New Mexico Shooting, 5 dead, 15 year old arrested

[Gauntleted Fist]

Security against...other people with guns?

Yes in fact.

So you use the problem to solve the problem. That makes sense.

[Big Jim P]

Yes in fact.

So you use the problem to solve the problem. That makes sense.

The guns are not the problem. Criminals are.

[Gauntleted Fist]

The guns are not the problem. Criminals are.

Guns are most certainly the problem.

What other weapon enables criminals to attack and kill from long range with little to no training, and is violent enough to immediately neutralize people they attack other than guns?

[Veceria]

The guns are not the problem. Criminals are.

Guns are most certainly the problem.

What other weapon enables criminals to attack and kill from long range with little to no training, and is violent enough to immediately neutralize people they attack other than guns?

Crossbows. Bows and throwing spears, if you're trained with them.

[Farnhamia]

Guns are most certainly the problem.

What other weapon enables criminals to attack and kill from long range with little to no training, and is violent enough to immediately neutralize people they attack other than guns?

Crossbows. Bows and throwing spears, if you're trained with them.

Right. Be serious. And he said "with little or no training." It's disingenuous statements like this that prevent the issue from being discussed in an adult manner.

[Big Jim P]

The guns are not the problem. Criminals are.

Guns are most certainly the problem.

What other weapon enables criminals to attack and kill from long range with little to no training, and is violent enough to immediately neutralize people they attack other than guns?

And what other weapon can the victim use to neutralize the threat under the same conditions?

[Gauntleted Fist]

Guns are most certainly the problem.

What other weapon enables criminals to attack and kill from long range with little to no training, and is violent enough to immediately neutralize people they attack other than guns?

Crossbows. Bows and throwing spears, if you're trained with them.

Well now.

[Veceria]

Crossbows. Bows and throwing spears, if you're trained with them.

Well now.

Still, crossbows.

Or stones. Assault stones.

[Big Jim P]

Well now.

Still, crossbows.

Or stones. Assault stones.

Are those the ugly black ones?

[Gauntleted Fist]

And what other weapon can the victim use to neutralize the threat under the same conditions?

Guns. So you use the problem, which is guns, to solve the problem. Like I said.

[Veceria]

Still, crossbows.

Or stones. Assault stones.

Are those the ugly black ones?

Yes. With the shoulder thing that goes up, and the barrel shroud.

[Merriwhether]

Guns might not be evil, but evil people having guns is the problem, so which part in that equation do you feel like taking out? Because I, for one, don't think you could ever decipher perfectly who the people are that will use it to kill others, and those who will use it to defend themselves.

Then it is verywrong to restrict the latter from having the means to defend themselves against the former.

Taking that idea, who belongs to the later and who belongs to the former? Who's to know which people amongst us intend to use the weapons to kill and who to defend themselves?

That's the only fundamental flaw, that you don't know who's going to use it for malicious and criminal purposes until the action of killing has actually been performed, and by then, it's too late. If you catch me by surprise with a gun, I would think that your first objective would be to kill me before I'd be able to gain posession of a gun, as well. In that case, the use of guns to defend ones self from an unexpected attack invalidates the intended purpose, and favors the attacker rather than the defender.

Unless, of course, you're a ninja and can understand one's intentions based on highly discrete body language that proposes intend to quickly draw and fire such a weapon on another person. Only in which case can I see logic.

[Big Jim P]

And what other weapon can the victim use to neutralize the threat under the same conditions?

Guns. So you use the problem, which is guns, to solve the problem. Like I said.

And I told you that the guns were not the problem, that the criminals are. Being inanimate objects, guns are neutral.

[Veceria]

And what other weapon can the victim use to neutralize the threat under the same conditions?

Guns. So you use the problem, which is guns, to solve the problem. Like I said.

Guns aren't a problem if they're in the right hands.

[Gauntleted Fist]

Well now.

Still, crossbows.

Or stones. Assault stones.

You can absolutely survive being shot with a crossbow and still be capable of fleeing or fighting back. A gun, depending on caliber of course, will not leave you so intact.

You're also being obtuse. You should stop that.

[Gauntleted Fist]

Guns aren't a problem if they're in the right hands.

But they are a problem if they are in the wrong hands.

And they are used to create a very great deal of problems.

And I told you that the guns were not the problem, that the criminals are. Being inanimate objects, guns are neutral.

Tell me, when did enabling crime stop being a problem?

[Big Jim P]

Then it is verywrong to restrict the latter from having the means to defend themselves against the former.

Taking that idea, who belongs to the later and who belongs to the former? Who's to know which people amongst us intend to use the weapons to kill and who to defend themselves?

That's the only fundamental flaw, that you don't know who's going to use it for malicious and criminal purposes until the action of killing has actually been performed, and by then, it's too late. If you catch me by surprise with a gun, I would think that your first objective would be to kill me before I'd be able to gain posession of a gun, as well. In that case, the use of guns to defend ones self from an unexpected attack invalidates the intended purpose, and favors the attacker rather than the defender.

Unless, of course, you're a ninja and can understand one's intentions based on highly discrete body language that proposes intend to quickly draw and fire such a weapon on another person. Only in which case can I see logic.

There is no logic to disarming a law-abiding citizen while leaving the criminal with 100% of the advantage. The law-abiding outnumber the criminals, and most criminals will not attack an armed citizen.

[Veceria]

Still, crossbows.

Or stones. Assault stones.

You can absolutely survive being shot with a crossbow and still be capable of fleeing or fighting back. A gun, depending on caliber of course, will not leave you so intact.

You're also being obtuse. You should stop that.

Crossbows about as deadly as guns. If you hit the right spot, the target will be dead (quite soon).
And please, don't start with 'depending on caliber'. I don't think that someone will ever use a .50 BMG for a school shooting or similar.

And why should I stop being obtuse? It's fun. You should try it too.

[Big Jim P]

Guns aren't a problem if they're in the right hands.

But they are a problem if they are in the wrong hands.

And they are used to create a very great deal of problems.

And I told you that the guns were not the problem, that the criminals are. Being inanimate objects, guns are neutral.

Tell me, when did enabling crime stop being a problem?

Guns don't enable crime. They are a tool. Nothing more, and nothing less, and as long as there are guns in the hands of criminals, it is a crime itself to disarm potential victims.

[Undivulged Principles]

There have been about 63 mass shootings since 1982, about 25 since 2006, in US.

I think the increase has been due to mass media coverage. It is a person's chance to be globally known. Pretty high chance too compared to alternatives. Perhaps the stupidest.claim to fame there is but it isn't like these people are high up the ladder of self confidence.

[Veceria]

Guns aren't a problem if they're in the right hands.

But they are a problem if they are in the wrong hands.

And they are used to create a very great deal of problems.

Well yes, I agree. Never said that they should be in the wrong hands.

There have been about 63 mass shootings since 1982, about 25 since 2006, in US.

I think the increase has been due to mass media coverage. It is a person's chance to be globally known. Pretty high chance too compared to alternatives. Perhaps the stupidest.claim to fame there is but it isn't like these people are high up the ladder of self confidence.

I agree. I heard people, and media as well, calling the amount of deaths from such shootings 'high scores' several times, and that's extremely sad.

[Big Jim P]

But they are a problem if they are in the wrong hands.

And they are used to create a very great deal of problems.

Well yes, I agree. Never said that they should be in the wrong hands.

Indeed, and all gun-control does is ensure that the wrong hands are the only ones with the gun.

[Big Jim P]

There have been about 63 mass shootings since 1982, about 25 since 2006, in US.

I think the increase has been due to mass media coverage. It is a person's chance to be globally known. Pretty high chance too compared to alternatives. Perhaps the stupidest.claim to fame there is but it isn't like these people are high up the ladder of self confidence.

Even with that increase, gun crimes are still going down and have been for decades.

[Neragua]

My sympathies go out to the families of those killed.

Although more related to school shootings, I agree with Roger Ebert's analysis on such events as these: kids shooting other kids and/or adults seemingly without known cause (although a clearer cause may be found later). Specifically, the part that relates to this is his analysis of the role the media play in such tragedies as these.

Let me tell you a story. The day after Columbine, I was interviewed for the Tom Brokaw news program. The reporter had been assigned a theory and was seeking sound bites to support it. "Wouldn't you say," she asked, "that killings like this are influenced by violent movies?" No, I said, I wouldn't say that. "But what about 'Basketball Diaries'?" she asked. "Doesn't that have a scene of a boy walking into a school with a machine gun?" The obscure 1995 Leonardo Di Caprio movie did indeed have a brief fantasy scene of that nature, I said, but the movie failed at the box office (it grossed only $2.5 million), and it's unlikely the Columbine killers saw it.

The reporter looked disappointed, so I offered her my theory. "Events like this," I said, "if they are influenced by anything, are influenced by news programs like your own. When an unbalanced kid walks into a school and starts shooting, it becomes a major media event. Cable news drops ordinary programming and goes around the clock with it. The story is assigned a logo and a theme song; these two kids were packaged as the Trench Coat Mafia. The message is clear to other disturbed kids around the country: If I shoot up my school, I can be famous. The TV will talk about nothing else but me. Experts will try to figure out what I was thinking. The kids and teachers at school will see they shouldn't have messed with me. I'll go out in a blaze of glory."

In short, I said, events like Columbine are influenced far less by violent movies than by CNN, the NBC Nightly News and all the other news media, who glorify the killers in the guise of "explaining" them. I commended the policy at the Sun-Times, where our editor said the paper would no longer feature school killings on Page 1. The reporter thanked me and turned off the camera. Of course the interview was never used. They found plenty of talking heads to condemn violent movies, and everybody was happy.

[Gauntleted Fist]

Guns don't enable crime.

Really. I guess we're just talking about a fantasy world when we talk about gun crime.

They are a tool. Nothing more, and nothing less, and as long as there are guns in the hands of criminals, it is a crime itself to disarm potential victims.

So if we totally banned guns (Except for perhaps the military) would you be fine with no one having guns?

This would involve a constitutional amendment and every reasonable and necessary step to enforce such a ban.