cnn.com— A gunman was at large after firefighters and police responded to a reported shooting Friday at a high-rise building in Orlando, Florida, authorities said.
Nov 6, 2009View in Crawl 4
That's the problem with gun control. Everyone wants to be the guy with the only gun. The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of people are rational, non-homicidal, law abiding citizens. The more people we have like that that are armed, the less chance the psycho's have of surviving, and the less people they can shoot before they meet armed resistance.
If guns werent readily available to buy by your citizens, very little violence will occur such as this.Guns are designed to kill people, take them away and you would have very few incidents like this.I understand some deranged people go to extremes but if I was to flip, the most deadly thing I could lay my hands on would be a knife (which involves a fair amount of me-lee and rather close range). Why? Because guns arent so glorified/available and hence the lack of idiots using them for these purposes.---I cant see how you can call me a moron because what I said is 100% the answer to thise situations and there's no point being fickle about it just because your country's history gives you the right to hold an item in your possession with only ONE purpose.
I don't care about some crackhead in a ghetto getting shot. That's not interesting to me. Normal middle aged man walking into a high rise and blasting away at unarmed innocent people is news to me.
justme, I'm not saying that a news story being sensational means it's not news. 1000 people killed on us soil by terrorists would be a news story. But there is a line where an event stops being just a bad event, and becomes a bad event important enough that everyone needs to know about it. I'm saying that the media draws that line a lot lower than it should, and we need to have our own line and filter out anything that is below our threshold or our view of the world is going to be skewed by all of these bad in an exciting way, but unimportant overall, events that are flashed at us all the time.
I like to see someone try to hijack that plane. hahaYou seem to think that loosening gun laws would mean that everyone would start carrying them. Most people will not buy something if they have no clue how to use it.
Rahodeb, you're making up facts as you go.The statistics I look at, particularly from European countries show that the incidence of murders is about 25% of the US rate.Which "mountains of statistics" are you using to "prove" your argument? I can point to countries that have strict gun control laws *and* decades of statistics to show that they have lower murder rates than the US at almost every single point in time (well, exception of WW2, but that's another story)So no, it's not as obvious as you think that strict gun control laws result in more crime. It's a fallacious argument that is trivial to refute. That's why this "crap" keeps coming up.But, ok ok... now let's examine the final paragraph of your supposedly brilliant argument. You point to the English who get so drunk and violent that can't even safely handle non-plastic pint glasses.Exactly how do you expect them to safely handle guns? You do realize that the people who are drunk fools at night are responsible enough during day time that they'd be able to buy a gun, right?
diggdongNov 6, 2009
It is good these assaliants lived. Let them suffer for what they have done.
daysinthedarkNov 7, 2009
This account has been closed by the user
rahodebNov 7, 2009
That's the problem with gun control. Everyone wants to be the guy with the only gun. The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of people are rational, non-homicidal, law abiding citizens. The more people we have like that that are armed, the less chance the psycho's have of surviving, and the less people they can shoot before they meet armed resistance.
noizeukNov 7, 2009
If guns werent readily available to buy by your citizens, very little violence will occur such as this.Guns are designed to kill people, take them away and you would have very few incidents like this.I understand some deranged people go to extremes but if I was to flip, the most deadly thing I could lay my hands on would be a knife (which involves a fair amount of me-lee and rather close range). Why? Because guns arent so glorified/available and hence the lack of idiots using them for these purposes.---I cant see how you can call me a moron because what I said is 100% the answer to thise situations and there's no point being fickle about it just because your country's history gives you the right to hold an item in your possession with only ONE purpose.
justmeanddiggNov 7, 2009
I don't care about some crackhead in a ghetto getting shot. That's not interesting to me. Normal middle aged man walking into a high rise and blasting away at unarmed innocent people is news to me.
powderedtoastyNov 7, 2009
justme, I'm not saying that a news story being sensational means it's not news. 1000 people killed on us soil by terrorists would be a news story. But there is a line where an event stops being just a bad event, and becomes a bad event important enough that everyone needs to know about it. I'm saying that the media draws that line a lot lower than it should, and we need to have our own line and filter out anything that is below our threshold or our view of the world is going to be skewed by all of these bad in an exciting way, but unimportant overall, events that are flashed at us all the time.
johnnysoftwareNov 7, 2009
Depends on where you live.Try tellling the Tutsi tribe the world has become really safe and violence is on the ropes - <a class="user" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide</a>Probably, part of the reason the world is safer in our part of the world is we lock up violent criminals. <a class="user" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/05/us/05calif.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/05/us/05calif.html</a> <a class="user" href="http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2009/10/california-prison-population-court-orders-cuts-again.html" rel="nofollow">http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2009/10/californi ...</a>Unfortunately, in some places like California the prison population is too big for the state to manage. So many will have to be let out. Arm them, arm the population; the violent criminals will quickly learn where they can find the people that aren't much good with a gun compared to them.
dustblinkNov 8, 2009
I like to see someone try to hijack that plane. hahaYou seem to think that loosening gun laws would mean that everyone would start carrying them. Most people will not buy something if they have no clue how to use it.
moz34Nov 10, 2009
Rahodeb, you're making up facts as you go.The statistics I look at, particularly from European countries show that the incidence of murders is about 25% of the US rate.Which "mountains of statistics" are you using to "prove" your argument? I can point to countries that have strict gun control laws *and* decades of statistics to show that they have lower murder rates than the US at almost every single point in time (well, exception of WW2, but that's another story)So no, it's not as obvious as you think that strict gun control laws result in more crime. It's a fallacious argument that is trivial to refute. That's why this "crap" keeps coming up.But, ok ok... now let's examine the final paragraph of your supposedly brilliant argument. You point to the English who get so drunk and violent that can't even safely handle non-plastic pint glasses.Exactly how do you expect them to safely handle guns? You do realize that the people who are drunk fools at night are responsible enough during day time that they'd be able to buy a gun, right?