Another gun massacre in the States (merged)

[Skashion]

Can't believe some are having a go at the old man. He foiled a robbery. He's a bloody hero!

 

[SWP's back]

Can't believe some are having a go at the old man. He foiled a robbery. He's a bloody hero!

Bloody wum!!!!

 

[TCIB]

Coulda, woulda, shoulda...used this to shoot at them...

[bigimg]http://i.minus.com/ibkqOjcHYYfUd4.jpg[/bigimg]

In the face.

I am talking about the old man and robbers btw, not the poor sods who were mown down by that nutcase.

 

[mackenzie]

Is it true that some Americans who support the firearm laws over there are actually suggesting that if those who were killed had been allowed to carry firearms and shoot back then it would have lessened the tragedy??

Jesus, do they think it's like the movies or something??

 

[scenecreamer]

Racist. Brothers don't have fighter jets.

Man, you can't win a war with 9mms and a cellphone. Ya heard?

All kidding aside, it is unfortunate no one in that theater had a fighter jet.

-- Sun Jul 22, 2012 2:10 pm --

Is it true that some Americans who support the firearm laws over there are actually suggesting that if those who were killed had been allowed to carry firearms and shoot back then it would have lessened the tragedy??

Jesus, do they think it's like the movies or something??

Yes! Many are saying, "why did no one have a gun to STOP this from happening"????

How you say, "numpties"? Is correct? numpties, yes....

 

[mackenzie]

Racist. Brothers don't have fighter jets.

Man, you can't win a war with 9mms and a cellphone. Ya heard?

All kidding aside, it is unfortunate no one in that theater had a fighter jet.

-- Sun Jul 22, 2012 2:10 pm --

Is it true that some Americans who support the firearm laws over there are actually suggesting that if those who were killed had been allowed to carry firearms and shoot back then it would have lessened the tragedy??

Jesus, do they think it's like the movies or something??

Yes! Many are saying, "why did no one have a gun to STOP this from happening"????

How you say, "numpties"? Is correct? numpties, yes....

Numpties, yes! ;-)

That has to be the most ridiculous and disturbing thing I've heard on the whole thing though. And really saddening too.

 

[SWP's back]

Guns don't kil....... oh no hang on, they do, yep, guns do kill people.

 

[ElanJo]

Re: Another gun massacre in the States.

If you have guns in the house, especially hand guns, there are always going to be tragic accidents and many deaths and injuries occur across the US every year that just wouldn't have happened without the ready availability of such weapons.

There may, very exceptionally, be occasiions when an individual has successfully used a gun for protection, but overall the evidence hardly needs analysis. In countries where public ownership of guns for 'personal protection' has been banned, the murder rate has dropped massively. Australia might be the easiest example, but there are others that are not hard to find - even with the most basic amount of research ;-)

I'd like to see your statistical analysis for Australia murder rates because from what I am aware of there was no statistically significant drop as a result of the banning in the mid 90's.
IIRC, things like robbery and GBH rose as a result.

Considering the amount of guns in circulation in the US, the homicide rates are quite low, esp. when you consider the horrendous problems in Mexico and Columbia which spill over. What you'll find is that crime in the US is exasperated by drug prohibition. Researchers and economists have estimated that the majority of homicides would disappear if the US government ended this foolish drug policy.

As for the bold part, you should probably do some analysis at least.

Its not my statistical analysis and your awareness is absent and your recollection is wrong.

I don't often use such blunt terms, but your take on this issue is entirely contrary to all the available evidence. Its not a relative argument. If guns are banned, less people die. That is established fact.

Then post the Australian statistics.

Really? You were pretty blunt when making your previous stupid baseless claim.

 

[ElanJo]

Re: Another gun massacre in the States.

No one wants to address my first question?
Why does the old man have the right to further endanger the lives of the other customers? What if the gun had been loaded and a shoot out had occurred? It's very possible that he would have only ignited the situation resulting in a very tragic outcome.

Do you have the right to use violence to protect your property?

In the case of the armed robbers who terrorised/threatened people with a gun , yes they deserved to be shot at.

And yes you should have the right to use violence to protect your property.

The first question is a bit more difficult, isn't it?


If you have the right to use violence to protect your property, then you are empowering an individual to use violence to take your property. The inability to control coercive violence leads to a failed State. Property ownership is a privilege granted to you by the State. A nation state has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force/violence. That's political science 101.

The lessening of that monopoly contributes to the failure of the State.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.ndu.edu/press/monopoly.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.ndu.edu/press/monopoly.html</a>

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewQl-qAtNwQ&feature=youtube_gdata_player[/youtube]

Having the right to react to the initiation of force with force empowers people to initiate force?

What exactly do you mean?

 

[ElanJo]

Re: Another gun massacre in the States.

It is also very likely in the hypothetical situation that he may have hurt many innocent people.
The robbers could have decided to fire back should their gun have been loaded.

The old man shot out the front door ffs. He could have hit people driving by. It is absolutely reckless behavior.

This is only one example, remember. There are others where things didn't go so well. This is what should be taken into consideration.

The first shot the old guy let off was right next to an innocent woman. Imagine if the robber had turned and fired... What then? Who's to blame?

Why are you making this hypothetical situation? I'm commenting on what I see, not what may have happened. I see nothing wrong with what he did in that situation, yes if it was a different situation it may have ended differently. but it's not, and it didn't. If it was adiffernnt situation I wouldn't have commented.

But the hypothetical needs to be considered when deciding if the public should have the right to do this! It is not irrelevant.

Are you saying you condone the mans actions because luckily no one (other than the robbers) was shot?

Do you think that governments have a right to engage in warfare even if accidents could (and eventually will) occur?
Or does the potential for accidents mean that, no matter the threat, your government should not have the right or duty to act?