posted June 05, 2014 08:22 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by teasel:
Do you think this would stop if people stopped airing the news stories, and talking about them? Or do you think they'd just try to go 'bigger', trying to force them to give them attention?

---

Maybe? IDK if I can take a stance on this one. On one hand I am no longer shocked by shootings, I have pretty much become desensitized to it unfortunately. Part of it could be the attention aspect you are getting at it; I hate it when news channels will give detail on the shooter that is more than necessary. On the other hand, putting focus on it allows for us to bring light to issues we need to discuss further (i.e. not all women campaign). So I see pros and cons to this.

I am a firm believer in two things:

1) MORE gun control- come at me NRA!
2) MORE focus on mental health

posted June 05, 2014 08:26 PM            

------------------
Want To Ask Any Question About Bible Prophecy? Go For it. It is Free, of course.

posted June 05, 2014 08:28 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ami Anne:
You need good people with guns to stop bad people with guns imo

---

Isn't the 'good' supposed to be the police though or higher authority of some sort? I mean, yeah in an ideal world this would happen. But right now there are too many loopholes where people who are not all mentally there (see: Elliot Rodgers) can get guns easily.

posted June 05, 2014 08:32 PM            

(Btw, funny story, IMO, a burglar in Houston got so infamous for his daring crimes that the entire city was buzzing about him and then the intense investigation to bring that burglar down was complicated as there were LINES FORMING of people "confessing" of being the burglar! )

One interesting possible consequences is those seeking infamy would instead target celebrities rather than say a school, become famous by killing someone famous. Many celebrities (and those who have a lot invested in them) would likely spend a lot more money than schools and such would (since such shootings are actually very rare and those in charge of the school funding are in almost zero danger themselves which makes a big difference in their priorities). Thing is, would several celebrities getting shot change gun laws?

Obviously, even massacres at elementary schools won't change them. But maybe when a score of celebrities got killed in a few years it would.

Btw, a book (either biography or autobiography, I forget) about Tex Waston (led the murders commanded by Charles Manson) had sobered up since he'd been arrested and realized what he did was not cool. But he grasped at hope when all those involved in the My Lai massacre were released (save one who got a slap on the wrist, and even that had Americans in an uproar that even a slap on the wrist be given, the real traitor in their minds being the soldier who exposed the atrocity) and Tex felt that if they got off for murdering HUNDREDS (many of them children) and the American people supported the murderers, then surely no one would mind a handful of celebrities that he and his group carried out. (Yeah, I should probably cry instead of laugh, but I prefer to find the funny side to it.)

Btw, I'm not saying "gun control is the answer" (though I don't endorse the NRA either), my curiosity is more social and how the minds of people in general work. Are a bunch of coke snorting, sexually repellent (*) celebrities more valuable to society than a bunch of innocent children? I'm going to say "yes." (*Not that they have to be, just that it doesn't matter if they are. And by repellent I'm talking about forcing people to have sex if they want roles, some of them minors. Bryan Singer is an example of one charged with it, and even if he's innocent it's said that such behavior is common enough which means people BELIEVE it to be true and I bet still consider them more valuable. Of course it gets worse than that but it would totally derail this thread if I were to give names. THAT'S how important they are to society, far more important than little kids in which people show the most shocking insensitivity to.)

posted June 05, 2014 08:43 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by KarkaQueen:
America is 1 of the worst countries imo

---

posted June 05, 2014 08:49 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by BellaFenice:
Isn't the 'good' supposed to be the police though or higher authority of some sort? I mean, yeah in an ideal world this would happen. But right now there are too many loopholes where people who are not all mentally there (see: Elliot Rodgers) can get guns easily.

Edit: not trying to start an argument, just curious as to what you mean by this

---

I can understand the reasoning so I'll take a quick stab at it. Police can take a long time to respond, too long, while those with guns on them can stop a shooting instantly.

A common retort is that this would lead to people killing each other in the confusion, but this has never happened to my knowledge. One infamous college shooting was suppressed when an expert marine sniper (IIRC) was forced to keep low by armed students on campus who aided police, when they finally arrived, in bringing the sniper down (though it was still a high death toll). And a real good example:
http://www.snopes.com/crime/dumdum/gunshop.asp

Also compare the Appalachian School of Law shooting and Virginia Tech shooting. Didn't hear of the first one despite it being in the same state? Maybe because armed students took the gunman down fast before there was a big body count (and that was despite that they had to run to their cars first). Virginia Tech depended on the police (who came and left while the shootings were still going on!).

Many shooters take "gun free zones" into account. The one that struck Luby's waited 2 hours for cops to leave before beginning his rampage confident that then no one would be armed to stop him. He was right, one woman who normally carried a gun left her gun in her car as Texas law demanded (for Luby's sold alcohol) so as she reached for her gun she realized she didn't have it, and as a result her parents are dead. As she says, it's true that her having a gun MAY not have changed the outcome much, maybe she'd be dead, too, but her chances and the chances of everyone else would've been a lot better than what they were as sitting ducks. Heck, all indications are that if he thought they were armed he'd have never struck them there anyway.

posted June 05, 2014 08:54 PM            

No, the police cannot handle all the crime such that some cities are telling citizens to arm. You need good citizens who are armed to stop these things. If gun rights are taken away, we are totally, and I mean totally, screwed.

------------------
Want To Ask Any Question About Bible Prophecy? Go For it. It is Free, of course.

posted June 05, 2014 09:13 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ami Anne:

No, the police cannot handle all the crime such that some cities are telling citizens to arm. You need good citizens who are armed to stop these things. If gun rights are taken away, we are totally, and I mean totally, screwed.

---

This is one thing Ami and I completely agree on.

posted June 05, 2014 09:22 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by BellaFenice:
Lol you never fail to tell us how you really feel

---

posted June 05, 2014 09:23 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ami Anne:
[b]Isn't the 'good' supposed to be the police though or higher authority of some sort

No, the police cannot handle all the crime such that some cities are telling citizens to arm. You need good citizens who are armed to stop these things. If gun rights are taken away, we are totally, and I mean totally, screwed.

[/B]

---

posted June 05, 2014 09:24 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by KarkaQueen:
Hey! All the shootings and the other bull going on makes me very anxious about the future.

---

posted June 05, 2014 09:55 PM            

You have to be very careful of this. Good people have to be able to bear arms. Many, many tragedies have been averted by armed citizens. The news media has an agenda to ban guns and this will be very, very harmful for us.

------------------
Want To Ask Any Question About Bible Prophecy? Go For it. It is Free, of course.

posted June 05, 2014 10:00 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by BellaFenice:
I see your point. I don't think we should abolish right to arms completely, but rather regulate it more tightly.

---

Yeah. There should at least be really thorough background checks. If Americans insist on having guns, only responsible people should be given the privilege of owning one.

posted June 05, 2014 10:03 PM            

You need guns in a free society. Every dictator took guns before he took over.

Our founders were very strong about this and it is very, very important for a free people.

If the government/ government agencies are the only ones to have guns, we are in big, big trouble.

------------------
Want To Ask Any Question About Bible Prophecy? Go For it. It is Free, of course.

posted June 05, 2014 10:16 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ami Anne:
[b]I personally don't really understand the whole gun thing.

You need guns in a free society. Every dictator took guns before he took over. Read history.

Our founders were very strong about this and it is very, very important for a free people.

[/B]

---

I have heard this argument before. Guns are needed to protect yourself from a tyrannical government

posted June 05, 2014 10:20 PM            

The thing is, even if a dictator took over and you still had your guns, how in earth would they protect you from the US army, the most powerful army in the world? Drones, automatic guns, tanks, nuclear bombs? The government has gotten very powerful. The founders envisioned a society in which the populace had the means to fight back against tyranny, no? We are way past the point of no return on that one.

You have a point but having guns is much better than having none even though the US government is buying up huge amounts of powerful ammo and guns.

Yet, the great desire to disarm the population shows that the population NEEDS to be armed.

Being armed is still a protection even if the government has bigger arms.

However, I see your point. It is a lost cause, in a way, but you can go down fighting, I suppose, and that is better than not.

------------------
Want To Ask Any Question About Bible Prophecy? Go For it. It is Free, of course.

posted June 05, 2014 10:29 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by YoursTrulyAlways:
What we should do is apply the Bush Doctrine of Preemption. That way, all guys would be dressed in bow ties, wear polished shoes, keep their pants from falling to their knees and speak in complete grammatically correct sentences and never, ever oogle any girls.

---