By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - Another Shooting, Another Gun Free Zone

sc94597 on 18 July 2015
Barozi said:
sc94597 said:
Barozi said:

not more than any other congregation of people really. Adults were present of course, just not that many. Why would they need to carry guns? To defend themselves from teenagers or other adult colleagues that share the same political view?
Even more, the island is privately owned, so you wouldn't even allowed to set foot on it without invitation. Which is exactly the reason why Breivik had to disguise himself as a policeman.
He then could've just called all adults together and mow them down with his assault rifle. (and he did kill the security officer first).

"Why would they need to carry guns?" To prevent one guy from killing 69 people. Such a thing would not happen in the U.S in any place where guns are legal and freely available to both individuals and the police. The largest mass-shooting in the U.S was Virginia Tech (likely a gun-free zone) and 32 people died there.

maybe you should read the bolded parts again.

Would you let strangers (or people you barely know) with guns on your property ?

I wouldn't let strangers (or people I barely know) on my property for an extended time period. If I trust them, sure I would be fine with they having a gun. I have many friends who own guns and carry them who visit me frequently. If the weapon is concealed, I likely won't know about it, and therefore can't refuse that they have it unless there is some identifiable notice on my property. If I were holding a political event whose attendees are children (many from prestigious families who can sue me), I think I would have people with guns around (even if the common guests aren't allowed to have them.) 



Around the Network
Conina on 18 July 2015
sc94597 said:
Conina said:
sc94597 said:

"Why would they need to carry guns?" To prevent one guy from killing 69 people. Such a thing would not happen in the U.S in any place where guns are legal and freely available to both individuals and the police. The largest mass-shooting in the U.S was Virginia Tech (likely a gun-free zone) and 32 people died there.

So the brave American civilians with their guns saved the day in these mass shootings and prevented further killings by incapacitating the perpetrator(s)?

Or did the police force had to do it?

Both.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/10-potential-mass-shootings-that-were-stopped-by-someone-wit#.bdNX8jQD8

Just read the comments of your own URL... most of these 9 cases spanning 15 years (didn't they find a tenth case to present a sweet top ten?) were police officers and the rest are perhaps palliated. There is another article in the comments: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/armed-civilians-do-not-stop-mass-shootings



sc94597 on 18 July 2015
Conina said:
sc94597 said:
Conina said:
sc94597 said:

"Why would they need to carry guns?" To prevent one guy from killing 69 people. Such a thing would not happen in the U.S in any place where guns are legal and freely available to both individuals and the police. The largest mass-shooting in the U.S was Virginia Tech (likely a gun-free zone) and 32 people died there.

So the brave American civilians with their guns saved the day in these mass shootings and prevented further killings by incapacitating the perpetrator(s)?

Or did the police force had to do it?

Both.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/10-potential-mass-shootings-that-were-stopped-by-someone-wit#.bdNX8jQD8

Just read the comments of your own URL... most of these 9 cases spanning 15 years (didn't they find a tenth case to present a sweet top ten?) were police officers and the rest are perhaps palliated. There is another article in the comments: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/armed-civilians-do-not-stop-mass-shootings

And? Said police officers wouldn't be able to carry weapons when they are off-duty with the idealized laws. And I am sure there were other cases, but certainly not enough national media coverage was present to verify and source them (which any journalist must do.) Then you link motherjones, who obviously has an agenda against guns. I won't take them seriously on the matter. Buzzfeed is liberal enough already.



Cobretti2 on 18 July 2015
Burek said:
There is an easy solution to American gun problem: Ban all guns, have a 5-year period to allow people to turn them in.
And for each gun turned in, they get a free iPad, iPhone, PS4, XOne or something similar of their choice.
Problem solved.

that would lead to record sales of consoles considering how many guns US citizens have lol.



 

 

Cobretti2 on 18 July 2015
o_O.Q said:
if all guns are taken away from everybody then those who want to harm others will seek out other ways to do so

the very simple point that many people fail to understand is that the problem here is not the weapon used to cause harm.. it is the intent to cause harm that is the problem

and good luck on stopping people from wanting to harm each other given the right circumstances... imo unless we are all chipped with devices to control our impulses through the transhumanism concept ( essentially meaning we will cease to be human ) its not ever going to happen

we live in an imperfect world, if you want heaven grab a bible and go to church and pray that at your death you will be allowed through the great pearly white gates

It is so mich harder to kill with your own hands than with a trigger. Most people would have second thoughts coming up close and personal for example to knife someone.

I guess they could always make a bomb, but guess what put stricter law in place on buying certain chemicals so people can be tracked for suspicious activity.



 

 

Around the Network
Aeolus451 on 18 July 2015
Barozi said:
sc94597 said:
Barozi said:
sc94597 said:

The issue is that the people who do these crimes are the ones with access to the black market. The other portion would be happy using some other effective means like a bomb or a fire. I wonder how many people would've gotten shot by Breivik if at least five percent of the hundred or so on that island had a weapon. I think while gun bans help decrease the number of mass shootings they also increase the  number of deaths per incident.

It was a youth summer camp organised by a political party on an island. How could you expect ANYONE to carry a gun there?

There were no adults at said camp? Are not political desitinations like these ripe for attacks?

not more than any other congregation of people really. Adults were present of course, just not that many. Why would they need to carry guns? To defend themselves from teenagers or other adult colleagues that share the same political view?
Even more, the island is privately owned, so you wouldn't even allowed to set foot on it without invitation. Which is exactly the reason why Breivik had to disguise himself as a policeman.
He then could've just called all adults together and mow them down with his assault rifle. (and he did kill the security officer first).

You carry a gun for what might happen. It's really no different than carrying the proper equipment for a possible surivival situation when out somewhere in the sticks. Sometimes, the most innocent of situations or places becomes a fight for your life and if you had the right item, it could save your life. An extra water container, spare tire, life jacket or GPS is no different than a gun. If someone had a gun for self defense, they could of defended themselves at least or it would of outright put an end to the shooting much earlier.



sc94597 on 18 July 2015
Cobretti2 said:
o_O.Q said:
if all guns are taken away from everybody then those who want to harm others will seek out other ways to do so

the very simple point that many people fail to understand is that the problem here is not the weapon used to cause harm.. it is the intent to cause harm that is the problem

and good luck on stopping people from wanting to harm each other given the right circumstances... imo unless we are all chipped with devices to control our impulses through the transhumanism concept ( essentially meaning we will cease to be human ) its not ever going to happen

we live in an imperfect world, if you want heaven grab a bible and go to church and pray that at your death you will be allowed through the great pearly white gates

It is so mich harder to kill with your own hands than with a trigger. Most people would have second thoughts coming up close and personal for example to knife someone.

I guess they could always make a bomb, but guess what put stricter law in place on buying certain chemicals so people can be tracked for suspicious activity.


There are ways to kill without a gun and without your hands.

For example:

You can bomb people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Marathon_bombing

Or you can poison them

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/jury-pittsburgh-researcher-robert-ferrante-poisoned-his-wife-autumn-klein/

Or you can kill them by arsonry

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Land_fire

"Unable to acquire a gun, González returned to the establishment with a plastic container of gasoline. He spread the fuel on a staircase, the only access into the club, and then ignited the gasoline"



o_O.Q on 18 July 2015
Cobretti2 said:
o_O.Q said:
if all guns are taken away from everybody then those who want to harm others will seek out other ways to do so

the very simple point that many people fail to understand is that the problem here is not the weapon used to cause harm.. it is the intent to cause harm that is the problem

and good luck on stopping people from wanting to harm each other given the right circumstances... imo unless we are all chipped with devices to control our impulses through the transhumanism concept ( essentially meaning we will cease to be human ) its not ever going to happen

we live in an imperfect world, if you want heaven grab a bible and go to church and pray that at your death you will be allowed through the great pearly white gates

It is so mich harder to kill with your own hands than with a trigger. Most people would have second thoughts coming up close and personal for example to knife someone.

I guess they could always make a bomb, but guess what put stricter law in place on buying certain chemicals so people can be tracked for suspicious activity.

not necessarily the boston maraton attacks were not done with guns... apparently whoever did it simply used pressure cookers, some nails and explosives

 

if someone wants to kill lots of people he/she will find a way to do so

edit: missed that last bit well common chemicals can be used for explosives ( for example fertilisers )



Cobretti2 on 18 July 2015
o_O.Q said:
Cobretti2 said:

It is so mich harder to kill with your own hands than with a trigger. Most people would have second thoughts coming up close and personal for example to knife someone.

I guess they could always make a bomb, but guess what put stricter law in place on buying certain chemicals so people can be tracked for suspicious activity.

not necessarily the boston maraton attacks were not done with guns... apparently whoever did it simply used pressure cookers, some nails and explosives

 

if someone wants to kill lots of people he/she will find a way to do so

edit: missed that last bit well common chemicals can be used for explosives ( for example fertilisers )


I agree common chemicals can be used but here if you buy too much fertiliser it gets noticed, unless you are a farmer and even they have to fill out paper work on size of order lol. I once tried to buy 500grams of sulfur from the chemist and they asked me like 10 questions on what i am going to do with it lol.



 

 

Cobretti2 on 18 July 2015
sc94597 said:
Cobretti2 said:

It is so mich harder to kill with your own hands than with a trigger. Most people would have second thoughts coming up close and personal for example to knife someone.

I guess they could always make a bomb, but guess what put stricter law in place on buying certain chemicals so people can be tracked for suspicious activity.


There are ways to kill without a gun and without your hands.

For example:

You can bomb people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Marathon_bombing

Or you can poison them

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/jury-pittsburgh-researcher-robert-ferrante-poisoned-his-wife-autumn-klein/

Or you can kill them by arsonry

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Land_fire

"Unable to acquire a gun, González returned to the establishment with a plastic container of gasoline. He spread the fuel on a staircase, the only access into the club, and then ignited the gasoline"

but no amount of guns would have protected those people from those deaths anyway.

you are not suddenly going to get an increase of bombings, poisonings, and arsonrys.