Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Trama
I disagree with that. Armed or not it creates a chance to attack the shooter.
Wasn't that how they stopped Giffords' shooter?
|
yes, while he was changing magazines, but you're thinking about "shooter" as a criminal exclusively. there are thousands many more home invasions (1 in 5 homes gets it) than gun massacres and you have to consider that "shooters" are much more likely to be law-abiding citizens facing armed criminals.
mira:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBe48u6ERiI
and another
http://www.infiniteunknown.net/2013/...home-invasion/
etc
http://www.click2houston.com/news/Ho...z/-/index.html (this one kinda bungled it but still won)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Trama
And I'm with you, I'm for individual freedom, but I think in this case (due to the sheer weight of the problem in the US) some compromise has to be made.
|
i'm for that too but i think this has to be in the form of universal background checks, mental health screenings and mandatory safety training, which are currently inexistent.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Trama
Of course gun legislation is only part of the problem, and as an outsider I do see that there's a lot noise surrounding this debate, certainly working in the interest of some.
|
it's a political orgy with little or no chance to benefit the public in any way. same kind of hysteria as "let's invade iraq for 9/11"
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Trama
One curious thing about the media is how you often hear them criticizing the videogame industry, but you never hear a word about Hollywood.
|
it's a bullshit issue. another red herring that the gun lobby uses to draw attention away from themselves. and while i'm against a good chunk of the proposed restrictions, and against the demonization of weapons, i'm also against this totall bullshit. it's like the twinky defense. i'm telling you-- stupidity, hysteria and nonsense all-around.