hs, the only way would to ignore the second amendment, so you could punish the many, and make the few move to another source of violence. When a person is pushed so far they are silenced the only voice they have is drastic action. I am in no way defending the Kirkwood tragedy, but he was going to injure some one that night.

It seems as tho Mr Fish is just chumpin-at-the bit to make use of his arsenal, this is very alarming!

hs,

You’ve made some great comments on these forums, but I think your comment (#60) is a little off the mark. This is not about the 2nd amendment. The CCW folks in this forum are looking to market guns as a solution for all crime (except, of course, white collar crime). Its like the saying: When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. They haven’t yet distinguished between what types of violent crime CCW would prevent. They don’t seem to think that criminals will adapt to CCW and develop new strategies.

Here are some flaws in the CCW arguments that I see:

“There would be fewer of these incidents if there were more armed citizens” is the basic argument that I see. The above would be true IF the decision to arm oneself with multiple weapons and enter a public place and start shooting was a rational decision. No one is arguing that the shooters in these situations are thinking rationally, so the argument that the knowledge that they would be taken down by a citizen with a CCW permit would deter them is hollow.

“The second amendment is what preserves the others from government takeover” I find this one interesting, especially when it is avowed by those who have significant problems with the 4th and 5th amendments, and who have no problem with the constitutional issues raised by laws like the Patriot Act.

“I would have no problem doing my part to take out someone in one of these situations” This is a statement about an individual’s blood lust and belief in vigilante justice. These folks have no problem with the great Texan legal principle of “he needed killin”. It used to be that believers in vigilante justice wore white robes and burned crosses in the night. Now they are free to spout their message without condemnation in the blogosphere. To you, I say that there is no difference between you and “Cookie” Thornton: you’re going to go to any length to get yours. It must be lonely to be so consumed by hatred.

To the person who paraphrased the great statement by Martin Niemoller (when they came for the Jews, I said nothing….), I’d suggest you learn a little more about him before you borrow his thinking in defense of vigilante justice. He went to prison and died in the Holocaust because of his belief in non-violent protest against Nazism.

Robert Walsh,

Your post in #31 uses statistics out of context. The 29,569 firearm deaths includes 16,859 suicides (13,782 killed themselves without guns). It also includes lawful intervention by police, accidents and “undetermined” firearm deaths. In fact, only 11,599 were killed by firearms in assaults (5,498 were murdered without guns). The gun banners at the Brady institute also ignored police and citizens who used guns to stop or prevent crimes – without having to use deadly force.

I am sure you find even 11,600 deaths disturbing, and in truth, so do I. Then I ponder these statistics; 16,926 were killed in falls, 16,969 were killed by accidental poisonings, alcohol took out 20,398, drugs killed another 28,457, and a whopping 44,059 were killed in automobile accidents. Of course, all these pale in comparison to the real American killers, 554,643 felled by cancer, and 901,753 killed by diseases of the heart. The truth is, you are 125 times more likely to be die due to heart trouble or cancer than be killed by an armed attacker. Which means that the real American killers are bad diet, lack of exercise and smoking.

The truth is, more than 6500 people die in the US every day, but when a person with a gun kills more than one person at a time, it’s International news. The media seems to find the combination of tragedy and a crazed killer an irresistible combination. It’s like the old saying, “If it bleeds, it leads.”

Enough statistics. hs – you asked how do you keep the guns out of crazy hands. The scary but true answer is, you can’t. However, here’s another scary question – how do you take all the guns away from everyone? Its scary because, just like your question, the answer is – you can’t. Perhaps the world would have been better if guns were never invented, but like Pandora’s box from ancient Greek mythology, once it’s been released on the world, it can never be put back. We have to learn to live with the world we’ve made.

Which brings me to the way we all deal. The statistics say you could be completely unarmed, and you will be fine. Almost everything in the world is more likely to get you than an attacker with a gun. Therefore, many choose to chance it, and trust fate and the statistics to protect them. Odds are, they will be fine.

Others can’t stand the thought of being defenseless, even knowing the odds say they will never have to defend themselves. It’s an issue of being prepared. Whether they subscribe to the “a wise man expects the unexpected” school of thought, or the “I will not be a sheep in a world of wolves” school of thought, they will not surrender their right to defend themselves and their family.

The conflict arises when the anti gunners want to take away the guns from the pro gunners. They want to force these people to go defenseless – using statistics to justify taking other peoples rights. Clearly, they never understand that the bad guys will never surrender their guns. Even if they get their ban, all they will have done is leave more people defenseless in a vicious world.

As a final thought, I hate debating gun rights in the wake of tragedies. It feels like the anti gun people dance a “jig of joy” every time some crazy kills some people – because it “proves me right”. The pro gun people often seem insensitive, defending their rights to protect themselves from similar crazies who just committed these atrocious crimes. So, I end with wish that, in time, the families of the victims of this latest madman will eventually be able to move on. I sincerely hope both sides will give them space, and let them heal.

Amen Anonaman

No, I’m not a pro-lifer and I’m perfectly happy and content. It’s called living in reality. Sanctimonious bedwetters like you and Walsh should try it sometime.

Any more phony psychoanalytical assumptions you want to make?

Anonoman: Your retort adresses only one of my points, and that one not very well.

So people die of falls, cancer, poison, etc, etc. In those cases, did the person making the bad choice take another person (or two or three) with them when they were killed? About the only comparable way of killing is the drunk driver, who drinks, drives and takes the life of another. I’m making a point for the same scenariio: a person who drinks, picks up a gun and tries to make life good again by taking others’ lives. Limit the flow and ownership of guns, and we’ll limit the number of deaths due to guns; it’s that simple.

Also, I think that the gun lovers “dance a “jig of joy” every time some crazy kills some people – because it ‘proves me right’”. It goes two ways.

Hey, Fish! What would the average person (much less a phony psychoanalyst) say about an adult that accuses other adults of being “bedwetters”?

What would be said about the adult who does so behind the anonymity of on-line blogs?

I rest my case.

Hey fish, reality check people that own guns use guns and sometimes they SNAP and kill,….how else can you explain a seemingly normal Joe going postal as they say. Alot of these guys are lawfull gun owners……just like you!

RW,

I wasn’t “addressing your points” - I was pointing out you misused statistics.

I will address a point you brought up in this last post: “Limit the flow and ownership of guns, and we’ll limit the number of deaths due to guns; it’s that simple.” Perhaps. But, will the total number of deaths go down, stay the same, or increase? In other words, will the prospect of a completely unarmed citizenry actually drive crime (and attendant death) higher? My money is on a higher death toll. People will still be killing each other, whether it’s with a gun or a clever. Of course, the criminals will still be using guns – because what is a law to a law breaker anyway?

PS:

You’re wrong about the pro-gun people being happy about mass shootings. We collectively cringe every time some nut job kills some people – because we know the anti gun people will be rolling in the blood of innocents and chanting about their pet cause. It’s disgusting. If it were up to me, the only time you would read about guns would be when a citizen uses one to defend their family, or a hunter takes a record trophy, or a marksman takes a national (or world) title. But none of those legitimate uses get air time, do they? Oh no. Instead the media glorifies the killer, airs his grievances, and by extension, encourages the next massacre – thus ensuring the news cycle continues.

You do your ecstatic little dance of joy about the latest murdering psycho to “prove your point”. By the way, what point is that anyway? “It’s easy to attack unarmed people?” Point taken.

Me? I will be praying for the families of the victims.

Comment away – I’m done.