They don't kill people. Lay a locked and loaded gun on the table, watch if for however long you wish. It will never kill anyone. It can't, it isn't even alive.
If anything, this situation proves why every American should be mandated to own a fire arm. How many adults were in that theater? If they were all carrying a concealed weapon, the death toll would have been much smaller... if any at all. This situation proves that police CANNOT protect you. All they can do is respond AFTER you are victimized. That is why to be a responsible citizen you MUST carry a concealed weapon, and take personal responsibility for the safety of not only yourself but those around you. That is also why government should recognize these facts and MANDATE every American own a fire arm. An armed society is a polite one. Or at least a very dangerous environment for criminals who would harm innocent people.
I have also never seen guns running around on their own firing at will, but that doesn't really argue the point or get to the heart of the problem... the 'mantra', as Jim calls it, is basically just a slogan. The problem is when crazy people get access to the guns and then go kill people with them. What are some ways to prevent that from happening?
To paraphrase Eddie Izzard, guns don't kill people, people kill people, but the gun certainly helps.
I am not sure I agree that if everyone in the theater had been packing there would have been much less dead or injured. As I understand it there were other things used in the theater besides the guy's guns, like tear gas and/or pepper spray. Would a bunch of civilians fighting the chemicals in the dark have really been able to slow the guy down that much? I think there would have been quite cases of collateral damage from loose bullets flying around in the dark from various directions.
I trust the local police where I live. I know a few of them, and they are diligent and dedicated people. It's true, the police in Aurora might not have been able to have prevented something like this from happening... but I know the police where I live will do the best they can to make sure people are not breaking the law.
When people start taking the law into their own hands because they no longer value the local police, then we're closer to anarchy. Laws are there for a reason, and law enforcement is there for a reason. The reasons are to keep our society from descending into chaos. It's about order versus disorder... and you seem to advocate disorder in this case when you suggest the police can't do it so we might as well just do it ourselves.
Sure, people should have access to firearms for self-defense. Should they have access to whatever kind of firearms they want? So, you say the police can't protect us... does that mean we need to have better (or maybe even heavier) weapons than the police have? I get the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense, but I'm still not sure I get the right to have things like machine guns or to arm ourselves better than our local police. And if someone voices such an opinion, even if they support our right to keep a gun for self defense, the NRA is going to scream and start cracking its too-mighty whip. Why is that?
Trying to get a lot of pro-gun legislation going is one thing, but I think that only addresses part of the issue... another side of it is, how do we keep people like Holmes, Loughner, the guy in W. Virginia, et al from getting their crazy hands on guns?
Gun advocates should stop worrying about Obama. This piece says it pretty well for me:
Nation wide, average 911 emergency priority one response time is 21 minutes. Do you have any idea how many times you can be stabbed or shot in 21 minutes?
does that mean we need to have better (or maybe even heavier) weapons than the police have?
Police have access to fully automatic weapons (which civilians do not) grenade launchers, and armored cars. They vastly outgun criminals. However when you are 21 minutes away, having a tank won't help. You are responsible for your own security.
I was struck today by how many people thought we lawful gun owners should express sorrow. Sorrow for what? Sorrow is an expression of guilt. We have NOTHING to feel guilty about. There is only one person responsible for this crime. Just one, unless they uncover an accomplice out there. And then what, two tops?
I reject the mentality that somehow I'm culpable in something when I have never done anything remotely like this in my life. Or that I should sacrifice one iota of my rights because someone else is a total homicidal maniac. Like somehow I, or the 65 million other lawful gun owners in the country, are somehow tied to the actions of this individual, and should suffer a loss of rights for it. That's just guilt tactics from the anti-gun crowd. I can't even say anti-gun left, because the worst of the worst of them in politics today is "so called" moderate and Mayor of a city I rejected because of polices like his... Michael Bloomberg. Do I feel for those families who lost people at the hands of a lunatic? Sure, but I'm damn sure not sorry, because I didn't shoot anybody Thursday night. And had I been there, the only person I'd have shot would have been him.
4 comments:
They don't kill people. Lay a locked and loaded gun on the table, watch if for however long you wish. It will never kill anyone. It can't, it isn't even alive.
If anything, this situation proves why every American should be mandated to own a fire arm. How many adults were in that theater? If they were all carrying a concealed weapon, the death toll would have been much smaller... if any at all. This situation proves that police CANNOT protect you. All they can do is respond AFTER you are victimized. That is why to be a responsible citizen you MUST carry a concealed weapon, and take personal responsibility for the safety of not only yourself but those around you. That is also why government should recognize these facts and MANDATE every American own a fire arm. An armed society is a polite one. Or at least a very dangerous environment for criminals who would harm innocent people.
I have also never seen guns running around on their own firing at will, but that doesn't really argue the point or get to the heart of the problem... the 'mantra', as Jim calls it, is basically just a slogan. The problem is when crazy people get access to the guns and then go kill people with them. What are some ways to prevent that from happening?
To paraphrase Eddie Izzard, guns don't kill people, people kill people, but the gun certainly helps.
I am not sure I agree that if everyone in the theater had been packing there would have been much less dead or injured. As I understand it there were other things used in the theater besides the guy's guns, like tear gas and/or pepper spray. Would a bunch of civilians fighting the chemicals in the dark have really been able to slow the guy down that much? I think there would have been quite cases of collateral damage from loose bullets flying around in the dark from various directions.
I trust the local police where I live. I know a few of them, and they are diligent and dedicated people. It's true, the police in Aurora might not have been able to have prevented something like this from happening... but I know the police where I live will do the best they can to make sure people are not breaking the law.
When people start taking the law into their own hands because they no longer value the local police, then we're closer to anarchy. Laws are there for a reason, and law enforcement is there for a reason. The reasons are to keep our society from descending into chaos. It's about order versus disorder... and you seem to advocate disorder in this case when you suggest the police can't do it so we might as well just do it ourselves.
Sure, people should have access to firearms for self-defense. Should they have access to whatever kind of firearms they want? So, you say the police can't protect us... does that mean we need to have better (or maybe even heavier) weapons than the police have? I get the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense, but I'm still not sure I get the right to have things like machine guns or to arm ourselves better than our local police. And if someone voices such an opinion, even if they support our right to keep a gun for self defense, the NRA is going to scream and start cracking its too-mighty whip. Why is that?
Trying to get a lot of pro-gun legislation going is one thing, but I think that only addresses part of the issue... another side of it is, how do we keep people like Holmes, Loughner, the guy in W. Virginia, et al from getting their crazy hands on guns?
Gun advocates should stop worrying about Obama. This piece says it pretty well for me:
Crying wolf
What are some ways to prevent that from happening?
Shoot them first.
like tear gas and/or pepper spray.
You can fight through tear gas.
I trust the local police where I live
Nation wide, average 911 emergency priority one response time is 21 minutes. Do you have any idea how many times you can be stabbed or shot in 21 minutes?
does that mean we need to have better (or maybe even heavier) weapons than the police have?
Police have access to fully automatic weapons (which civilians do not) grenade launchers, and armored cars. They vastly outgun criminals. However when you are 21 minutes away, having a tank won't help. You are responsible for your own security.
I was struck today by how many people thought we lawful gun owners should express sorrow. Sorrow for what? Sorrow is an expression of guilt. We have NOTHING to feel guilty about. There is only one person responsible for this crime. Just one, unless they uncover an accomplice out there. And then what, two tops?
I reject the mentality that somehow I'm culpable in something when I have never done anything remotely like this in my life. Or that I should sacrifice one iota of my rights because someone else is a total homicidal maniac. Like somehow I, or the 65 million other lawful gun owners in the country, are somehow tied to the actions of this individual, and should suffer a loss of rights for it. That's just guilt tactics from the anti-gun crowd. I can't even say anti-gun left, because the worst of the worst of them in politics today is "so called" moderate and Mayor of a city I rejected because of polices like his... Michael Bloomberg. Do I feel for those families who lost people at the hands of a lunatic? Sure, but I'm damn sure not sorry, because I didn't shoot anybody Thursday night. And had I been there, the only person I'd have shot would have been him.
Post a Comment