Which is why I want the right to protect myself. If I had gun and was on that plane, I can garuntee that I would have stopped that plane from crashing into any buildings.

Now that I think about it.

What do all you anti-gun people think I should do to defend myself? How would you act if a gunmen came to kill you and your friends while enjoying a day at the mall?

I just can't understand the motives of pro-gun american people. Just can. Every time I see that kind of arguments, I feel REALLY scary.
Just can't undestand the level the level of paranoia and distrust on anything and everything.

Edit: Dark Light Hitome, you wrote will I was doing the same. What will I do? Trust on the security forces, trust on the fact that here on Spain, and the majority of Europe, really few people have guns, and then the possibility is really low. Basically, I trust on something called civilization. I live on a troubled but peacefull place, not on some kind of warzone.

You can only guarantee that you would have tried to, DHL, and in that world you can bet the hijackers would have been carrying the maximum allowed number of guns, too.

In the case of mall shooting, I would hide behind the densest object available. I'd like to think I'd do so while lying on top of my loved ones, but that's every man for himself territory.

Or maybe I'd leap at the gunman and kill him with my bare hands, because everyone's a hero on the internet.

Which is why I want the right to protect myself. If I had gun and was on that plane, I can garuntee that I would have stopped that plane from crashing into any buildings.

More paranoid fantasies.

If you had a gun, so would the hijackers. So would any damn-fool idiot that wanted to experiment with decompression. Fire fights on planes are a bad idea, even if the good guys win.

More importantly, you wouldn't have known it was going to be crashed into a building until too late. If you had known, you could have stopped it anyway. Remember the 4th hijacked plane that day, crashed when the unarmed passengers having heard about the previous crashes attacked the hijackers.

Now that I think about it.

What do all you anti-gun people think I should do to defend myself? How would you act if a gunmen came to kill you and your friends while enjoying a day at the mall?

Place your head firmly between you knees and hope that the cops are somehow faster than a rapist or murderer who is already there

Now that I think about it.

What do all you anti-gun people think I should do to defend myself? How would you act if a gunmen came to kill you and your friends while enjoying a day at the mall?

I'd be the hero I always imagine when I'm sitting around bored or watching action movies. I'd hear the shots and race towards the scene gun drawn. As soon as I saw the shooter, I'd gun him down.

Remember Jared Loughner, overpowered by unarmed people. There was another armed man on the scene. By the time he reacted he almost shot the man with the gun, who had taken it away from the shooter.

1st, I would have attacked the hijackers because they were hijacking, not because they were gonna crash us into a building.

2nd, I am better then most at combat. One thing about guns, is they don't require training at all to use, so most don't train, even the military has substandard training (well maybe the front-line guys, and the marines might make par) so if I win against the drill sergeants, I think I can take a few untrained whackos. Might get hurt in such a confined space with no maneuvering space but hey I honestly wouldn't hestitate.

@ AndrewR
I find that an unacceptable solution.

@ thejeff
That's why in the army we always spout, "positive identification."
It would of course be a staple in the classes I think everyone should take in school.

Now that I think about it.

What do all you anti-gun people think I should do to defend myself? How would you act if a gunmen came to kill you and your friends while enjoying a day at the mall?

If the only choice is to be killed by a criminal or live in a world where everyone is thinking like you I definitely prefer to be dead!!

Your mind is more corrupted than any US government might ever be! You shouldn't even be given the right to carry a pop-up gun.

1st, I would have attacked the hijackers because they were hijacking, not because they were gonna crash us into a building.

2nd, I am better then most at combat. One thing about guns, is they don't require training at all to use, so most don't train, even the military has substandard training (well maybe the front-line guys, and the marines might make par) so if I win against the drill sergeants, I think I can take a few untrained whackos. Might get hurt in such a confined space with no maneuvering space but hey I honestly wouldn't hestitate.

1) Pre 9-11, you would have been arrested for needlessly endangering the lives of your fellow passengers. Airplane hijackings were treated as hostage situations and almost always concluded with no fatalities. Escalating that into a fire fight in a plane would be reckless beyond belief, unless you had reason to believe they were going to do something like crash the plane into a building.

2) Good enough to take multiple targets with weapons already drawn without them getting a shot off and hitting the innocent civilians? Or the pilot? Or something vital to the plane's operation?
And of course all the other armed passengers are either equally skilled or restrained enough to not start anything. Remember, unless you're postulating you have some special clearance, anyone would be able to get arms aboard.

2b) So dangerous a man, but only with your guns. Without them, you wouldn't dare start anything even if they only had boxcutters.

@ AndrewR

I find that an unacceptable solution.

@ thejeff
That's why in the army we always spout, "positive identification."
It would of course be a staple in the classes I think everyone should take in school.

I agree, but that is the only solution they want to allow you.

DarkLightHitomi wrote:

Now that I think about it.

What do all you anti-gun people think I should do to defend myself? How would you act if a gunmen came to kill you and your friends while enjoying a day at the mall?

If the only choice is to be killed by a criminal or live in a world where everyone is thinking like you I definitely prefer to be dead!!

Your mind is more corrupted than any US government might ever be! You shouldn't even be given the right to carry a pop-up gun.

Criminals love folks live you

Is it 'more restrictive' to ask gun owners to act resposnibly with the freedom they've been given?
If you have a whacked out family member, secure your firearms, and get them help. If you know a whacked out family member has applied for a gun permit, report them, and get them help. All that's needed here is due dilligence.
On a national scale...most children are required to have a physical every so many years to attend public schools? Attach an psych eval to this. Keep track of the troubled ones. If by adulthood they haven't shaken whatever has troubled their minds, no firearms.
I know this will give a lot of power to the psych community, but safeguards can be built in to give people recourse in case of corruption. Soemthing to consider, I suppose.

Criminals love folks like you

It's most probably the reason why they'll kill your first!

Now that I think about it.

What do all you anti-gun people think I should do to defend myself? How would you act if a gunmen came to kill you and your friends while enjoying a day at the mall?

Thats why we, in Germany where almost no one has a licence to carry a gun, live in constant fear, because we cannot go to the mall without sreious bodycount among ouf friends an family...

Seriously: Stricter gun laws (not the same as banning guns) make it easier for law enforcement to get the guns out of the criminals hands, too. Less guns on the market will also mean less guns on the black market.

It worked in other countries (UK, Australia) why don't you think it could work in the US?

How would you act if a gunmen came to kill you and your friends while enjoying a day at the mall?

Head for sporting goods and get a crossbow, because if you grab a gun the other people grabbing their guns are going to mistake YOU for the shooter.

Feytharn, your post was 666. Your argument is invalid.

Feytharn, your post was 666. Your argument is invalid.

We are close enough to christmas to cancel that out!

It worked in other countries (UK, Australia) why don't you think it could work in the US?

1)Critical mass.

The more guns there are, the more they become necessary. Because of how the us was formed and settled, we started with immense numbers of rather necessary guns, which means you need guns to defend yourself, which means you need access to guns, that access to guns means criminals have guns,so you need guns to defend yourself so....

2) A constitutional relic

The right to own guns is in our constitution. An act of congress with enough support to change it is less likely than an act of God for two reasons: 1) A divisive political system where the simplest things are impossible just because the other side wants to say down because you say up and 2) The pervasive belief that the holy founding fathers came down from mount Sinai with the holy constitution written in stone.

3) State power:

Because of how the us formed the state is the primary level of government. While you might get some nation wide support for something that could eliminate assault rifle manufacture in say, new york, Idaho will never go for it. This means that the factory can be in idaho, which means that any gun you want is just a car ride away from being yours: there NO customs inspections between the states.

4) Money.

Because of the volume of guns being sold, the NRA is freaking loaded. Our winner take all and primary systems make the US particularly susceptible to lobbying power.

feytharn wrote:

It worked in other countries (UK, Australia) why don't you think it could work in the US?

1)Critical mass.

The more guns there are, the more they become necessary. Because of how the us was formed and settled, we started with immense numbers of rather necessary guns, which means you need guns to defend yourself, which means you need access to guns, that access to guns means criminals have guns,so you need guns to defend yourself so....

2) A constitutional relic

The right to own guns is in our constitution. An act of congress with enough support to change it is less likely than an act of God for two reasons: 1) A divisive political system where the simplest things are impossible just because the other side wants to say down because you say up and 2) The pervasive belief that the holy founding fathers came down from mount Sinai with the holy constitution written in stone.

3) State power:

Because of how the us formed the state is the primary level of government. While you might get some nation wide support for something that could eliminate assault rifle manufacture in say, new york, Idaho will never go for it. This means that the factory can be in idaho, which means that any gun you want is just a car ride away from being yours: there NO customs inspections between the states.

4) Money.

Because of the volume of guns being sold, the NRA is freaking loaded. Our winner take all and primary systems make the US particularly susceptible to lobbying power.

1) Take a look at guns per capita in post WW2 UK, Italy and Spain. It takes serious work, but numbers are not necessarily an issue.

2) Not an argument why it wouldn't work, more of an argument why it isn't tried.

3) Possible, but as it would take a cange of the constitution, federal law would be involved anyway, wouldn't it? (Serious question!)

4) Again, more of an argument of why it isn't tried.

I see criminals...they're everywhere.

It seems that there are three arguments going on here.

1. Pro-gun regulation arguments. These people believe in our right to bear arms, however, they want to draw the line at semi-automatic weapons like the AR-15. There is differing opinion on where this line should be drawn. Some want to restrict handguns. Many want longer waiting periods, psychiatric evaluations, extensive background checks.

2. Banning all guns. I don't think many fall into this camp.

3. Minimum to no regulation on firearms.

Some folks that live in #3 keep jumping between #1 and #2 when it is convenient.

When I go to the doctor I want them to treat my symptoms as well as the disease, the disease is important, but usually it's the symptoms that brought me to the doctor in the first place.

Which is why I want the right to protect myself. If I had gun and was on that plane, I can garuntee that I would have stopped that plane from crashing into any buildings.

Unless they also had guns instead of box cutters.

1) Take a look at guns per capita in post WW2 UK, Italy and Spain. It takes serious work, but numbers are not necessarily an issue.

Do you have numbers available for what was in private hands? Its different when the military takes its property back vs when you take something that belongs to an individual.

2) Not an argument why it wouldn't work, more of an argument why it isn't tried.

It can't work if it isn't tried.

3) Possible, but as it would take a cange of the constitution, federal law would be involved anyway, wouldn't it? (Serious question!)

You would have to amend the constitution to do something with the second amendment, and possibly do something else to give the federal government more power that would go well beyond just guns.

Our constitution is set up to give the states most of the rights to legislate. If the federal government doesn't have a power outlined in the constitution then it (theoretically) can't do it. Over the years the federal government and the courts have gotten very creative in terms of what the federal government can do with the enumerated powers that it has, but there's still the fact that the federal government can only do so much to a state when the state objects or won't cooperate.

1) Unfortunatly I don't have the numbers at hand (and being awake for more then 30 hours now while still working out a serious flu, I don't trust my research skills enough to put up any link I might find unreliable later. I did some research into it during the mid-nineties for a history project at school and I know at least in Italy and Spain it was about privatly owned weapons (though the situation was a bit wonky in sppain considering the civil war...).

2) and it isn't tried because it wouldn't work and it can't work beacause it isn't tried and it isn't tried...

3) Thank you for the explanation.

DarkLightHitomi wrote:

Which is why I want the right to protect myself. If I had gun and was on that plane, I can garuntee that I would have stopped that plane from crashing into any buildings.

Unless they also had guns instead of box cutters.

Not to mention use of guns on a ball flying ball of full with a compression cabin...

1) Unfortunatly I don't have the numbers at hand (and being awake for more then 30 hours now while still working out a serious flu, I don't trust my research skills enough to put up any link I might find unreliable later. I did some research into it during the mid-nineties for a history project at school and I know at least in Italy and Spain it was about privatly owned weapons (though the situation was a bit wonky in sppain considering the civil war...).

Yeah, post- civil war years on Spain where really painfull, with dictatorship and isolated from great part of the world. We have problems now, but nowhere near that time.

Unfortunatly the data I had was assembled pre Google by a German university. All I can do (and definatly not now) is try and find similar data online and compare them to what I have in memory.

Digitalelf wrote:

Krensky wrote:

the Second Amendment is about forming a militia, not personal ownership of firearms.

Thankfully the Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with you (D.C. vs. Heller 2008)...

Yes, we should be thankful that Mr Original Intent ignored what is supposedly the guiding principal of his legal philosophy so he could strip voters of their right to regulate fire arms via state and local laws since the Federal government is incapable of doing so due to the NRA boogie man. He did so via an unconstitutional power too boot.

Never mind that due to his connections with the gun lobby he should have revised himself.

I presume that's "recused." (And yeah, he should have.)

"Original Intent" only matters when it's on his side, doncha know. Or, more accurately, when he thinks it's original intent.

What Better Place Than Here? What Better Time Than Now?

“But if we take away legal gun ownership, people will just get them on the Black Market!” say the people who need their guns for the impending Civil War/Secession/Obama is Gonna Take My Guns/FEMA Camps/U.N. Takeover that is on the way. Isn’t it funny that the people who believe gun prohibition will lead to back alley sales don’t apply the same logic to abortion? If your first reaction, or even your second or third reaction to an entire classroom of kindergartners getting gunned down is, “Oh great, now Obama and the liberals are going to come for my guns” – That’s probably proof enough that you shouldn’t really have weapons around. Also: You are an a&#~%@!.

A wider brush is needed. I don't think that author quite got all fo the sterotypes.
Don't think he put a whole lotta thought in that logic train of his either. We can equate the right to bear arms to the right to privacy where the deaths of children are involved, I suppose.
Wanna compare elective abortion numbers to the number of children killed by firearms?

Not a fair comparison? Of course it isn't.

A wider brush is needed. I don't think that author quite got all fo the sterotypes.

The people not fitting into those stereotypes are generally pro gun control. Evidence : posters in this thread.

If it helps clear things up, I don't give two craps about the kids who were killed in this incident, or any specific incident. I don't hold human life to be sacred to be honest, but rather look toward the big picture of the functioning of a society.

To be honest, I don't have the same kind of emotional reaction that a lot of people have either. I just don't think that gun violence here is causing the society not to function.

meatrace wrote:

If it helps clear things up, I don't give two craps about the kids who were killed in this incident, or any specific incident. I don't hold human life to be sacred to be honest, but rather look toward the big picture of the functioning of a society.

To be honest, I don't have the same kind of emotional reaction that a lot of people have either. I just don't think that gun violence here is causing the society not to function.

/boggle

/boggle

4.2 per 100,000 is enough to cause a loss of function? Six times as many people catch a disease and die than get shot by someone else and die. I'm not worried about catching a deadly disease, and I'm not worried about getting shot.

That's...wow.

Working to make things better is, like, work and stuff...

I was going to respond, but then, I decided not to.
I stand by my original /boggle.

It's pretty calloused. But I understand it, I guess, kinda.
Sometimes you need to remove all emotion from something to get a clear look at it.
Just hard to overlook children's deaths...

Is it 'more restrictive' to ask gun owners to act resposnibly with the freedom they've been given?

If you have a whacked out family member, secure your firearms, and get them help. If you know a whacked out family member has applied for a gun permit, report them, and get them help. All that's needed here is due dilligence.
On a national scale...most children are required to have a physical every so many years to attend public schools? Attach an psych eval to this. Keep track of the troubled ones. If by adulthood they haven't shaken whatever has troubled their minds, no firearms.
I know this will give a lot of power to the psych community, but safeguards can be built in to give people recourse in case of corruption. Soemthing to consider, I suppose.

I hope you don't work in the field of psychiatrics, law enforcement or any other capacity where you have to deal with people in such a capacity, because you are obviously unaware that mental health problems don't necessarily start in people's youth.

And I know you don't, Gentle Giant, or you would be aware that they quite often do.

@ GentleGiant
Really? That's what you took from that?
Well I hope your job or whatever you pursue doesn't involve reading comprehension. Cause, damn.

If I'm lacking reading comprehension I'm obviously not the only one. Seems that both Ciretose and Kryzbyn missed the "necessarily" in my sentence.
Yes, some (many) DO show while children are in school. But it's by no means a safe way to "catch" everyone, since many symptoms don't materialize until later in life or people develop mental health issues after they are out of school. So they won't be caught by that system.

The goal isn't catching everyone, it is catching more than we currently do.

The unattainable perfect should not be the enemy of improvement.

The goal isn't catching everyone, it is catching more than we currently do.

The unattainable perfect should not be the enemy of improvement.

I fully agree with that.

1. For those who want to ban/restrict guns what are your thought on violent games such as Black OPS or movies such as Good Fellas/Dark Knight etc. Should there be tighter controls on those. Raise the viewing age on both to 21? Ban all tarantino films? Other countries do it why not the US.

2. what are your thoughts on the alarming rates of people who are diagnosed with mental illness and that they are allowed to walk the streets. That in many cases mental instutions/programs are closed first when it comes to budget shortfalls so that meaningless programs/jobs are saved.

3. How about the growing drug epidemic and the violence that comes from that?

How much of the the recent problem with gun violence is really a reflection of people who are mentally ill/drug induced or have a history of crime.Seems like we should go back to the days where neighbors watched over each other, and children/adults who have issues were more closely monitored/hospitalized instead of being given a prescription and sent home. More restrictive laws and longer harsher sentencing. Instead we get witness intimidation and more legal red tape for criminals to escape doing real prison time. Parents/teachers are given less authority to punish children. Police are no longer allowed to punich thugs outside the law. If a young adult spray paints property the police have to take them to the station or let them go. You cant make them even clean it up without a judges orders.

The guns are only part of a deeper cultural/lack of punishment problem and its clearly getting worse each generation.

1. For those who want to ban/restrict guns what are your thought on violent games such as Black OPS or movies such as Good Fellas/Dark Knight etc. Should there be tighter controls on those. Raise the viewing age on both to 21? Ban all tarantino films? Other countries do it why not the US.

2. what are your thoughts on the alarming rates of people who are diagnosed with mental illness and that they are allowed to walk the streets. That in many cases mental instutions/programs are closed first when it comes to budget shortfalls so that meaningless programs/jobs are saved.

3. How about the growing drug epidemic and the violence that comes from that?

How much of the the recent problem with gun violence is really a reflection of people who are mentally ill/drug induced or have a history of crime.Seems like we should go back to the days where neighbors watched over each other, and children/adults who have issues were more closely monitored/hospitalized instead of being given a prescription and sent home. More restrictive laws and longer harsher sentencing. Instead we get witness intimidation and more legal red tape for criminals to escape doing real prison time. Parents/teachers are given less authority to punish children. Police are no longer allowed to punich thugs outside the law. If a young adult spray paints property the police have to take them to the station or let them go. You cant make them even clean it up without a judges orders.

The guns are only part of a deeper cultural/lack of punishment problem and its clearly getting worse each generation.

RED FLAG!

Yes, yes, people become mentally ill because we don't PUNISH them enough. Kids don't get discipline because we don't allow the police to act OUTSIDE THE LAW. People shoot up schools BECAUSE OF THE WEED and VIOLENT MOVIES.

You also seem to suggest that mentally ill SHOULDNT BE ALLOWED TO WALK THE STREETS.

1. Guns very clearly contribute to someones ability to execute lethal attacks. Violent movies or video games probably have little to no effect on whether someone decides to execute such an attack.

2. I think literally everyone that's commented in this thread has expressed an interest in increased mental health care.

3. The violence comes from the criminalization of drugs.