Man at Walmart attacked for carrying gun with permit

[Cedoria]

First off, how many school shootings have gun control laws stopped? All they do is take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, making it harder to stop criminals and lunatics.
Second, human nature dictates that people will do whatever they can get away with. If the people were not armed, the government could simply disregard the safeguards. Why? Because nobody could stop them. The system only works if the people can defend it. Also, you must remember that people have the advantage of sheer numbers. The number of people in the nation is far greater than the number of people in the military.

This crazy "what if the government goes evil" scenario is just fucked up rhetoric born from...I suppose massively disproportionate fear and a dash of insecurity?

This.

[Tyrinth]

Most states already have such restrictions in place. Frankly, when you word your stance vaguely like that I would say I agree with you -- even though I know we disagree.

I think if the restrictions are strict enough, then they should be better enforced, there are far too many mass shootings in the US, and the fact that everybody else can have guns too doesn't stop them occurring, thereby negating the main argument of gun rights proponents.

Not really. Virtually every publicized mass shooting in recent times has taken place in a "gun-free zone." It's hardly surprising that no one was around to stop them in such cases.

There have been several attempted mass shootings stopped by a concealed carrier in recent years.

[Ripoll]

First off, how many school shootings have gun control laws stopped? All they do is take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, making it harder to stop criminals and lunatics.
Second, human nature dictates that people will do whatever they can get away with. If the people were not armed, the government could simply disregard the safeguards. Why? Because nobody could stop them. The system only works if the people can defend it. Also, you must remember that people have the advantage of sheer numbers. The number of people in the nation is far greater than the number of people in the military.

I don't mind gun ownership but this kind of argumentation is just shitty. "Safeguarding the system" is total bs.

The military has considerably superior hardware, organisation and logistics. The people of the nation aren't as organised as you somehow imagine them to be and not a all of them would actually stand up against the government through an armed resistance, reducing the numbers of your "safeguard" significantly.

This crazy "what if the government goes evil" scenario is just fucked up rhetoric born from...I suppose massively disproportionate fear and a dash of insecurity?

I agree, but the more logical argument the more informed bunch make is that civilian gun ownership is to counter civil unrest scenarios, like what happened in fergeson. Or to counter local Government corruption (corrupt cops mainly) Un called for search and seaizure etc. Which I still disagree with, but is much more logical than (what if) scenarios and if the Federal Government just suddenly needs to be taken out.

[Ripoll]

I think if the restrictions are strict enough, then they should be better enforced, there are far too many mass shootings in the US, and the fact that everybody else can have guns too doesn't stop them occurring, thereby negating the main argument of gun rights proponents.

Not really. Virtually every publicized mass shooting in recent times has taken place in a "gun-free zone." It's hardly surprising that no one was around to stop them in such cases.

There have been several attempted mass shootings stopped by a concealed carrier in recent years.

I'm pretty sure that's false. Link please

[Tyrinth]

Not really. Virtually every publicized mass shooting in recent times has taken place in a "gun-free zone." It's hardly surprising that no one was around to stop them in such cases.

There have been several attempted mass shootings stopped by a concealed carrier in recent years.

I'm pretty sure that's false. Link please

For which part...?

[Ripoll]

I'm pretty sure that's false. Link please

For which part...?

mass shootings stopped by concealed carry, because only 1 has been stopped in the past 30 years, and several others have had the killer killed but after the act of shooting had occured and really did more harm than good.

Also more guns in the hands of strangers in any given scenario = more chaos and confusion.

[Jamzmania]

Not really. Virtually every publicized mass shooting in recent times has taken place in a "gun-free zone." It's hardly surprising that no one was around to stop them in such cases.

There have been several attempted mass shootings stopped by a concealed carrier in recent years.

I'm pretty sure that's false. Link please

Movie theaters, schools, and military bases (once you get inside) are all gun-free zones.

[Tyrinth]

For which part...?

mass shootings stopped by concealed carry, because only 1 has been stopped in the past 30 years, and several others have had the killer killed but after the act of shooting had occured and really did more harm than good.

Also more guns in the hands of strangers in any given scenario = more chaos and confusion.

So you keep saying...

Well, the one which was on the top of my mind was the Aurora copycat. I'll see if I can find a link...

[Marxist Paradisium]

First off, how many school shootings have gun control laws stopped? All they do is take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, making it harder to stop criminals and lunatics.
Second, human nature dictates that people will do whatever they can get away with. If the people were not armed, the government could simply disregard the safeguards. Why? Because nobody could stop them. The system only works if the people can defend it. Also, you must remember that people have the advantage of sheer numbers. The number of people in the nation is far greater than the number of people in the military.

And not all of those people have guns, thus rendering your point moot.
In my country, we haven't had one massacre since gun control was brought in, so, all of the massacres have been stopped

If the only thing stopping your government from being tyrannical is the fact that some people, not all of them, have guns, then you may want to look at reform of your social and political institutions, that's obviously the real problem. And I think people are too paranoid about this anyway, there is NO example of any country in the world becoming tyrannical due to gun control, and there is no reason why it should occur in the US. That is literally the most unrealistic argument against gun control (and all of the arguments are bad)

And in my country, several massacres could've been prevented with looser gun control laws. I will admit, not everyone has a gun. However, most of the population does. Therefore, my point is not moot.
Again, you're right: no country has become tyrannical due to gun control. However, in all tyrannical countries, gun control is extremely severe. Think of the USSR, of Nazi Germany. How many people owned guns in those places?
Third point of agreement: Our political and social and social institutions are screwed up. However, that has nothing to do with gun control.
Final note: correlation is not causation.

[Ripoll]

I'm pretty sure that's false. Link please

Movie theaters, schools, and military bases (once you get inside) are all gun-free zones.

Not that, the effectiveness of civilian intervention. Because I assure you, more often than not it does more harm than good. Civilians need to focus on prevention, not intervention. We simply need to increase the effectiveness of police response time

[Cedoria]

And not all of those people have guns, thus rendering your point moot.
In my country, we haven't had one massacre since gun control was brought in, so, all of the massacres have been stopped

If the only thing stopping your government from being tyrannical is the fact that some people, not all of them, have guns, then you may want to look at reform of your social and political institutions, that's obviously the real problem. And I think people are too paranoid about this anyway, there is NO example of any country in the world becoming tyrannical due to gun control, and there is no reason why it should occur in the US. That is literally the most unrealistic argument against gun control (and all of the arguments are bad)

And in my country, several massacres could've been prevented with looser gun control laws. I will admit, not everyone has a gun. However, most of the population does. Therefore, my point is not moot.
Again, you're right: no country has become tyrannical due to gun control. However, in all tyrannical countries, gun control is extremely severe. Think of the USSR, of Nazi Germany. How many people owned guns in those places?
Third point of agreement: Our political and social and social institutions are screwed up. However, that has nothing to do with gun control.
Final note: correlation is not causation.

No, it has nothing to do with gun control. I was simply pointing out that the argument of "what if the government turns evil" is a silly argument against gun control, precisely because whether or not your government turns tyranicall, and whether or not they are stopped, has absolutely nothing to do with this.

What about Australia, Sweden. Most of Europe, Canada? These countries have strict gun control, fewer people own guns, are they not democracies just as good, if not better, than the US? the argument that gun control would make it easier for the government to have tyranny is the stupidest argument in a whole repertoire of stupid arguments. Born of paranoia, fear and no evidence.

[Cedoria]

Movie theaters, schools, and military bases (once you get inside) are all gun-free zones.

Not that, the effectiveness of civilian intervention. Because I assure you, more often than not it does more harm than good. Civilians need to focus on prevention, not intervention. We simply need to increase the effectiveness of police response time

This, if the police response times are the issue, then the logical solution is too upgrade the effectiveness of police response times, not that hard to figure out guys.

[Ripoll]

And in my country, several massacres could've been prevented with looser gun control laws. I will admit, not everyone has a gun. However, most of the population does. Therefore, my point is not moot.
Again, you're right: no country has become tyrannical due to gun control. However, in all tyrannical countries, gun control is extremely severe. Think of the USSR, of Nazi Germany. How many people owned guns in those places?
Third point of agreement: Our political and social and social institutions are screwed up. However, that has nothing to do with gun control.
Final note: correlation is not causation.

No, it has nothing to do with gun control. I was simply pointing out that the argument of "what if the government turns evil" is a silly argument against gun control, precisely because whether or not your government turns tyranicall, and whether or not they are stopped, has absolutely nothing to do with this.

What about Australia, Sweden. Most of Europe, Canada? These countries have strict gun control, fewer people own guns, are they not democracies just as good, if not better, than the US? the argument that gun control would make it easier for the government to have tyranny is the stupidest argument in a whole repertoire of stupid arguments. Born of paranoia, fear and no evidence.

See one of my previous points addressing this

[Marxist Paradisium]

First off, how many school shootings have gun control laws stopped? All they do is take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, making it harder to stop criminals and lunatics.
Second, human nature dictates that people will do whatever they can get away with. If the people were not armed, the government could simply disregard the safeguards. Why? Because nobody could stop them. The system only works if the people can defend it. Also, you must remember that people have the advantage of sheer numbers. The number of people in the nation is far greater than the number of people in the military.

I don't mind gun ownership but this kind of argumentation is just shitty. "Safeguarding the system" is total bs.

The military has considerably superior hardware, organisation and logistics. The people of the nation aren't as organised as you somehow imagine them to be and not a all of them would actually stand up against the government through an armed resistance, reducing the numbers of your "safeguard" significantly.

This crazy "what if the government goes evil" scenario is just fucked up rhetoric born from...I suppose massively disproportionate fear and a dash of insecurity?

And how well did the "superior hardware, organisation, and logistics" fare in Vietnam, among the common people? Citizens may not be as organized as the military, but they can still defend themselves against them, with the right weapons.
Also, my argument is based on logic and knowledge of human nature, not massive fear and insecurity.

[Ripoll]

I don't mind gun ownership but this kind of argumentation is just shitty. "Safeguarding the system" is total bs.

The military has considerably superior hardware, organisation and logistics. The people of the nation aren't as organised as you somehow imagine them to be and not a all of them would actually stand up against the government through an armed resistance, reducing the numbers of your "safeguard" significantly.

This crazy "what if the government goes evil" scenario is just fucked up rhetoric born from...I suppose massively disproportionate fear and a dash of insecurity?

And how well did the "superior hardware, organisation, and logistics" fare in Vietnam, among the common people? Citizens may not be as organized as the military, but they can still defend themselves against them, with the right weapons.
Also, my argument is based on logic and knowledge of human nature, not massive fear and insecurity.

Well, we pretty much destroyed Vietnam, but we could not win because we didn't understand the environment. Also I'm pretty sure crime is a much more realistic issue than the Government suddenly becoming a dictatorship and killing of it's own revenue producers and destroying their international reputation and wrecking any future influence like at all.....just saying.....

[Marxist Paradisium]

And in my country, several massacres could've been prevented with looser gun control laws. I will admit, not everyone has a gun. However, most of the population does. Therefore, my point is not moot.
Again, you're right: no country has become tyrannical due to gun control. However, in all tyrannical countries, gun control is extremely severe. Think of the USSR, of Nazi Germany. How many people owned guns in those places?
Third point of agreement: Our political and social and social institutions are screwed up. However, that has nothing to do with gun control.
Final note: correlation is not causation.

No, it has nothing to do with gun control. I was simply pointing out that the argument of "what if the government turns evil" is a silly argument against gun control, precisely because whether or not your government turns tyranicall, and whether or not they are stopped, has absolutely nothing to do with this.

What about Australia, Sweden. Most of Europe, Canada? These countries have strict gun control, fewer people own guns, are they not democracies just as good, if not better, than the US? the argument that gun control would make it easier for the government to have tyranny is the stupidest argument in a whole repertoire of stupid arguments. Born of paranoia, fear and no evidence.

Fair point. Not all countries with strict gun control laws are tyrannies. However, all tyrannies do have or did have strict gun control laws. Fact of history.
As for being better than the US, I'm not so sure about that. But, back on topic.
The bigger issue is still that citizens cannot effectively defend themselves from threats with strict gun control laws. Look at the recent terrorist attacks in Australia, and France, which is another place with strict gun control laws. It only takes a second to shoot someone, and the police can't be there in a second. So let the citizens defend themselves.

[Marxist Paradisium]

And how well did the "superior hardware, organisation, and logistics" fare in Vietnam, among the common people? Citizens may not be as organized as the military, but they can still defend themselves against them, with the right weapons.
Also, my argument is based on logic and knowledge of human nature, not massive fear and insecurity.

Well, we pretty much destroyed Vietnam, but we could not win because we didn't understand the environment. Also I'm pretty sure crime is a much more realistic issue than the Government suddenly becoming a dictatorship and killing of it's own revenue producers and destroying their international reputation and wrecking any future influence like at all.....just saying.....

Destroyed Vietnam? We got our hind ends handed to us in Vietnam, forcing us to withdraw. The government didn't do that, the people did.
Also, some countries don't care about international reputation reputation. But you're right. Crime is a much more serious issue. I'm just citing all the logical points here.

[Ripoll]

No, it has nothing to do with gun control. I was simply pointing out that the argument of "what if the government turns evil" is a silly argument against gun control, precisely because whether or not your government turns tyranicall, and whether or not they are stopped, has absolutely nothing to do with this.

What about Australia, Sweden. Most of Europe, Canada? These countries have strict gun control, fewer people own guns, are they not democracies just as good, if not better, than the US? the argument that gun control would make it easier for the government to have tyranny is the stupidest argument in a whole repertoire of stupid arguments. Born of paranoia, fear and no evidence.

Fair point. Not all countries with strict gun control laws are tyrannies. However, all tyrannies do have or did have strict gun control laws. Fact of history.
As for being better than the US, I'm not so sure about that. But, back on topic.
The bigger issue is still that citizens cannot effectively defend themselves from threats with strict gun control laws. Look at the recent terrorist attacks in Australia, and France, which is another place with strict gun control laws. It only takes a second to shoot someone, and the police can't be there in a second. So let the citizens defend themselves.

Or have security guards at major institutions and allow all business leaders the right to hire security guards and station them wherever they deem necessary instead of relying on the very strangers we specifically don't trust in any given situation that causes more panic, confusion, and violence.

Nazi Germany also had animal rights laws, is that associated with fascism too?

[Ripoll]

Well, we pretty much destroyed Vietnam, but we could not win because we didn't understand the environment. Also I'm pretty sure crime is a much more realistic issue than the Government suddenly becoming a dictatorship and killing of it's own revenue producers and destroying their international reputation and wrecking any future influence like at all.....just saying.....

Destroyed Vietnam? We got our hind ends handed to us in Vietnam, forcing us to withdraw. The government didn't do that, the people did.
Also, some countries don't care about international reputation reputation. But you're right. Crime is a much more serious issue. I'm just citing all the logical points here.

We destroyed vietnams landscape, villages, economy, etc. The people just had the will to keep on fighting. We bombed around the clock and the forest was basically gone by the time we left. We didn't win but I would hardly say that the Vietcong won either...

Also the US cannot afford to lose international reputation, and tyranny coming back to democracies is very unlikely for various conflicts of interest.

[Marxist Paradisium]

Fair point. Not all countries with strict gun control laws are tyrannies. However, all tyrannies do have or did have strict gun control laws. Fact of history.
As for being better than the US, I'm not so sure about that. But, back on topic.
The bigger issue is still that citizens cannot effectively defend themselves from threats with strict gun control laws. Look at the recent terrorist attacks in Australia, and France, which is another place with strict gun control laws. It only takes a second to shoot someone, and the police can't be there in a second. So let the citizens defend themselves.

Or have security guards at major institutions and allow all business leaders the right to hire security guards and station them wherever they deem necessary instead of relying on the very strangers we specifically don't trust in any given situation that causes more panic, confusion, and violence.

Nazi Germany also had animal rights laws, is that associated with fascism too?

Now that would be a perfectly reasonable solution. However, that doesn't fit in with gun control, because how can you trust those security guards? How can you trust anyone with guns?... Do you see where I'm going here? Also, I wasn't suggesting that we rely on others, I was suggesting that we rely on ourselves. But we can't do that with strict gun control laws.

[Tyrinth]

Movie theaters, schools, and military bases (once you get inside) are all gun-free zones.

Not that, the effectiveness of civilian intervention. Because I assure you, more often than not it does more harm than good. Civilians need to focus on prevention, not intervention. We simply need to increase the effectiveness of police response time

Ugh... Such a pain. I haven't even heard of half of the sites that cover some of the incidents I was thinking of, so I won't link those.

I found these two that seemed to be decently covered, though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clackamas_ ... r_shooting

http://www.ktvn.com/story/8378732/three ... -on-sunday

[Marxist Paradisium]

Destroyed Vietnam? We got our hind ends handed to us in Vietnam, forcing us to withdraw. The government didn't do that, the people did.
Also, some countries don't care about international reputation reputation. But you're right. Crime is a much more serious issue. I'm just citing all the logical points here.

We destroyed vietnams landscape, villages, economy, etc. The people just had the will to keep on fighting. We bombed around the clock and the forest was basically gone by the time we left. We didn't win but I would hardly say that the Vietcong won either...

Also the US cannot afford to lose international reputation, and tyranny coming back to democracies is very unlikely for various conflicts of interest.

See? That's what I'm talking about here. The people won, because they had the will to keep fighting back. The same thing would happen here. If the people were armed, that is.
You're probably right. Will our government become a tyranny? Probably not. Should we give it the opportunity? Absolutely not.

[Ripoll]

We destroyed vietnams landscape, villages, economy, etc. The people just had the will to keep on fighting. We bombed around the clock and the forest was basically gone by the time we left. We didn't win but I would hardly say that the Vietcong won either...

Also the US cannot afford to lose international reputation, and tyranny coming back to democracies is very unlikely for various conflicts of interest.

See? That's what I'm talking about here. The people won, because they had the will to keep fighting back. The same thing would happen here. If the people were armed, that is.
You're probably right. Will our government become a tyranny? Probably not. Should we give it the opportunity? Absolutely not.

Probably not is a huge under statement. The same wouldn't happen here because it is an urbanized area, and our nation's military excels at these types of environment, and much of what we do is keep public order and control effectivly. Our military is very familiar with our environment, they weren't with vietnam.

Also my point is that gun control really doesn't just simply allow the Government to become tyrannical. Resistance movements would form regardless and the people would get fire arms regardless if it were that drastic.

Whether or not I beleive the military would ultimately win is beside the point.

[Marxist Paradisium]

See? That's what I'm talking about here. The people won, because they had the will to keep fighting back. The same thing would happen here. If the people were armed, that is.
You're probably right. Will our government become a tyranny? Probably not. Should we give it the opportunity? Absolutely not.

Probably not is a huge under statement. The same wouldn't happen here because it is an urbanized area, and our nation's military excels at these types of environment, and much of what we do is keep public order and control effectivly. Our military is very familiar with our environment, they weren't with vietnam.

Also my point is that gun control really doesn't just simply allow the Government to become tyrannical. Resistance movements would form regardless and the people would get fire arms regardless if it were that drastic.

Whether or not I beleive the military would ultimately win is beside the point.

You may be right. I may be right. No one knows for certain. But, as you have stated, crime is a much bigger problem than hypothetical dystopian scenarios. And crime is harder to stop with strict gun control laws.

[Ripoll]

Probably not is a huge under statement. The same wouldn't happen here because it is an urbanized area, and our nation's military excels at these types of environment, and much of what we do is keep public order and control effectivly. Our military is very familiar with our environment, they weren't with vietnam.

Also my point is that gun control really doesn't just simply allow the Government to become tyrannical. Resistance movements would form regardless and the people would get fire arms regardless if it were that drastic.

Whether or not I beleive the military would ultimately win is beside the point.

You may be right. I may be right. No one knows for certain. But, as you have stated, crime is a much bigger problem than hypothetical dystopian scenarios. And crime is harder to stop with strict gun control laws.

I'd like to think that diarming criminals makes it easier to stop crime, and all pro gun critics do is criticize legislation for not doing that. If that's the case I frankly don't care to get involved in a partisan debate, I say let's fix the laws if they're faulty instead of using the same hypothetical that have been tried and failed multiple times.