Reporter and Cameraman shot by tormented ex-colleague

108 posts / 0 new
Last post
Paladin1

Timebandit wrote:

Quote:
I get it. You're starting to get emotional and make snide comments. If you don't feel like discussing this like a mature adult save yourself the stress and just don't reply.

Don't be a sexist git.

You're ignoring several valid, key points.  Again, Chicago doesn't wash - I notice you bring it up twice in your responses, but do not include my rebuttal (again, asked and answered, a local ban is not the same as a national ban and will always be less effective.)  If you want to start giving lessons on responding to posts like a mature adult, start there. 

And again, if cultural context and making a gun look more dangerous is too difficult a concept for you, just say so.

You've no evidence for your opinion. 

I have no idea why you suggested I not be sexist. No one here mentioned gender unless I missed something.

If I was going to make a point of mentioning gender I would point out CCW permits among women in the states has been sky rocketing as has been the number of women getting involved in firearm competitions.  Also our very own;

Quote:
Sgt. Tatyana Danylyshyn outshot several hundred competitors to top her class at the Bisley shooting competition, an annual event in the U.K. that has been dubbed the “Olympics” of military rifle shooting.

This was after she recovered from an injury causing brain damage, very tough person.

 

 

With regard to banning firearms earlier in the thread I pointed out the success rate of it could have to do with Austrailia being a giant island in the pacific ocean.  A ban in Canada wouldn't be considerably less effective IMO. When the long gun registry was thrust on us half of Canadian firearm owners apparently didn't even bother to register.  The same thing would happen with a firearm ban. On top of that we have a huge problem with already-illegal handguns coming in from the US.  Banning handguns here will just take them out of the hands of people like me and you.

Unless the US bans handguns. That would probably reduce the number of illegal guns coming across the border however considering their culture over there, militia groups, anti-government groups and such banning firearms in the US would start a civil war with people just as armed as the police and in a number of cases better trained.

So *if* banning 400 milion firearms in the US isn't an option, what ARE some options?

 

I still find it ironic that the father of the murdered reporter wants tougher gun laws, after he buys one for himself. Tougher laws may make it harder for criminals to get firearms but also may make it harder for non criminals to buy them for self defense.

 

I understand the context of a gun that people try to look more scary but a pink and orange gun us just as deadly as a black gun, I would say even more so since it will look like a toy and may cause the police to hessitate.

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
Right.  But since the OP is about an American incident, I think the initial discussion was about a US ban.  Which would be an excellent idea.

But then our millions of handguns would flow across the border in the other direction!  Could be good comeuppance, but still.

Quote:
Unless Donald gets to build his wall, in which case it's moot.

I dunno.  I feel like I could throw a pistol over a 25 foot wall, and I'm not even particularly athletic.

But my point still stands about Australia.  A few hundred miles of open ocean could have helped Chicago's initiative too.

 

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Quote:
I have no idea why you suggested I not be sexist. No one here mentioned gender unless I missed something.

I'm sure butter wouldn't melt in your mouth.

Paladin1

Timebandit wrote:

Quote:
I have no idea why you suggested I not be sexist. No one here mentioned gender unless I missed something.

I'm sure butter wouldn't melt in your mouth.

That comment was so strange I decided I have to try it; butter does melt in my mouth (and I have the picture to prove it).

Sorry if I said something to put you off timbandit. I both really enjoy your posts in general and enjoy the oppertunity to hear your views (even if I disagree) about this stuff.  As I said, if your opinion is to ban everything then it's a pretty open and closed case as far as debating goes. 

 

If you think guns can easily be banned in the US highly recomend you read up about the Bundy Ranch stand off.

 

I've did a bit of reading about this and especially the "tactical situation on the ground"

 

The police were bottle necked and confined for the most part to the road with their vehicles. Not a lot of room to manouver, turn around or withdraw.

The US citizens standing off against them were armed with the same caliber of weapons. They had sharp shooters hidden on the bridge and in the high ground.  Armed people on horses which could basically act like calvary and quickly circle around the flanks or rear of the police.

The US will need a lot more police to take their guns.

6079_Smith_W

Paladin1 wrote:

The US will need a lot more police to take their guns.

Bit of an over-the-top example. Let's not confuse inability with political will.

Had it been someone other than white "militia" I think they might not have had such a guarded response.

And while I do not support the banning of all firearms, I'd say that incident is not an example of its impossibility, but a perfect reason why they might want to consider it.

 

 

Slumberjack

Timebandit wrote:
The "criminals wouldn't turn in their weapons" gambit is a red herring. 

But it's true nonetheless.

Quote:
Too many guns = too many deaths. 

In the case of someone determined to shoot up a movie theatre for instance, they'll likely go to great lenghts to acquire a gun for that purpose, no matter what the restrictions are.  Now, if such a person turns out to be the only one in the theatre packing heat, and proceeds to shoot up the place with no way to stop the person, then clearly in that scenario there are not enough guns in the audience.  Someone else who had a gun could potentially bring an end to the rampage.

Quote:
A dearth of guns for all will also make them, in the long run, less available to those who would acquire them illegally.

It will likely only cost more to acquire one.  Weapons will still be available for purchase.

Quote:
 There's evidence that a ban works.  You've got objections and "logic" of a sort.  I think we should go with the evidence.

I happen to believe that any responsible adult who wants a gun should be able to acquire one.  How is it that your 'say so' should trump anyone else's requirements?  Why should you take on that roll on behalf of what others consider to be right for them?  I think it's a much better strategy to treat the cultural symptoms that lead to gun proliferation, and as I've suggested, that effort is best directed at the top of our predatory food chain to try and convince them that their profit margins are not worth the violence that so often issues from that cause.

Slumberjack

Paladin1 wrote:

  

What that scene boils down to is a cowboy rally in support of social assistance benefits.  I'm thinking if that were a group of Ferguson residents in an armed confrontation with police on their streets, drones and hellfire missiles would fly.

Pages