Mall Killing and Other Mass Killings

[Larkinn]

Larkinn, 3 posts in a row shows a certain desperation, sort of 'if I'd only thought of this then...'

Well after all you've been here longer so you know my actions and thoughts right?

 

[Lookout]

Common sense??? If any "sense" was common the majority would have it. Personally, I find the term "common Sense" relates to the minority not the majority.
The only sense that is common are the 5 that the majority are born with.

 

[Gunny]

Right, because guns just sort of...appear from the wilderness, right? By the way there is an easy way of getting many of the guns...its called a buyback system. Its expensive, but doable. Nothing to fear?...really? Compare the number of people who are injured by guns while committing a crime with the number of people who are arrested by the cops. We have a lot of cops in this country, they don't all sit around eating donuts all day.

High rate of guns in the US...high rate of gun crimes in the US. Connection? Naah its just...its just...we are naturally violent or something, right?

As I said, come out one way or the other, but there isnt a "common sense" solution.

You completely ignored my point. Criminals will have guns whether you deny law-abiding citizens their Rights or not. All you accomplish is disarming the law-abiding citizens.

Cops come along and investigate how you got killed. Unless stricken with pure dumb luck, they aren't going to prevent the crime. You have all the faith in world in them you want. I've got more faith in a full magazine.

 

[Larkinn]

You completely ignored my point. Criminals will have guns whether you deny law-abiding citizens their Rights or not. All you accomplish is disarming the law-abiding citizens.

No, I addressed it by effectively saying there is no way you know that and there are otherwise reasonable alternatives.

Cops come along and investigate how you got killed. Unless stricken with pure dumb luck, they aren't going to prevent the crime. You have all the faith in world in them you want. I've got more faith in a full magazine.

And I have more faith in you NOT having a gun. Keep in mind that you having the "right to defend yourself" is the same thing as you having the "right to have a weapon to easily and efficiently kill humans".

*shrug* regardless I am speaking past you.

 

[Gunny]

No, I addressed it by effectively saying there is no way you know that and there are otherwise reasonable alternatives.



And I have more faith in you NOT having a gun. Keep in mind that you having the "right to defend yourself" is the same thing as you having the "right to have a weapon to easily and efficiently kill humans".

*shrug* regardless I am speaking past you.

Sure there is a way I know. The only truly effective alteranative is to completely rid the Earth of each and every firearm. An unreasonable objective.

Now if you choose to argue that criminals who by definition set out to violate the law will for some unknown reason adhere strictly to this one, then it goes back to lack of logic and common sense.

I am fully aware that the right to own a firearm gives me the power to kill others. I do not need a firearm to kill.

Your argument ignores the fact that the criminal uses a firearm offensively, and in the commision of crimes while my firearm is simply to ensure I am not just another statistic displayed on some message board. If a criminal loses his life in the commission of a crime, too bad.

It isn't that you are talking past anyone. It's that you are making an illogical and nonsensical argument.

 

[Lookout]

Sure there is a way I know. The only truly effective alteranative is to completely rid the Earth of each and every firearm. An unreasonable objective.

Now if you choose to argue that criminals who by definition set out to violate the law will for some unknown reason adhere strictly to this one, then it goes back to lack of logic and common sense.

I am fully aware that the right to own a firearm gives me the power to kill others. I do not need a firearm to kill.

Your argument ignores the fact that the criminal uses a firearm offensively, and in the commision of crimes while my firearm is simply to ensure I am not just another statistic displayed on some message board. If a criminal loses his life in the commission of a crime, too bad.

It isn't that you are talking past anyone. It's that you are making an illogical and nonsensical argument.

Hey GunnyL...It will never happen anyway. Any auto machine shop can produce a gun....Hell, half the garages in america can produce a gun. I could make a 12 G zip gun in my guarage in about 30 minutes. piece of pipe, thread one end, glue pin in bottom of cap. (wear gloves) it vibrates like a bitch! screw cap down...boom! If they do come up with the buy back method...I'm going into gun manufacture..I would already have a great customer and only have to sell to one place. The place that would be buying them back.
Wow, What a great idea...Sell the crap guns to the buy back place to get enough lute together to by better machines to make better guns to sell to the black market!!! Awesome!!!

 

[Diuretic]

Larkinn, 3 posts in a row shows a certain desperation, sort of 'if I'd only thought of this then...'

I really don't want to sound like a wanker but love the French phrase, l'espirit d'escalier.

Not that I agree with you Kathianne, just that I like that phrase and you prompted my memory.......and I have cases of l'espirit d'escalier all the time.

 

[Larkinn]

Sure there is a way I know. The only truly effective alteranative is to completely rid the Earth of each and every firearm. An unreasonable objective.

Fabulous hyperbole there. There is a middle ground for those who are able to see it.

Now if you choose to argue that criminals who by definition set out to violate the law will for some unknown reason adhere strictly to this one, then it goes back to lack of logic and common sense.

And if you think people obey the law because they are purely altuistic, you shouldn't be judging others on a lack of logic. Criminals would have less guns because they would be harder to get. Its not a complicated concept. Nobody has claimed that they would follow the law out of the goodness of their criminal hearts. Thats absurd. But nice strawman.

I am fully aware that the right to own a firearm gives me the power to kill others. I do not need a firearm to kill.

Just as the US didn't need nukes to beat Japan in WWII. It sure did make it a hellof a lot easier tho.

Your argument ignores the fact that the criminal uses a firearm offensively, and in the commision of crimes while my firearm is simply to ensure I am not just another statistic displayed on some message board. If a criminal loses his life in the commission of a crime, too bad.

And your argument ignores the fact that the criminal can buy his offensive firearm cheaply and easily from a dealer.

It isn't that you are talking past anyone. It's that you are making an illogical and nonsensical argument.

Right...its absurd and nonsenical to suggest you might not be right

 

[Larkinn]

I really don't want to sound like a wanker but love the French phrase, l'espirit d'escalier.

Not that I agree with you Kathianne, just that I like that phrase and you prompted my memory.......and I have cases of l'espirit d'escalier all the time.

http://theresalduncan.typepad.com/

A website I had a lot of fun browsing through. I only learned about it after she died...the phrase intrigued me enough to look around. I really like that phrase as well...strange this is the third time in 4 months I've heard of it and before now I'd never heard of it at all.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Criminals would have less guns because they would be harder to get.

Instead of less guns, I'd rather have less crime...

Here is a tale of two cities: one that banned handguns and one that required guns. Guess which town enjoyed a plunge in crime.

http://publicrights.org/Kennesaw/NewsMax2001.html

Funny thing too...

There has not been a single reported crime of domestic violence in Kennesaw since the law was passed. There have been no injuries to children involving guns since the law was passed.

Furthermore, violence has actually dropped since 1982. Burglaries per thousand inhabitants fell from 11 to less than 3. There have been only 2 murders with knives (1984 and 1987), and 1 with a firearm (1997). All this despite the fact that the population in Kennesaw grew from around 5,000 in 1980 to 13,000 by 1996 (latest available estimate).

Could it be that gun ownership might have positive, not negative effects? That the whole premise behind gun banning is totally wrong? Just ask the people living in Kennesaw.

http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/kennesaw.html

 

[Larkinn]

Instead of less guns, I'd rather have less crime...


Funny thing too...

And why would criminals go there if they could go the town over? (And thats the problem with doing it nationwide).

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And why would criminals go there if they could go the town over? (And thats the problem with doing it nationwide).

Flawed logic, You sort of had it then lost it. The idea being if NATION wide everyone had guns, crimes would GO down, especially if laws specifically protected the law abiding from law suits and frivilious cases and prosecution for defending themselves and others. Then there would be NO town to go to.

Well and also you missed it on the fact most criminals are home grown not mobile enough to GO to the next town over.

Further while you understand that a lot of society is law abiding BECAUSE of the punishment aspect of not being you fail to understand that most criminals do not care what laws exist and do not care about punishment at all. They think they won't get caught and or know the system is so easy to break they just are not afraid of the consequences.

 

[Gunny]

Fabulous hyperbole there. There is a middle ground for those who are able to see it.


And if you think people obey the law because they are purely altuistic, you shouldn't be judging others on a lack of logic. Criminals would have less guns because they would be harder to get. Its not a complicated concept. Nobody has claimed that they would follow the law out of the goodness of their criminal hearts. Thats absurd. But nice strawman.



Just as the US didn't need nukes to beat Japan in WWII. It sure did make it a hellof a lot easier tho.



And your argument ignores the fact that the criminal can buy his offensive firearm cheaply and easily from a dealer.



Right...its absurd and nonsenical to suggest you might not be right

Dude, there is NO middle ground for people willing to use force to take what they will not earn, but you have. End result of your idea of "middle ground" is law-abiding citizenry disarmed ... criminals STILL have weapons but you removed most of the risk for them.

Criminals would have less guns because they are harder to get? You mean like crack and pot is hard to get? Sure they'll cost more. That means the criminal has to rob more people to afford one.

I don't ignore the claim that criminals supposedly can get guns cheaply and easily from dealers. That is simply not true. While I'm sure it might happen here and there, it is hardly the WalMart shopping spree you're making it out to be and guns are not cheap by any means.

I'm sure it will be some solace to those victims of violent crimes via firearms that YOU think decreasing the number of firearms by taking away the non-criminals' is effective.

I don't think it's illogical and nonsensical that I might be wrong. I think it is illogical and nonsensical to think disarming the law-abiding citizenry is going to reduce crimes committed with firearms.

For someone with such a logical and analytical mind, it appears on this topic you allow your emotion-based personal prejudices to override it.

 

[Dr Grump]

I think people need to realise that the US is a special case in first world culture....and just leave it at that....

 

[M14 Shooter]

It doesn't need a study for proof; it only needs a tiny bit of thought.

So.. you DONT have actual, supportable evidence to support your assertion.
Thank you.

 

[Lookout]

I would rather have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I would rather have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have it.

As would any rational person.

 

[Larkinn]

Flawed logic, You sort of had it then lost it. The idea being if NATION wide everyone had guns, crimes would GO down, especially if laws specifically protected the law abiding from law suits and frivilious cases and prosecution for defending themselves and others. Then there would be NO town to go to.

And thats a stupid idea. You have this idea of criminals as all being cold calculating individuals who plan their crimes months in advance. Most crimes are done spur of the moment and involve alcohol. Yes, the criminals really are acting so terribly rationally. By the way...assuming everyone has a gun will change criminals MO drastically. They will just kill their victims first no matter what.

Well and also you missed it on the fact most criminals are home grown not mobile enough to GO to the next town over.

Link to this "fact"? No? Didn't think so. If they are well off enough to spend several hundred on a gun, I'm sure they can manage to get to the next town over.

Further while you understand that a lot of society is law abiding BECAUSE of the punishment aspect of not being you fail to understand that most criminals do not care what laws exist and do not care about punishment at all.

Link to evidence of this? No? Didn't think so. This is a ridiculous statement.

They think they won't get caught and or know the system is so easy to break they just are not afraid of the consequences.

Right...more unsupported assertions. Glory be.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And thats a stupid idea. You have this idea of criminals as all being cold calculating individuals who plan their crimes months in advance. Most crimes are done spur of the moment and involve alcohol. Yes, the criminals really are acting so terribly rationally. By the way...assuming everyone has a gun will change criminals MO drastically. They will just kill their victims first no matter what.



Link to this "fact"? No? Didn't think so. If they are well off enough to spend several hundred on a gun, I'm sure they can manage to get to the next town over.



Link to evidence of this? No? Didn't think so. This is a ridiculous statement.



Right...more unsupported assertions. Glory be.

You can not have it both ways Larkinn.

 

[Larkinn]

Dude, there is NO middle ground for people willing to use force to take what they will not earn, but you have. End result of your idea of "middle ground" is law-abiding citizenry disarmed ... criminals STILL have weapons but you removed most of the risk for them.

Congrats on ignoring the ways that criminals would have their guns removed.

Criminals would have less guns because they are harder to get? You mean like crack and pot is hard to get? Sure they'll cost more. That means the criminal has to rob more people to afford one.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w11737.pdf

Guns are much harder to get illegally than crack and pot.

I don't ignore the claim that criminals supposedly can get guns cheaply and easily from dealers. That is simply not true. While I'm sure it might happen here and there, it is hardly the WalMart shopping spree you're making it out to be and guns are not cheap by any means.

They are a few hundred bucks. And yes they can buy it easily.

I'm sure it will be some solace to those victims of violent crimes via firearms that YOU think decreasing the number of firearms by taking away the non-criminals' is effective.

And I'm sure its solace to the victims of accidentical firearm deaths that YOU think they were just protecting themselves. The emotional bullshit works both ways kid.

I don't think it's illogical and nonsensical that I might be wrong. I think it is illogical and nonsensical to think disarming the law-abiding citizenry is going to reduce crimes committed with firearms.

Lmfao..."its not illogical and nonsensical that I might be wrong, I think its illogical and nonsensical to think that I might be wrong". Alrighty then.

For someone with such a logical and analytical mind, it appears on this topic you allow your emotion-based personal prejudices to override it.

As I said, I'm speaking past you. What you don't seem to get is that I'm not arguing that we should ban all guns. This would be clear if you weren't freaking out so much about the prospect. I don't have an "emotion-based personal prejudice" on this issue. I don't know where I stand. But both sides have good, and bad, arguments. Hence my statement that its not common sense.