Several reported shot at Illinois university

I completely agree on the preparation/complacency issue. I have read that many people die in house fires, while sitting upright in their beds listening to the smoke detector go off. As you tend to do whatever it was that you have planned to do when presented with a panic situation, those who plan nothing typically do the same.

Shiny Side Up!
Bill

 

And how many of those were mass-knifings?

And now we're going to hear how everyone in Country A is armed and gun deaths there are negligible or non-existent. And from the same people we hear how it's not the weapon that kills, it's the person. Therefore, everyone here should be armed, which is false logic because it's obvious that there's something in the water here creating sociopaths bent on mass murder. I'm anti-gun and think flooding the streets with more of them is a big mistake. More guns will only put them in the hands of more idiots, kind of like cars. But there are obviously bigger social issues at work here.

 

Yes, there is a larger social issue at work, hence much of my post was directed towards that issue. If we were to remove guns, these people, having no respect for any life, will simply turn to the next available weapon, and there are many. There is also the issue of "copy cat" crimes via the news media's sensationalizing of these stories. You may recall the spate of "aggressive driving" rage incidents several years ago. Doing so, it becomes obvious that, after one occurs, there soon follows several more due to the publicity received by the first. The same is true of the recent outburst of people killing their children. We have many weapons near at hand, quite a few of which are capable of killing mass numbers of people. As has already been mentioned, there is the automobile, a 4000 pound missile capable of not only killing but enabling a quick get-a-way. Further, there are knives, chainsaws, poisons of all sorts, IEDs, hammers (the chosen weapon of the Hell's Angels), bats, machetes, etc.

Shiny Side Up!
Bill

 

Most stabbings are not mass killings, so you dotn hear about them cuz they are not "sexy" enough for the news.

if you wanted to do a mass killing in a very crowded public place, ala a mall, a knife would be a much better weapon than a gun. the killer would be completely undetected. We've been over this before. Thankfully most homicidal deathwish *******s arent smart enough to use the proper weapon when the go to off themselves cuz mommy didnt love them enough.

as for societies that ARE completely armed and yet there is little gun crime... you brush that aside, but yet offer no explanation for how that can be. You seem to think that the gun is the problem, not the person using it. If this is the case, you must address this point.

There are CLEARLY bigger social issues at work here. Its the people that are the problem, not the guns. I'm not even for "flooding the streets" with guns.. whatever that means. I'm for my rights to own a firearm NOT being infringed, my right to be able to to defend myself, my family and my property. Anti-gunners dont feel I should have that right.

 

I just don't like when murders like this are compared to the number of traffic deaths. Road fatalities are generally accidental (obviously not talking about DUI). Shootings like at NIU are violent homicidal acts, making them very different.

 

Cars are for transportation, knives are for cutting/slicing, baseball bats are for sports, rope is for hoisting and tying, .. and all of these things (and countless more) can and have been used for killing. But guns are only for KILLING .. nothing else (don't say .. target shooting as that is just a pseudo-killing). So don't try to justify universal gun possession by trying to put them in the category of "just another item that could possibly kill someone." No analogue there.

 

That's the dumbest thing I've read today. So trying to hit the center of this with a projectile is "pseudo-killing"? Sounds more like a contest of skill to me, or a sport.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Every time I hear one of these stories I wonder what the penalty of being caught with a gun in a gun free zone is. Clearly the "gun free zone" law isn't stopping the people that are intent on causing harm to others with a gun from bringing one in, but what's the penalty for people that want to be able to protect themselves from these psychopaths.

Also I can't agree at all with the people that say that the gun is the problem. I'm sure the statistics will support that almost every single person that has purchased their gun legally and licensed it hasn't killed someone with it or went on a killing spree. It's not the regular public that abides by the gun laws that we should be worrying about its those that get them illegally and will get them illegally even if they're all banned.

 

If Robbie wants to argue that that's not a sport/competition, then I guess we should ban darts, bowling, and baseball since all those involve a projectile moving towards a target.

 

You are mostly correct in that, outside of sport shooting in one form or another, guns are made for killing. However, where you ere in your assessment of firearms, is that there is a form of killing that is justified and, unfortunately, completely necessary. The protection of one's family, property, and life are reasons for justifiable homicide. If it were not, armed police officers would be unwelcome in society. However, the police are armed because, with the nature of their job, they come into contact with people who, however unfortunate it might be, have little regard for, and frequently contempt of, human life. Likewise, in the course of one's life, there is a reasonable chance that one might also come into contact with just such a person, and, if that person be bent upon a course of action that might injure or kill, the need for a firearm is equal to the citizen as to the police officer. Remember, while the odds of this occurring might be small, at the time of need neither the officer nor the citizen will have much recourse to any other means of defense other than the means at hand, and therefore chance favors the prepared. How sad it must be to loose a loved one because, as a law abiding citizen, you were unable to defend them at their time of need.

Do we really wish to be helpless victims like those in England, where self defense is illegal? Is not self defense a God given right, unalienable and inseparable from the right to life and liberty? I suppose in this day where we ignore real heroes while elevating the victim to hero status, I should not be surprised, but I for one will defend myself, my wife, or you or wife, and I do not wish to be at a disadvantage because someone in government fails to see that I have that right. In fact, I believe firmly that I have not only that right, but that obligation. There is no self respecting man that can walk past a rape in progress and not act in the defense of the woman so victimized because he recognizes that going to her aid is his obligation to society, his wife, and the God that endowed them all with the afore mentioned unalienable rights.

So, yes the firearm is a weapon designed to kill, but it weapon that becomes a tool for defense by offering the lawful user the means to defend himself by, if required, taking the life of one who would do him harm.

Shiny Side Up!
Bill

 

The only thing I can think of to compare to an armed citizenery in these cases is this:

Lets say a Marine goes nuts on base in Iraq. He takes his m4 and starts shooting anything that moves. In about a secound he is going to have close to 30 shots coming right back at him from each of everything that moves.

 

The lefties see things how they want to see things and it's all backed upon hysterical emotion. Following their logic, if "guns" do the killing, then the military hardware is responsible for all the killing in war....who do the lefties blame for the war? BUSH. It only further demonstrates their inability to reason out the individual pulling the trigger in responsible for the shootings, not the firearm itself.



I forgot who said here in Fchat, but I like the analogy because it nails the point:

Gun-Free Zones - Mass shootings
Gun Range - Zero mass shootings.
Which do you want?

 

News flash .. the nut case in Illinois went through the gun purchase and screening process. I even heard he obtained a concealed weapons permit. So this guy is on serious meds for serious mental issues but is able to simply buy the guns and get the legal permits to carry them. Ditto VA Tech. Hmm .. so much for that rigorous process that you gun toters say is in place to insure that weapons are in the hands of the "right" people.

 

Gun toters? You sure are fast and loose with the labeling. I read the article you are referring to and it made no mention of what the meds were or what they were for. Serious mental issues? You don't know that. It also made mention that he just broke up with a GF. To some people that is a life-ending event. Maybe that's why he snapped. You're making a lot of assumptions here, my friend.

FWIW, I really hope that laws can be enacted to prevent anyone on meds for a mental condition or anyone with a history of mental illness, no matter how long ago, from buying guns. I really do.

 

Naturally, people will slip through the cracks of any system, regardless of how well it was set up. As an example, just look at some of the infanticides or homicides of small children that have occurred in the past, where, despite the parents having been arrested/charged/seriously suspected of injuring their children, a flaw in the system allows them the chance to kill said children. Now, do not misconstrue this to mean that I have no sympathy for the victims here, what happened was a terrible tragedy. However, what if just one other person had been armed? Given the odds, most likely that one person would not have been off of their meds, crazy, or in some other way willing to join in the rampage. No, instead that one other person would have had the ability to stop this tragedy in progress and save many who were otherwise injured or killed. In fact, although no one has had to actually open fire on the perpetrator, this has already happened in a few school shootings!

Unfortunately, in the state in which I live, Maryland, people are thought to be too dangerous when given the option to defend themselves, and so are helpless in such situations. If a shooter such as this were to enter into my local mall and go on a rampage, my only recourse is to phone the police and hope that they arrive and disable the shooter sometime before he kills me. This will all happen as I cower and ponder that I have a nice, fully functional Smith and Wesson .45 tucked neatly into a safe at home, where it will do me and my fellow victims absolutely no good.

On the other hand, let's look at how this same situation could turn out if it were to happen a mere 20 miles from here in a mall in Virginia where they have a "shall issue" law regarding concealed carry permits. Our shooter walks into the mall and commences to fire upon everyone he can. Myself and several other concealed carry permit holders (this assumes that I live in VA, and have my permit) will very likely open fire on the perpetrator, thus seriously injuring or killing him. Now, in which society would you feel safer?

In the end, this comes down to the false sense of security a gun-free zone, or a state with restrictive gun-laws gives to its populace. This false sense is bolstered by the fact that people in general do not like to contemplate bad things happening to them. Unfortunately, bad things do happen, and chance tends to favor the prepared. You will find that most people do not look for fire exit signs. Why? Because they are either complacent or negligent of their own responsibility to themselves and their loved ones. The state simply cannot protect you from either yourself or any sort of dangerous situation in which you may find yourself. Police are an "after the fact" unit who, at most, may arrive during the latter portion of a crime and therefore cannot be relied upon to protect the average citizen from criminals and maniacs who might prey upon them. Even the courts have ruled that the police are not responsible for such protection!

I remember a train crash that occurred in Silver Spring, Maryland about 15 years ago. A commuter train had collided with a freight train, and after the collision, portions of the commuter train caught fire. Now, being a commuter train, many, if not all, of the people on board had ridden this train for years. Still, no one had the presence of mind to pull the window release mechanism to allow themselves and the passengers trapped with them to escape the burning train. Instead, witnesses gave accounts of a myriad of people beating their fists on the windows in a vain attempt to break them. The news media, as well as many others, complained that the rescue people did not get there in time to rescue those trapped in the burning cars. Now, with all respect due to those victims who perished in those burning cars, I must ask why it is the sole responsibility of the fire fighters to rescue people trapped inside a burning railroad car when, if only the people had been responsible for themselves, they could have rescued themselves!

Fires happen. People go berserk. Maniacs go on rampages. Serial killers stalk their prey. And all of this occurs beyond the reach of law enforcement! Our only choice, lest we wish to live in the happy-happy, joy-joy world of The Demolition Man movie is to protect ourselves. If we wish to be constantly coddled, cradled, and watched over by mom-the-government, we will soon live in a world that resembles Romper Room.

Shiny Side Up!
Bill

 

This was just posted over at the Big Dog forums. Interestingly the thread has gone on for two pages with not one voice supporting gun control. I'm beginning to think bikers are the new patriots.

 

Great points, so true, and very well said. Much of this touches on what I was talking about in my post earlier in the thread.

 

It is too bad that some otherwise very intellegent people will find fault with this history lesson and still side with Gun-Control. Back then the world was huge, today its a village, it could never happen again....... yada, yada, yada. All reasoning goes out the window and raw emotion without an ounce of rational thought, reigns supreme.

A true story. A friend who WAS anti-gun said years ago that all these things could NEVER happen in America. We are too civil for that and our government would never try such a thing, la, la, la.....

Years later, along comes a highly pissed-off b*itch call "Katrina," (who reminded me of my 1st ex-wife, but Katrina was not as violent).

What happened? The cops went after the armed lawabiding citizens defending their own waterlogged neighborhoods and left the criminals alone to rape, kill, and pillage.

What happened next? My friend swallowed his pride, admitted he was (sadly) wrong, and became a life member of the NRA.


He who doesn't learn from history, WILL repeat it. Even in the USA.