The Gun Control Debate

[garya505 2]

No, absolutely not. My "right" is to own a firearm. I do not accept that my right makes any implication towards a complete fruitloop murdering innocent people. Why should responsible firearms owners like me and many others on this thread take any responsibility for the actions of madmen?

Just saying its a side-effect of the right they (you) enjoy. It doesn't make you responsible for the actions of others, but it's there nonetheless.

Many of the rights we enjoy have such "side affects". For example. according to the CDC in 2003 there were 43,340 deaths caused by motor vehicles (unintentional) and 11,920 deaths caused by firearm homicides. Note that approximately 40-50% of motor vehicle deaths are alcohol-related.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It is worrying that whenever this happens, there are many people who simply throw up their hands and say "Oh well", clearly they don't associate that the right they enjoy and defend does have negative, unintended consequences on our society.

That's not to say that guns should be banned, as I say I think given the context of US society and history its a tad more complicated than that - and a larger question than can be answered simply by looking at a few extreme people and incidents. It does seem to be the case that some of the folks who defend the right to bear arms simply don't want to admit in anyways whatsoever that it has any negative, consequence on society.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

No, absolutely not. My "right" is to own a firearm. I do not accept that my right makes any implication towards a complete fruitloop murdering innocent people. Why should responsible firearms owners like me and many others on this thread take any responsibility for the actions of madmen?

Just saying its a side-effect of the right they (you) enjoy. It doesn't make you responsible for the actions of others, but it's there nonetheless.

Many of the rights we enjoy have such "side affects". For example. according to the CDC in 2003 there were 43,340 deaths caused by motor vehicles (unintentional) and 11,920 deaths caused by firearm homicides. Note that approximately 40-50% of motor vehicle deaths are alcohol-related.

Well you don't have a constitutional "right" to drive or drink alcohol. Do you?

I think we're going in circles here... I'm well aware that cars cause more fatalities than guns.

[britty 1]

It is worrying that whenever this happens, there are many people who simply throw up their hands and say "Oh well", clearly they don't associate that the right they enjoy and defend does have negative, unintended consequences on our society.

That's not to say that guns should be banned, as I say I think given the context of US society and history its a tad more complicated than that - and a larger question than can be answered simply by looking at a few extreme people and incidents. It does seem to be the case that some of the folks who defend the right to bear arms simply don't want to admit in anyways whatsoever that it has any negative, consequence on society.

I am not concerned about society. Society can do whatever it wants - I am not responsible for it and nor should I be. I defend my right to bear arms for myself, my family, and protection of both. Every single person is responsible for their own actions. My right to bear arms has no negative consequences for any individual.

[garya505 2]

It is worrying that whenever this happens, there are many people who simply throw up their hands and say "Oh well", clearly they don't associate that the right they enjoy and defend does have negative, unintended consequences on our society.

That's not to say that guns should be banned, as I say I think given the context of US society and history its a tad more complicated than that - and a larger question than can be answered simply by looking at a few extreme people and incidents. It does seem to be the case that some of the folks who defend the right to bear arms simply don't want to admit in anyways whatsoever that it has any negative, consequence on society.

Many of the hard-liner gun rights people do so because they know many of the anti-gun crowd want a complete ban on individual ownership. In other words, "give them an inch and they go for a mile" applies here. Some of the anti-gunners will even admit that's what their real goal is. So, you have stand-off situation and neither side will budge.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It is worrying that whenever this happens, there are many people who simply throw up their hands and say "Oh well", clearly they don't associate that the right they enjoy and defend does have negative, unintended consequences on our society.

That's not to say that guns should be banned, as I say I think given the context of US society and history its a tad more complicated than that - and a larger question than can be answered simply by looking at a few extreme people and incidents. It does seem to be the case that some of the folks who defend the right to bear arms simply don't want to admit in anyways whatsoever that it has any negative, consequence on society.

I am not concerned about society. Society can do whatever it wants - I am not responsible for it and nor should I be. I defend my right to bear arms for myself, my family, and protection of both. Every single person is responsible for their own actions. My right to bear arms has no negative consequences for any individual.

That might be true if Individuals can indeed cede themselves from society. Short of moving to a desert island, I'm not sure that's possible...

It is worrying that whenever this happens, there are many people who simply throw up their hands and say "Oh well", clearly they don't associate that the right they enjoy and defend does have negative, unintended consequences on our society.

That's not to say that guns should be banned, as I say I think given the context of US society and history its a tad more complicated than that - and a larger question than can be answered simply by looking at a few extreme people and incidents. It does seem to be the case that some of the folks who defend the right to bear arms simply don't want to admit in anyways whatsoever that it has any negative, consequence on society.

Many of the hard-liner gun rights people do so because they know many of the anti-gun crowd want a complete ban on individual ownership. In other words, "give them an inch and they go for a mile" applies here. Some of the anti-gunners will even admit that's what their real goal is. So, you have stand-off situation and neither side will budge.

That seems to be the case.

[PlatyPius 5]

If my right to own a firearm was taken away from me, do you honestly think we would never hear of a crazed lunatic embarking on a killing spree? If someone has made a decision to kill another human being then they will find a way to do it.

I think it's been said time and time again though that a killer of this sort at NIU would have very little success in killing 5 people if he went running at the crowd with a knife, bat, machete, etc. And he bought his guns legally.

No, I'm not going to prove it; but I guarantee you that I could kill 5 people in 2 minutes with a Claymore. Especially unarmed people. Unarmed people are easy to kill. It doesn't matter if you have a bag of rocks - if the people are unarmed, they are cattle waiting for slaughter in the mind of a lunatic with carnage-lust.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If my right to own a firearm was taken away from me, do you honestly think we would never hear of a crazed lunatic embarking on a killing spree? If someone has made a decision to kill another human being then they will find a way to do it.

I think it's been said time and time again though that a killer of this sort at NIU would have very little success in killing 5 people if he went running at the crowd with a knife, bat, machete, etc. And he bought his guns legally.

No, I'm not going to prove it; but I guarantee you that I could kill 5 people in 2 minutes with a Claymore. Especially unarmed people. Unarmed people are easy to kill. It doesn't matter if you have a bag of rocks - if the people are unarmed, they are cattle waiting for slaughter in the mind of a lunatic with carnage-lust.

A 6" 2" muscleman with a claymore could do considerably more damage than a flabby, 5" 7" internet geek armed wielding the same (if indeed he could even lift it

Which camp do most of these rampage folks fit into?

We're not talking John McClane here. Newman from Seinfeld and the guy from Napoleon Dynamite tend to be the guys that do this.