But the only alternative you and many others seem to be able to think of is to restrict the rights of people who follow the law and are not scumbags. That's not the answer.
Count me in on that, too. That is one of the biggest and least-dealt-with gun-related problems in America.
I have a two part answer: 1. too few guns in the 99.9 percent of the population that doesn't cruise thru parks shooting at 3 year olds, prefering to shoot animals instead. 2. too many animals cruising thru parks shooting at 3 year olds. BTW who teaches these gang-bangers how to shoot? Proof they don't have fathers in their lives. Maybe they should have Shooter's Ed instead of Drivers Ed in school. Wait, what am I saying? Most gang bangers rarely see the inside of a classroom, unless it's prison GED classes.
Y'know, not to wander into territory, but the number of these incidents recently is almost starting to look like a false-flag operation.
Gang bangers spray bullets around all the time. The only difference here is the high number of people that got hit. This is in no way comparable to a "mass shooting" committed by a lone psychopath with no previous criminal history. The shooter(s) here were known career criminals, not psychotic, and definitely not acting alone.
I've decided to turn in all my guns. They're causing too many mass shootings in Chicago. Psychically, I'm guessing...
It's about time you saw the light! Think of all the horror you caused in so many mass shootings over the last ten years, by owning those guns! You should be ashamed!
Or at least the increase and style of reporting. Everyone, for example, assumes 13 people were killed in this attack. That is the media portrayal of this. Last I checked, no one died.
I shit you not, a couple days ago, the local news reported on a little girl who was "assaulted", at a playground, and the urgency with which they spoke made it sound like some 20/30-something pervert jumped out of his van, and messed with her, but it was a 13 year old against a 6 year old, the girl was "treated and released", which mean she got a fucking band-aid, and the parents didn't even know about it for two days, so it was a big fat load of nothing, just normal big kid bullying that we all got as kids. Also, the 13 year old was said to have "problems", with an awkward guarded PC tone, so he was some kind of retarded. So, a big retarded kid got mad, bonked a girl on the noggin', she got a spray of Bactine, and this had to be a fucking news story. Hysterical much, media? Fuck.
A little off-topic, but going from what Diacanu posted...We've gotten to the point where things that are, at most, minor incidents are being turned into serious legal matters. When I was a kid (gee, I sound just like an old fart when I say that!), if two kids got in a fight on the playground, a teacher broke it up, they got sent to the principal's office, and, if the matter was serious enough, a note got sent home to the kids' parents. Now it's GET THE POLICE INVOLVED. I imagine that, 30 years from now, they're gonna send SWAT teams to take down the kid who cuts in the lunch line...
Interestingly enough, on one of my FB profiles a friend was saying how an American woman was complaining she had to leave Manchester UK due to the guns and knives Guns aren't the problems, cunts are. And whilst guns empower cunts, banning them seems to be all about attacking the symptoms and not the cause.
My response to stuff like that is always the same. Lawsuit-happy parents who expect society to build safe, secure nerf zones for their little darlings. Do something about them, or we're only going to get more of the same.
What part of the fact that these shootings are occurring in "gun-free" zones do you not understand? Columbine - See Sandy Hook. Sandy Hook - schools are gun free zones. Virginia Tech - Most colleges are also gun free zones. Aurora, CO - Holmes passed up almost half a dozen theaters that allowed concealed carry to go to the one that didn't. Chicago, IL - has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country. An armed society is a polite society. There was a story in the news a couple of weeks ago where a robber came into a store and pulled a gun intending to rob it. The clerk shoved the robber's gun hand aside, pulled his own gun, and stuck the barrel in the robber's mouth. The robber suddenly became very polite and backed his ass out of the store while he still could.
Précisément. If someone's livelihood depends on protecting you from (perceived) harm, you can bet that harm will be "manufactured" if it doesn't exist.
What a crazy first statement to make. Why would i think any of those places were 'gun friendly'?? But its ok, i get that its a poor attempt to belittle what you believe to be an opposing point of view. Dont worry, its only Wordforge not the Harvard debate society. You get away with that here. Theres two obvious problems, the weapons themselves and the people who use them. Some of wholm are the career bad guys, and some are law abiding citizens who snap one day. What you guys need to do is take a look at yourselves and work out if as a society in general you are responsible enough to have guns. This isnt a looking down your nose post at americans, Im confident if we had gun availability we would face the same issues you do.
^ The thing I took away from Muad's post is that all these fucktards and whackjobs specifically targeted places where the likelihood of getting shot was slim to none. The Navy Yard guy was a unique case because while military institutions are gun-free, there are still armed sentries that, in theory at least, should be on the alert. It's not just the mass murderers, either. You think a guy robbing a convience store is gonna try some shit with a dude that has a shotgun propped up at the back of the counter? Or is he gonna try to rob the slack-jaw, acne-ridden teen that's trying not to fall asleep on the job. For what it's worth, I do agree that some folks should not be near weapons--it boggles my mind that the Navy Yard guy didn't have his guns confiscated at a minimum after TWO incidents of negligent discharged of a weapon, charges pressed or not. But I tend to believe that most people are not like him, and they aren't like Poodle who fear traveling to areas that are not gun-friendly or like other individuals here that practically salivate over being able to shoot the bad guy down.
If they're bad or they snap, lock them away. Leave the rest of us alone. You have very restrictive gun laws and even you are facing the same problem. Your Bobbies now carry "assault" rifles.
That's exactly my point. I gave several examples of mass shootings in gun-free zones. These places are targeted because they're gun-free zones. The bad guys and crazies know their victims can't defend themselves. I also gave an example of an armed citizen who stopped a robbery and perhaps a murder. We'll never know. [wyt=Here's the video.]z9mN9aiOMtU[/wyt]
I love it when disarmed nanny-staters tell us how happy they are living on their knees. We fought a war to not have your king tell us what to do.
Anna Here's the rub....the sentries/guards are indeed armed. But once you are past the sentries, you're home free. And if senties checked every vehicle and patted down every person, everyone would be four hours late to work. Maybe the military needs plain-clothes agents walking around. But with a whole lot of real estate (40K acres here on Fort Gordon, basically the size of Manhattan Island) that wouldn't be cost effective, just like everyone being four hours late to work wouldn't fly. It's all just CYA anyway. There are places near main roads here on Fort Gordon that have NO FENCES. I don't mean hole in the fence, I mean no fence at all - and this is about 200 yards from the main gate. Wow - a bad guy would have to walk 200 yards and cut through the woods and follow fire-breaks and sand roads right up to the post headquarters. The General's house is the very first house you encounter if you walk through the woods from the east - again no fences. Everyone who hunts knows all these places.
