Carnage on a Norweigan Island

[VictorCharlie]

There is a better argument for the 2nd than defense of personal property and protection. An armed populace is the best defense to tyranny. Yes it comes with a certain acceptance of unattended consequences but homicide in the U.S. is much more a cultural issue than a gun ownership one. You might be able to decrease the efficiency of homicide in this country but you would do so at the expense of the law abiding citizen's liberty. I'd imagine the folks in Syria sure wouldn't mind having a few decent assault rifles right now.

[marbleheadmaui]

Yeah it would have been far better if a couple of hundred teenagers on a mile wide island were all packing shooters.

No way that's a recipe for utter carnage.

No, actually it isn't. If it were? The NRA Convention would have mass killings every year.

There are mass killings every year for people that own guns.

Yup. And for every one there are literally THOUSANDS of meetings among people carrying where there is no violence whatsoever.

Yup. You can't shoot someone if you don't have a gun.

LOL yeah and THAT'S why nobody ever kills with a knife or a rope or a club or their hands or a car or a fertilizer bomb etc.

The right answer is of course being able to meet such a threat with a gun. I have done so twice in my life.

I'll take my chances against a knife, rope, hands or club over a gun.

You've been in two gun fights? I love a good western. How'd it go?

Nope. Fights weren't necessary. I pumped the shotgun on one occasion and the guy who had broken into my house ran and on the second occasion I fired over the heads of three guys with bats. They chose not to proceed.

The point you are missing is if YOU have a gun? You needn't take any chance at all, or at least far less often.

Unless you are silly enough to think criminals/bad guys actually go unarmed because the law says they must.

I agree with you that the people using the weapon are far more dangerous than the actual weapon itself. However, the more readily available guns are the more chance of them falling into the wrong hands.

That's just common sense.

If I lived in America I would probably own a gun too.

Bad guys ALWAYS find ways to get guns. The most dangerous places in the US in terms of gun crime? Two of the most difficult places to own guns legally.

All gun control laws do is hamstring the law abiding. Bad guys don't worry much about the law...it's one of the things that makes them bad guys

[marbleheadmaui]

There is a better argument for the 2nd than defense of personal property and protection. An armed populace is the best defense to tyranny. Yes it comes with a certain acceptance of unattended consequences but homicide in the U.S. is much more a cultural issue than a gun ownership one. You might be able to decrease the efficiency of homicide in this country but you would do so at the expense of the law abiding citizen's liberty. I'd imagine the folks in Syria sure wouldn't mind having a few decent assault rifles right now.

That is of course the Founding Father's argument and, in my view, the single most important reason. NOBODY has EVER killed as often as governments killing their own citizens.

[chinchekked]

Yeah it would have been far better if a couple of hundred teenagers on a mile wide island were all packing shooters.

No way that's a recipe for utter carnage.

No, actually it isn't. If it were? The NRA Convention would have mass killings every year.

There are mass killings every year for people that own guns.

Yup. And for every one there are literally THOUSANDS of meetings among people carrying where there is no violence whatsoever.

Yup. You can't shoot someone if you don't have a gun.

LOL yeah and THAT'S why nobody ever kills with a knife or a rope or a club or their hands or a car or a fertilizer bomb etc.

The right answer is of course being able to meet such a threat with a gun. I have done so twice in my life.

I'll take my chances against a knife, rope, hands or club over a gun.

You've been in two gun fights? I love a good western. How'd it go?

Nope. Fights weren't necessary. I pumped the shotgun on one occasion and the guy who had broken into my house ran and on the second occasion I fired over the heads of three guys with bats. They chose not to proceed.

The point you are missing is if YOU have a gun? You needn't take any chance at all, or at least far less often.

Unless you are silly enough to think criminals/bad guys actually go unarmed because the law says they must.

I agree with you that the people using the weapon are far more dangerous than the actual weapon itself. However, the more readily available guns are the more chance of them falling into the wrong hands.

That's just common sense.

If I lived in America I would probably own a gun too.

Bad guys ALWAYS find ways to get guns. The most dangerous places in the US in terms of gun crime? Two of the most difficult places to own guns legally.

All gun control laws do is hamstring the law abiding. Bad guys don't worry much about the law...it's one of the things that makes them bad guys

Spot on Marble, I grew up in a rough neighborhood and unfortunately 2 of my VERY best friends were victims of gun violence and also countless associates I knew in passing were gunned down. That being said when I work in New York and I look at the news I am amazed at the # of home invasions that take place and I know for a fact the reason this does not happen in VA. My point being that not only can one observe for themselves but statistics show that the #1 deterrent for criminals are armed citizens.

[boozeboxer]

LEGAL gun owners are some of the best citizens this country has. Its the criminals you've got to worry about.

I plan on getting a pistol at some point in time. I've shot enough that I should already have one....but expensive booze is a staple that I cannot live without!

Lyle this is exactly the song "Time to get a gun" by Fred Eaglesmith.

[amat]

Spot on Marble, I grew up in a rough neighborhood and unfortunately 2 of my VERY best friends were victims of gun violence and also countless associates I knew in passing were gunned down. That being said when I work in New York and I look at the news I am amazed at the # of home invasions that take place and I know for a fact the reason this does not happen in VA. My point being that not only can one observe for themselves but statistics show that the #1 deterrent for criminals are armed citizens.

My whole family is from Virginia. I was there last summer, it's so much different then here in California. People here will fuck with you for absolutely no reason because if you're a criminal its a better chance you have a gun and the other guy doesn't BY A LOT because our gun laws are so out of whack. In Virginia we had kind of a dicey situation in Portsmouth in a gas station parking lot and all it took was my cousins announcing they were "holding" for things to calm down. It's a big ease on the mind to have one especially with that type of tension around.

[Nameless]

Let me see now, 700 kids of the politically prominent and NOBODY has a gun to protect them? This loon spent TWO HOURS hunting down and killing these kids.

ONE good man with a gun saves what? 75 lives?

A gun was the problem here and specialist police should have moved in way quicker from the sounds of things.

A gun is a tool. The MAN is the problem. Heck this guy used a bomb too!

A gun is a tool designed to kill. If everybody was reasonable in a society, it would't be a problem. However, most humans are not.... another part who's reasonable becomes idiot under the influence of drugs and alcohol and another reasonable part are potentially weak willed and can snaps at any moment. In that kind of circumstances, you have to think mass psychology and in a logic of mass psychology, letting people get military type of guns so easy is like dropping a whole bag of candy on a table in front of a class, telling them to only eat/take one and turn them your back. Doesn't work.

See that point of view applies to cars, boxcutters, baseball bats, knives, tire-irons and everything else that can POSSIBLY be used as a weapon.

Baseball bat are designed to hit a ball, not bash people just like most objects that you ust described. Gun does. Beside, I can't really imagine somebody going on a rampage and to successfully kill 76 people with a tire-irons or a baseball bat within 1-2 hours span. When you can shoot somebody who doesn't necessary see you at 300 feet of distance and can repeat that 30-40-50 times within a fraction of seconds depending of the size of your loader and the number of loaders you bring on you, it's all another story.

[VictorCharlie]

To each his own but Thomas Jefferson once said he'd rather live with dangerous freedom than peaceful servitude. I tend to agree.

[marbleheadmaui]

Let me see now, 700 kids of the politically prominent and NOBODY has a gun to protect them? This loon spent TWO HOURS hunting down and killing these kids.

ONE good man with a gun saves what? 75 lives?

A gun was the problem here and specialist police should have moved in way quicker from the sounds of things.

A gun is a tool. The MAN is the problem. Heck this guy used a bomb too!

A gun is a tool designed to kill. If everybody was reasonable in a society, it would't be a problem. However, most humans are not.... another part who's reasonable becomes idiot under the influence of drugs and alcohol and another reasonable part are potentially weak willed and can snaps at any moment. In that kind of circumstances, you have to think mass psychology and in a logic of mass psychology, letting people get military type of guns so easy is like dropping a whole bag of candy on a table in front of a class, telling them to only eat/take one and turn them your back. Doesn't work.

See that point of view applies to cars, boxcutters, baseball bats, knives, tire-irons and everything else that can POSSIBLY be used as a weapon.

Baseball bat are designed to hit a ball, not bash people just like most objects that you ust described. Gun does. Beside, I can't really imagine somebody going on a rampage and to successfully kill 76 people with a tire-irons or a baseball bat within 1-2 hours span. When you can shoot somebody who doesn't necessary see you at 300 feet of distance and can repeat that 30-40-50 times within a fraction of seconds depending of the size of your loader and the number of loaders you bring on you, it's all another story.

people killed 3000 people on 9/11 armed only with boxcutters.

[Youngblood]

pretty sure they were armed with jets filled with highly volatile jet fuel and a crazy religious disposition, going hundreds of miles an hr.

by your analogy, if a nuclear strike happened they would be armed with little more then the finger that pushed the button.

[marbleheadmaui]

pretty sure they were armed with jets filled with highly volatile jet fuel and a crazy religious disposition, going hundreds of miles an hr.

by your analogy, if a nuclear strike happened they would be armed with little more then the finger that pushed the button.

That analogy fails...unless you can kill someone with a button alone

[Youngblood]

you're not really this thick, are you?

you:

people killed 3000 people on 9/11 armed only with boxcutters.

me:

pretty sure they were armed with jets filled with highly volatile jet fuel and a crazy religious disposition, going hundreds of miles an hr.

by your analogy, if a nuclear strike happened they would be armed with little more then the finger that pushed the button.

you:

That analogy fails...unless you can kill someone with a button alone

you can wink all you want at the end of your faulty logic, but it's still faulty logic so was gotdamn easy to expose. Making an assertion that only boxcutters killed 3000 people is nothing short of stupid, and obviously agenda driven. I get it, you like guns. congratulations. Honestly don't care what you believe in. But using the deaths of a bunch of innocent people (mostly kids) to propagate your belief in guns and agenda when that was the thing that took them, is nothing short of shallow.

It's all about timing. Is this really the time to push your pro gun beliefs? In a topic about tragedy involving them? Surely you could have found a better spot. It's not far off of the kinda thing those Westboro assholes do showing up at soldiers funerals. Piggybacking tragedy to promote personal agenda.

but hey, continue on if you must. I won't be reading it though.

[boozeboxer]

I like guns. But I think this thread has seriously derailed as I want more information about the actual incident.

[marbleheadmaui]

you're not really this thick, are you?

you:

people killed 3000 people on 9/11 armed only with boxcutters.

me:

pretty sure they were armed with jets filled with highly volatile jet fuel and a crazy religious disposition, going hundreds of miles an hr.

by your analogy, if a nuclear strike happened they would be armed with little more then the finger that pushed the button.

you:

That analogy fails...unless you can kill someone with a button alone

you can wink all you want at the end of your faulty logic, but it's still faulty logic so was gotdamn easy to expose. Making an assertion that only boxcutters killed 3000 people is nothing short of stupid, and obviously agenda driven. I get it, you like guns. congratulations. Honestly don't care what you believe in. But using the deaths of a bunch of innocent people (mostly kids) to propagate your belief in guns and agenda when that was the thing that took them, is nothing short of shallow.

It's all about timing. Is this really the time to push your pro gun beliefs? In a topic about tragedy involving them? Surely you could have found a better spot. It's not far off of the kinda thing those Westboro assholes do showing up at soldiers funerals. Piggybacking tragedy to promote personal agenda.

but hey, continue on if you must. I won't be reading it though.

gee, I'm so sad you won't be reading...I'll try to carry on...don't know if I'll be able to without your inspiration.

And you're simply wrong about the analogy. Unless your button can kill people? The analogy doesn't work. The boxcutters TOOK control of the planes, the button does nothing like that. So who's thick?

As for your additional idiocy re: Westboro, yeah writing about lessons we should learn on a website is the same as going to a soldiers funeral and saying he deserved to die. Take a logic course.

[Youngblood]