The goal isn't to take away all guns.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-09-2011
The goal isn't to take away all guns.
123
Mon, 01-07-2013 - 11:48am

Despite the scare tactics so typical of the right - see health care - there is no desire to take away all guns amongst most on the left. That is how the right wants to define the debate, as all or nothing. It knows it wins in that case.

All we want is common sense, but listen to, see the howls and declarations of 'you won't take away my gun!'

Which position is actually rational and reasoned?

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-08-2006
Sun, 02-10-2013 - 9:29pm

"Again, what lessons were learned at Newtown are the same lessons that should have been learned with Columbine."

What lesson?  That in Columbine they should have had an armed guard on site?  What's that....they did you say?  Did you forget?

Oh, and about that government/uprising thing....I'm not sure we want to emulate those countries.  How about Columbia, or the Congo?  Perhaps, the NRAs dream come true.

Avatar for xxxs
Community Leader
Registered: 01-25-2010
Mon, 02-11-2013 - 2:03am

  Mom it is clear that some information seems to be missing. 

   " 13 people dead in a matter of 4 minutes is jaw dropping."   No it is not. He used two hand guns  http://www.nbcnews.com/id/33678801/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/#.URiH0TeaLhE

     There is in military circles what  is known as a target rich environment.  That means a lot of people  around in that environment it is very possible to kill more. To shoot 214 rounds and only kill 13 is a very,very poor performance. 

  In the Aurora shooting he had a theater packed "set off tear gas grenades and shot into the audience with multiple firearms, killing 12 people"              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Aurora_shooting#Explosive_devices

     In contrast: The Oklahoma blast claimed 168 lives, including 19 children under the age of 6,[1] and injured more than 680 people.[2     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing

  It is easy to be misled by the media,and the entertainment industry.  Depending of the caliber of bullet used  people do not necessarily go down from a single wound.  A high Velocity round may even go through a person.  A slower but with more kinetic force may knock them down this is called stopping power.  

   What was learned from Columbine:  Police need to confront as soon as they arrive on scene and not wait. Waiting was what gave so many casualties.      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre#Police_tactics

     Part of your presentation reveals that these things are new to you.  It also seems that the information you have is emotionally clouded.  

     It is interesting to many that the perpetrators have been white males.  There are movements to look into the reasons for this oddity.  To me it seems that there are emotional and psychological reasons for these actions.  Media glory is at the top of the list.   You could characterize these people as "losers". 

  

dragowoman

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-17-2012
Mon, 02-11-2013 - 6:45pm

I find it interesting you say the number of rounds fired does not equate to actual damage/casualities and then use Fort Hood as an example saying the shooter used a large capacity ammunition magazine.  As a matter of fact, not opinion, he fired 214 shots in approximately a 4 minute period of time.  13 people dead in a matter of 4 minutes is jaw dropping.

It's tragic, but hardly jaw dropping.  Even with a 10-round clip, what the left is proposing as a max in their attack on the Second Amendment, and a reload time of 1-2 seconds, one could thank God that more than 13 weren't killed.  Again, it highlights how ridiculous the anti-gun growd's arguments truly are...especially when Obama declared it to be "workplace violence."

It should also be noted that all but one mass shooting in the past decade have taken place in "gun free" zones...and, according to reports, were perpetrated by liberals...for what it's worth.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-17-2012
Mon, 02-11-2013 - 7:05pm

What lesson?  That in Columbine they should have had an armed guard on site?  What's that....they did you say?  Did you forget?

No, I didn't forget...but apparently you feel anything less than a superhero like rescue, picking off both shooters from a dive roll, meant that the presence of the guard was useless.  Here are a few facts...

http://www.examiner.com/article/fact-check-columbine-high-s-armed-guard-saved-student-lives

If anything, we learned that the presence of an armed guard saved dozens of lives and the practical reality that more guards are necessary to properly secure a campus the size of Columbine.

Oh, and about that government/uprising thing....I'm not sure we want to emulate those countries.  How about Columbia, or the Congo?  Perhaps, the NRAs dream come true.

Or perhaps the American Colonies circa 1775?

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-08-2006
Tue, 02-12-2013 - 5:48am
214 shots in 4 minutes speaks volumes and the pure tragic realization such a weapon is not necessary in our society.
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-08-2006
Tue, 02-12-2013 - 5:51am
I prefer a more civil society. Not one that has to be equipped for survival.
iVillage Member
Registered: 01-31-2013
Tue, 02-12-2013 - 6:34am
I prefer a more civil society. Not one that has to be equipped for survival.
 
Let us know when you find one, as that isn't the society we live in.   So long as there are those who have no qualms about hurting others, there will be a need for defensive measures against them.
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-17-2012
Tue, 02-12-2013 - 2:48pm

214 shots in 4 minutes speaks volumes and the pure tragic realization such a weapon is not necessary in our society.

McVeigh killed 168 in seconds.  Should we ban fertilizer and Ryder trucks?  I also noticed your arguments have devolved into pure irrational emotion.  I suspect that is because you have no logical, reasoned argument left.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-17-2012
Tue, 02-12-2013 - 2:49pm

I prefer a more civil society. Not one that has to be equipped for survival.

I prefer a free society.

Avatar for xxxs
Community Leader
Registered: 01-25-2010
Tue, 02-12-2013 - 6:31pm

 No such society exists.  Humans are what humans are.  There will always be people who are violent.  But the media glorifies these people.  All of them get what they want glory!   The best is a better socialization. The media by reporting is a driver of these actions.  People think of what is presented to them. Better mental and emotional health plus more early training will help defuse the situations.  All societies that have lasted have had survival as paramount.  Most societies collapse do to internal pressures.  Or outside invasion.  I cannot recall any that lasted more than 1000 years.

Here is a list of school attacks:  you will notice a common theme interesting, no?  This is an incomplete listing. 

    In Japan they have terrorists who released sarin gas:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin_gas_attack_on_the_Tokyo_subway

London 2005: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Bombings_2005

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombings

 

dragowoman

Pages