Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Gun Owners Shooting Other Gun Owners

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    179

    Gun Owners Shooting Other Gun Owners

    http://www.wmicentral.com/opinion/le...cc4c002e0.html

    Much of my family lives up there in the Show Low and Pinetop/lakeside areas so i skim through their local news sometimes and came across this.

    It is unbelievable how stupid can be sometimes. They take a tragedy, and basically use it as a "+1" for their opinion, even though that opinion couldn't be further from the truth.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Jefferson City, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    396
    I see some people arguing against the extended magazines such that should they have been outlawed, Loughner couldn't have created such a high victim count. If I recall, the VTech shooter carried multiple handguns and Loughner could have done the same thing. I would even argue that a novice or semi skilled swordsman with a sharp blade could have done a massive amount of damage in that setting as well. A homemade bomb could have done as much or even more. I can think of several ways that someone could easily attack many people in a short amount of time in a confined space where a large capacity magazine wouldn't even be needed.

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by MK View Post
    I see some people arguing against the extended magazines such that should they have been outlawed, Loughner couldn't have created such a high victim count. If I recall, the VTech shooter carried multiple handguns and Loughner could have done the same thing. I would even argue that a novice or semi skilled swordsman with a sharp blade could have done a massive amount of damage in that setting as well. A homemade bomb could have done as much or even more. I can think of several ways that someone could easily attack many people in a short amount of time in a confined space where a large capacity magazine wouldn't even be needed.
    To take it a step further, the key to this is accepting that the firearm is an easy, convenient way of accomplishing this goal. The problem with any focus on the firearm itself, though, is that, even if by some impossible work of Big Brother statism we instituted enough control to wipe firearms off the North American continent (and prevent further important or manufacture thereof), guns would simply cease to be the most convenient way to do it.

    Guns were never the only way, though, so people motivated enough to throw their lives away over such a monstrous crime would surely seek out other, slightly less convenient alternatives, to be left to their own horrendous imaginations. It occurs to me that there have been a veritable litany of scarily successful knife-wielding massacres in China in recent years. It also occurs to me that, had the Columbine twerps not had guns conveniently around, they very well might have been less inclined to half-ass their bombs, or they might have tried again with new bombs after fixing their initial flaws. It has been reported that, had their bombs worked as intended, the death toll would have been in the hundreds.

    A world of machete massacres and bombings is not an improvement over our present state of affairs. If we wish to address a problem of violence, we need to look elsewhere than the superficial, simplistic analyses.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •