I awaken today to this story, and once more must declare that

[sharesunited]

Guns In The Hands Of The Public Is Just Not Worth The Grief.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/03/02/colorado.boy.slayings/index.html?hpt=T2

[TheCowsCameHome]

1. Horrible.

What else is there to say?

[rbixby]

2. I'd like to see someone explain

how more guns would have prevented this situation

[jpak]

3. The parents would have their castle doctrine rights to shoot and kill their kids if they misbehaved

in the home

So would his brothers and sisers

a 5 year old can safely handle and fire a .22 pistol in self defense

see?

:puke:

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[petronius]

7. Nobody has ever suggested anything remotely like that (nt)

[cleanhippie]

8. Why would anyone explain something that has not been proposed

except by you. YOU explain it.

[rbixby]

12. Easy now, I meant in in a sadly ironic sense

It seems like whenever some sort of gun related tragedy comes up people start saying things like "Well if everyone was armed, this sort of thing wouldn't have happened".

There's no reason to get nasty about it, we're all friends here.

[guitar man]

13. the only people I ever see saying that

are the anti-gun people snarking with it

[cleanhippie]

16. yup yup yup

[WatsonT]

22. They're also the ones who describe obviously

negligent individuals as "just another law abiding gun owner" as if anyone else had describe them in that manner.

[slackmaster]

17. Actually, NOBODY ever says that in a serious way

The only people who ever mention arming everyone are anti-gun zealots.

[pipoman]

30. So with such frequency

you shouldn't have any problem linking up to someone, other than a gun controller, saying anything remotely close to that? I'll wait right here for your example.

[TPaine7]

4. That does it, I have to admit that no one not in government employ should be armed.

It's a good thing no police officer's weapon has ever been used to kill his spouse or family; that would mean we would have to disarm cops.

[Atypical Liberal]

5. Disarm the public.

Basically, what you are saying is that we should leave everyone at the mercy of anyone who would choose to abuse them, either to hide, flee or fight a physical contest of strength, until and unless they can wait for people from the government (with guns) to come and save them.

I will never stand for this.

I will not allow the actions of criminals to be used as an excuse for disarming the vast majority of law-abiding people who own firearms, including myself.

[rbixby]

14. Has anyone noticed

that countries where gun ownership is severely restricted have a much lower instance of firearms related deaths.....


Its never going away here in the states, since its a constitutionally protected right, I'm just saying, perhaps it wasn't the wisest idea.

[speltwon]

15. You mean like Mexico?

Oh wait...

The reality is there are countries where guns, even god forbid fully automatic rifles are in a high percentage of homes and gun deaths are extremely rare- Switzerland.

Furthermore, there is the idea that when guns are AVAILABLE, guns will be used but they are not the cause.

Japan has far more suicides per capita than we do. Almost none are done with firearms. They are still JUST as tragic. Japanese Americans also have a high suicide rate. Guess what? They frequently use guns.

Do you sense the distinction. Is a non-gun suicide any less tragic? Does anybody give a flying fuck when their friend kills themself whether they used a gun or a knife or a poison or a jump from a high building?

[rbixby]

18. I wasn't talking about suicides

I was talking about firearms related violent crimes, and in particular the instances of those type of crimes in developed nations that have restrictions on gun ownership. I guess what I'm saying is that the argument of banning guns increasing crime because only criminals have guns doesn't stand very well when you think about places that have those sort of restrictions on firearms.

I don't have the numbers, but I'd be willing to bet that the rate of firearms related violent crimes in those countries is a lot lower, since there are fewer guns available.

[speltwon]

19. Well, then say what you mean

you said "gun related deaths"

Those include suicides.

[X_Digger]

20. Those numbers were lower *before* stringent gun control.

e.g. London from 1880 to 1910 had a homicide rate one-fifth that of New York City of the same time. (No gun control in either place.)

Careful not to fall into a cause / correlation fallacy.

[WatsonT]

24. Gun ownership and murder rates have never been shown to correlate in any significant way

You're talking about european countries when you say they do, and if you look at the stats they had a lower murder rate than we did PRIOR to implementing strict anti-gun measures.

Likewise some of the states with the highest gun ownership rates have the lowest crime rates, and vice-versa.

[lawodevolution]

35. Point out one country with a high rate of gun ownership that also has a very high murder rate

[WatsonT]

23. Well decent, law abiding, well intentioned folks are always

the physically largest members of society.

So in a disarmed society weakling criminals will be at the mercy of buff average citizens.

Like you ever see a documentary about prisons and the prisoners are invariably weak and sickly looking? Then you see a picture of a retirement home, or school, or church, and the people are all over 7 ft and built like linebackers.

[Callisto32]

6. What does...

a waffle-stomper taste like?

[jeepnstein]

9. And once more...

I choose to not buy into your hysteria.

[guitar man]

10. It's a sad and tragic story

But the ship sailed a long time ago. Firearms have been around for centuries,we cannot un-invent guns and there is no practical way to get rid of them.

I'd like to see us as a society spend more time, money and effort on mental health access for everybody who needs it.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

27. +1

well said and bravo

[RamboLiberal]

11. So if the kid had spread gasoline and set the house on fire

You would ban gasoline?

Or maybe ban matches & lighters?

[sharesunited]

31. Gasoline has a use other than to kill and maim.

[X_Digger]

33. Would the dead be any less so? n/t

[lawodevolution]

36. Just like gasoline the main purpose and typical use of a gun is not to kill

The overwhelming majority of the billions of bullets bought per year are expended at shooting ranges and not used to kill or hurt someone. Gasoline is not an absolutely necessary commodity (we have feet for a reason).

99.9% of gun shots are used for other purposes then to kill and therefore those guns are not meant to kill. Find one object that is assigned a purpose in which the use of that object for that purpose only occurs in < .01 percent of the times that object is used.

[sharesunited]

40. Deleted message

Somehow more protected than killing itself?

No. It isn't.

The closest I want anyone besides supervised law enforcement from killing people is a Wii aim and fire game.

[guitar man]

41. "supervised law enforcement"

Anybody that lived in Lincoln County Oklahoma from 1982-1986 can tell you about the reign of terror from sheriff Ray McClain and his band of armed thugs. It took almost 4 years to get the Feds to step in and finally do something to stop them. I shudder to think what it would have been like to live there unarmed during those years.

[WatsonT]

21. I assume then that the prospect of murderers walking free

makes you deem our right to trial by jury and freedom from unjust search and seizure to be Not Worth the Grief.

[rl6214]

25. Terrible tragedy

I'm still not giving up my RKBA.

[friendly_iconoclast]

28. So Let It Be Written, So Let It Be Done!

Sure thing, Rameses.....

[Hoyt]

29. Agree completely. Not worth grief now and future generations. Sooner or later, have to do something.

We are on that slippery slope of too many guns, too easily available, too acceptable in public because of glamorization by gun-righters, and more.

[Ken_Fish]

32. Nope you lost. The antis can continue to bounce cases of the SCOTUS

but thats it. The party will never again repeat the 1995 mistake caused by a stupid and pointless law. No Obama speech on Gun Control, why, because its a boat anchor around the neck of the person who pushes it.

Its a post Roe or Brown world.

Gun Control is done on the national level. It will take a while to unwind the damage done, NE will take the longest, but eventually it will go back to normal.

That is a very probable future.

[X_Digger]

34. .. he says, as crime including use by guns reaches an almost 20 year low..

Pull the other one, it's got bells on.

[lawodevolution]

37. When will you stop using bigotry to push your anti gun views

[Hoyt]

39. When you stop playing a victim of those who prefer guns remain at home for the most part.

[lawodevolution]

38. Correcting your title for you

"I awaken today to this story, and once more must got very excited and happy to have another tragedy to exploit in order to push my anti gun and anti self defense agenda"

[ProgressiveProfessor]

42. I open this thread , and once more I find

posters willing to disarm and leave defenseless those in society who most need effective defensive measures. Posters who are willing to squelch the rights of others because they are somehow offended by certain inanimate objects. Posters who ignore the classist and racist roots of their agenda and how those impacts remain in force today.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.