Mall Killing and Other Mass Killings

[ReillyT]

Not supported by facts. Mass transit exists as does allowing commercial licenses with strict controls. Just as even in the most restrictive city Police and law enforcement can and do possess weapons.

Further a totally disarmed public only leads to totalitarian governments. Remove from the people the ability to resist and you ensure that eventually Government will become just that, Totalitarian.

Go to Bosnia and tell them how wise it was for them to have no right to own weapons before the split with Yugoslavia.

Without getting into the majority of your post (as gun ownership doesn't greatly interest me one way or another), the benefits of a mass transportation system of highways and vehicles is pretty clear. Yes, the deaths on the highway are compensated for by the fact that our national economy is dependent on this system. Perhaps guns should be legal, but it is not the case that they provide the same level of economic (or any other tangible) benefit to the nation as the highway system.

 

[ReillyT]

How sensitive, compassionate and courageous of you.

Next time it comes up, tell somone this:
"Really, ma'am, I'm sorry your baby died in a car crash - but do you know how many people would suffer if we banned cars? Surely, you can see that your baby isnt THAT important".

It is, after all, your position.

Yes, that is pretty much it, although I probably wouldn't phrase it that way. Do you hold the opposite view?

 

[Larkinn]

Larkin...We would all love to live in a perfect world where there is no violence.

Oh I know. Instead we live in a crime infested country where I see murders and rapes go on in front of me every day. By the way...how many violent crimes have you ever seen?

That is not the case though...We are already here in the thick of it and taking away everyones guns will only lead to more violence.

The thick of it? Yes the jungle-like society we find ourselves in where I look over my shoulder every second prepared to get killed and robbed. No, wait, I don't. And I live in NYC...where do you live kid? Some rural area where they have 3 burgularies a year?

Guns don't kill people, People kill people. I have never heard of a gun getting up all by itself and killing someone.

Well then we should equip the army with forks then, right?

I have heard of people using everything known to man to kill someone else with though. The fact that you are studying law scares me! It just means another lobbiest for gun controll.

Most lobbiests aren't lawyers. And the fact that you are barely literate reassures me.

If you don't like guns...fine! I do! and so do 80 million others in this country.

Well because you want your toys really makes me reconsider. Letting morons have toys or not letting morons have an easy way to kill me. Not a hard choice.

Just because you havn't needed one yet just means you have been lucky so far.

Right...so incredibly lucky. As well as everyone I know.

If you don't want to protect your own life, why should I care if you get killed by some drug crazed addict with a knife in your kitchen?

Oh, I don't know, human decency maybe?

Times are getting really bad and are only going to get worse before they get better...Much worse!

Oh noes the sky is falling! Right our society is on the verge of collapse and anarchy. So says the wise prophet Lookout.

...You might consider weather your life is worth saving or the people you care and love, and get a gun and learn how to use it properly. All the ,"I DON'T WANT IT TO BE THIS WAY" wont matter if the right situation presents itself. A gun will!

Actually carrying a gun in my city is a 3 year mandatory prison sentence. Care to tell me how that will help the people I care about?

 

[Larkinn]

Not supported by facts. Mass transit exists as does allowing commercial licenses with strict controls. Just as even in the most restrictive city Police and law enforcement can and do possess weapons.

It does in the cities, it doesn't really in the country side. A lot of people need cars to survive in this country. It was poorly planned out and it sucks, but thats the way it is.

Further a totally disarmed public only leads to totalitarian governments. Remove from the people the ability to resist and you ensure that eventually Government will become just that, Totalitarian.

Right...your going to defend yourself against the US military with your Glock? Good luck.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Perhaps guns should be legal, but it is not the case that they provide the same level of economic (or any other tangible) benefit to the nation as the highway system.

"Perhaps"?
They provide direct benefit for those that use them -- escpecially those that use them to defend themselves. That's why we have them and the right to them in the first place.

 

[Larkinn]

How sensitive, compassionate and courageous of you.

Next time it comes up, tell somone this:
"Really, ma'am, I'm sorry your baby died in a car crash - but do you know how many people would suffer if we banned cars? Surely, you can see that your baby isnt THAT important".

It is, after all, your position.

Are you in favor of the war in Iraq? Same damn thing. Sacraficing some for the good of the whole.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Yes, that is pretty much it, although I probably wouldn't phrase it that way.

Why not?
Would you say those words to someone?

 

[Larkinn]

Larkinn are you really incapable of accessing crime statistics from our government? Do I need to spoon feed you? Or is this like in the past simply a request designed to obfusicate an issue in the hopes one won't meet your request?

No its hoping that, for once, you will meet one of my requests. I'm not going to keep doing your research for you. Back up your own statements.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Yes, that is pretty much it, although I probably wouldn't phrase it that way. Do you hold the opposite view?

So deaths are not a reason, thanks for that. It still remains that the Constitution PROTECTS our right to own guns, plain and simple. There is no such protection for motor vehicles.

Further you are aware firearms are in fact what protect us to build said Highway system, further do a little research and you will discover the Eisenhower created the Federal Interstate system for NATIONAL Defense. Originally there was a requirement that every x number of miles there had to be one mile of straight highway with no bridges or overpasses, for use as emergence air fields in case of war. Further he came to the realization we needed this system because of a trip he took while in a military convoy across the Country. He realized we could not easily redeploy around the country quickly.

All else is an after thought.

 

[Larkinn]

"Perhaps"?
They provide direct benefit for those that use them -- escpecially those that use them to defend themselves. That's why we have them and the right to them in the first place.

They sure do provide direct benefit for those who use them in crimes. Thats why we allow them, hey?

 

[ReillyT]

"Perhaps"?
They provide direct benefit for those that use them -- escpecially those that use them to defend themselves. That's why we have them and the right to them in the first place.

There are certainly benefits to gun ownership. There are also costs involved. Whether they are overall beneficial is determined by a weighing of both the costs and the benefits (economic, psychological, sociological, etc.). I don't know the answer to that question.

 

[Larkinn]

So deaths are not a reason, thanks for that. It still remains that the Constitution PROTECTS our right to own guns, plain and simple. There is no such protection for motor vehicles.

He did not say that deaths are irrelevant.

 

[ReillyT]

Why not?
Would you say those words to someone?

Why wouldn't I say it? For one, because it would be a heartless thing to say. That doesn't make it less true, but it would still be pretty damn cold. Also, people already know this without being told. Do you see a big lobby to outlaw all use of motor vehicles?

 

[M14 Shooter]

There are certainly benefits to gun ownership. There are also costs involved. Whether they are overall beneficial is determined by a weighing of both the costs and the benefits (economic, psychological, sociological, etc.).

Regardless of the relative benefit, two things remain:
-There is a guaranteed right to own/use them;
-That right exists because of a need to exercise our right to self-defense, both individually and collectively.

Your cost/benefit argument isnt relevant to that.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Why wouldn't I say it? For one, because it would be a heartless thing to say. That doesn't make it less true, but it would still be pretty damn cold.

Interesting.
The anti-gun side says it all the time. in some way shape or form.

 

[Larkinn]

Regardless of the relative benefit, two things remain:
-There is a guaranteed right to own/use them;

Actually thats debatable.

-That right exists because of a need to exercise our right to self-defense, both individually and collectively.

Your cost/benefit argument isnt relevant to that.

Err no, it was generally collectively. I don't think people used firearms much against burgulars in 1776. I don't think they had concealed weapons permits either

 

[ReillyT]

It still remains that the Constitution PROTECTS our right to own guns, plain and simple. There is no such protection for motor vehicles.

Okay... that is one interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

Further you are aware firearms are in fact what protect us to build said Highway system, further do a little research and you will discover the Eisenhower created the Federal Interstate system for NATIONAL Defense. Originally there was a requirement that every x number of miles there had to be one mile of straight highway with no bridges or overpasses, for use as emergence air fields in case of war. Further he came to the realization we needed this system because of a trip he took while in a military convoy across the Country. He realized we could not easily redeploy around the country quickly.

All else is an after thought.

Interesting little bit of history... that is not particularly relevant... but thanks anyway. All else is not an after thought. Economic growth is the main benefit of our transport system.

Currently, "trucks moving over highways ship 78 percent of the dollar value of all goods sold in the United States." In addition, most of the services provided are provided by people who take some motor vehicle to work. Let's say that is about 78% of services as well. Thus, not counting the actual value of all of the highways, this equates to 78% of the GDP (about 13 trillion) = $10 trillion+. My guess is that this is an under-estimation.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_2003_Sept_16/ai_107543550

This is roughly the value of motor vehicle transport in the US. What is the comparable value of gun ownership? $7 trillion... $8 trillion????

 

[Larkinn]

Interesting.
The anti-gun side says it all the time. in some way shape or form.

Really? Examples?

 

[ReillyT]

Interesting.
The anti-gun side says it all the time. in some way shape or form.

What?

 

[M14 Shooter]

What?

"How many children have to die so you can keep your penis enhancer?"
Things like that.