One doesn't need a gun.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Suspects are two teens?

Mass murders in the U.S. continue.  This one seems family related.

[blade2k5 1,523]

You know, it's funny how all gun owners are considered criminal by the loony liberals, but when one says that all islam is corrupt, well we're told that you can't blame all for the actions of few.  Shouldn't the same logic be applied to gun owners instead of this hypocrisy from the loony left?

[AcmeSigns 97]

Five stabbed to death and...'Police are investigating the deaths as homicides.'

Well, duh. I guess that's where all of that detective schoolin' pays off.

Any death is a tragedy whether it's by knife, gun, car or...

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

You know, it's funny how all gun owners are considered criminal by the loony liberals, but when one says that all islam is corrupt, well we're told that you can't blame all for the actions of few.  Shouldn't the same logic be applied to gun owners instead of this hypocrisy from the loony left?

The problem with calling these fools liberals is that they are anything but.  Their attitude is more fascist than socialist.

Five stabbed to death and...'Police are investigating the deaths as homicides.'

Well, duh. I guess that's where all of that detective schoolin' pays off.

Any death is a tragedy whether it's by knife, gun, car or...

Strange that they would have to get a ruling on homicide.  Does someone believe that homicide can only be committed with a firearm?  A well-trained assassin can do it with a little shot of ricin, and probably not even be detected.

[blade2k5 1,523]

You know, it's funny how all gun owners are considered criminal by the loony liberals, but when one says that all islam is corrupt, well we're told that you can't blame all for the actions of few.  Shouldn't the same logic be applied to gun owners instead of this hypocrisy from the loony left?

The problem with calling these fools liberals is that they are anything but.  Their attitude is more fascist than socialist.

Like Hillary, Obama and all of their cronies?  Sounds about right.

Five stabbed to death and...'Police are investigating the deaths as homicides.'

Well, duh. I guess that's where all of that detective schoolin' pays off.

Any death is a tragedy whether it's by knife, gun, car or...

Strange that they would have to get a ruling on homicide.  Does someone believe that homicide can only be committed with a firearm?  A well-trained assassin can do it with a little shot of ricin, and probably not even be detected.

Obviously they do because those anti-gun nutcases will do anything to attempt to take our guns, yet lack the guts to try taking our guns personally themselves.  Cowards, every single one of them.

[BLANKBLANK 4,414]

Obviously they do because those anti-gun nutcases will do anything to attempt to take our guns, yet lack the guts to try taking our guns personally themselves.  Cowards, every single one of them.

It's worse. Liberals want the government to impose new laws and regulations to make the 2nd amendment null and void, so they (liberals) want to use government tyranny to remove an anti-tyranny measure believing it will make everyone safer and more free. Take away the guns and it will be open season for all the criminals who do use guns. Of course really it will become the war on guns, a prohibition on guns, millions of gun owners will simply hide their weapons from the government. The prohibition on alcohol failed miserably and resulted in a surge in crime, the prohibition on illegal drugs failed miserably and allowed the mafia and organized syndicates to become more powerful.

The war on guns will only result in racketeering and even more crime. Let's not forget that the CIA has been in cahoots with various syndicates distributing drugs over the years and decides who the drug players are, so don't expect the government to actually crack down on organized crime or any future gun racketeering should guns be banned. Ban guns and large parts of the USA will become like Mexico- terrorised by the drug cartels. Prohibition has failed miserably and only increases crime. To paraphrase Mugatu from Zoolander: "Hasn't anybody noticed this? It feels like I'm taking crazy pills!"

In fact the 2nd amendment is a testament to sound government. For the US government is placing trust in the people to protect themselves and thus enabling a smaller police force- well that was the original idea two and a half centuries ago. By giving people more responsibility than naturally they will have a greater say in the affairs of the system and of course a greater concern. Take away these responsibilities, which occur because of people's rights, and people care less for the management of their country since big government takes care of everything. Lest we forget, government is the most inefficient organization on the planet for it is tied up in red tape and shot through with conflicting agendas. Just look at the former Soviet Union.

It's all so stupid. I live in Britain and if someone burgled my home I would try to get to the kitchen knife first, failing that something heavy to clobber the bugger with. A gun is so much more simpler. Yes it is more responsibility, then again it is just like driving a car. And cars, in America, kill and injure more people than guns do. You can't stop an idiot being an idiot and accidents happen, but why should the vast majority of gun owners in the USA be penalized because of a few thousand accidents per year largely occurring to people who were not properly using/handling the gun?

Don't let the idiots dictate society.

[CapTon 592]

Obviously they do because those anti-gun nutcases will do anything to attempt to take our guns, yet lack the guts to try taking our guns personally themselves.  Cowards, every single one of them.

It's worse. Liberals want the government to impose new laws and regulations to make the 2nd amendment null and void, so they (liberals) want to use government tyranny to remove an anti-tyranny measure believing it will make everyone safer and more free. Take away the guns and it will be open season for all the criminals who do use guns. Of course really it will become the war on guns, a prohibition on guns, millions of gun owners will simply hide their weapons from the government. The prohibition on alcohol failed miserably and resulted in a surge in crime, the prohibition on illegal drugs failed miserably and allowed the mafia and organized syndicates to become more powerful.

The war on guns will only result in racketeering and even more crime. Let's not forget that the CIA has been in cahoots with various syndicates distributing drugs over the years and decides who the drug players are, so don't expect the government to actually crack down on organized crime or any future gun racketeering should guns be banned. Ban guns and large parts of the USA will become like Mexico- terrorised by the drug cartels. Prohibition has failed miserably and only increases crime. To paraphrase Mugatu from Zoolander: "Hasn't anybody noticed this? It feels like I'm taking crazy pills!"

In fact the 2nd amendment is a testament to sound government. For the US government is placing trust in the people to protect themselves and thus enabling a smaller police force- well that was the original idea two and a half centuries ago. By giving people more responsibility than naturally they will have a greater say in the affairs of the system and of course a greater concern. Take away these responsibilities, which occur because of people's rights, and people care less for the management of their country since big government takes care of everything. Lest we forget, government is the most inefficient organization on the planet for it is tied up in red tape and shot through with conflicting agendas. Just look at the former Soviet Union.

It's all so stupid. I live in Britain and if someone burgled my home I would try to get to the kitchen knife first, failing that something heavy to clobber the bugger with. A gun is so much more simpler. Yes it is more responsibility, then again it is just like driving a car. And cars, in America, kill and injure more people than guns do. You can't stop an idiot being an idiot and accidents happen, but why should the vast majority of gun owners in the USA be penalized because of a few thousand accidents per year largely occurring to people who were not properly using/handling the gun?

Don't let the idiots dictate society.

This is all why we can't let some Dem get into the White House, ESPECIALLY Hillary Clinton. That entire party is based around the stupidity/ignorance of the average American voter.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Well, your election is over a year off with lots of bread and circuses to come.  Ours is on October 19th, when we get to choose between three parties to run the show for the next while.  We have the option of having an election call in five years or sooner if the situation warrants, like if the government is defeated on a budget or loses a no-confidence motion.

America is stuck with whatever mistake it makes for four years, come hell or high water.  Getting anyone impeached is so difficult it is like trying to abolish the Canadian Senate which takes a constitutional amendment agreed to by 100% of the provinces, who don't even agree what language to speak officially.

Enjoy your circus, and when The Donald runs as an independent, or maybe just shakes the faith in the "party system", consider yourselves in the presence of a possible tyrant.

Oh yes, we have gun laws and they are enforced to the max.  And still we have crazies that go about shooting people.  You don't need constitutional authority to arm the populace, just be quiet about what you are doing.

  Edited August 8, 2015 by A Nonny Moose  

[nos.17 5,120]

You know, it's funny how all gun owners are considered criminal by the loony liberals, but when one says that all islam is corrupt, well we're told that you can't blame all for the actions of few.  Shouldn't the same logic be applied to gun owners instead of this hypocrisy from the loony left?

I am not going to start a debate. I see you are entrenched in your opinion; there is nothing wrong with that per se, but nothing I can say will change that. So I won't say anything. I would like to point out that your comment seems out of place and is inappropriate in a thread meant to discuss 5 recent, grievous slayings. Nowhere has anybody mentioned guns...the thread title merely refers to the fact that one does not need a gun to kill.

 

To me, it was interesting how the article had to emphasize that the house was "large and fairly expensive for the area." I do not at all see why that matters. It is as if they are trying to differentiate this incident is different from others.

[blade2k5 1,523]

You know, it's funny how all gun owners are considered criminal by the loony liberals, but when one says that all islam is corrupt, well we're told that you can't blame all for the actions of few.  Shouldn't the same logic be applied to gun owners instead of this hypocrisy from the loony left?

I am not going to start a debate. I see you are entrenched in your opinion; there is nothing wrong with that per se, but nothing I can say will change that. So I won't say anything. I would like to point out that your comment seems out of place and is inappropriate in a thread meant to discuss 5 recent, grievous slayings. Nowhere has anybody mentioned guns...the thread title merely refers to the fact that one does not need a gun to kill.

 

To me, it was interesting how the article had to emphasize that the house was "large and fairly expensive for the area." I do not at all see why that matters. It is as if they are trying to differentiate this incident is different from others.

Thanks for not attempting to try and change my opinion on that, because no-one can no matter who they are.  I assumed this was another of those anti-gun fluff pieces and responded appropriately.  So I'll go post the comment in the gun thread and a moderator can delete the post here.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

It's OK.  I already took the pickle out of that post in the other thread.

Meanwhile, back at the subject, the idea that people kill other people is definitely the main agenda of many of these topics.  It's the world's oldest crime, and I think that that first one, according to the Bible, was blunt force trauma and fratricide as well.  It is amazing the number of ways that some people find to kill their neighbour from the most subtle of poisons to dropping a piano on their heads.

[ROFLyoshi 1,760]

Although I'm sure the point is out there, I am just reminding you all that we have a gun control debate thread, and posts arguing for/against should be made in that thread. Name calling g is also unproductive, keeping in mind that some people have different political views. Respectful debate and discussion is encouraged.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

This thread is actually factual and is supposed to have no political overtones.  However, it is nearly impossible to scratch most people without causing a political rash to appear.  Much of the debate in the wide world has to do with man's inhumanity to man.  This one takes up a very old method of sticking foreign objects into other people with the object of imposing a final objection.

[blade2k5 1,523]

This thread is actually factual and is supposed to have no political overtones.  However, it is nearly impossible to scratch most people without causing a political rash to appear.  Much of the debate in the wide world has to do with man's inhumanity to man.  This one takes up a very old method of sticking foreign objects into other people with the object of imposing a final objection.

That's because humans have never been able to get past the dominance issue, which is why this will continue until we no longer exist.  Unless we overcome the need to dominate everything and everyone, it will never change no matter what anyone does to stop it.  Human kind will never get along, it's not in our nature to do so.  Another reason why incidents like the one this thread is about will continue to happen.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

No question at all.  Our predatory genetic makeup will make us try to get on top of the heap under all circumstances.  We are not, however, the top predator in many places.  A polar bear would consider a man as lunch, as would many of the big cats in the tropical belt, and even the cougar population (no pun intended) along the west coast.  Unfortunately for us, we are no longer, if we ever were, equipped for the predatory job, so we need tools to help us along.  Good thing we are good tool makers.

Of course, being a thinking being (is it thinking?) we also start to have ethical problems brought about by all the myths of gods and their rules.  However, it is well to remember that some snarks are boojums.

  Edited August 10, 2015 by A Nonny Moose  

[Larks2242 251]

It's not the tool, It is the mind, Ill minded people just got to pick up a rock on the ground to do harm.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

To the tune of the Irish Washerwoman:

"McInnis is dead and McCarthy don't know it.
"McCarthy is dead and McInnis don't know it.
"They both lay dead, in the very same bed,
"And neither one knows that the other is dead."

"Last Saturday night they met in the hall
"To settle their argument once and for all.
"One used a shovel! And one used a rock!
"And both were in heaven by seven O'clock."
 

[Larks2242 251]

To the tune of the Irish Washerwoman:

"McInnis is dead and McCarthy don't know it.
"McCarthy is dead and McInnis don't know it.
"They both lay dead, in the very same bed,
"And neither one knows that the other is dead."

"Last Saturday night they met in the hall
"To settle their argument once and for all.
"One used a shovel! And one used a rock!
"And both were in heaven by seven O'clock."
 

But that would indicate that murder gets you to heaven.

To the tune of the Irish Washerwoman:

"McInnis is dead and McCarthy don't know it.
"McCarthy is dead and McInnis don't know it.
"They both lay dead, in the very same bed,
"And neither one knows that the other is dead."

"Last Saturday night they met in the hall
"To settle their argument once and for all.
"One used a shovel! And one used a rock!
"And both were in heaven by seven O'clock."
 

But that would indicate that murder gets you to heaven.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

You haven't been listening to the bells on Sunday.  They all ring out "No hell, no hell, no hell."

If you are a Christian, what do you think Christ did when he "descended into hell."  He closed it down, of course.  Christianity is a doctrine of forgiveness.

[LexusInfernus 908]

It's worse. Liberals want the government to impose new laws and regulations to make the 2nd amendment null and void, so they (liberals) want to use government tyranny to remove an anti-tyranny measure believing it will make everyone safer and more free.

First, thats what the government does, make rules and laws to make other rules and laws void and replace them with new rules and laws. Its literally their job to do that. 

Second, people throw the word tyranny around every time the government does something trivial they don't like (or in this case its not even the government doing a thing, its the mere thought of the government hypothetically doing a thing in the future). "Oh no, the government doesn't want me to have a thing that can kill people at 600 meter distance with the twitch of a finger, those tyrants!" Thats tyranny? The government not wanting you to have a thing? Meanwhile those same people ignore or openly support laws that make it more difficult for entire groups of people to use their right to vote for the next government, but thats okay because thats all in order to combat non existing voter fraud (except when they openly admit its to keep people who vote Democrat out). 

Why is it that Americans are fine with their government doing actual tyrannical things like trampling all over peoples civil rights in order to keep people safe from imaginary threats, but flip out when the government tries to step in and protect people from actual and verifiable threats. Its okay for the police to shoot black people, because they are all criminal thugs. Its okay for the NSA to spy on everyone because terrorists are everywhere. Its okay to suppress the votes of minorities and poor people because the cases of voter fraud in one election can be counted on one hand. But its tyranny when the government hypothetically wants stricter control measures on things that are designed to kill other beings and are partly responsible for America having the highest murder rate of any industrialized country in the world. Its tyranny if the government wants to encourage people to be healthier because they are to fat and to many can't afford basic insurance. Its tyranny if the government gives equal rights to the  LGBTQ community. Right....

[MushyMushy 3,617]

It's worse. Liberals want the government to impose new laws and regulations to make the 2nd amendment null and void, so they (liberals) want to use government tyranny to remove an anti-tyranny measure believing it will make everyone safer and more free.

First, thats what the government does, make rules and laws to make other rules and laws void and replace them with new rules and laws. Its literally their job to do that. 

Second, people throw the word tyranny around every time the government does something trivial they don't like (or in this case its not even the government doing a thing, its the mere thought of the government hypothetically doing a thing in the future). "Oh no, the government doesn't want me to have a thing that can kill people at 600 meter distance with the twitch of a finger, those tyrants!" Thats tyranny? The government not wanting you to have a thing? Meanwhile those same people ignore or openly support laws that make it more difficult for entire groups of people to use their right to vote for the next government, but thats okay because thats all in order to combat non existing voter fraud (except when they openly admit its to keep people who vote Democrat out). 

Why is it that Americans are fine with their government doing actual tyrannical things like trampling all over peoples civil rights in order to keep people safe from imaginary threats, but flip out when the government tries to step in and protect people from actual and verifiable threats. Its okay for the police to shoot black people, because they are all criminal thugs. Its okay for the NSA to spy on everyone because terrorists are everywhere. Its okay to suppress the votes of minorities and poor people because the cases of voter fraud in one election can be counted on one hand. But its tyranny when the government hypothetically wants stricter control measures on things that are designed to kill other beings and are partly responsible for America having the highest murder rate of any industrialized country in the world. Its tyranny if the government wants to encourage people to be healthier because they are to fat and to many can't afford basic insurance. Its tyranny if the government gives equal rights to the  LGBTQ community. Right....

Took the words out of my mouth.

To add to that, an example of the disturbing obsession American's have with guns: When I was in high school, there was an 11th grader that, during the introductions at the start of the school year (where we said something about us), said he "liked to shoot things." Shoot what things? Do we really need people as young as teenagers getting enjoyment out of shooting stuff? I mean, what on Earth even is that?

People's obsession with the "tyranny" of the federal government is laughable (but not really, because it's a serious problem). "Obama's going to come take our guns!" is one I hear a lot. When has he ever made any serious move to restrict people's access to guns (he is also incapable of "taking the guns," only the Legislative Branch or the Judicial Branch can do that). Let's not forget that our President doesn't write the laws - he can make suggestions and issue executive orders, but he doesn't write the laws. So no, President Obama is not coming for people's precious guns (killing devices). People think it's tyranny with the government tries to put more taxes on the rich (like there used to be, but they successfully weaseled out of their taxes over the years), but are perfectly OK with taking any and all support away from the poor people and defund public services (and then blame those "dang lazy poor people" for it). Another example of the "tyranny" comes from some of my brainwashed relatives who truly believe that freeing African Americans from slavery and giving them civil rights (eventually) was a tyrannical "experiment" by the left that was bad for everybody, including black people. Does that even make sense? The horrific tyranny of our government leaves me speechless... not.

I could go on forever but this isn't the place for that.

[BLANKBLANK 4,414]

Why is it that Americans are fine with their government doing actual tyrannical things like trampling all over peoples civil rights in order to keep people safe from imaginary threats, but flip out when the government tries to step in and protect people from actual and verifiable threats. Its okay for the police to shoot black people, because they are all criminal thugs. Its okay for the NSA to spy on everyone because terrorists are everywhere. Its okay to suppress the votes of minorities and poor people because the cases of voter fraud in one election can be counted on one hand. But its tyranny when the government hypothetically wants stricter control measures on things that are designed to kill other beings and are partly responsible for America having the highest murder rate of any industrialized country in the world. Its tyranny if the government wants to encourage people to be healthier because they are to fat and to many can't afford basic insurance. Its tyranny if the government gives equal rights to the  LGBTQ community. Right....

Maybe Americans and America is just too FUBARed? Maybe blacks are disproportionately more violent and prone to crime? Maybe living on the government teet is driving the unemployed and low-wage workers is crushing so many black people, condemning them to a meagre life with no real opportunities? Maybe the sky-high abortion rates, numerous single mothers and family breakdown in the black community is doing something as well?

<and now for a troll rant>

Those terrorist threats are of course largely imagined by the CIA and FBI, sometimes thought become action. You are wrong about government policies suppressing the votes of minorities and poor people. The Democrats love minorities and poor people because those two groups so overwhelmingly vote Democrat. The NSA does spy on everyone because there are loads of terrorists everywhere, internet warriors like ourselves are one of them, eventually the NSA/GCHQ will stop watching and come knocking on our door, but that will only happen when a terrible terrorist attack, a really nasty large one, gives the gubbermint the excuse to go full totalitarian retard.

America has the highest murder rate in the 1st world because it has the highest number of gangs, thank the failed war on drugs for that. Fat people should be classified as mentally ill and I hope the government enforces psychological and weight-loss treatment, it is very greedy of fat people to gobble up so much food and burden the healthcare system to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. Lastly the LGBT community does not need additional rights on top of human rights, they are equal to everyone else not superior to everyone else.

Finally I don't believe in liberty because that implies absolute freedom, only animals have absolute freedom and we humans are not animals. The problem in 1st world countries is that there is too much freedom, but humans are never free for we must follow a code of laws and principles. Even apathy, chaos and anarchy are moral codes. To be bound to a moral code is to curtail your freedom and liberty, to impose a form of slavery -- no not that kind of slavery with the whips and plantations and all -- on oneself. The only question is which form slavery do we pick which serves humanity the best?

<troll rant over>

Well the last paragraph was not trolling because when you really think our only freedom is choice and tyranny is the restriction of that choice.

[Xander Dax 310]

Lastly the LGBT community does not need additional rights on top of human rights, they are equal to everyone else not superior to everyone else.?????

WE...Speechless.......

[MushyMushy 3,617]

Not to get off-topic, but the LGBT community is definitely not treated as superior to everyone else. The fact that even after the SCOTUS said that same-sex marriage was legal they are still fighting for the right to marry in several states is enough evidence of this. Other examples include issues finding employment and constant harassment by ultra-religious people, hate groups, and various politicians.

So no, they are not fighting to get "additional rights" over everyone else, they are fighting to be treated the same as everyone else instead of as 2nd class citizens.

  Edited August 12, 2015 by MushyMushy  

[Xander Dax 310]

Here here, and as one of those 2nd class citizens (in Australia) i say thank you for your support Mushy.

[APSMS 1,892]

It's worse. Liberals want the government to impose new laws and regulations to make the 2nd amendment null and void, so they (liberals) want to use government tyranny to remove an anti-tyranny measure believing it will make everyone safer and more free.

First, thats what the government does, make rules and laws to make other rules and laws void and replace them with new rules and laws. Its literally their job to do that. 

Second, people throw the word tyranny around every time the government does something trivial they don't like (or in this case its not even the government doing a thing, its the mere thought of the government hypothetically doing a thing in the future). "Oh no, the government doesn't want me to have a thing that can kill people at 600 meter distance with the twitch of a finger, those tyrants!" Thats tyranny? The government not wanting you to have a thing?

First, true.

Second, when the government puts their guns away, I will be happy to lay my (non-existent) guns down as well. They aren't going to do that, though....

[LexusInfernus 908]

Second, when the government puts their guns away, I will be happy to lay my (non-existent) guns down as well. They aren't going to do that, though....

If the government puts their guns away, then who is going to protect you against criminals and foreign invasions? The government needs to be able to project force if it wants to protect its sovereignty. 

Besides, in a democratic society, the government is the only entity that can legitimately and morally use force. All other parties that could potentially use force are inherently immoral and lack legitimacy. 

[krbe 193]

Second, when the government puts their guns away, I will be happy to lay my (non-existent) guns down as well. They aren't going to do that, though....

If the government puts their guns away, then who is going to protect you against criminals and foreign invasions? The government needs to be able to project force if it wants to protect its sovereignty. 

Besides, in a democratic society, the government is the only entity that can legitimately and morally use force. All other parties that could potentially use force are inherently immoral and lack legitimacy. 

Just because a society is 'democratic' one can not infer that it or its actions are at all times moral and legitimate. The social contract differs from place to place. It is impossible to say that measure A works because it is successful in country B.

Really, it's the balance of interest. It might be in a country's interest to see innocent civilians die from time to time in order to pursue some other goals. It all depends on the value you put on those lives, and the value you put on the positive effects of gun ownership.

Yes, it is the government's duty to protect its citizens from harm. But how far are you willing to go? Consider this statement: You do everything to minimise risk, right? Or an even better statement: You would do anything to protect your child from harm, wouldn't you?

Needless to say, the answer is no to both. You must balance risk mitigation against functioning in life. And perhaps, just perhaps, there are people on this planet that believe that it is in the best interest of society that there are guns in the populace. It might be that there are other measures than 'taking them away' that are appropriate.

That being said, the same people who wine about the gubberment taking dem guns away, usually cough up some lines about how making it safer overall is equal to theft.

[LexusInfernus 908]

 Just because a society is 'democratic' one can not infer that it or its actions are at all times moral and legitimate. The social contract differs from place to place. It is impossible to say that measure A works because it is successful in country B.

I never meant to say that all actions a democratic society undertakes are automatically moral or legitimate. What I'm saying is that the state in a democratic society is the only actor who can legitimately and morally use force. Why? Because in such a society the government answers to the people and rules with the consent of the people, meaning that the application of force has the backing of the people. Any individual or private actors who use force lack this because they do not answer to society, but instead answer only to themselves or other private actors. 

The US is displaying extremely troubling behavior in this respect for various reasons. For one, it is difficult to actually hold the government accountable for the force it uses because of the way it polices itself (essentially in troubling cases there is a near constant conflict of interests between investigator and perpetrator). And second, the US has a history of outsourcing the right and ability to use force to private actors. The 2nd amendment is a part of that, outsourcing the ability to use force to every private citizen, while the stand your ground laws outsource the right to use force. And in a more general way, the US is outsourcing its ability and right to use force to third parties such as PMC's and if technology keeps up, drones. 

Essentially, the US is hard at work delegitimizing and undermining itself in an extremely harmful fashion. 

Really, it's the balance of interest. It might be in a country's interest to see innocent civilians die from time to time in order to pursue some other goals. It all depends on the value you put on those lives, and the value you put on the positive effects of gun ownership.

Yes, it is the government's duty to protect its citizens from harm. But how far are you willing to go? Consider this statement: You do everything to minimise risk, right? Or an even better statement: You would do anything to protect your child from harm, wouldn't you?

Needless to say, the answer is no to both. You must balance risk mitigation against functioning in life. And perhaps, just perhaps, there are people on this planet that believe that it is in the best interest of society that there are guns in the populace. It might be that there are other measures than 'taking them away' that are appropriate.

That being said, the same people who wine about the gubberment taking dem guns away, usually cough up some lines about how making it safer overall is equal to theft.

Sure, I'm just pointing out the consequences of having a second amendment. Its not up to me to decide whether Americans should keep their guns, that is their business.  

 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Did someone mention democracy?  Let me know if you find any.

This topic has been hijacked by so many different agendas, that I am tempted to rename it 'General Rant' as in 'Who is buried in Rant's Tomb?'.

Probably enough has been said, and it should be locked.