Church shooting in "gun-free" Illinois

[PepperElf]

and i was astonished to find out that one of the actors who played a minor role in the next Harry Potter film is dead.

He died trying to protect his brother who was being attacked at knife point.


apparently england is having a large issue with knife attacks...
i wonder if they'll start making a knife registration law now

[Slytovhand]

You're a bit late on that Pepper - there was a thread about it already (yes, there have been new knife laws in the UK). Not talking about registration, but I seriously don't see the need to carry a machete around town at 2 am... unless you're likely to be involved in something you shouldn't be anyway (not, self defence is not a sound 'reason').

[EmiOfBrie]

I've said it before. if the USA were to suddenly repeal the 2nd Amendment and ban firearms outright, it won't stop the criminals from obtaining and using them.

Why? Simply put, they are criminals. if they didn't let other laws go unbroken, they wouldn't let this one go unbroken either.

There's a reason why the majority of these shootings take place in "gun-free" zones. Criminals see those signs and read, "easy unarmed victims found here, bring your gun".

[MadMike]

Why? Simply put, they are criminals. if they didn't let other laws go unbroken, they wouldn't let this one go unbroken either.

Thank you! Some people seem to think that if guns were suddenly outlawed, all the murderers, rapists, armed robbers, etc. would go, "Oh shit! Guns are illegal now! We can't use them to commit our crimes anymore!"

There's a reason why the majority of these shootings take place in "gun-free" zones. Criminals see those signs and read, "easy unarmed victims found here, bring your gun".

Sounds logical to me. I was going to carjack someone, and my choice of targets was one car that had a bumper sticker that said "Ban guns now!" or one that said "Fight crime, shoot back!", I know which one I'd pick.

[BroomJockey]

There's a reason why the majority of these shootings take place in "gun-free" zones. Criminals see those signs and read, "easy unarmed victims found here, bring your gun".

You know, I've always taken exception to this kind of comment. No, that's NOT why that's where the shootings take place. The shootings take place because that's where the people they want to kill are located. Columbine, V-Tec, etc. all because the people "responsible" for the killer's issues are located there in high concentrations. If it happens to be a truly insane person just going for "the high score," again, it's because there is simply a higher concentration of people there, not because it's "gun-free." Also, schools tend to be more defensible with narrow corridors, and more cover in the way of corners, stairwells, solid objects like lockers, and more rooms to hide in, so when the police show up, they can't just surround you and turn you in to a lead pencil.

I've never heard of any mass-shooter going 'yeah, it was a gun-free zone, so I knew I could just open up on the crowd.'

[Slytovhand]

Man goes to Jewish Holocaust museum to start a shooting match, knowing there are armed guards there.... yep... "easy unarmed victims found here".


Hmm - something doesn't quite make sense there, does it?

[Wingates_Hellsing]

If everyone could stop acting like 12-year-olds arguing with each other and understand that not one opinion stated ANYWHERE about ANYTHING has EVER been applicable as an absolute.

Yeah, the museum guy chose a place where there were armed guards, and yeah the shooters elsewhere had a specific group in mind, but isn't it also true that we don't know what the shooter did or didn't consider when planning their actions, and that a location's status as a "gun free" zone might have possibly entered into it at some point?

This argument should have begun and ended at the fact that only law-abiding citizens follow these rules, they are the only ones harmed by them and when the people who break them are caught, we have much bigger fish to fry than it being a "gun free zone".

Yeah, guns in the hands of criminals are bad. But placing restrictions on already low-risk, law-abiding people is NOT achieving ANYTHING useful. CCL holders are among if not the least likely group of people to use their weapon illegally. If I have been qualified and judged safe and trustworthy enough to carry a 9 in my jacket, why does it make a difference if I'm in a school?

End of Song.

[Flyndaran]

I prefer schools to be free of guns. That does not make me a crazy rights bashing psycho.
I don't trust strangers to wield firearms around me or those I care about.

[Slytovhand]

Wait wait wait... ummm, what??

If everyone could stop acting like 12-year-olds arguing with each other and understand that not one opinion stated ANYWHERE about ANYTHING has EVER been applicable as an absolute.

Fair enough (well, about the 'absolute' bit at any rate...), but then you follow up with this absolute line of thought:

This argument should have begun and ended at the fact that only law-abiding citizens follow these rules, they are the only ones harmed by them and when the people who break them are caught, we have much bigger fish to fry than it being a "gun free zone".

Yeah, guns in the hands of criminals are bad. But placing restrictions on already low-risk, law-abiding people is NOT achieving ANYTHING useful.

No, you don't get to have it both ways... No absolutes include in your own arguments!

Yes, there have been assertions regarding usefulness of gun laws... particularly made by people living in areas where there are lax gun laws towards areas (ie, countries) where there are more stringent gun laws. And there's no legitimate reason for that to happen!

[Wingates_Hellsing]

I never said that there aren't exceptions to what I said, my beef is that people take one instance as an excuse to do whatever they want. The Assault Weapons Ban is a prime example of a useless gun law.

I don't want any stranger to be armed either, but making it illegal for the licensed CCL holder to exercise their rights in certain places doesn't in the least effect those who are carrying illegally. I don't know about you, but I'd much rather have the possibility that there is a CCL holder carrying in a school as well as some random gangsta, rather than just the gangsta.

The flaw is in the overlap. The random high-school gangsta is already nail-able for carrying concealed without a license, underage possession, unregistered ownership, etc. It's just not needed to add another infraction on top of that, especially when this infraction also applies to the people who should have their weapon with them.

If you want I can edit my earlier statements so as to make it blindingly obvious in every other word that it's not meant as an absolute, or you can see that I don't like absolutes and accept that I am moving forward with the assumption that everything I say can be wrong, as well as the assumption that there are exceptions.

[Slytovhand]

I never said that there aren't exceptions to what I said, my beef is that people take one instance as an excuse to do whatever they want. The Assault Weapons Ban is a prime example of a useless gun law.

Actually, that's a rather interesting.. and ironic... point.

It's those 'one instances as an excuse' that many people suggest that guns should be legalised.

What I think you missed was the 'Gun laws in UK a complete fail' thread. It was suggested there, as per the title, various things... which had absolutely nothing to do with gun laws in the US... despite some person's attempts to make connections.

If you want I can edit my earlier statements so as to make it blindingly obvious in every other word that it's not meant as an absolute, or you can see that I don't like absolutes and accept that I am moving forward with the assumption that everything I say can be wrong, as well as the assumption that there are exceptions.

No, it's fine... just when you add things like "If everyone could stop acting like 12-year-olds arguing with each other ", and then make a faux pas, expect to get yourself shot down... combined with the irony of saying "There are NO ABSOLUTES"...and then making an absolutist comment.... ooops!

[BlaqueKatt]

I don't trust strangers to wield firearms around me or those I care about.

then I'd say don't ever go anywhere where there are armed guards(banks usually have them), or police, and better not call the police if anything happens because that would be "strangers wielding firearms"

Sorry the average CCL holder has more firearm training/practice than a police officer.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

I am saying that the single instance justifications are used for gun laws, and that kind of thing is stupid. When pro gun people highlight an incident it's because there is an overarching belief that guns are never used in self-defense when in fact they are numerous times. A single event used for an argument isn't a crime, but whole peaces of legislation? Or worse, restrictions based on absolutely nothing, like anti .50 cal legislation.

Don't pin it on me that you chose to take my entire post outside the context of there being no absolutes, only generalities. In fact the clause 'there are no absolutes' is an absolute, does that mean I am contradicting myself? no it means I'm speaking in generalities which read more or less the same as absolutes.

Back on the main topic, I'd like to add in that I personally don't trust the police as a whole that much. Seeing some of the stuff that they can get away with, makes me a strong supporter of not relying on the cops to protect you just like one shouldn't simply abandon a grease fire in their skillet because they aren't firefighters.

[Flyndaran]

then I'd say don't ever go anywhere where there are armed guards(banks usually have them), or police, and better not call the police if anything happens because that would be "strangers wielding firearms"

Sorry the average CCL holder has more firearm training/practice than a police officer.

Calling the police in emergency situations would obviously be the lesser of two evils.
Also some cops are excellent shots. My father won numerous trophies for it.