Topic: Gun free zone - page 20. (Read 21968 times)

And what flawed ideal is that? That instead of getting shot, she could have defended not only the students she did save, but also all the ones he killed after her, to say nothing of her own life?

I'd have been happy to leave it at what I said before. But you took it personal, I'm guessing because you did speculate on what might have happened, and it was exactly what I've just said, that she would have been not only a hero, but a living one, and the students and teachers shot after her would also have been unharmed. This puts the lie to your fantasy of an unarmed populace being somehow magically protected from bullets by laws saying that you can't take guns into schools, and you're afraid. Afraid that you've been wrong all this time, and that you have been unwittingly assisting these killers in their grisly task. So you get defensive, and pissed off. This is actually a good thing. It shows you have a conscience. Because when you see this, your conscience screams "Nooooo!" in true Skywalker fashion. "It can't be true!" and you recoil in horror, rage and shock. I forgive you for lashing out in this confused state. Suffer no guilt for past actions. Instead, act to make amends. Do as Sv. Freeman says, and forget the shooter's name. I already have. Remember Victoria Soto, and the actions she took. Reflect on the actions she could have taken, had she not been prohibited. Act to make those actions possible.

If you tried to take away guns in this country, it will start civil war. It would be bloody on a scale you couldn't imagine... for peace of course.

 No one will be taking away my property or right to defend myself, with out force.

Oh yeah keep on pushing that agenda, couldn't care less, but I'm just making sure that the twisted irony of using a quotation about the media using a tragedy for their own end, and simultaneously using a tragedy as a means to shove those flawed ideals in someones face once more, is not lost on you.

And I'm sure you'll have another semi-clever reply exactly missing this point and focusing on something that happens to suit your agenda.

Yeah, fucking fundamentalists, wanting to protect innocent life using the most effective tool to do so in existence...

The point is that banning of weapons will not stop these kinds of massacres.  We live in a dangerous world and taking away a person's right to self defense will not make it safer.

I don't see how anyone can tell a victim of a crime that they do not have the right to protect their body's using the most efficient method possible, a firearm.  For example, I don't see how anyone can tell a woman that has been raped that she does not have the right to carry a firearm.

Where do you get your 30,000 homicides from gunshot wounds in 2006?  In 2009 there were only 11,493 firearm homicides according to the CDC.

I like the WSJ's database on homicides in the United States.
http://projects.wsj.com/murderdata

----- Edit ------

You know Singapore is very interesting.  It has a civilian homicide rate 0.3 per 100,000 people of but a state homicide (execution) rate of 1.4 per 100,000.

But in mentioning this in the way you did, you really outdone yourself. Just couldn't resist pushing your own agenda, even after posting a very sincere and fundamental message by Morgan Freeman, pointing to the very core of the problem. And you, in a most sickening way, used this piece of information in another sad attempt to get your pathetic and flawed point across.

With every post you make you reveal yourself to be the most insidious of fundamentalist there is.

What he said.

To that end, this woman's name was Victoria Soto:


She died a true hero. I will resist speculation on what might have happened had she been armed and trained.

show/hide

Happy? Far from it. Facing staggering amounts of categorically evil tyranny, organized and 100% self-immunized under the banner of "U.S. federal, state, and local government", defined by any non-sociopath's dictionary, puts me in a state of constant disgust and fury. Maybe I'll be happy when I'm dead (if I can make it through life without getting summarily executed while naked and unarmed, then written off as a suicide like the creeping incrementalism towards bloody empire we're now obviously headed toward, with the UNPatriotIC Act and everything else), since obviously those who have committed capital offenses that every genocidal dictator throughout history couldn't be more proud of, are self-immunized and will never suffer one IOTA of punishment or civil penalty for their categorical evil. Ever notice how evil people never have to worry about getting killed in the U.S. if they join the government? The good, on the other hand, if you become inconvenient for the evil, enjoy your dirt nap.

Love how simple-minded you guys are. And you're happy to remain that way.

Yup. Call it Rothbard's Razor.

Is there any issue in the world for you that is not completely black and white?

Do you agree that it would not even stop all firearms-using rampages that kill children?

Of course I agree. This is only a mean not a global solution.

This week there was also a school attack in China too. A knife-wielding maniac slashed 22 children at a kindergarten. Not a single child died. Do you really think that upgrading the tools available to killers is a good idea?

I also don't think you want to bring up Japan (Japan has very strict gun control, though not as strict as Singapore). In 2006, there were 2 gun related deaths of any type in Japan, a country of about 130 million. By contrast, in the US, there were 642 fatal firearm accidents in 2006. In addition, there were about 30,000 homicides involving gunshot wounds.

You are getting your data from where? Or is it deductive reasoning based on the 'axioms' of Natural Law?
I am not aware of data for Renaissance Italy, but the conclusion you suggest seems highly unlikely given the experience of other countries for which data is available.

Homicide rates fell as countries developed stronger states with standing armies under the ruler's control. The leading authority is Tilly (1990).
The following quote is from "Coercion, Capital, and European States, AD 990-1990"

Do you agree that banning all guns would not end rampages that kill children?

Is Japan a 'civilized' nation?


Germany?

No matter the weapon bans that occur after these massacres, they will continue to happen.

I see some people are still having this bullshit non-conversation about "guns" (really, about punishing people violently for their beliefs).

Here's some valuable advice for those of you who continue pretending that this is actually a conversation:

http://youtu.be/d2a5wtTrlLs?t=17m38s

As stochastic said, these are acts of a handful of deranged people and are difficult to interpret. I'm not sure their motivations can have any form of link with the kind of government or country they live in.

In China, what are the sentencing guidelines? Knife children, go to slave labor camp, get executed when you break? Knife children to death, get tortured, go to slave labor camp, then get executed when you break? Why are the Chinese criminals seemingly intentionally NOT using knives to kill, only maim?

Mathematics are mathematics I don't have my own kind, I simply illustrated that the China knife rampages aren't really useful to compare China and US (especially if you want to make the US look good). Anyway you were the one to bring China up.

China isn't a civilized country by my standards (there's a set of personal freedom I believe to be mandatory and China doesn't enforce them and actively suppress them). If you want to make the situation better in a civilized country I believe looking at how others with common goals for their society get better results do it can shed some light on the subject, bringing China as an example doesn't seem relevant to me even without maths involved.