Jubbergun wrote:
Even without a gun, if I wanted a lot of people dead, especially if I didn't mind (or really wanted) killing myself in the process, it's not hard to build a bomb.
Actually, it is. Especially without blowing yourself up in the process.
Jubbergun wrote:
Whether you like it or not, guns are integral to American culture, and they aren't going anywhere.
First off, guns are not integral to American culture. That is a contemporary myth created by the gun lobby. Guns have become part of American culture in the postwar era because many Americans are too stupid and cowardly to face the chaos of our contemporary world without a teddy bear. Most obviously because the guns in question are themselves contemporary. You're not going to be able to commit mass murder with a six-shooter.
Even if they were, people said the same thing about slavery, Jim Crow, small farmers, frontiersmen and a good many other things that have passed along the way. Things change, ideas change, whatever have you. Fatalism is the hallmark of a weak argument.
Jubbergun wrote:
Instead of suggesting the problem is somehow wrapped up in animate objects
The inanimate objects have no utility except as enablers for criminal behavior.
Jubbergun wrote:
we need to be looking at ways to keep schools and other public places safe from people who have sailed over the edge and provide support for people with mental/emotional issues who have been identified.
It can't be done.
Even if it could, how would you do it? Put metal detectors everywhere and search all baggage? How's that going to work on high school campuses with 2,000 students coming and going a day? So we should paralyze American daily life and violate people's FREEDOM to not be searched because some rednecks aren't willing to give up a political sacred cow? Everyone else should suffer because they are stubborn? Are we trying to make life better, or are we enslaving our lives to an arbitrary viewpoint?
And how do you determine if someone has mental or emotional issues before they do something crazy? What impartial criteria do you use? How do you work that into due process? By what authority?
Jubbergun wrote:
EDIT: Funny thing, after I'm done here and move on to check my Reddit messages, I find
this linked on the front page. Guess we better start locking our cutlery drawers, too, eh?
Yes, that is the sort of thing I was alluding to. And it wasn't a "spate of attacks" in 2010; like SARS, Foxcomm and attacks on government offices and police stations, it was one of a broad variety of unthinkable things that are common occurences in China that the government moves to suppress publicity of after the attention of the West is aroused.
Notice the bias in the headline. 22 slashed. But if you read the article, it says that most of the kids were seen walking around with bandages. They were maimed, not killed, and taking an incidental knife wound is far, far preferable to getting shot.
All things considered, I'd rather have crazy guys armed with knives than guns. As has been said, "there is no question a ban on guns will save more lives than it ends."
Callysta wrote:
Legislating away the legal right to have a gun ensures that only criminals will have them... Saying that if he didn't have a gun that this wouldn't have happened is biased and shortsighted.
If you believe this, you're wrong. It is that simple.
And if you were anywhere near as smart as you like to pretend to be, you wouldn't resort to histrionics and fallacy to prop up a factually incorrect belief that clearly demonstrates that the "genius" gets her ideas from drooling at FOX News.