Another gunman shooting! We need stricter gun control laws!!!

"

Dimitrii_ss2 wrote:

what does a gun law have to do with a military base?

i just want to see logic in here, because that law would apply to normal citizens

In 1993, President Bill Clinton, when not stuffing cigars into places they didn't belong, enacted an Executive Order, making all US military bases "gun free" zones. Military personnel not involved in duties requiring a weapon were no longer allowed to have one.

That means that anyone who wants to kill a lotta US military personnel can simply bring their own weapon in (illegally) and shoot the place up. Same for schools, movie theaters, and anyplace else people are by law rendered incapable of their own defense against those willing to ignore that same law.

We've now had TWO incidents of "workplace violence" on US military bases. ='[.]'=

So the solution is we should all have a gun, then? That is no answer either.

Here's what I think: Making guns really hard to get isn't going to stop someone who is absolutely determined - but it might deter someone. And that is the point. Make it so the only way to get ahold of a gun is some ridiculous, expensive, illegal way and you guarantee that less people will bother. Basic economic principle. If I sold AK-47s on every corner in the US for $5 I guarantee you there would be a lot more shootings. Period.

same old song and dance every time something like this happens. The truth is the majority of The American people don't want stronger gun control. This is why it fails everytime. Its a part of the fundamental philosophy that an armed citizen is able to protect itself from a tyrannical government unlike an unarmed one if it should ever come to that. Thats the basic philosophy behind the second amendment and why its important it never gets over turned(which it wont) A free man must be able to protect his freedom after all.


I am reminded of a quote " An armed man is a citizen, while an unarmed man is a subject."

"

Dimitrii_ss2 wrote:

"

ionface wrote:

So only the police and the military should have guns then? And if anyone shows troubles on their psych exams, they should take time off to get help? If only there were more rules regarding the Navy shipyard's safety....

i don't agree with only them having guns but i'm sure that this law wouldn't affect them

I'm trying to follow the (lack of) logic like you are. I'm just pointing out that the shooter was a military contractor and a vet, and if guns aren't allowed on military bases, I don't know where they could be allowed. Also, he was showing symptoms of severe psychological distress and was seeing someone already.

Sad state of affairs when the first line of an article glorifies all the different guns the shooter had rather than describe the attack or explain the results of the action. With enough headlines like "Armed Football Fan Kills 17", you draw a link between football and the crimes. It's just bad reporting.

"

ggnorekthx wrote:

So the solution is we should all have a gun, then? That is no answer either.

Here's what I think: Making guns really hard to get isn't going to stop someone who is absolutely determined - but it might deter someone. And that is the point. Make it so the only way to get ahold of a gun is some ridiculous, expensive, illegal way and you guarantee that less people will bother. Basic economic principle. If I sold AK-47s on every corner in the US for $5 I guarantee you there would be a lot more shootings. Period.

100 million legal gun owners didn't kill ANYBODY last week. =^[.]^=

"

ionface wrote:

"

Dimitrii_ss2 wrote:

"

ionface wrote:

So only the police and the military should have guns then? And if anyone shows troubles on their psych exams, they should take time off to get help? If only there were more rules regarding the Navy shipyard's safety....

i don't agree with only them having guns but i'm sure that this law wouldn't affect them

I'm trying to follow the (lack of) logic like you are. I'm just pointing out that the shooter was a military contractor and a vet, and if guns aren't allowed on military bases, I don't know where they could be allowed. Also, he was showing symptoms of severe psychological distress and was seeing someone already.

Sad state of affairs when the first line of an article glorifies all the different guns the shooter had rather than describe the attack or explain the results of the action. With enough headlines like "Armed Football Fan Kills 17", you draw a link between football and the crimes. It's just bad reporting.

there are a lot of "incidents" where complete innocent people get shot by police, not just by crazy people. If citizens can't have guns no one should be allowed to have them.

--------------
just because you're not allowed with a gun in a place it doesn't mean someone won't enter with one.
...................................
society and education leads to this, stop blaming the "guns" those are just tools to getting there

"

Charanjaydemyr wrote:

"

Raycheetah wrote:

100 million legal gun owners didn't kill ANYBODY last week. =^[.]^=

You're smarter than to resort to that sort of argument, Ray.

Nope. The fact is, the vast majority of legal gun owners in the US (the ones "gun control" laws are aimed at disarming) will NEVER use them in an illegal manner. Compared to those numbers, those who commit gun crimes, whether legally owning their weapons or not, are a vanishingly small statistic.

In fact, medical malpractice (not simply poor health outcomes), automobile accidents, and a fair number of other causes of death come in ahead of gun-related deaths in the US (except in certain municipalities, such as Chicago, which has some of the strictest "gun control" laws in the US).

So, this "Too many 'Muricans (those ignorant and morally bankrupt gun-lovers) have guns, and that's why they have so many shootings (in a nation with approaching half a million in population)" is simply ignorant hyperbole.

As a CCW holder, I am legally bound with more responsibilities every time I leave my home than a person who does not have such a permit. I have to be aware at all times of where I travel, locations of schools, Federal buildings (including Post Offices), and law enforcement facilities (among MANY others), and must be sure to keep my weapon from public notice at all times (tougher to do in warm weather).

In the event (which I hope every day never comes to pass) that I find it necessary to use lethal force in defense of self or others, my life will forever change. Even assuming that the courts find that I adhered to the law, I will still have ended another human life, something with which I have to be prepared to deal for the rest of my own.

However- My choice to be a lawful and proficient carrier of a CW is based on my active decision that neither I nor my loved ones will ever have to submit to victimization at the hands of someone willing to injure or kill us. That is my RIGHT, and to hear all the yahoos declaring that my right to defend myself is subordinate to their opinions grates on me every time.

So, speaking for that 100 million or so other 'Muricans who choose to exercise an essential human right to self defense, all while presenting just a smidge more than absolutely ZERO threat to anyone else, I stand by my statement. =^[.]^=

Question: Does Japan's gun law work?

"

Ocylix wrote:

Question: Does Japan's gun law work?

Yup. Only criminals have guns. ='[.]'=

Gun laws will be as effective as drug laws in the US, and if you know anything about the War on Drugs you'd know that it was an astronomical failure under any logical evaluation.