Shooting reported at California H.S.[W92]

Goshin said:

I'd have to disagree. It would create an equality of force which would discourage the vast majority from attempting anything like this in most circumstances.

It is disparity of force that typically leads to mass-murder.



The mere presence of guns does not disturb me in the slightest. In my regional culture, guns are regarded as common items and not objects of existential horror.

Click to expand...

a good majority of people are stupid, reckless and rash and arming them scares me.

Higgins86 said:

a good majority of people are stupid, reckless and rash and arming them scares me.

Click to expand...

what scares intelligent people is a society where the only people armed are stupid reckless and EVIL and that is what gun control laws promote

Higgins86 said:

a good majority of people are stupid, reckless and rash and arming them scares me.

Click to expand...

I understand. However, statistics indicate that in America, the vast (VAST, as in much more than 99%) majority of gun owners never commit a crime or harm anyone by accident... one could thus argue that your fear is not entirely logical, no?

Let's play a little game. It's called "you don't get to say **** and then act like you didn't and dodge around when you get called on it."

Here's what you said. Notice the bold words

Bronson said:

Yea because no children were killed

If there was a pile of innocent little dead bodies you'd be the first one demanding a repeal of the 2nd Amendment. You can get off your soap box now.

Click to expand...

Here's you accusing Redress SPECIFICALLY of likely doing something. I asked you after that for a SPECIFIC instance of Red doing this previously. Your response?

Bronson said:

Oh please. We both know that the shrieking harpies on the left were politicizing Gun Ownership while the bodies of those dead kids were still cooling.

Click to expand...

Starts with goal post moving.

Then proceed to give quotes from...

Bronson said:

Hairytic said:

Is it time to talk about gun control now? This is getting ridiculous. We never find the time to talk about gun control. These sort of things don't happen in England, and they have very strong gun control laws. The NRA needs to get out of the way and let the conversation begin.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Not Redress...

Bronson said:

Hairytic said:

When is the right time to talk about gun control? It's an honest question. Can you answer that? We have got to talk about it sometime, and it has to be before this happens again and again. How many innocent lives have to be lost before we start the conversation? I wish we had talked about it and acted before this happened. Maybe we can get it done before the next time sweet and innocent lives are lost.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Not Redress....

Bronson said:

DemonMyst said:

It should have been turned into a political football about 10 shootings ago.. How many people have to die before righties come to terms with the fact that the NRA is nothing more than a murderers friend.. We need effective gun control and we need restrictions on they types of guns the public can own.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Not Redress.... (notice the pattern)

Bronson said:

Who knows, it is speculation. There has to be some link to the movie and I was only mentioning the two things that have been up in the media and web over the last week or so.. death threats against the director and the whole idiotic "Bane/Bain" bull**** from some on the right.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Not redress...

Bronson said:

I'm figuring some right wing wacko from the reports. Kind of poorly planned and I'm sure they would favor better explosives. Possibly reacting to limbo

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Not Redress...

Bronson said:

Redress on their reaction to a mass shooting

Click to expand...

Oh finally! FINALLY A redress quote. Maybe we'll see where Redress was demanding for the repeal of the 2nd amendment

Bronson said:

My first reaction would be to pray there where no armed gun nuts who will want to play hero and make things a whole ****load worse. Nothing worse than a gun, too much testosterone and an inferiority complex all rolled up into one.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

]

Ah...nope. No call for the repeal of the 2nd amendment, just a dishonest attempt by you to attempt to use font tricks to make it seem like one statement in a line of conditions was all Redress really said.

Yes, stating that a gun, lots of testosterone, and an inferiority complex is a bad combination is CLEARLY calling for the repeal of the 2nd amendment.

Pathetic, ridiculous, but typical. You made a bull**** claim, got called on it, and then tried to dance around for the majority of your post pulling **** out of your ass to cover for the fact you stated a ridiculous accusation only to finally come down to using Font tricks to misrepresent a rather reasonable statement as somehow being the equivalent of calling for the repeal of the 2nd amendment.

Wonderful job at "debating". Pretty much all you've done is manage to show yourself on the same level as you view the majority of those who you quoted in that post.

Higgins86 said:

a good majority of people are stupid, reckless and rash and arming them scares me.

Click to expand...

Who is talking about ARMING people? Arming them would be actively having the government SUPPLY them with weapons. No one is suggesting that what so ever.

Also, understand that I can respect how you want things done in your country. In OUR country, being "Scared" of something happening is not a reason to restrict the constitution. I'm scared of the impact on children watching a bunch of hate mongering morons scream that their father died because God hates fags and that their father was a horrible vile person for being part of the military...but that doesn't mean I think that their speech should be limited, constrained, or regulated in some way (But hey, that'd be okay! I mean, if we force them to only speak with 7 words in stead of 10, fill out a permit to speak in public, and make sure they're not speaking in a "no free speech zone"...we're not denying them their right to free speech, we're just regulating what they can do with it!)

Goshin said:

I understand. However, statistics indicate that in America, the vast (VAST, as in much more than 99%) majority of gun owners never commit a crime or harm anyone by accident... one could thus argue that your fear is not entirely logical, no?

Click to expand...

As per the other thread; Statistics also suggest not having a firearm in the home is safer than having one (the actuary numbers are quite grim). As well the numbers are that a firearm is much more likely to hurt the very people is supposed to protect.

EDIT: So while Higgins86 might be shading things further than I would, the bottom line is that adding firearms on the whole makes people less safe. Given its explicit function as a tool to inflict injury, that is hardly surprising.

Higgins86 said:

a good majority of people are stupid, reckless and rash and arming them scares me.

Click to expand...

You should get over your ideologically driven fears. If the police respond to an active shooter situation do you believe they are just going to calmly chill and wait for the shooter to run out of bullets? Historical precedence suggests otherwise and civilians have been at risk (but then...conundrum...civilians are AT RISK when an armed assailant is killing them at will). Historical precedence also CLEARLY suggests that armed citizens have and do respond immediately, responsibly, and have saved lives. So...live your fear...but face the facts.

Should you ever be in that horrific environment, you can lay down and wait your turn to die like a sheep or at least be grateful that someone else had a differing opinion and chose not to be a victim.

TurtleDude said:

what scares intelligent people is a society where the only people armed are stupid reckless and EVIL and that is what gun control laws promote

Click to expand...

thats not how its worked out in other countries.

Dwight said:

As per the other thread; Statistics also suggest not having a firearm in the home is safer than having one (the actuary numbers are quite grim). As well the numbers are that a firearm is much more likely to hurt the very people is supposed to protect.

Click to expand...

It is not the governments responsibility to restrict my ability to engage in constitutional activity in the name of "keeping me safer". We vested specific powers unto the government, not the power to be our nanny. I don't agree with much gun regulation, but there are at least some arguments for it that I can see are relatively legitimate to make even if I don't agree with it. But the fact they're less safe in some generalized way is not a reason nor argument for placing restrictions upon how one engages in their constitutional rights....regardless if its to keep and bear arms or to practice a religion or to assemble in a group.

VanceMack said:

You should get over your ideologically driven fears. If the police respond to an active shooter situation do you believe they are just going to calmly chill and wait for the shooter to run out of bullets? Historical precedence suggests otherwise and civilians have been at risk (but then...conundrum...civilians are AT RISK when an armed assailant is killing them at will). Historical precedence also CLEARLY suggests that armed citizens have and do respond immediately, responsibly, and have saved lives. So...live your fear...but face the facts.

Should you ever be in that horrific environment, you can lay down and wait your turn to die like a sheep or at least be grateful that someone else had a differing opinion and chose not to be a victim.

Click to expand...

face facts? What facts are those then? No one knows that armed civillians would of helped stop the shootings in Auroa for example, in a dark cinema more guns could of made the siuation much worse and actually could of killed more people. Your entitled to your opinion but lets not pretend like arming citizens is a proven way to stop mass killings.

Higgins86 said:

face facts? What facts are those then? No one knows that armed civillians would of helped stop the shootings in Auroa for example, in a dark cinema more guns could of made the siuation much worse and actually could of killed more people. Your entitled to your opinion but lets not pretend like arming citizens is a proven way to stop mass killings.

Click to expand...

We DO have precedent...in fact people have been posting them in this thread...NUMEROUS incidents where armed citizens responded and in fact SAVED lives. YOU and people like you always spew this fantasy about wild west shootouts and rivers of blood....and...its just so stupid. People have been carrying legally and concealed for some 50 years. Just...stop with the silly mindless fears already. The facts prove you are wrong.

VanceMack said:

We DO have precedent...in fact people have been posting them in this thread...NUMEROUS incidents where armed citizens responded and in fact SAVED lives. YOU and people like you always spew this fantasy about wild west shootouts and rivers of blood....and...its just so stupid. People have been carrying legally and concealed for some 50 years. Just...stop with the silly mindless fears already. The facts prove you are wrong.

Click to expand...

lol again what facts? As for fantasy I wasn't aware that I dreamt up the Autoa shootings?

Higgins86 said:

face facts? What facts are those then? No one knows that armed civillians would of helped stop the shootings in Auroa for example, in a dark cinema more guns could of made the siuation much worse and actually could of killed more people. Your entitled to your opinion but lets not pretend like arming citizens is a proven way to stop mass killings.

Click to expand...

When it's suggested more and more people with more and more guns would stop massacres all I can see in my head is the following.

Grandma Bessy.

85 years old.

Watched too much Fox News... bought a pistol.

Mall.

2pm.

She's shopping for stuff.

Someones opens fire.

She draws her pistol... shaking like a ****ting dog.

Shoots heroic Bill who also had his gun out who was over at Pottery Barn across from her...

I dunno.

Just always comes to mind.

Higgins86 said:

lol again what facts? As for fantasy I wasn't aware that I dreamt up the Autoa shootings?

Click to expand...

There had been several actual incidents posted in this thread. Ah...but Aurora...no...no fantasy. That's what happens when you have a theater full of targets.

Jetboogieman said:

When it's suggested more and more people with more and more guns would stop massacres all I can see in my head is the following.

Grandma Bessy.

85 years old.

Watched too much Fox News... bought a pistol.

Mall.

2pm.

She's shopping for stuff.

Someones opens fire.

She draws her pistol... shaking like a ****ting dog.

Shoots heroic Bill who also had his gun out who was over at Pottery Barn across from her...

I dunno.

Just always comes to mind.

Click to expand...

exactly thats the problem! I have no problem with guns I just have a problem with half the idiots that own them. I also think America is treading the fine line between carrying to protect yourself and becoming Judge, Jury and executioner.

Zyphlin said:

It is not the governments responsibility to restrict my ability to engage in constitutional activity in the name of "keeping me safer". We vested specific powers unto the government, not the power to be our nanny.

Click to expand...

I agree on that. However it does tend to take a lot of the weight out of “for our safety” arguments. The NRA knows this damn well, too. That is why they are willing to swing a lot of lobby weight to try limit research into these matters. It freaks them right out because they know damn well how that of information would work against their ends.

Which is actually quite insidious as it promotes ignorance, and works to hide the information that would aid citizens in solving a good portion of the issue with firearms.

As for rights and the Constitution and freedom; In the end there is a balance to be struck. Because someones public possession of a firearm, the pursuit of a policy of “safer by everyone being armed” does impinge on those that [for a number of reasons] do not wish to possess or use a firearm in their day-to-day lives. That is the truth of freedom, it is simply is not a singular and simple thing. This is why, for example, it is hellva tough and much regulation for a civilian possession of a full automatic weapons, and nobody outside of a very small group gets access to nukes.

VanceMack said:

There had been several actual incidents posted in this thread. Ah...but Aurora...no...no fantasy. That's what happens when you have a theater full of targets.

Click to expand...

Again there is no way of knowing that more guns would of made the Aurora shootings any better, in a dark cinema full of tear gas and people running no one in the world could guarantee making that shot. Lets say as well that several people begin shooting back in the cinema, in the dark how would you know who was the attacker? Saying that more guns would of stopped the attacker is pure speculation.

Higgins86 said:

face facts? What facts are those then? No one knows that armed civillians would of helped stop the shootings in Auroa for example, in a dark cinema more guns could of made the siuation much worse and actually could of killed more people. Your entitled to your opinion but lets not pretend like arming citizens is a proven way to stop mass killings.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I really can't take these people who act like more guns is THE answer and who pretend that adding a weapon to a situation always helps things. It's entirely possible that adding more weapons to certain mass shootings would have led to more causalities as the result of inexperienced people in a gun fight.

For the record, the same people who advocate more guns as a solution to mass shootings are usually the same people who are strongly against people having to take a gun safety test before acquiring a license or permit. In other words, they believe in letting clueless people shoot guns in public spaces as a measure of safety. Go figure.

Dwight said:

I agree on that. However it does tend to take a lot of the weight out of “for our safety” arguments. The NRA knows this damn well, too. That is why they are willing to swing a lot of lobby weight to try limit research into these matters. It freaks them right out because they know damn well how that of information would work against their ends.

Which is actually quite insidious as it promotes ignorance, and works to hide the information that would aid citizens in solving a good portion of the issue with firearms.

In the end there is a balance to be struck. Because someones public possession of a firearm, the pursuit of a policy of “safer by everyone being armed” does impinge on those that [for a number of reasons] do not wish to possess or use a firearm in their day-to-day lives. That is the truth of freedom, it is simply is not a singular and simple thing.

Click to expand...

The problem is not just with easy access to a weapon that kills but the whole social stigma of violence. We glorify it in our Media, movies, video games and TV and yes sane, rational people know better but anyone on the edge might not. And lets face it there's enough of those lately to try for better all round solutions than knee jerk reactions or extreme measures that won't solve anything.

The fix won't come suddenly, no matter what we do. And allowing the News to sensationalize and distort the problem doesn't help either. How many more people literally die everyday from car accidents and alcohol related and what makes those deaths any less tragic? How much of this is actually reality based and how much of it is politically derived for expediency?

Higgins86 said:

exactly thats the problem! I have no problem with guns I just have a problem with half the idiots that own them. I also think America is treading the fine line between carrying to protect yourself and becoming Judge, Jury and executioner.

Click to expand...

What's funny about the gun debate in this country as it relates to me is that the only thing that ever makes me reconsider my position on guns is the words of many of our country's 'gun enthusiasts'. It's not the guns themselves; it's not even crime. It's the gun nuts. A lot of the things they say in public and things I consistently read on this forum are so over the top, reckless and hyperbolic that it makes me question whether or not I should be in favor of more gun control than I am. There are definitely a lot of people who cross the line from "protection" to the kind of irrationality that I don't think is safe for society.

grip said:

The fix won't come suddenly, no matter what we do.

Click to expand...

Absolutely not.

That is part of why I generally am not that big ‘on control’, mostly I can take it or leave it. I am big on people coming to understand that firearms, no matter how big they make your penis swell (and maybe partly because they make your penis swell), in day-to-day life make you less safe. That is getting more to the core of the matter, a fix that requires less legislation (because, no, my “Libertarian” tag isn’t make believe ).

Widespread understanding and society acceptance of that would got a hellva long way to solving firearm issues we have. But it is a very slow process, the fight against ignorance is at the best of times.

Higgins86 said:

Again there is no way of knowing that more guns would of made the Aurora shootings any better, in a dark cinema full of tear gas and people running no one in the world could guarantee making that shot. Lets say as well that several people begin shooting back in the cinema, in the dark how would you know who was the attacker? Saying that more guns would of stopped the attacker is pure speculation.

Click to expand...

There is pretty good evidence of what happens when there ISN'T opposition to bad people with evil intent. That you find the factual reality preferable to the possibility of an armed trained responsible citizen in the second row stopping him after the first few rounds is...well...I simply have no response to that. No armed citizens responded...hurrah???

ThePlayDrive said:

Yeah, I really can't take these people who act like more guns is THE answer and who pretend that adding a weapon to a situation always helps things. It's entirely possible that adding more weapons to certain mass shootings would have led to more causalities as the result of inexperienced people in a gun fight.

For the record, the same people who advocate more guns as a solution to mass shootings are usually the same people who are strongly against people having to take a gun safety test before acquiring a license or permit. In other words, they believe in letting clueless people shoot guns in public spaces as a measure of safety. Go figure.

Click to expand...

So you too ignore the evidence which shows numerous instances of armed citizens stopping bloodshed in favor of the fantasy of what you THINK must be the obvious recourse.

Dwight said:

Absolutely not.

That is why I generally am not that big on control. I am big on people coming to understand that firearms, no matter how big they make your penis swell (and maybe partly because they make your penis swell), in day-to-day life make you less safe. Widespread understanding and society acceptance of that would got a hellva long way to solving firearm issues we have. But it is a very slow process, the fight against ignorance is at the best of times.

Click to expand...

I don't personally like the idea of guns though they're a necessary evil by reality. It's not the owning of guns that's so important it's the freedom of choice. Once we start down the path of losing freedoms it's hard to turn it around.

grip said:

I don’t personally like the idea of guns though they’re a necessary evil by reality.

Click to expand...

“Necessary” when, in your opinion?

It's not the owning of guns that's so important it's the freedom of choice. Once we start down the path of losing freedoms it's hard to turn it around.

Click to expand...

There are a lot of freedoms out there, including the freedom not to live in the reenactment of 1970’s Beruit.