there are millions of people on this planet that suffer from undiagnosed mental issues that don't affect their daily lives..there are many people that are oblivious to their own mental deficiencies, just one frustrating stretch of life or incident away from reacting in psychotic violence..
Is it easier to prevent these types of incidents from human beings that may not even be aware of their own mental problems, or would it make more sense to decrease the odds by harshening gun laws?..
It may happen regardless, but it seems less likely that a man could kill 20+ people if it was more difficult to gain access to a gun..there shouldn't even be an argument..
Also, the 1=20 argument is one of the worst arguments in ST history, tbh..
This crap is disgusting. I don't have kids, but I don't even want to imagine how families are going through this.
How is it the worst?
It came from the argument that 1 person killed by a knife is more acceptable than 20 people killed by a gun.
In any case, Is it really that bad that people here laugh at me because I value a good person's life that for me, 1 good person getting killed is as big a tragedy as 20 good people killed?
That's because it is more acceptable.
I don't care what side of the argument you're on, Australians shouldn't be allowed to have opinions on anything.
just found out about this when they were showing the halftime highlights and mentioned something about a tragedy in Connecticut.
I haven't read through the whole thread, but did AussieFanKurt say "Only in America" yet?
I dont think so.
A mother/father will be as equally devastated whether her child was the only victim or her child was a victim along with 19 of his classmates.
My son is the same age as the kids that died so Im saying this with my son on my mind and that is how I will feel whether my kid is the 1 or one of the 20.
lefties will certainly use this as another example to convince even more re s people's guns should be taken away from them for their own security, while what's actually shown in this case is just the opposite. if there was a person at the scene who carried a gun with him, he would've shot the gunner and the gunner would've been subdued before 20 people were killed, instead people counted on the cops to protect them but the mother ers in uniform would not show up until the gunner ran out of ammo. taking guns away from people will only leave them even more vulnerable to gun crimes tbh
That's what I thought, speculation. So much for your truth.
guns dont kill people prank calls do
I don't think he's said it yet, but that re from that worthless, insignificant country was probably thinking it.
Think about the misery and pain of the families of 1 murder/death of 1 person..wouldn't you rather spare the other 19 families from the same misfortune?..
Also,
You've made quite the leap from "harshening" gun laws to "more difficult to gain access to a gun" as if the reason people can get a gun is because the law permits it. Most of the time these arguments lose sight of the fact that the existing laws were broken in committing these acts, and that the perpetrator planned in advance to carry these acts out. These are not crimes of passion, heat of the moment stuff. If a convicted felon can easily acquire a gun when it's both illegal to sell and illegal for him to own, attempt to purchase or even be in possession of a firearm, then there's no real connection between legality and ease of purchase. How hard is it to buy illegal drugs?
Is it easier to prevent these types of incidents from human beings that may not even be aware of their own mental problems, or would it make more sense to decrease the odds by harshening gun laws?..
It may happen regardless, but it seems less likely that a man could kill 20+ people if it was more difficult to gain access to a gun..there shouldn't even be an argument..
Also, the 1=20 argument is one of the worst arguments in ST history, tbh..
There are some stupid ing people in this thread.
I don't have much of importance to add, just found about this. This reminds me of the Aurora thread, and I guess it's same , different day.
I don't even know if i'll watch much of the coverage on this. tbh, I think news media and corporations should feel ashamed how they handle this stuff. I understand we should report it, but everything is so sensationalized, that I believe it is causing more copycats. ed up people get to feel like rock stars or the Joker for awhile, and I wish the media would handle this in a better way.
I'll probably read a bit of the coverage but try to avoid most of it, I just think absorbing this stuff even by osmosis is bad for the soul.
also, I'm sort of on the fence about gun rights. I won't bother with it because I still have mixed feelings about it, but does anyone else consider it eerie that as our government grows like a cancer, with people losing more freedoms, that we also have more of these incidences happening to fuel the flames? I'm not saying it's some PsyOps or conspiracy theory, I'm just saying it's strange to see these things are getting more out of hand as the government grows, yet it just adds to the malignant growth. It's a vicious cycle.
Pretty much how I feel.
Of course getting a gun would still be possible..growing up, I was capable of buying a gun as early as 13 or 14 IIRC..more effort in a war against guns could make it more difficult, though, which is the point..
Asserting more error to prevent the amount of guns in circulation would be a start..drug trafficking is still prevalent, obviously, but suppliers have been forced to progressively create more advanced methods to move their drugs, compared to previous eras IMO..
There would still be gun suppliers and traffickers that would bypass security measures, but it should be a much higher priority than drugs and certain other prioritized issues IMO..
The fear of creating copycats means we are already ed. We cannot live in such a fashion as to not suggest to anyone that they could possibly wreak havoc on society. That option is always on the table for everyone. If all a person needs is a nudge, it's pointless to pretend it won't happen.
The answer isn't in preventing people from going postal. It's in empowering staff and students to be able to mitigate the problem until officers arrive. Right now everyone is vulnerable, and these "crazy" people oddly enough target areas where they are least likely to encounter resistance, a theater, a school, a temple, etc... Notice no one has attacked a military base and only one police station attack. Conventional arguments have been that innocents will be hurt in the crossfire. Guess what, they will all die if the guy doesn't run out of ammo first.
It's only going to subside if we take a hard line stance. Removing everyone's ability to respond or defend themselves isn't the answer, and since the law only affects the law abiding, that's what many here are proposing doing because they lack enough understanding and tactical experience to see it any other way. They just want someone to make it go away.
Every thread?
I don't think anyone sees 20 children slaughtered one after the other and thinks, "Well after that first one I didn't care much anyway."
Holy this is some warped/flat out re ed logic.
Well you cannot but a gun at 13 of 14 now. Anyone here who knows existing gun laws would be a good start for a debate, however those of you who don't even know what laws are on the books now shouldn't be calling for tougher ones. That's just a knee jerk reaction. None of you will set out to learn the laws, you just accept what you hear and parrot it.
Yet there's coke and weed at every HS party.Asserting more error to prevent the amount of guns in circulation would be a start..drug trafficking is still prevalent, obviously, but suppliers have been forced to progressively create more advanced methods to move their drugs, compared to previous eras IMO..
It would huh? Would that make the parents feel better when their kids are killed? "Hey, we made it harder to get guns, sorry this person's father was a cop".There would still be gun suppliers and traffickers that would bypass security measures, but it should be a much higher priority than drugs and certain other prioritized issues IMO..
The answer is always in deterrent. That's why the cop doesn't conceal. He's deterring crime just by being there, by being armed. We've had an armed populace for hundreds of years. You cannot suddenly start disarming the law abiding citizens and leave them at the mercy of the criminals.
The guy committed a crime. That doesn't change the 2nd Amendment and it doesn't change the fact that we are ultimately responsible for our own safety. Our forefathers knew that.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
