Reporter/camera man murdered.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

You don't need a license to own knives or rocks.  And they have killed millions if not billions of people throughout history.  

Guns are an efficient tool to use to level the playing field between people.  They help the oppressed resist the oppressors.

Knives have many other uses aside from killing folks. What about a .38 Special? Ever try to cut up a steak with one?

Seriously, you take a test to get your driver's license without complaint, even though running folks over ain't really the best way to go about offing the guy who just fucked your Jenny Mae.

I'm all for the right to own guns.  But if you want that right, just like you want the right to free speech, you must use it responsibly.  If you shout "Fire!" in a theater, you're being a dick, and should go to jail. If you're pissed that lil Jenny Mae got fucked by your neighbor, perhaps you should get a divorce attorney, rather than a knife, or a car, or a gun?

As far as using small arms to defend against government depredations, check back with me when you have a company of soldiers, a sound chain of command, a little air support, perhaps some armor, a good operational plan, and radio communications ... because until then, you're really burnt toast. Sorry, I've had this debate with another member, and it is completely unconvincing.

All actions start with just one individual.  In socities that oppress people the oppression starts with one specific individual who is intent on using the herd to screw over people he doesn't like.  It's always easier to get rid of that specific individual than to fight the herd of sheep that blindly follow him.  It would have been a lot easier to have killed Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo than to fight Germany, Italy, and Japan.  

But in the incident under discussion the perp took action against two people he thought did him wrong.  If they did then they will never do it again to anyone else.  Was the perp just a deluded fool?  Maybe he was.  After all, about half of the population is nuts and maybe he was simply a nutter.  So never assume that the person you're pissing off is sane.  He may be a little more crazier than you are.

[Napoléon]

But that doesn't really accomplish anything.

NEWSFLASH: None of us are accomplishing shit on this forum besides airing our opinions. Stop making out like we're doing anything other than that.

[Exian]

Still, it'd be nice not to have to worry about what "that person over there" has tucked in their pants. It would have been doubly nice to see Ant-Man in the theater with my daughter. Chances are pretty slim that I'll be shot down for no reason, I guess, and they're probably pretty slim that the theater we go to will be hit on the same exact night we decide to go, if hit at all, but it would be nice if chance wasn't our only safeguard.

I'm not even anti-gun. I like them. I've shot at a range a few times. They're in all the best movies and videogames. I live in the country, all my neighbors have multiple guns, and it's kind of messed up that that comforts me. They'll be the first reactionary defense until the cops make it down the long country roads, if something happens. But why handguns? There doesn't seem to be a need for them except for being easily concealed and to take down humans. Sounds messed up, but I'd happily get rid of all handguns in exchange for open carry of rifles and shotguns. I'd much rather see it coming. The element f surprise is what I hate the most, and I don't feel very free with it around.

[The Grand Nudger]

Takedown is why, in most cases.  If you have a bolt action out in the woods hunting a cougar and you miss, you want something quick to draw and level, with alot of takedown.  Or, you want to use a semi-auto to hunt cougars.  They are easily concealed though, good guns for criminals, easy to transport.  They're a fucking problem, and I'm alot easier to get onboard when it comes to handgun legislation than I am to get onboard regarding 20gauge shotgun legislation. It's not -guns- in the general that are the problem we're fretting over...it's a particular subset of guns, and where we allow them to proliferate.

Handgun legislation, btw, shown to be effective in this country.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Speaking of gun laws, do you know when the first gun control law was passed in America?

Kentucky got the ball rolling in 1813 when it passed a law against carrying concealed guns.  That led to the battle to make the Second Amendment an individual right.

And we all know about the western movies where the local sheriff goes all bad-ass on any cowboy who dares wear a gun in his town.  Hollywood must have made 30,000 movies about that one topic and they were always in favor of gun control.  

So everyone has been subjected to a lifetime of gun control propaganda.  It's part of American culture.  People are so brainwashed one way or another that it's almost impossible for anyone to change his mind about the topic.  You either love gun control or you hate it.  And since it has been going on for 200 years it's doubtful if anyone will give in soon. 

So the question should be something along the lines of is it ever OK to kill someone who did you wrong?  People are going to do it anyway by any means available.

[The Grand Nudger]

-and now Kentucky is open carry...lol.

[Exian]

I'm not very well versed on the gun debate because I've avoided the topic until I was settled one way. And dammit if I'm still not caught in the middle. Has there been any emphasis on the difference between country and city gun ownership (I imagine it differs by state)? I notice that people who are against guns and live in the city are against guns more so, and pro gun people who live in the country are pro more so. And I can see myself agreeing with both. What I also see a lot of is a disconnect between city and country dwellers in the debate as far as seeing the other side. Most of the time they don't seem to consider the other's living situation.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Knives have many other uses aside from killing folks. What about a .38 Special? Ever try to cut up a steak with one?

Seriously, you take a test to get your driver's license without complaint, even though running folks over ain't really the best way to go about offing the guy who just fucked your Jenny Mae.

I'm all for the right to own guns.  But if you want that right, just like you want the right to free speech, you must use it responsibly.  If you shout "Fire!" in a theater, you're being a dick, and should go to jail. If you're pissed that lil Jenny Mae got fucked by your neighbor, perhaps you should get a divorce attorney, rather than a knife, or a car, or a gun?

As far as using small arms to defend against government depredations, check back with me when you have a company of soldiers, a sound chain of command, a little air support, perhaps some armor, a good operational plan, and radio communications ... because until then, you're really burnt toast. Sorry, I've had this debate with another member, and it is completely unconvincing.

All actions start with just one individual.  In socities that oppress people the oppression starts with one specific individual who is intent on using the herd to screw over people he doesn't like.  It's always easier to get rid of that specific individual than to fight the herd of sheep that blindly follow him.  It would have been a lot easier to have killed Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo than to fight Germany, Italy, and Japan.  

But in the incident under discussion the perp took action against two people he thought did him wrong.  If they did then they will never do it again to anyone else.  Was the perp just a deluded fool?  Maybe he was.  After all, about half of the population is nuts and maybe he was simply a nutter.  So never assume that the person you're pissing off is sane.  He may be a little more crazier than you are.

That's all well and true, but it doesn't answer the points I made, so I'm unsure why you quoted me at all. Perhaps you could clarify to put it in the context of an actual reply, or at worst, edit your post so as to strip you quoting me?

Because otherwise, it seems a senseless gibe using my post as a platform without addressing a single thing I said.

Hope that helps.

[AFTT47]

But that doesn't really accomplish anything.

NEWSFLASH: None of us are accomplishing shit on this forum besides airing our opinions. Stop making out like we're doing anything other than that.

So you want to vent. No ambition of influencing another person and contributing to their growth. That's fine. Have fun.

[Thumpalumpacus]

 You either love gun control or you hate it.  

Again, I totally disagree. There is a place for gun control, even as other rights as well also have limits (usually met when you encroach the rights of others). 2A is no different. We have the right to gun ownership under certain conditions, but your earlier-posted "no control at all" idea is clearly not one of those conditions.

Would you support the right to gun ownership on prison? How about Congress? (Wait, forget I asked that.) How about when I pull a gun angry because the breakfast menu doesn't end until ten -thirty?

ALL rights have limits. Those limits lie where they infringe the rights of others. Members of society have a right to not be shot. That means we have a right to vet prospective gun owners.