News Another Shooting In The Us

[Loner]

No, I am free to have a gun. I dont mean my freedom from tyranny, I mean that I'm free to hunt, go target shooting, without the government breathing down my neck. Thats the freedom I'm talking about, I already have it. Just like the freedom to use cars kills people, I wasn't arguing cars are an essential lynchpin to a free country, just that having THAT particular freedom comes with costs which we accept.

Also, a century is the blink of an eye historically. What is it about the 21st century that makes it sooooo much different from every other century in history that civilian ownership of firearms is no longer a deterrent to tyranny? Oh, armies now have tanks and planes, bla bla bla, that doesnt actually change anything. A well armed population has never fallen victim to a tyrannical government.

People often talk about how society or technology has evolved to the point that civilian gun ownership is either unneeded or ineffective, but I fail to see how anything has changed. Feel free to convince me.

Also, lets just say you are correct, and that in the 21st century guns don't provide or protect americans from tyranny. So what? What happens in the 22nd century? The 23rd? Thats why they are guaranteed in the constitution, because as soon as they are viewed as unneeded and done away with, within a few generations they might be needed again.

History really doesn't change all that much. It is an absolute logical fallacy to think that the future is going to be much different than the past. I see no evidence to indicate such, although I can understand why people interpret things in this way.

 

[The Albatross]

Read late yesterday that the ex marine that did this latest shooting was depressed and texting as long ago as 2009 about killing coworkers... or people "hitting his buttons". Don't have any reports (yet) about his mental health status (whether he was being treated or meditacted with Rx meds).

Interesting to note that the Aurora Colorado shooter, tried to call his shrink 9 minutes before he went in and shot people in the movie theater.

Hmmm. Perhaps anyone who see's a shrink or is taking Rx meds for a mental health disorder should not own a gun unless or until they graduate or complete treatment???? Just asking.

 

[Deleted member 12723]

Thanks Alby for that information. It is interesting. But he had already booby trapped his apartment. I do not know why he called his shrink. He is a really messed up guy. It just breaks my heart how much the US has of mentally ill people. We are a very sick culture. We are out of control. And rageaholics. Who are snapping and losing it. Too many causualties. It just breaks my heart.

 

[Loner]

Thats a good point albatross, but there are a couple problems with it. One, theres no way to do that without creating either a national registry of firearms owners, or a national registry of people seeking mental help, both of which I am very much against.

The other is this, it is the shrink's responsibility to report that their patient seems they might be a danger to others. Both my shrinks have known I have owned guns and haven't had a problem with it. The unfortunate catch 22 is that patients that tell their shrinks they have guns are probably not a threat to anyone, and patients who keep that information secret, probably also have violent urges which they keep secret.

 

[Meadowsweet]

Oh, armies now have tanks and planes, bla bla bla, that doesnt actually change anything. A well armed population has never fallen victim to a tyrannical government.

I think you would have to come up with some research to support this point. In addition, I think the concept that those who will take up arms are the right people to have in power, is misguided.

What if there was civil war in the US, you would all fight each other, all armed against each other. Would good overcome tyranny, or the side with the biggest guns win?

Also, lets just say you are correct, and that in the 21st century guns don't provide or protect americans from tyranny. So what? What happens in the 22nd century? The 23rd? Thats why they are guaranteed in the constitution, because as soon as they are viewed as unneeded and done away with, within a few generations they might be needed again.

History really doesn't change all that much. It is an absolute logical fallacy to think that the future is going to be much different than the past. I see no evidence to indicate such, although I can understand why people interpret things in this way.

The evidence can be found in studying the journey of countries with much longer histories than the USA.

 

[The Albatross]

But he had already booby trapped his apartment.

He had also mailed a detailed note book like a week or two before the incident... Sounds to me like he wanted help. Too bad no one opened it, eh?

 

[Loner]

Yea, you have some valid points, but the things is, guns don't need to win the fight, they are a deterrent. Every totalitarian regime has started by enacting strict gun control. An armed population is not easily controlled, and therefore an effective deterrent against tyranny.

 

[Innordinate]

Want guns and violence to come to an end in the US? VOTE OBAMA!!

Just sayin'

:D

 

[Philippa]

Alby, I'm wondering why it is that when a mentally disturbed person makes text messages and says things like that, in a country where mass shootings do happen, wasn't taken seriously in the first place? Surely that would have to raise some alarm bells prior to this...or do people just go into complacency that quickly these days and write it off as nothing to worry about?

 

[p-no]

It's a proven fact that if you do not have instant access to a gun, an assault may not happen at all. Simply because there is time for a highly aggressive, raging person to cool off somewhat, maybe enough. The assault, if it were still to happen, could take place with a kitchen knife instead of a gun and could therefore end non-lethal. I am glad that only certain people can get guns in Germany, and that they have a lot of legal requirements to pass before they actually get the gun. I think a lot of lethal assaults are prevented that way. Even three days or a week of having to wait for a gun may not be enough considering the level of aggressiveness and violence a person can explode with.

Every single child that gets killed by their own family because they have a gun in a drawer by their bedside, wake up from some noise and think it's someone breaking in is one too many.

 

[Philippa]

People die from stab wounds though. If someone is intent on killing another person, almost anything can be made into a weapon to carry out that intent. The human body can be a weapon, if the person has had the right training. If you know exactly which points to strike at, you can kill a person in very little time without much effort at all.

 

[p-no]

People die from stab wounds though.

This is the equivalent to what I get when I say I'm terrified of flying. :D "You can die in a car crash too." Yup, but if a plane crashes, that's it for sure. In a car crash you do have a chance. Which is what I think I said in my post, too.

If someone is intent on killing another person, almost anything can be made into a weapon to carry out that intent. The human body can be a weapon, if the person has had the right training. If you know exactly which points to strike at, you can kill a person in very little time without much effort at all.

True. But go try kill 77 people on an island with a knife or your hands before help gets there...

And with regard to our own children getting killed in our own houses: Trying to defend yourself re a possible break-in with a knife may buy your brain just enough time to realize it's a kid and not a burglar. Also, you don't usually throw your knife at the person down the flight of stairs. I am referring to a real incident here, and that one I know of is one too many already. If the father had not had a gun, his son would still be here and probably around 25 now.