True It takes maturity to own a gun, drink alcohol responsibly, raise children to obey the law and operate a chainsaw without hurting yourself. The problem with guns is unique because both criminals and law abiding citizens hold them in esteem and they do pose a great risk if abused. Guns have a positive use also- recreation, protection and sport. But you are correct they are more dangerous in the hands of a wacko than an automobile. I don't think taking away the right to own a gun and to properly use it should be taken away and I am only assuming those who advocate such would use this type example. I fear we have a society that is growing more irresponsible in these areas where the publics safety is concerned.
So you feel that if this had happened in a random grocery store or parking lot, armed people would have popped up and shot the guy before anyone died?
The problem is though what if the psycho in this case was also the armed citizen? Again we don't know if this guy got his guns legally.
There are alot of places that should be gun free. It is reasonable. For instance, don't visit our church packing... heat.
here's the problem... increase in number of "psychos" What ever the cause it is alarming. Why are there kids killing kids in schools, people firing at innocent people on campus, snipers on freeways, armed car jackings, armed robberies in private homes. Is crime on the increase?
What does it matter. If he got them legal or illegal? I don;t see this logic of how a failure of Gun control means you need more gun control. How about if gun control fails then it fails. Think up better solutions. We have had no gun zones for a while now and they are not working. Criminals don;t care, only people like me do. Take away a gun from someone willing to stop a psycho and more people die.
wait..what? how do you know they don't work?? nothing is fail-proof. there will be no perfect system. you can point to the failures, but you have no idea how much has been deterred by making schools gun-free zones.
The logic is simple. If you make guns easier to get less responsible people will get them. But you are also making it easier for more psychos to get there hands on them. You're trying to put out out a fire by making gasoline more available.
How do you fight fire? With your hands? Screw that. My logic is the majority of people like you and me would stop this dip**** by any means needed. Why take that power out of our hands.
Could you please point out any example of how a gun free zone would have stopped this? Cause I can easily point out how NOT having a gun free zone could have.
quick question: how do you answer the argument that countries with significant gun control don't have days like today? that days like today are reserved for the United States among developed nations?
my understanding is there is zero tolerance for guns on campuses. if discovered, the gun is confiscated..period...the end. i'm assuming that works from time to time. yeah..you could point to the example that maybe someone there with a gun would have stopped it. without hurting anyone else, either. which requires massive leaps of faith.
So its discovered how? When someone sees it? Oh its so evil. He has it in his bag. It stops that guy. Not the guy on campus who is slaying unarmed kids.
i'm not talking about terrorist attacks. though you can fill me in on when the last IRA attack occurred. i'm talking about gun violence...where citizens turn guns on other citizens in schools...or malls. and i'm not talking about places like Iraq. i'm talking about developed nations, particularly in the West. what you saw today is particularly American amongst those nations.
it could have been discovered in his room weeks before. months before. clearly it wasn't in this case. but that doesn't mean it never works. that doesn't mean that a zero-tolerance policy hasn't prevented crap that could have happened before.
i didn't say it was a terrorist attack. you're the one who mentioned the IRA...a political organization that has employed terror as a means of making its point. ummm..that's why i said, "i'm not talking about terrorist attacks" in response to your IRA metaphor.
