Here is a reason to own a gun

[Ali G. 37]

Yes nutty, maybe if the children were armed they would have prevented it.

[Ali G. 37]

Wow! People can be killed with knives, who knew!?

Quick! Let's take the guns away from the military and replace them with knives and swords. At least the edged weapon doesn't jam, just think about how much more effective our troops would be charging the enemy in hand-to-hand combat. It will be like that movie '300', only real - with extra slow motion!

Also disingenuous as they were children. Had they been adults, he would not have had the chance to stab so many people. Had he owned a firearm/s, he could have killed 10 or 20 people in under a few minutes.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Especially when it comes to this kind of rampage thing, I think guns enable that kind of behaviour (while still "rare" it appears to happen in the US with much greater frequency than elsewhere). It doesn't take much physical strength to shoot a handgun - you can be a short, flabby asian kid at Virginia Tech and kill more people in less time than it would take Conan the Barbarian to hack through them with a sword.

[natty bumppo 297]

Yes nutty, maybe if the children were armed they would have prevented it.

a teacher would be more practical to arm ... seems kinda weird that you would advocate giving elementary school children guns

there again ... maybe china should regulate knives to prevent this type of homicide

[Ali G. 37]

a teacher would be more practical to arm ... seems kinda weird that you would advocate giving elementary school children guns

there again ... maybe china should regulate knives to prevent this type of homicide

Sarcasm natty, you should real up on it sometime. It's illustrating the idiocy in guns make you safer argument.

Funny you should say that as that is exactly what they are doing with assault knives in various AUS states. Need another example of proactive legislation? People texting or hold their cell to their ear while driving was recognized as being dangerous and responsible for a range of auto accidents. Thus, its banning well over 13 years ago in most AUS states. Whereas, you 'geniuses' are still debating it.

Edited March 23, 2010 by Ali G.

[natty bumppo 297]

Sarcasm natty, you should real up on it sometime. It's illustrating the idiocy in guns make you safer argument.

real up on it?

why when a simple pole with string and bare hook works well ...

besides ... i promised the mods i wouldn't go fishing without a license

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Before you take your pole to the river, it helps to actually know how to fish.

[Ali G. 37]

real up on it?

why when a simple pole with string and bare hook works well ...

besides ... i promised the mods i wouldn't go fishing without a license

Natty if you spent as much time concentrating on what you say rather than mistypes, half the ###### that comes out of your mouth would not sound as crazy.

[Ban Hammer 13,408]

Natty if you spent as much time concentrating on what you say rather than mistypes, half the ###### that comes out of your mouth would not sound as crazy.

careful how you yield that keyboard, sparky.

[slim 1,530]

Widespread proliferation of firearms enables people to do these things, and on a fairly grand scale.

I didn't ask for the causes I asked how you'd counter it.

And Madame Cleo, you still haven't answered my question.

Pick any crime classification (per capita) and the United States will have a higher rate than most if not all other first world countries.

How about overall crime rate? Why don't you check that one.

Also, AUS has more rapes than US. Why?

What you also fail to acknowledge is that a person can recover from the majority of other crimes - basically has a chance. Whereas, once you are dead, you are dead period. If there was any logic in your argument or line of reasoning, surely more other first world countries would share this view. No? Before you go on about not caring, no one is asking you to care what others think, just accept the reality.

The reality is when a criminal victimizes someone and that person does nothing to fight back, the criminal is free to victimize someone else. When that criminal is shot to death, they typically don't reapeat offend.

While I realize shooting criminals is probably taboo for you and many others here on VJ, let's take baby steps. What if a purse snatcher grabbed an old lady's purse at the market and then got beat up by nearby shoppers... do you think maybe he'd think twice the next time he thought about stealing a purse?

How about if society maintained an "I can be victimized and maybe the police will catch you someday" stance? Do you think criminals would give that more of a thought than, "If I try to steal something from that guy... he might shoot me." Which is a better deterrent to crime?

I tell ya, middle America has got their heads screwed on backwards. Rather than tackling your plight, you are obsessed with dumb ###### like guns. While Americans are murdered or victims of crime hourly, you cling on to idiotic baseless views. Laughably assume the rest of the first world - who can now buy and sell you guys like potatoes at a grocery store - are misguided and stupid.

Many of the Americans that are murdered or victimized hourly are criminals themselves or are victimized by criminals who are already breaking laws. Making something "more illegal" isn't going to correct the plight facing middle America today.

The notion that we can be bought and sold is laughable as those who would attempt to purchase us are unarmed.

Tackling our plight is interesting though because in order to tackle plight, personal responsibility and accountability for one's actions is the very basis of change. Law-abiding citizens who own firearms are the cornerstone of that change - not your "examples" of killers and victims.

Madame Cleo, you still haven't answered my question.

Edited March 24, 2010 by slim

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I didn't ask for the causes I asked how you'd counter it.

I really don't care what you asked - I don't owe you anything.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Tackling our plight is interesting though because in order to tackle plight, personal responsibility and accountability for one's actions is the very basis of change. Law-abiding citizens who own firearms are the cornerstone of that change - not your "examples" of killers and victims.

That right there, is utter #######.

So we're back to the gun-owners, by virtue of owning guns are deserving of respect simply because of that fact.

Romantic rubbish is what it is.

[slim 1,530]

I really don't care what you asked - I don't owe you anything.

You do owe me something. Everyone owes me something. This is America, and I'm entitled to your opinion!

You're not intentionally avoiding the question are you? I mean, if you had a good answer you'd post it, right? So, by that, I'm assuming you don't have a good answer. Or, like most other posters here on VJ, you simply refuse to post an answer to a legitimate question because your answer actually doesn't back up your argument.

Anyway, you know what they say about assumptions.

gun-owners, by virtue of owning guns are deserving of respect simply because of that fact.

Respect? What's that got to do with responsibility? (Or are you still not answering my questions?)

Edited March 24, 2010 by slim

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You do owe me something. Everyone owes me something. This is America, and I'm entitled to your opinion!

You're not intentionally avoiding the question are you? I mean, if you had a good answer you'd post it, right? So, by that, I'm assuming you don't have a good answer. Or, like most other posters here on VJ, you simply refuse to post an answer to a legitimate question because your answer actually doesn't back up your argument.

Anyway, you know what they say about assumptions.

Your question is irrelevant because it requires me to assume a certainty of victimhood that simply doesn't exist.

If anyone was in imminent danger of being murdered, of course they're going to say "Yes, I'll take a gun please". I mean, who wouldn't. That doesn't mean that having your back up against a wall, makes a reasonable case for the mass proliferation of firearms. Rather, it makes a hysterical one.

Respect? What's that got to do with responsibility? (Or are you still not answering my questions?)

You are trying to make a case (merely by saying so) that owning a gun is somehow patriotic and provides a public service. That is a delusion.

Law and order is the responsibility of the governments we elect, not Frank Castle.

[slim 1,530]

Your question is irrelevant because it requires me to assume a certainty of victimhood that simply doesn't exist.

If anyone was in imminent danger of being murdered, of course they're going to say "Yes, I'll take a gun please". I mean, who wouldn't. That doesn't mean that having your back up against a wall, makes a reasonable case for the mass proliferation of firearms. Rather, it makes a hysterical one.

There are folks in this thread who haven't said that yet. They've talked about being lucky or using other methods of defending themselves or avoided the whole issue entirely.

There's no need to make a case for mass proliferation of firearms because it's guaranteed by our Constitution. Since there's already been mass proliferation, doesn't it make more sense to "take a gun, please" than try to avoid the issue entirely and/or deny it's existence?

"Oh, that'll never happen to me." Now that's hysterical! (Especially since you've already acknowledged there is a mass proliferation of firearms.)

You are trying to make a case (merely by saying so) that owning a gun is somehow patriotic and provides a public service. That is a delusion.

Law and order is the responsibility of the governments we elect, not Frank Castle.

Law and order is the responsibility of every member of a society, not the government we elect. As for owning a gun being a public service and patriotic, um, yes it is. Please re-read the 2nd Amendment and also read up a little on American history circa April, 1775.