Guns... My opinion what's yours?

Cops are only 20 minutes away. Cops come to pick up the bodies and stay safe to collect their pension proved by staying back while mad guy shot people for four hours. Your self defense is your problem. No one elses. Cops dont even have to save you per supreme rulings even if they happen to be right there. If pink pistol convention was at that gay club I suspect this shooter wouldn't have gotten far. We need more guns not less. More alphas less betas More sheepdogs less sheep IMO.

"

Aim_Deep wrote:

We need more guns not less.

More guns = safety. This is why warzones are noted for their safety.

"

Antnee wrote:

"

Aim_Deep wrote:

We need more guns not less.

More guns = safety. This is why warzones are noted for their safety.

Spoiler

brought to you by facebook

It is like the issue with nuclear proliferation. Everyone is safer if they disarm. Except they don't want to.

If someone is armed with nukes, someone else need to be armed with nukes to stop other people using that weapon. Stopping them from using it with threat of mutually assured destruction.

That works too assuming that everyone is sane. Except that fall apart, when you have maniacs in the room.

"

Aim_Deep wrote:

Cops are only 20 minutes away. Cops come to pick up the bodies and stay safe to collect their pension proved by staying back while mad guy shot people for four hours. Your self defense is your problem. No one elses. Cops dont even have to save you per supreme rulings even if they happen to be right there. If pink pistol convention was at that gay club I suspect this shooter wouldn't have gotten far. We need more guns not less. More alphas less betas More sheepdogs less sheep IMO.

There's a quick answer to those who want to grab all the guns - take the guns away from all the body guards and security people as well. You can bet that if the secret service had to go unarmed and Senn Penn's bodyguards had to go unarmed, they would be singing a completely different tune.

Where's Rosie O'Donnell when the gun control advocates really need her?

"

DalaiLama wrote:

You can bet that if the secret service had to go unarmed and Senn Penn's bodyguards had to go unarmed, they would be singing a completely different tune.

And I bet a nail studded baseball bat would do a much better job on a bodyguard than a gun, a bodyguard is 95% formality and 5% firepower. Same goes for law enforcement, it's a symbol of authority more than anything else, an average cop isn't much stronger than an average joe.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

"

Aim_Deep wrote:

Cops are only 20 minutes away. Cops come to pick up the bodies and stay safe to collect their pension proved by staying back while mad guy shot people for four hours. Your self defense is your problem. No one elses. Cops dont even have to save you per supreme rulings even if they happen to be right there. If pink pistol convention was at that gay club I suspect this shooter wouldn't have gotten far. We need more guns not less. More alphas less betas More sheepdogs less sheep IMO.

There's a quick answer to those who want to grab all the guns - take the guns away from all the body guards and security people as well. You can bet that if the secret service had to go unarmed and Senn Penn's bodyguards had to go unarmed, they would be singing a completely different tune.

Where's Rosie O'Donnell when the gun control advocates really need her?

Except the point is we specifically don't.

It is game theory, if civilians are unarmed, criminals has no access to guns, they wouldn't have one, or need one. Countries with effective gun laws also have low crime rates. It is difficult to have a gun even for criminals. Criminals even opt not to have a gun because of their strict gun laws. Many criminals commit petty crime unarmed. Civilians are less at risk because criminals are unarmed or carry less lethal weapons. It is more like a general package, you probably need other elements in place for it to work effectively.

Any gun ban that doesn't adress the black market is moronic. That's a good enough reason to oppose gun bans. That guns are a right to begin with is weird to say the least, but there is no going back; too much guns circulating.

"

NeroNoah wrote:

there is no going back; too much guns circulating.

This is just not true. Things have become illegal to own throughout history (particularly relevant here would be guns in the UK). While it can take a while for society to catch up to the law, it eventually happens.

I don't expect them to get literally every gun off the street if guns become illegal to privately own. They don't need to get rid of every single one in order for the law to be incredibly effective and do a load of good, though.

I don't expect guns to become illegal in the US anytime soon. It'd be fantastic, but I just don't see enough support for it in the near future. Like most positive changes, I just hope it'll happen before I'm dead. Also like most positive changes, I consider the odds of that happening to be low.

"

NeroNoah wrote:

Any gun ban that doesn't adress the black market is moronic. That's a good enough reason to oppose gun bans. That guns are a right to begin with is weird to say the least, but there is no going back; too much guns circulating.

No even if they got all the guns off black market (impossible) guns are great equalizer when someone bigger stronger and faster tries to put you in the ditch so law of jungle doesn't prevail. Right to self defense is a fundamental right IMO.

Personally I would not even have background checks. If anything ppl on the margins and in the ghetto need guns more than most vs me behind armed security gates in a upper class home with nice neighbors who dont steal from or attack their neighbors.

The advantage of having few guns in people's hands is that self defense is more reasonable (trying to fight someone with a knife or something like that is way easier and technical than dodging bullets, and it's less sensitive to stuff like teaching trigger discipline) and even police can disarm (it has happened in some places). That requires everyone disarming at the same time, of course, and that requires to shape the culture (slow process generally).

Honestly, I think that the best path would be to disallow guns that don't make a lot of sense for civilians (rocket launchers, grenades, and so on), and discourage gun use for the population (while disarming the government at the same time). If someone wants to have a gun, well, so be it, what can I say...