I'm watching the news and they're covering the Alabama shooting now. They "credit" law enforcement with stopping the shooting from going on longer and hurting more people. Why wasn't anyone armed to stop it sooner?

You can call me whatever names you want, Dirty Iluvatar. You're obviously a child. You don't respond to content because you don't have any content. Cry more like anyone cares.

...What are you talking about? "freedom not to have police or army standing around at every corner"? What are you talking about? You're comparing the USA to a police state where police are at every corner? Are you proposing that as a more reasonable alternative? What is your point?

"freedom to go outside without everyone around you being armed and willing to do self justice"? What is that? How is anyone more free because they're not free to defend themself? What kind of connection are you trying to claim exists between having the freedom to defend oneself and being "willing to do self justice"? Are you proposing that shooting a maniac engaged in a shooting spree in order to stop them from killing more people would be immoral? That's the best I can guess from what you said. Again I ask, what are you talking about?

You obviously do not speak english well, Schniepel. I can't even tell what you meant to say. Add to that that what you meant to say was probably nonsensical and we've got complete incoherence in your post! You're wrong on your proposed required order as well.

"What are you talking about? You're comparing the USA to a police state where police are at every corner? Are you proposing that as a more reasonable alternative? What is your point?"

No i am not compaing the US to a police state. but your statement "Why wasn't anyone armed to stop it sooner?" implicates that you a) want a police state or b) want simply everyone to be armed

In a society where EVERYONE is carrying a gun around self justice will occur more and more often. For sure it is not immoral to shoot someone who is going amok but arming everyone simply is not the sollution. Its the polices job to prevent crime and violence should be a privelege the police has.

I do not think weapons in general can solve the problem of more and more people being out of their minds.

And last but not least.. you are right. i do not speal english very well.. I only use it on the internet and ther i come along fine. but instead of throwing insults at me about how bd i can speak.. why do not come up and educate me with the correct order?

No, my questioning why no one was armed to stop it sooner does not imply (that's the word you were looking for) that I want a police state or everyone to be armed. It explicitly asked why no one was armed and stopped this maniac sooner. I said what I meant. You started talking about police states without responding to my question.

>>In a society where EVERYONE is carrying a gun around self justice will occur more and more often.<<

So it baffles you that towns in which most of the populace are armed that many haven't had a murder in decades?

>>Its the polices job to prevent crime and violence should be a privelege the police has.<<

The courts of the USA disagree with you. The police are not obligated to protect any individual, even given notification that a crime is being committed. It is NOT the job or obligation of the police to protect you. If only the police were granted the "privelege" of using violence to protect anyone and no one had the right to protect themselves in the USA, the crime statistics for the USA would probably more than double like those of AU and UK.

>>I do not think weapons in general can solve the problem of more and more people being out of their minds.<<

Great argument. Nobody is claiming that firearms are a solution to a problem of psychosis in a population. But you are arguing that nobody ought to have the right to defend themselves from people who are out of thier minds.

"Canada which is much more comparable to the US then GB, started strict gun control, and their crimes rose. and in the US Chicago and Washington DC banned firearms and saw their crimes rise."

Saw this thought I'd make note of it.  Yes crime in Canada rose and then guess what...it went back down again.  Lesson learned, transitions are tough.  Crime went up when taxes were raised on cigarrettes and gas too does that mean they shouldn't?  No it means something happened that pissed off a lot of people and surprise surprise some of those people broke the law.  I have a boss who hunts and he's quite pissed off about the gun control in this country, but it's not because he feels he needs the protection it's because it interfere's with his hobby.

I don't own a gun, I have no desire or intent to ever own a gun, and unless I decide to take up hunting I never will.  Now do I feel unsafe, no because I realize that if someone has a gun pointed at me I will not be able to draw, aim, and fire my gun before they do.  If however someone has a gun pointed at someone else, I would be fined or go to prison if I shot the gunman.  I can't think of any instance where my having a gun would help me if someone meant me harm.  If someone intends to rob my home and knows I have a gun they'll simply be more quiet or look in my window and shoot me while I sleep.  If someone's mugging me and has a gun in my face I have a better chance of knocking their gun away so I take a shot at worst in the shoulder and punching them in the throat (kinda hard to do anything with a crushed wind pipe) than I do of drawing and firing a gun without them noticing or getting off a shot of their own.  A gun can only protect you if it's in your hand.

> A gun can only protect you if it's in your hand.

And what...a knife can magically stab people?

> sKoE )= wrote:

> > A gun can only protect you if it's in your hand.

And what...a knife can magically stab people?

A gun can only protect you if it's in your hand?

I'm too lazy to read whoever said that but whoever said that must be either the stupidest, most idiotic person I've ever met or they are ridiculously naive.

am I to assume that I have a gun in my hand, I'm robbing sKoE for all the money he's got (which is probably a dime and 2 pennies ) I'm protecting myself? X(

Edit: Ok then, DPS said that, ARE YOU A FREAKING IDIOT!? X(

i am seriously on the verge of exploding because of the level of stupidity there! I'm stupid, I'm an idiot and I'm naive, I'll be the first to admit that (I'm also gullible) but even I know that if you have a gun in your hand odds are you aren't protecting yourself. Even if you are protecting yourself, it's not exactly something that you should be concerned about. What's more concerning is how did you end up in a situation that involves you holding a gun to protect yourself?

I discussed with a friend recently that in the US, you can be sued (and have to pay money) for maiming someone with a gun when they come in to rob you. So shoot to kill people!!! So in that case, I was protecting myself won't hold up because they had a knife and you had a gun, and you didn't have to shoot them but you did. And you could look at 5k+ in reparations.

> K. William Fancsali wrote:

> >>What's more concerning is how did you end up in a situation that involves you holding a gun to protect yourself?<<

That's right. The victims of robberies, muggings, rapes, and home invasions are in fact CRIMINALS whose actions are suspect! BLAME THE VICTIMS! Brilliant strategy. Your reason is irrefutable!

I told you sometimes I'm stupid

plus, it is concerning how you end up in a situation that you need a gun to protect yourself. 1. lack of home security 2. stupidity (don't walk in dark alleyways late at night, it's not smart, not even in a group) and 3. most women should know by now that you should have at least 3 people in your group when walking around at night. Hell, we even do that with church groups, 1 adult  (or more) and at least 2 kids so should something happen, there is a group and an adult able to handle what is occurring.

All of these imagined reasons why having a firearm in your home puts you in danger (it doesn't) and having a firearm on your person or in your car never offers protection (it does. often.) are just examples of the lack of a case there is to be made for gun control. The statistics on personal safety and the most basic right to protect oneself and one's loved ones are all against you. Pretending doesn't change anything.

OH NOESSSS... FACTS :OOO

ban guns and we're back to derailing trains with 2X4s