Louisiana 'ambush' kills 2 deputies, wounds 2

(CNN) -- Two sheriff's deputies died and two were wounded in a series of apparently linked shootings early Thursday in LaPlace, Louisiana, authorities said.

Click to expand...

Another day, and another nut with an assault rifle goes berserk. But here's the problem - If we ban assault weapons, the nuts will still have them, but we won't, at least not legally. This is why I support the Second Amdendment. The argument that taking guns away reduces crime doesn't fly logically. Criminals don't obey the law.

Article is here.

danarhea said:

Another day, and another nut with an assault rifle goes berserk. But here's the problem - If we ban assault weapons, the nuts will still have them, but we won't, at least not legally. This is why I support the Second Amdendment. The argument that taking guns away reduces crime doesn't fly logically. Criminals don't obey the law.

Article is here.

Click to expand...

It seems like once one idiot starts shooting, other idiots come out of the woodwork to copy. Sad, really sad.

Billy the Kid said:

It seems like once one idiot starts shooting, other idiots come out of the woodwork to copy. Sad, really sad.

Click to expand...

I don't understand why they keep shooting up the general population when there are so many worthless scumbags to choose from. Wall streeters, bankers, politicians, etc. come quickly to mind.

DaveFagan said:

I don't understand why they keep shooting up the general population when there are so many worthless scumbags to choose from. Wall streeters, bankers, politicians, etc. come quickly to mind.

Click to expand...

:mrgreen:

That would be a place to start.

:mrgreen:

danarhea said:

Another day, and another nut with an assault rifle goes berserk. But here's the problem - If we ban assault weapons, the nuts will still have them, but we won't, at least not legally. This is why I support the Second Amdendment. The argument that taking guns away reduces crime doesn't fly logically. Criminals don't obey the law.

Click to expand...

Sure that would be true in the short term, but the weapons break down over time. If there are fewer in general circulation, wouldn't criminals have a harder time getting them? Plus any gun that's confiscated would be removed from circulation. And since most illegal weapons start out as legally purchased ones that are subsequently stolen, cutting off that original supply would actually deny the loonies and violent criminals access to weapons. It wouldn't do it quickly, and it wouldn't disarm everyone who is a danger to law abiding citizens, but it would do it. The talking point that making laws to restrict gun ownership won't stop criminals because they don't obey the law is a very oversimplified and flawed argument.

Despite that, I'm actually fairly pro Second Amendment, too. I think it is important that people be able to defend themselves. I think it is important to be able to rebel against a tyrannical government. Except that the world is a lot safer than some people seem to think. There isn't danger around every corner. Almost everyone in this country is a law abiding citizen who doesn't want to hurt you. Crazies like the one in the article are problems that most people will never face in their lives. And rebel against the government? That was a lot easier before we military revamped itself in the 1970s. It would be a horrendously losing battle, so long as the military supported the corrupt regime. And we are a loooooooooong way from having a government that needs rebelling against. I think hunting and simply learning how to use a weapon are totally cool, too. My main problems are fanatical devotion to gun ownership and demanding that it be completely immune to reasonable regulation, and the mentality that we need to carry weapons for day to day protection. If you want to keep a weapon at home, to defend your own home, that's just fine. But our interactions in public should never involve weapons. The idea that more weapons can lead to less violence is insane.

DaveFagan said:

I don't understand why they keep shooting up the general population when there are so many worthless scumbags to choose from. Wall streeters, bankers, politicians, etc. come quickly to mind.

Click to expand...

I've been thinking about this and it does show that the shooters are nuts. If they were sane, they would choose their targets with common sense, logic, and an eye to future results. They act with unrestrained impulse and convenience.

I hate to bring this slant, but I was in a conversation yesterday about this very topic. I was asked why aren't gang shootings reported this way? Why don't they hit the news every night?

Blue_State said:

I hate to bring this slant, but I was in a conversation yesterday about this very topic. I was asked why aren't gang shootings reported this way? Why don't they hit the news every night?

Click to expand...

Gang shootings don't happen every night for starters. Part of the problem is the media has portrayed gang violence in the news and as entertainment and people think it is far more common that it is in reality. Don't get me wrong it is a major problem, but not like most believe.

DaveFagan said:

I don't understand why they keep shooting up the general population when there are so many worthless scumbags to choose from. Wall streeters, bankers, politicians, etc. come quickly to mind.

Click to expand...

socialists, OWS, gun banners seem like a good start