And in doing so, you'd be partially responsible for the next school shooting, for extremists massing heavy weaponry on US soil, for some nutcase taking down an aircraft with your anti-air weapons etc.

What's next, allowing people to have nerve gas because gas doesn't kill people, people kill people?

Also, the overwhelming majority of schizophrenics are no danger to themselves or to others. Those who are tend to get locked up to be treated. So can I conclude that you'd let every single schizophrenic that isn't being treated against his will (for example james holmes before shooting up that movie theatre) have not only guns, but the worst kind, with the worst kind of ammo?

Imo that's alot of lives to be putting at steak just so you can "prevent tyranny".

1) you can't do mass killings with a knife, point invalid
2) easier access to guns means more crimes committed with guns. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand that.
3) your point being? kinda confused on this one.
4) bs and no argument whatsoever
5) still that guy had easy access to guns and actually had a gun permit despite his mental illness. something you'd be fine with.
6) wouldn't it be better to actually reduce the amount of mass killings rather that to bet on the slight chance that someone else with a gun would take out the shooter who tends to have heavy weaponry, body armor etc?
7) example please on how arming the populace has actually stopped tyranny in the past. Personally i think education and freedom of information are much better safeguards against tyranny than to allow every nutcase to have as many weapons as they like.
8) which would be another way of saying you don't care about the victims of the shootings?

I made the point that an armed man demonstrated the ability of an armed populace to resist authorities--That one man could survive so long and cause so much harm is indicative of the much greater capacity of groups. Because I pointed out his use of a rifle, you jumped on the fact that he often didn't, as if it had any bearing on the point whatsoever.

What was silly was you jumping on an irrelevant detail, because that's the best you could do. And that its context--in which it was an irrelevant detail to that point--was lost on you.

vissertje is similarly clueless. His first point, for instance, implies a distinction between guns and knives. But you can't commit mass killings with guns against an armed populace either, so his point only rationally stresses that gun free zones are far more dangerous than either firearms or knives.

His second point is based upon the supposition that "crimes committed with guns" are inherently more sinister and harmful than "crimes." It is based upon the notion that, if "crimes committed with guns" can be reduced, it's worth an even greater increase in "crimes." This is irrational, yet he provides no explanation for this rationale.

To the Point about the knive: Knives have another purpose then killing. Guns dont!

> Freezy wrote:

> To the Point about the knive: Knives have another purpose then killing. Guns dont!<

Fighting knives dont

texas has no restrictions on carrying any firearm

but it bans tomahawks

racist bastards, that's a Dixie state

Great post Reindeer. Sums up my exact thoughts, just a lot better put together than I'd manage to.

1) you can't do mass killings with a knife, point invalid

No, but the largest mass killings have been accomplished using box cutters, fertilizers and poison.  Furthermore, I could easily kill WAAAAAAY more people by driving my plow truck by a WalMart on black friday and use the blade to scrape people against the wall than I could if I tried to mow them down with a gun.

2) easier access to guns means more crimes committed with guns. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand that.

Very narrow thought process, those who break the law to sell drugs or break into your house won't really give a damn about the ethical or lawful repercussions of having a gun.  They have no problems getting access to illegal drugs - you think illegal guns will be difficult?

6) wouldn't it be better to actually reduce the amount of mass killings rather that to bet on the slight chance that someone else with a gun would take out the shooter who tends to have heavy weaponry, body armor etc?

Your flaw in logic is that you think more guns=more homicides.  Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Please note that Russia and Mexico - both with far stricter gun laws then the US - have 5 times the number of homicides per capita.

Also note there is a reason that suicide bombers don't walk into a place a shoot it up.  Using explosives is more effect as a method of mass murder,

7) example please on how arming the populace has actually stopped tyranny in the past. Personally i think education and freedom of information are much better safeguards against tyranny than to allow every nutcase to have as many weapons as they like.

....anytime tyranny has been overthrown its be done by guns.  American revolution ring a bell?  Ok, if thats to long ago for you how about the overthrow of Momar Kadafi or the change of rule in Egypt or whats happening in Syria.  Tyranny doesn't just give up - it has always needed to be removed by force.  If it could be removed by voting it out - it by definition wouldn't be tyranny.

How about an example of what happens when an unarmed population speaks out againts tyranny?

Google "Tiananmen Square", if you do so from China you will miss some information.  Again, China has very strict gun laws yet the number of civilians "lawfully" mass murdered prove your point to be ignorable.  Being educated doesn't stop a tank from rolling over you and no matter how many college degrees you have will still be imprisoned in China for speaking out.

"The crackdown initiated on June 3

> Mister Spock wrote:

> Thank you for your conjecture on how adults conduct themselves and interact, Reindeer. I'm happy to you inform you, however, that adults do not interact like 6 year olds on a playground.

> When the government is armed and you're not, you're a subject, not a citizen.

> I'm glad you think you can beat up home invaders. I'm sure you're invincible on the internet. But you're not in real life, and neither is anybody else. There are countless tales of the elderly and disabled defending themselves with firearms. Not everyone is an invincible body builder with martial arts training like you. Firearms and a little practice enable them to defend themselves better than your "survival of the fittest" defense strategy. Not everyone thinks you deserve to be victimized when you're old or disabled, as you do.

> Firearms don't magically make people think every confrontation should be deadly. As much as I'll be the first to tell you that people are, on average, pretty damn stupid, they're not nearly as dumb as you make them out to be. Your conjecture is purely academic. Americans have been armed regularly for hundreds of years, and the scenarios which obviously terrify you just aren't common. Anyone that dumb deserves to be removed from society permanently.

In our country there is a saying: don't hit the player, hit the ball.  I was merely trying to lay out my thoughts on this and expected an equally respectful answer, which seems the proper way to discuss something. Your demeaning tone and attempts to make this personally are pathetic and I don't feel like discussing anything with you anymore. Which, I take it, will not concern you in any way.

Reindeer, you are right, it doesn't concern me in any way.

You entered into this conversation with literally nothing but "I conjecture, based on my own baseless feelings, that guns make things more dangerous!" You have absolutely nothing upon which to base your conjecture. In fact, all facts, evidence, and history contradict your naive hypothesis.

I'd ramble off a list of such facts, evidence, and history, but you obviously don't care about these things or you'd have looked into them the tiniest bit before offering your conjecture based purely on feelings.

I don't mean to be personal or demeaning, but let's be honest. You don't know anything about how crime rates are impacted by gun laws and gun bans, or you wouldn't have stated what you did. You don't know anything about the history of America and how lawless the West mostly wasn't (despite the widespread presence of firearms), or you wouldn't have stated what you did.

I respect your opinion and that you have every right to it. But insofar as your opinion is literally nothing but your completely baseless feelings, and you made no attempt to provide a basis for those feelings (beyond... other feelings), I don't see value in responding to them with contrary psychological arguments because there's absolutely no empirical or otherwise scientific evidence which can be used to judge such arguments on either side. Feelings-based arguments are not conducive to discussion, nor do they offer evidence to their side.

Such a feelings-based arguments for gun bans are a large part of why people present fact-based arguments. Because your arguments are fallacious and indicative of nothing but your own insecurity and desire to be comforted by authority, even in the absence of any authority which can actually combat what you're afraid of.

Einstein, as a "security expert," I think we should set up a good mixed martial arts match. Are you interested? I'd specify some detail preferences I have, but I literally cannot stop laughing.

Two Men Enter. One Man Leaves.

They're afraid of firearms. So they support gun bans. It doesn't matter that armed citizens make for polite and respectful populations. They're afraid, and somebody has promised to alleviate their fears, so they'll support that somebody regardless of whether they end up in more danger and subjugated.

Sheep aren't rational. They're herded.