....A Well-Regulated Militia.....

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Sat Dec 15, 2012 10:31 am

Wow. Slick went from "Nobody's trying to take your guns away" to calling for disarmament in... a month? 2 months? You're a damn liar, Slick.

I overheard a conversation between a father (having breakfast with his kids) and a waiter at a diner this morning (college age). They were agreeing that the teachers should be armed, and that pistol free zones are vulnerable. It was heartwarming.

I could argue with you all day, Slick, and since you're not being honest I would have difficulty pinning you down and explaining why you're wrong (more wrong than incorrect). What I will say is that I think it's unconscionable to go down in history as the kind of person who goes along with "we're going to accept the level that society has sunk to and use it to subjugate (governmental control and disarmament) them to those of us who are flying higher, because they're asking for it/deserve it", when you could instead work to expose the problems in society and educate, empower, and demand responsibility of everyone. Your kind are a ****ing virus in this world.

Before you fire back with some bull★■◆● retort, answer me this: where does it all end? If our society, in your mind, was at one time responsible enough to warrant the 2nd amendment, and general gun ownership, when will this path return us to that? What I'm asking for is an analysis of the far-reaching implications of your protectionist ideas, because I think someone would have to be some kind of fool to believe there is a return route in there ANYWHERE...

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Sat Dec 15, 2012 2:02 pm

Aggressor Prime wrote:Guns have nothing to do with this. Evil people will always find ways to kill our human family; they have been doing it since they picked up a stick.

Instead of taking our rage out on guns or even the gunman, we need to change our emotions and be thoughtful of all those who lost their lives. Don't let madmen like this kill the American dream. We will do justice to the dead by surviving this and coming out stronger, as a family united.

Yes, guns had nothing to do with the crime. They were just the means to the end. When someone wants to kill, they will always find some way to do it. Guns just make it easier and quicker to raise the body count.

What nobody is asking is "why"? Why did this guy and all the others before him do what they did? Why did he/they come to the conclusion that he/they were better off dead and that taking as many others in the process was a viable action? Why were their minds so twisted that the thought of a glorious death while taking as many lives as possible in the process was something "cool" and "exciting". And you know that has to be some of the motivation and rationalization behind what they've done. And you'll notice that most of these crimes were committed by young males with mostly hidden from their families mental issues. Sometimes the family had no clue.

This type of crime keeps going on and on and we as a society keep asking how someone could do something so horrible. Yet everyone just sits around wringing their hands, crying, ranting, yelling and screaming. Few try to speak up for coming up with a way to help that someone before they turn into a mass murderer. We keep plodding along in our own little deluded lives and the press keeps dredging up a steady stream of victim sob stories to bolster their ratings until people forget or the next one happens and we again throw up our hands in despair.

If society can't find a way to help those who have mental issues before they turn into murderers, we'll keep on having these tragedies. We can call these killers monsters, but at one time, they were someone's child. Somewhere along the line, a monster was created. We need to find a way to stop making monsters. No one seems to take those anti-bullying programs at school as productive or useful, even though we sometimes come to find out that bullying may have motivated many of these killers. No one wants to fund mental health research, or fund ways to treat them humanely to return them to society as functioning members. Warehousing or jail or drug induced passivity seem to be the solutions of choice. Like all our health care woes, mental health is waaaaay down on the list of importance. Maybe it shouldn't be any longer. Yes, this is a bleeding heart liberal idea, but putting the onus on personal responsibility, like conservatives always rant about, doesn't always have the desired outcome when someone becomes mentally ill. I suppose you could find ways to dispose of them so that they don't hurt others. Out of sight, out of mind............gone.

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Sat Dec 15, 2012 2:46 pm

How exactly is taking away all guns going to make society improve? If you examine why society is terrible in the first place, a lot of it is because people gave up their rights and responsibilities to the government in exchange for convenience and "safety". The rest is just because the world and human society in general has always been and always will be a horrible place where the strong prey upon the weak like a bunch of animals, and giving up guns won't change that.

Well, if we all gave up all our rights, it'd sure be convenient (for slick and the rest of the ruling class) wouldn't it... Safe though? Any safety gained from giving up the second amendment would be temporary at best, nothing would really change, violent criminals would still bring guns to their fights because that is what violent criminals do, or they would switch to bombs, chemicals, or even biological weapons if guns were harder to obtain. And in the long term a dangerous and violent world would remain just as dangerous and violent, only with less of a chance for honest people to fight back.

If you really wanted to address the problems in society, you would start by addressing what causes people to become violent in the first place, rather than just trying to take away all the tools that can be used for violence.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sat Dec 15, 2012 3:03 pm

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Wow. Slick went from "Nobody's trying to take your guns away" to calling for disarmament in... a month? 2 months? You're a damn liar, Slick.

I referred to 'nobody' in government. That had no bearing on what I feel. I still hate the idea of forced disarmament, and know full well that won't happen. I am arguing that we have, as a society, lost the credibility to deserve free gun rights.

I overheard a conversation between a father (having breakfast with his kids) and a waiter at a diner this morning (college age). They were agreeing that the teachers should be armed, and that pistol free zones are vulnerable. It was heartwarming.

it's sickening. And, idiotic.

Before you fire back with some **** retort, answer me this: where does it all end?

for twenty little kids, it ended yesterday, at around 9:40 AM EST.

If our society, in your mind, was at one time responsible enough to warrant the 2nd amendment, and general gun ownership, when will this path return us to that? What I'm asking for is an analysis of the far-reaching implications of your protectionist ideas, because I think someone would have to be some kind of fool to believe there is a return route in there ANYWHERE...

our nation hasn't needed the second Amendment since states incorporated police departments and National Guard units. The purpose of the law was to protect a nation from outsiders, when no standing army was maintained.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sat Dec 15, 2012 3:05 pm

Krom wrote:If you really wanted to address the problems in society, you would start by addressing what causes people to become violent in the first place, rather than just trying to take away all the tools that can be used for violence.

I agree, in principle, but how many people have to die while you're figuring this out?

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Sat Dec 15, 2012 3:23 pm

callmeslick wrote:I agree, in principle, but how many people have to die while you're figuring this out?

Everyone.

I already know the answer, but it'll happen when humanity is ready and that isn't going to be in our lifetimes (actually I'd argue that it can't be within our lifetimes).

Your approach to violence is like stopping a screaming child by suffocating them with a pillow.

flip · Post by **flip** » Sat Dec 15, 2012 3:26 pm

I'll tell you what is idiotic and sickening. Principals are directed and told they must confront anyone who breaks into their school, and we send them like sheep to the slaughter. If we can entrust a principal to administrate and watch over all of our children, surely we can train and arm them. Principals are basically told to run to their deaths with no chance at all to affect the outcome.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Sat Dec 15, 2012 3:38 pm

callmeslick wrote:
Thorne wrote:Before you fire back with some **** retort, answer me this: where does it all end?
for twenty little kids, it ended yesterday, at around 9:40 AM EST.

I said BEFORE your bull**** retort...

You never did answer my question. Where does it end?

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sat Dec 15, 2012 3:50 pm

Krom wrote:
callmeslick wrote:I agree, in principle, but how many people have to die while you're figuring this out?
Everyone.

I already know the answer, but it'll happen when humanity is ready and that isn't going to be in our lifetimes (actually I'd argue that it can't be within our lifetimes).

Your approach to violence is like stopping a screaming child by suffocating them with a pillow.

interesting analogy, and I would obviously disagree.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sat Dec 15, 2012 3:55 pm

Sergeant Thorne wrote: You never did answer my question. Where does it end?

yes, I did answer it, in the only way that matters. Until we can figure out how to control a nation which relies on rage and fear as it's prime motivators, the less access to and ability to carry weapons, the better. The crap about powers that be able to control you without your beloved weapons is ridiculous.
Completely so, as a matter of fact. The government can do any ★■◆●ing thing they wish to you, and your pea-shooter level resistance would be laughably futile. So once again I say, GET REAL, and start to get your heads around the fact that the wheels have long since fallen off when people are gunning down 6 year olds. Mental health issues be damned, killing little kids is unthinkable at even the level of most psychotics that have ever plagued us.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sat Dec 15, 2012 4:02 pm

Thorne, it will end when people like slick no longer feel that their comfortable little lives are threatened by us loons.

Take away their weapons, and give them plenty of bread and circus.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sat Dec 15, 2012 4:06 pm

Spidey wrote:Thorne, it will end when people like slick no longer feel that their comfortable little lives are threatened by us loons.

Take away their weapons, and give them plenty of bread and circus.

no, it isn't you loons that threaten my life, it is you loons that enable us to have a society in which it's ok to slaughter 6 year olds.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sat Dec 15, 2012 4:11 pm

flip · Post by **flip** » Sat Dec 15, 2012 4:13 pm

Slick, Spidey is right about you. You are a politcal hack. You don't really care about these children or try to come up with ways to mitigate it in the future, you just use instances like this to further your political agendas. I have seen the enemy and it is you.

EDIT: You would also do well to take note that most people on this board hardly agree on anything, but you are a definite minority in this discussion, mainly because your agenda lacks common sense and logic.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sat Dec 15, 2012 4:14 pm

Spidey wrote:FU

likewise....you got exactly the response your comment deserved. Get over it.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sat Dec 15, 2012 4:19 pm

flip wrote:Slick, Spidey is right about you. You are a politcal hack. You don't really care about these children or try to come up with ways to mitigate it in the future, you just use instances like this to further your political agendas. I have seen the enemy and it is you.

what the ★■◆● should be 'political' about trying to end the abuse of firearms in our society? It shouldn't be liberal or conservative issue, but as I stated, common sense. This rant on here is definitely a response, as a parent and grandparent, to the level our nation got dragged down to yesterday. As Thorne pointed out, I was not advocating for such radical solutions before 24 hours ago, but enough is enough. Hell, my family has been hunting ducks since the shotgun came into common usage. Until there was a child in my home, I always had a(safely locked up) handgun around. What political agenda gets served, in what earthly fashion, by wishing to see our nation get access to firearms, especially semi-auto firearms, under control? What, in my advocation for such, makes me an 'enemy'? You realize, that you are merely illustrating the twisted mindset of fear and hate that has overcome our nation. The enemy? Sure, that sounds reasonable and calm. Attaboy!

flip · Post by **flip** » Sat Dec 15, 2012 4:20 pm

Until we can figure out how to control a nation

It's always the same with you guys. I think you lack some basic human components too.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sat Dec 15, 2012 4:23 pm

who's 'you guys'? Virginians? Delawareans? Tall people? Men? Outdoor sportsman? What group do you wish to generalize about?
Yeesh, get a grip, you are illustrating the problem more with every post. Common sense is on my side on this one.

flip · Post by **flip** » Sat Dec 15, 2012 4:25 pm

Pfft.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sat Dec 15, 2012 4:34 pm

flip wrote:Pfft.

...and just like that, 20 little kids are dead. Yeah, semi auto weapons are the bomb. No father should ever have to go through the hell the man on TV right now is going through. No one. Ever. It's a sick society, to be sure......and some of you wish to feed more weapons into it? Yeesh.

flip · Post by **flip** » Sat Dec 15, 2012 4:43 pm

Why don't you just hush? You sound ridiculous. Have some compassion. I see you for what you are. Your solution is to lump us all together, and mainly for your own safety. Your solution is to completely disarm any threat and hang all offenders in the public square. You have no practical solutions, just control and punishment. Not empowerment. Just hush.

flip · Post by **flip** » Sat Dec 15, 2012 4:45 pm

I can hear you now "just who does this guy think he is"

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sat Dec 15, 2012 4:46 pm

flip wrote:Why don't you just hush? You sound ridiculous. Have some compassion. I see you for what you are. Your solution is to lump us all together, and mainly for your own safety. Your solution is to completely disarm any threat and hang all offenders in the public square. You have no practical solutions, just control and punishment. Not empowerment. Just hush.

empowerment?

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sat Dec 15, 2012 4:47 pm

flip wrote:I can hear you now "just who does this guy think he is"

nah, I don't think, or talk, like that. Sorry.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sat Dec 15, 2012 4:59 pm

Spidey wrote:Thorne, it will end when people like slick no longer feel that their comfortable little lives are threatened by us loons.

Take away their weapons, and give them plenty of bread and circus.

a few people who will never go to the circus:
•Charlotte Bacon, 6
•Daniel Barden, 7
•Olivia Engel, 6
•Josephine Gay, 7
•Ana M. Marquez-Greene, 6
•Dylan Hockley, 6
•Madeleine F. Hsu, 6
•Catherine V. Hubbard, 6
•Chase Kowalski, 7
•Jesse Lewis, 6
•James Mattioli, 6
•Grace McDonnell, 7
•Emilie Parker, 6
•Jack Pinto, 6
•Noah Pozner, 6
•Caroline Previdi, 6
•Jessica Rekos, 6
•Aveille Richman, 6
•Benjamin Wheeler, 6
•Allison N. Wyatt, 6

when are you going to look beyond ideology into the society you live in, and deal with it? Nah, easier to vilify me, right? Bread and circus' indeed. Whee!

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Sat Dec 15, 2012 5:11 pm

callmeslick wrote:
Sergeant Thorne wrote: You never did answer my question. Where does it end?
yes, I did answer it, in the only way that matters. Until we can figure out how to control a nation which relies on rage and fear as it's prime motivators, the less access to and ability to carry weapons, the better. The crap about powers that be able to control you without your beloved weapons is ridiculous.
Completely so, as a matter of fact. The government can do any **** thing they wish to you, and your pea-shooter level resistance would be laughably futile. So once again I say, GET REAL, and start to get your heads around the fact that the wheels have long since fallen off when people are gunning down 6 year olds. Mental health issues be damned, killing little kids is unthinkable at even the level of most psychotics that have ever plagued us.

Slick I don't think you have as good a handle on the reality of this as you think you do. Your argument apparently presupposes that a "pea-shooter" needs to be a deterrent to the entirety of government or it's worthless. I think we can all agree that if I have the focus of the entire government, then I screwed up bad somewhere along the line and my gun isn't going to even those odds.

So you need to "get real". I believe that common-sense dictates that a citizen in a free country should be able to be just as well armed as his local law enforcement, and, within reason, the military.

callmeslick wrote:start to get your heads around the fact that the wheels have long since fallen off when people are gunning down 6 year olds. Mental health issues be damned, killing little kids is unthinkable at even the level of most psychotics that have ever plagued us.

Great, so you've got fear and rage covered there... but I don't see a tie to disarmament in there beyond the demands of angry, scared people looking for something to blame, and incidentally probably anti-gun from the get-go...

flip · Post by **flip** » Sat Dec 15, 2012 5:14 pm

Slick, it would be alot easier to take you serious if your solutions wern't so simple-minded. Tim Mcveigh killed 168 people with a bomb. I agree, there are sick-minded people. Maybe all this could have been avoided had people been more loving and kind. If people were to go out of their way to help the abused instead of jumping on the bandwagon. There are many things that could be done, many ideas that can be promoted, but disarming everyone is not one of them. Knowing this is why you have no credibility to me.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sat Dec 15, 2012 5:47 pm

callmeslick wrote:
flip wrote:I can hear you now "just who does this guy think he is"
nah, I don't think, or talk, like that. Sorry.

Really? Then someone has been logging in under your name over the years, posting comments that support Flips assertion, and fooling us into thinking you do!

Try to remove the emotion and dogmatic liberalism from your position and formulate a SOLUTION (as best as anyone could solve an impossible problem). So far you have not dealt with the cause and instead focused on the implement of destruction that the deranged shooter used.

Deranged...and...shooter. Those are the two pronouns that factually describe the perpetrator.
Which is a better descriptor in this case?

In most of America the number of total shooters (of all types) outnumber the total number of deranged by an overwhelming majority.
Only a fractional minority of the shooters are deranged. So to focus properly on the source of the problem which one gets you accurately focused on the source of the murder?

If you could somehow magically take away all 300 million firearms in america as a solution, and that is one BIG magical *if*, you will have eliminated only one of the more efficient weapons that a deranged person could use. You will not have dealt with the course of action a deranged individual is drawn to when he goes anti-social to the extreme.
When you take away the 'best' weapon it no longer is the best weapon....so after you have waved your wand on guns you will have accomplished NOTHING to prevent the very situation that led you to demand we take on your preventative course of action! The deranged will once again take up the 'best' available weapon. So will you expand your solution to include glass bottles and gasoline? Cutlery? Bricks and all blunt objects?!
You are supposedly some kind of smart person...much smarter than those you come here to chastise....so why do you want to be so stupid to attack inanimate objects in the name of solving the problems of deranged people gravitating toward shooting up schools and other gun-free target rich environments

Also, you have implied that america, based on your gun deaths data, is much more dangerous than other 1st world nations. Well 'america' is a bit of a different orange in your oranges to oranges comparison. To be more accurate in your example you must consider as more than a single modern country. America is more like the continent of Europe, we are a collection of states, they are a collection of countries but the diversity and regional differences should apply and should prevent you from trying to paint the whole place with a single swipe of your broad brush!
Take places like Chicago, Detroit, New York City, Baltimore, etc. etc. e-frikking-ct. out of the data for 'America' as a whole and you get some serious contrasts in data that should make a rationale, logic wielding, individual question the blanket indictment you are trying to lay on us as a whole.

And, more importantly, as it pertains to this discussion, it should lead you to ask yourself some serious questions long before you promoted the ill-conceived conclusions that you did.
Such as:
If the concentration or availability of guns is greater in places with less gun laws and yet the incidents of murder are fewer in those places....why do I think the gun is the source of the problem?

If civilians who have permission to carry a concealed weapon are the 'safest' sub group people authorized to carry weapons why am I suggesting they be disarmed?

If weapons can't cause mental illness or inspire the deranged to kill why would I focus my attention on the deranged persons weapon choice instead of his anti-social homicidal choice?

For a guy who is so damn superior you sure have a serious mental deficiency.....so...about that box full of guns you have....

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Sat Dec 15, 2012 6:39 pm

Funny how the anti gun laws in Norway didn't seem to stop a shooter there from killing about 70 people mostly children.

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Sat Dec 15, 2012 7:13 pm

No, but that was pretty much the only mass shooting in Norway in decades. We've had, what, two well-publicized random shooting sprees within the past two weeks?

I'm not necessarily saying that stricter gun control is the only answer (lack of it isn't even really the primary cause of incidents like this), but I also know that I have little to no faith in my average fellow man, certainly not enough to want them carrying around a tool whose sole purpose is killing, and which can do so from a few hundred yards away.

Isaac · Post by **Isaac** » Sat Dec 15, 2012 7:16 pm

Ban the guns and the wackos will switch to home made bombs. Ban all the products used in every home made bomb, then you'll end up with wackos tossing bricks at car windshields on the highway...

callmeslick will react the same: "Dur hur... we need people to be certified in order to purchase bricks!"

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sat Dec 15, 2012 7:49 pm

Top Gun wrote:No, but that was pretty much the only mass shooting in Norway in decades. We've had, what, two well-publicized random shooting sprees within the past two weeks?

And that is exactly the reason why Norway is so important as an example…

Gun control didn’t stop the one moron in decades, so why would it stop all of the morons we have here?

One must learn how to ask the proper questions.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sat Dec 15, 2012 8:09 pm

CUDA wrote:Funny how the anti gun laws in Norway didn't seem to stop a shooter there from killing about 70 people mostly children.

funny how folks with an ideology to defend keep citing the ONE incident in Norway, over a period when the US had 61 mass killings and 181 school shootings. Actually, there is nothing funny about it, it's sad.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sat Dec 15, 2012 8:10 pm

Isaac wrote:Ban the guns and the wackos will switch to home made bombs. Ban all the products used in every home made bomb, then you'll end up with wackos tossing bricks at car windshields on the highway...

callmeslick will react the same: "Dur hur... we need people to be certified in order to purchase bricks!"

do you really sit and ponder idiocy like the above, or just type randomly??

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sat Dec 15, 2012 8:15 pm

If the democrats would offer a Bill that affirms the second amendment is an individuals right to bear arms, not to hunt rabbits or defend against burglars but to oppose tyranny. And acknowledge that in the founders era the word militia was used to describe the private citizens ability to come together with their own weapons in hand.... then within this Bill, in light of the reality that the U.S. Government is prohibited from taking away our arms, include in this piece of legislation a requirement for responsible ownership of weapons with stiff penalty like Slick suggested I think they could get it passed easily.

Most gun owners are hard core responsible types, otherwise this country would be...well...a lot like the streets in Chicago where those anti-gun murder spree stats that Slick tries to ascribe to the whole nation are generated. We would welcome common sense regulation if we knew it wasn't the camels nose under the tent.

But this will do very very little to address the kind of incident that spurred this conversation.

The media should stop identifying and publically exploring the life and times of the shooter. The shooter should be personae non grata, anonymously referred to as a piece of ★■◆● murderer of innocent children with no picture or back story published ever. As interesting as it is to us in the wake of these things it serves no good for us to recognize anything about the killer other than his tactics and that should be behind the scenes. Law enforcement and security and sociologists etc can all have at it out of the national media spotlight.

We as a culture need to address the desensitizing of our children with the glorification of violence and revenge.
We need to stop creating easy kill zones for these kind of predators. In the '70's, in Israel, they had a school massacre, they took steps to change security and since then the few attempts have been thwarted by armed personnel.

"The Columbine killers" shouldn't be in our lexicon. They are and the reasons why are a much bigger part of the problem than the weapons they used.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sat Dec 15, 2012 8:23 pm

Will Robinson wrote:If the democrats would offer a Bill that affirms the second amendment is an individuals right to bear arms, not to hunt rabbits or defend against burglars but to oppose tyranny. And acknowledge that in the founders era the word militia was used to describe the private citizens ability to come together with their own weapons in hand.... then within this Bill, in light of the reality that the U.S. Government is prohibited from taking away our arms, include in this piece of legislation a requirement for responsible ownership of weapons with stiff penalty like Slick suggested I think they could get it passed easily.

interesting thought, but likely a very wrong interpretation of the Constitution. And, let me take this opportunity to remind that I did note above that I am,
and have been, a gun owner, and agree with your description of MOST of us, given below.

Most gun owners are hard core responsible types, otherwise this country would be...well...a lot like the streets in Chicago where those anti-gun murder spree stats that Slick tries to ascribe to the whole nation are generated. We would welcome common sense regulation if we knew it wasn't the camels nose under the tent.

the main targets of the laws I proposed actually would BE the streets of major cities. All it would do to random wingnuts is slow them down, and hopefully, prevent a larger percentage.

But this will do very very little to address the kind of incident that spurred this conversation.

sadly, Will, it takes just this sort of horrid incident to spur the conversation. I wish it were otherwise, but the US doesn't roll like that.

The media should stop identifying and publically exploring the life and times of the shooter. The shooter should be personae non grata, anonymously referred to as a piece of **** murderer of innocent children with no picture or back story published ever. As interesting as it is to us in the wake of these things it serves no good for us to recognize anything about the killer other than his tactics and that should be behind the scenes. Law enforcement and security and sociologists etc can all have at it out of the national media spotlight.

agreed, completely

We as a culture need to address the desensitizing of our children with the glorification of violence and revenge.
We need to stop creating easy kill zones for these kind of predators. In the '70's, in Israel, they had a school massacre, they took steps to change security and since then the few attempts have been thwarted by armed personnel.

I would hope that our schools don't become armed camps, nor that we would ever resort to the heavily armed populace to defend them, as I stated earlier in the thread.

"The Columbine killers" shouldn't be in our lexicon. They are and the reasons why are a much bigger part of the problem than the weapons they used.

once again,I would agree, with this caveat: the weapons involved do impact the severity of the outcome and thus have to be part of the discourse.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sat Dec 15, 2012 8:24 pm

callmeslick wrote:
CUDA wrote:Funny how the anti gun laws in Norway didn't seem to stop a shooter there from killing about 70 people mostly children.

funny how folks with an ideology to defend keep citing the ONE incident in Norway, over a period when the US had 61 mass killings and 181 school shootings. Actually, there is nothing funny about it, it's sad.

It is sad that you think those stats are the result of not enough gun control laws. The dangerous difference between Norway and the USA isn't in the hardware!

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sat Dec 15, 2012 8:25 pm

Will Robinson wrote:
callmeslick wrote:
CUDA wrote:Funny how the anti gun laws in Norway didn't seem to stop a shooter there from killing about 70 people mostly children.

funny how folks with an ideology to defend keep citing the ONE incident in Norway, over a period when the US had 61 mass killings and 181 school shootings. Actually, there is nothing funny about it, it's sad.
It is sad that you think those stats are the result of not enough gun control laws. The dangerous difference between Norway and the USA isn't in the hardware!

no, it's in the ACCESS.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sat Dec 15, 2012 8:30 pm

Slick, our airports are armed camps. Our government offices are armed camps...banks....even national parks get armed guards!
Why not protect the children at least as vigorously as we protect our wildlife! It is an irrational fear to think a trained good guy gunman is a bad thing just because it is your child instead of your money that he is guarding.

by the way, my daughters public school has a full time policeman and trust me she would have shot that punk way before he killed 30...
Guess what, no one has ever referred to our schools as an armed camp...the kids are just fine with it...in fact they feel a lot safer right now knowing she will be there tommorow morning!!

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sat Dec 15, 2012 8:33 pm

callmeslick wrote:
Will Robinson wrote:
callmeslick wrote:
CUDA wrote:Funny how the anti gun laws in Norway didn't seem to stop a shooter there from killing about 70 people mostly children.

funny how folks with an ideology to defend keep citing the ONE incident in Norway, over a period when the US had 61 mass killings and 181 school shootings. Actually, there is nothing funny about it, it's sad.
It is sad that you think those stats are the result of not enough gun control laws. The dangerous difference between Norway and the USA isn't in the hardware!
no, it's in the ACCESS.

If I was a Norwegian I'd be offended that you implied, if not for harder to get weaponry, I and my fellow countrymen would be as dangerous as the deranged american school shooters!
Do you really believe that?!? Or have you fallen into the trap of trying to take liberal rhetoric to a logical conclusion?