firearms did the awesome responsibility of carrying one enter my brain. Before caring a gun, I could be a hothead, drink, curse, and fight. I no longer drink, (or fight) but if I did, all of that goes out the window when carrying. I am forced to think more about my actions given the deadly consequences unlike some idiot who goes from anger to a bat to waking up to the fact that he just made a vegetable out of a father of two over a fender bender. I have an obligation to leave peacefully even if I am right (which is damn hard to do). This is something most people have the luxury of not worrying about since they choose to be without the responsibility. As far as a gun being convenient, impersonal, and effective...the former and latter can refer to any deadly weapon. As far as impersonal goes, it seems clear you have never faced someone who was intent on killing you, and the only lifeline available was your legal firearm. I have. You don't know how (im)personal it really is squaring off with your would-be killer like that and until you do, save your speculation for a more trivial topic. As for the rampage, this guy killed person after person as they sat there or ran. I don't dare second-guess or criticize anybody there. My point is that could just as easily happen with a sword/large knife wielding maniac who knows what he's doing.
quote:
Not that it matters because guns aren't going away soon, especially from the USA. The fear agenda in support of the Iraq war, the willing dehumanisation not only of "enemies" but of citizens, in the name of security, will continue to feed rampages like this - not ice-cream sales, as PulpSmack suggests.
I actually laughed at that line. I put it to the narration of that movie guy... "In a world captured by an agenda of fear and dehumanization". Wow if only you intended it to be funny, I'd say you were the comic genius. I suppose since you didn't intend it that way that you're neither.
quote:
Equating guns to cars (or trans-fats etc. etc.) because both cause deaths, is specious, as are many distractive arguments from the gun club.
Really? I was thinking that blaming guns, which don't go off by themselves is a distractive argument used by those who don't want to apply personal responsibility into the equation, like blaming spoons for making Rosie O' Donnell fat. Equating guns to cars is very relevant because both are tools subject to regulation that have extremely deadly potential if misused. Both are linked to homicides due to negligent behavior of their operators. One of the fundamental differences however, is that people don't blame the specific automobile or the high proof grain alcohol that was made commercially available to the drunk driver. When there is a gun related death however, there first thing that happens is a barrage of attacks on firearms.
quote:
Claiming that the banning of all personal property must extend from the restriction of firearms is another typical distortion (reductio ad absurdum)
You'd like to think that, wouldn't you? So would I. Go do your homework with law enforcement activity in New Orleans after hurricane Katrina. Go see how officers did an illegal house to house search for weapons then forcibly removed those who wanted to look after all they had left in the world. When fear attains that level of scale, the Constitution goes straight into the shitter.
quote:
What about the right NOT to to be exposed to the dangers of law abiding but gun happy neighbours? People without guns have rights too.
I seem to have missed that in the constitution. Was that "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, but you happy little bastards are dangerous and make your neighbors nervous, so cool it"? You must be reading the John Stewart coloring book again. Any right you seem to be making up seems no different from the right to be free from rap music thumping into my living room by the gangsta Olds that passes by, or the right to be free from pollution of the SUV, etc. This is all nonsense. These are the nuisances we must live with if we wish to reap the benefits of society. Therefore, you must endure exposure to legally armed people who have RIGHTS to bear arms, unlike Huggy Bear, who has NO right to drive a 78 olds with "bitch pleez! git down on doze knees!" blaring as he passes.
quote:
As to the argument that universal firearm ownership would put a quick end to these rampages, I think a school or shopping mall bristling with gun toting citizens would elevate the situation and turn a solo act of violence into an escalating mob murder (there was a controversial video game ad that explored this theme a while back). How many people in that situation would be capable of making rational target selections? What are your rules of engagement? Shoot anyone ELSE who has a gun! That sounds prudent.
I fielded this earlier. If you want to talk about arming the population, you go past what I am willing to discuss. That is not a freedom, but a government imposed charge. OTOH if you mean a society that is more hospitable to armed citizens, we are actually making strides in this department. Moreover, there are no Wild West fantasies going on that people speculated. The fact is that even in places where firearms carry is legal; most people won't do it because people are lazy and aren't up to being any more responsible than they have to. They don't want to pay all the money for licensing. They don't want their binge drinking curtailed by the carry of a gun. They don't want the freedom to be aggressive and fight taken away when they have the charge of conducting themselves. Moreover, many don't want the responsibility of having to take a life if the situation calls for it. With respect to the final point, I bear them no ill will. That is a personal decision that we must make, and I rather someone decide not carry a gun at all than have some one carry it with no intention of using it to the fullest extent should the need arise. There was one case however of some idiot trying to rob a gun store a few years back. Two clerks and five patrons shot the bejezus out of the dumb son of a bitch and they didn't get all befuddled about rules of engagement and turn the barrels on each other.
|
|
|
|
