The FAST Approaching Gun Ban

[kittyKaiti]

..........

All four of them are enemies of the Republic. Corruption and tyranny know no bounds.

[Stavros]

At least now law abiding citizens have the ability to return fire, and kill the spree killer, instead of having to follow Department of Homeland Security recommendations to duck under desks and defend themselves with scissors (Or wait 10-20 minutes until SWAT arrives). Returning fire is the only way to stop a crazed gunman on a spree.

What happens if your 'return fire' kills the wrong person -or people?

[Prospero]

You wish it would be that easy. Unfortunately, even with universal background checks, criminals have multitudes of ways to access illegal firearms, even in countries where guns are outright prohibited like the UK and Japan. They find ways if they are that determined.

And putting it into proportion - and allowing for the difference in scale of our nations - the numbers who died from gun offences in the UK is tiny compared with the US where the shoot-em up culture is so ingrained - and where any attempt to control them is undermined by the NRA.

But then you'll never see that since guns are sacred.

[Prospero]

This week in Leeds in the UK a teacher was stabbed to death in front of her class by a teenager. He was overpowered and restrained by other members of staff. Imagine if he'd had a gun though. He'd have defended himself and the death toll might well have been far higher.

Doubtless those in favour of guns will argue that if the class of kids had had guns they'd have shot him down.

[Stavros]

But surely in the case of the Leeds incident, the key issue, on the basis of what we know so far, is that the boy concerned was not a good communicator or gregarious, he was 'a loner', reserved, affected by his parents divorce, and addicted to violent video games. Isn't this more likely to be a shaping factor than the availability of a gun, a knife, or a pencil? The availablity of an automatic weapon might well have caused carnage in the school -had he been able to get it in without being noticed -but surely the core problem is a degree of mental instability that went unnoticed, or untreated, and has ended in tragedy for all concerned. It does raise the question, if people are addicted to violent video games, are they more likely to act out their fantasy if their mental state allows it and other factors in their environment come into play?

[kittyKaiti]

What happens if your 'return fire' kills the wrong person -or people?

That is irrelevant. The police have killed untold numbers of innocent Americans while using their service weapons to stop criminals.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...icle-1.1587123

http://abcnews.go.com/US/women-accid...ry?id=20261689

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012...armed-robbery/

http://news.yahoo.com/ny-police-offi...163707908.html

And my all time favorite:

[Prospero]

I agree Stavros. The essential point I was making that knife incidents - whatever prompts them - are likely to be less deadly in a wider sense than a similarly troubled young person with a semi automatic weapon.

When domestic WMDs are available then the chances of multiple deaths is higher.

Which does not men we should not be taking a wider look at a culture which celebrates violece - through such things as violent video games.

[Stavros]

That is irrelevant. The police have killed untold numbers of innocent Americans while using their service weapons to stop criminals.

But it is relevant, because your post stated:
"At least now law abiding citizens have the ability to return fire, and kill the spree killer, instead of having to follow Department of Homeland Security recommendations to duck under desks and defend themselves with scissors (Or wait 10-20 minutes until SWAT arrives). Returning fire is the only way to stop a crazed gunman on a spree. "
-The issue is a member of the public deciding to use his or her weapon to intervene. Your assumption must be that he or she shoots accurately; mine is that in a situation of tension if not panic, your heroic John Citizen might just accidentally shoot the wrong person, maybe more than one person. Imagine it was in a dark cinema and a crazed gunmen opens fire during Batman -would you trust a heroic, strapped John Citizen to start firing back in that situation? And if the person accidentally killed is someone you love, would that not be 'relevant'? And if -in the US as well as the UK- policemen trained to use firearms can get it wrong, what is to say John Citizen is going to be any better?

[Prospero]

Republicans and democrats = Enemies of the Republic. You advocate guns in the hands of the ordinary citizen and see the Government as the enemy of the people. Okay Ms Kaiti... spell out if you'd care to the way you'd like to see the USA governed?

[trish]

She's quite insistent that the state governments should "authorize" the practice of propelling lead pellets into persons perceived to be life threatening, but doesn't think federal government should "authorize" the practice of buying weed killer, fertilizer and seed from a private manufacturer and using it on your private farm. I'm interested hear in broad outline what she thinks the government has the authority to prohibit as well as the distinction between authorizing and not prohibiting?