Yet another shooting.

Post Reply New Topic

True point, I live in the UK and we have strong gun control laws which do bugger all about access to illegal firearms.

Time to outlaw knives and scissors.

ruveyn

It's the fact that every time there's a shooting the cry goes out for more gun control. And I for one am not interested in what the antis think of me.

It's not due to a lack of sympathy. As usual, the usual suspects start screaming for more of the same laws that don't work (they did this right on queue), and then it becomes my problem. Most people want to show some respect, but the gun control/confiscation talking points to seize on the tragedy start even before the spent brass cartridges have time to cool to ambient temperature, and they reject other contributing factors that take time to work out.

What other contributing factors might be relevant when the situation here is that a man went into a school and shot up the place, killing 10 children and a bunch of other innocent folks. If we have gun control, we might actually prevent loonies like this guy from carrying out this type of act. The argument against gun control seems to be that if only everyone was armed, this type of thing could be prevented (not sure how if the perpetrator is willing to die) or at least reduced in severity - but that presumes that he'd be shot by other gun-carrying citizens before he could do much damage, which sounds nice in theory but in reality amounts to advocating shootouts in the presence of innocent bystanders, in settings such as elementary schools.

I like that whenever there is a shooting. The gun advocates seem to be the most worried about the event. As if they are more concerned about the tragedy of them losing their guns.

Here's something about knives, at least children would get to escape. How many children were in that school in China? I am guessing not 22. And maybe I am too pragmatic, but 22 injured children vs. ~20 dead children is incomparable.

Sure, killers will always exist . But forgive me for thinking that guns make them more
effective at killing...

The term "Assault Weapon" is used as a scare tactic to refer to any weapon that is a threat to the power of the politicians. In other words, anything that discharges an explosive projectile. "Assault" when referring to a weapon is simply military terminology. "Need" matters not, it's more or less an issue of personal liberty. The argument of the pro-gun lobby is if you want a certain type of weapon, you should be able to have it.

"Assault weapon" is a political term, and the notion that you assault people with it is propaganda aimed at very simple minds that was repeated until many no longer questioned it. There is no special feature that can define them, and there isn't a single design that can't be used for hunting, recreation, or personal defense. Instead, it is assumed that if you have enough [largely] cosmetic features from a list on a gun, that somehow that makes it bad. For example: in California, the legislature banned (but did not confiscate) the AR-15 a long time ago. But after a court battle that created a loophole, there are now dozens of parts and different configurations that can make the AR-15 legal to buy, build, and own here again and the legislature is having trouble figuring out how to ban this since these ARs do the same thing as the rifles that were never banned. The bullets are the same too-all bullets "assault weapons" shoot are useable in any type of rifle and the bullet designs available for them are found in almost all other rifle calibers. The bullets most designs shoot are significantly less powerful than the most common deer hunting calibers (but still can be used either for deer or smaller game), and in many cases will even break up in home walls easier than most handgun bullets.

Oh, and some of those "weak" handguns are more powerful than "assault" rifles.

While I agree with you that the term "assault weapon" is a scare tactic, gun advocates use similar tactics - instead of publicly arguing about "personal liberty", they argue that guns are needed for self-defense and for sporting / hunting. And this is where they fall apart, because against animals even a semi-automatic weapon is by any reasonable measure complete overkill, and the only threats that justify needing some of these weapons for self-defense are if the people you might be defending yourselves from have similar weapons.

Have you read this?
http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/Man ... n-in-China

A man slashed 22 children in China.

What is your opinion of knife control?

ruveyn

I disagree with the pro-lobby ignoring personal liberty, and I stay with the personal liberty argument as I am simply a collector that shoots paper. However, you do have the right to self-defense against any threat. As for hunting, I have no desire to kill anything that is not trying to kill me.