Breaking - Oregon college shooting

[other one]

It isn't guns Peep...   it's people.

The 2014 Kunming attack was a terrorist attack^[3][4][5] in the Chinese city of Kunming, Yunnan, on 1 March 2014. The incident, targeted against civilians, left 29 civilians and 4 perpetrators^[1] dead with more than 140 others injured.^[4][6] The attack has been called a "massacre" by some news media.^[7][8][9]

At around 9:20 pm local time, a group of eight knife-wielding men and women attacked passengers at the city's railway station.^[10] Both male and female attackers were seen to pull out long-bladed knives and proceed to stab and slash passengers. At the scene, police killed four assailants^[11][12] and captured one injured female. In the afternoon of 3 March, police announced that the six-man two-woman group had been neutralized after the arrest of three remaining suspects.^[1][8]

No group or individual stepped forward to claim responsibility for the attack.^[13]Xinhua News Agency announced within hours of the incident that it was carried out by Xinjiang separatist terrorists,^[14] while Time and The New York Times reported that Uyghur Muslims were involved in the attack.^[3][15] The government of Kunming also said the attack had been linked to Xinjiang militants.^[10][16] Police said they had confiscated a black, hand-painted East Turkestan flag at the scene.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Kunming_attack

[tigger398]

I thought the shooter was a muslim.

[Guest shiloh357]

what we need is more people armed....    One person who was shot several times attacked the shooter to try and stop him....   if he had been armed it's very likely only one person might have been hurt....              These things are only happening in places where it is illegal to carry weapons.....    so only good law abiding people there are unarmed and that's simply not good.

That is exactly correct.   We need to get rid of gun-free zones.   Criminals and mentally deranged people don't obey gun-free zones.  They are attracted to gun free zones.  Gun free zones innocent people into soft targets and encourages mass casualties and fatalities.   It is an insane liberal idea.

[Last Daze]

what we need is more people armed....    One person who was shot several times attacked the shooter to try and stop him....   if he had been armed it's very likely only one person might have been hurt....              These things are only happening in places where it is illegal to carry weapons.....    so only good law abiding people there are unarmed and that's simply not good.

 

That would be the solution coming from someone who is a gun advocate.A gun is what started all of this.

Yeah, I can't imagine that any law abiding murderer would have carried a gun into a gun free zone.  The audacity.

[shoes_untied]

Bopeep , that is a common misconception but the fact is terrorists, criminals and deranged people won't follow the gun laws.

They want to massacre people who can't defend themselves,  they don't go places where they know people are armed or they will attack at times when people will be unprotected. This school was a "no gun zone" I believe. The killer didn't leave his gun at home. He also was looking for Christians to kill wasn't he? that's the question he asked and shot Christians in the head and the others in the legs?

This is a common assertion that makes the false assumption that the gun supply to criminals is separate and operates independently of the gun supply and distribution to law abiding citizens.  The gun supply to criminals rides on the supply chain of guns to the law abiding citizens.  The larger the supply of guns to citizens the greater the opportunity there is for them to get into the hands of disreputable dealers, dishonest people, careless owners, etc… thus increasing the supply to bad guys as well.  If you believe that increasing the amount of guns in this country until all citizens are packing will reduce crime in a greater amount than what it will cause through carelessness, bad judgement, or good person gone bad then fine, but the whole “only bad guys will have guns” argument is a false dilemma fallacy.

 

This argument also rides on the back of additional fallacies.  It make the false assumption that there is an actual legit movement to take guns away from people (and yes Google jockeys I know easy it is to find exceptions to the rule) when there is actually only movements to create legislation to allow people guns to fire high volumes of bullets in a short amount of time.  It also rides on circular logic that whenever a previously “law abiding” citizen commits a crime that they are no longer a law abiding citizen and therefore can’t be considered against the argument of only criminals will have guns.  It’s a very tidy illogical argument.

[OakWood]

Bopeep , that is a common misconception but the fact is terrorists, criminals and deranged people won't follow the gun laws.

They want to massacre people who can't defend themselves,  they don't go places where they know people are armed or they will attack at times when people will be unprotected. This school was a "no gun zone" I believe. The killer didn't leave his gun at home. He also was looking for Christians to kill wasn't he? that's the question he asked and shot Christians in the head and the others in the legs?

This is a common assertion that makes the false assumption that the gun supply to criminals is separate and operates independently of the gun supply and distribution to law abiding citizens.  The gun supply to criminals rides on the supply chain of guns to the law abiding citizens.  The larger the supply of guns to citizens the greater the opportunity there is for them to get into the hands of disreputable dealers, dishonest people, careless owners, etc… thus increasing the supply to bad guys as well.  If you believe that increasing the amount of guns in this country until all citizens are packing will reduce crime in a greater amount than what it will cause through carelessness, bad judgement, or good person gone bad then fine, but the whole “only bad guys will have guns” argument is a false dilemma fallacy.

 

 

This argument also rides on the back of additional fallacies.  It make the false assumption that there is an actual legit movement to take guns away from people (and yes Google jockeys I know easy it is to find exceptions to the rule) when there is actually only movements to create legislation to allow people guns to fire high volumes of bullets in a short amount of time.  It also rides on circular logic that whenever a previously “law abiding” citizen commits a crime that they are no longer a law abiding citizen and therefore can’t be considered against the argument of only criminals will have guns.  It’s a very tidy illogical argument.

 

There IS a movement to disarm citizens. Every tyranny in history has disarmed its citizens because tyrants are afraid of armed citizens. Tighter gun legislation is a step towards that. When you start deciding who can and can't have guns or applying unnecessary rules to them then you only have to introduce a few more laws to ban guns altogether.

There is nothing illogical in the pro-gun argument at all. It has been carefully thought out and makes sense. You really need to check it out instead of making false assumptions. As for your circular logic theory, that's hogwash. Criminals will have guns WHATEVER THE LAW SAYS. Law-abiding citizens will not own guns if guns are illegal.

[shoes_untied]

It isn't guns Peep...   it's people.

The 2014 Kunming attack was a terrorist attack^[3][4][5] in the Chinese city of Kunming, Yunnan, on 1 March 2014. The incident, targeted against civilians, left 29 civilians and 4 perpetrators^[1] dead with more than 140 others injured.^[4][6] The attack has been called a "massacre" by some news media.^[7][8][9]

At around 9:20 pm local time, a group of eight knife-wielding men and women attacked passengers at the city's railway station.^[10] Both male and female attackers were seen to pull out long-bladed knives and proceed to stab and slash passengers. At the scene, police killed four assailants^[11][12] and captured one injured female. In the afternoon of 3 March, police announced that the six-man two-woman group had been neutralized after the arrest of three remaining suspects.^[1][8]

No group or individual stepped forward to claim responsibility for the attack.^[13]Xinhua News Agency announced within hours of the incident that it was carried out by Xinjiang separatist terrorists,^[14] while Time and The New York Times reported that Uyghur Muslims were involved in the attack.^[3][15] The government of Kunming also said the attack had been linked to Xinjiang militants.^[10][16] Police said they had confiscated a black, hand-painted East Turkestan flag at the scene.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Kunming_attack

This is another argument fallacy that always comes up in gun discussion.  To say it is people and not guns is a fallacy off attribution.  When people complain about guns they are not attempting to state that there are not evil motives behind people committing these horrific crimes and that guns plan and launch the attacks on their own. They are complaining that these evil people have access to such effective killing tools.  I don’t know about you but I would be willing to bet that just about everyone here, if faced with the situation of being attacked would rather a person be armed with a knife than a gun.  They are not equivalent.  One is more affective which is the same reason many of you want to own one for self-defense instead of relying on just a knife. 

If it was all about intent then shoot, the whole hunting industry would be turned up-side-down.  Why spend the money on a gun for deer hunting when you could just go out with a knife (or hammer as I have also seen compared with a gun as just a tool) and get your deer?  Hopefully you see how ridiculous that sounds and while people aren’t as fast and agile as deer, it is still about the effectiveness of the tool.

[other one]

Bopeep , that is a common misconception but the fact is terrorists, criminals and deranged people won't follow the gun laws.

They want to massacre people who can't defend themselves,  they don't go places where they know people are armed or they will attack at times when people will be unprotected. This school was a "no gun zone" I believe. The killer didn't leave his gun at home. He also was looking for Christians to kill wasn't he? that's the question he asked and shot Christians in the head and the others in the legs?

This is a common assertion that makes the false assumption that the gun supply to criminals is separate and operates independently of the gun supply and distribution to law abiding citizens.  The gun supply to criminals rides on the supply chain of guns to the law abiding citizens.  The larger the supply of guns to citizens the greater the opportunity there is for them to get into the hands of disreputable dealers, dishonest people, careless owners, etc… thus increasing the supply to bad guys as well.  If you believe that increasing the amount of guns in this country until all citizens are packing will reduce crime in a greater amount than what it will cause through carelessness, bad judgement, or good person gone bad then fine, but the whole “only bad guys will have guns” argument is a false dilemma fallacy.

 

 

This argument also rides on the back of additional fallacies.  It make the false assumption that there is an actual legit movement to take guns away from people (and yes Google jockeys I know easy it is to find exceptions to the rule) when there is actually only movements to create legislation to allow people guns to fire high volumes of bullets in a short amount of time.  It also rides on circular logic that whenever a previously “law abiding” citizen commits a crime that they are no longer a law abiding citizen and therefore can’t be considered against the argument of only criminals will have guns.  It’s a very tidy illogical argument.

 

I really do not believe that is true, and this is one small reason why:

http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/07/mandated-gun-ownership-a-tale-of-two-cities/

[shoes_untied]

Bopeep , that is a common misconception but the fact is terrorists, criminals and deranged people won't follow the gun laws.

They want to massacre people who can't defend themselves,  they don't go places where they know people are armed or they will attack at times when people will be unprotected. This school was a "no gun zone" I believe. The killer didn't leave his gun at home. He also was looking for Christians to kill wasn't he? that's the question he asked and shot Christians in the head and the others in the legs?

This is a common assertion that makes the false assumption that the gun supply to criminals is separate and operates independently of the gun supply and distribution to law abiding citizens.  The gun supply to criminals rides on the supply chain of guns to the law abiding citizens.  The larger the supply of guns to citizens the greater the opportunity there is for them to get into the hands of disreputable dealers, dishonest people, careless owners, etc… thus increasing the supply to bad guys as well.  If you believe that increasing the amount of guns in this country until all citizens are packing will reduce crime in a greater amount than what it will cause through carelessness, bad judgement, or good person gone bad then fine, but the whole “only bad guys will have guns” argument is a false dilemma fallacy.

 

 

This argument also rides on the back of additional fallacies.  It make the false assumption that there is an actual legit movement to take guns away from people (and yes Google jockeys I know easy it is to find exceptions to the rule) when there is actually only movements to create legislation to allow people guns to fire high volumes of bullets in a short amount of time.  It also rides on circular logic that whenever a previously “law abiding” citizen commits a crime that they are no longer a law abiding citizen and therefore can’t be considered against the argument of only criminals will have guns.  It’s a very tidy illogical argument.

 

There IS a movement to disarm citizens. Every tyranny in history has disarmed its citizens because tyrants are afraid of armed citizens. Tighter gun legislation is a step towards that. When you start deciding who can and can't have guns or applying unnecessary rules to them then you only have to introduce a few more laws to ban guns altogether.

There is nothing illogical in the pro-gun argument at all. It has been carefully thought out and makes sense. You really need to check it out instead of making false assumptions. As for your circular logic theory, that's hogwash. Criminals will have guns WHATEVER THE LAW SAYS. Law-abiding citizens will not own guns if guns are illegal.

What legislation is being proposed to make guns in general against the law?  The assertion that any gun law is part of a bigger scheme to disarm citizens is just conspiracy theory and I have been around long enough to know it is futile to argue against conspiracy theories.  Other than that you have not provided any substantive information to disagree with me other than just tell me that I'm wrong.

[missmuffet]

what we need is more people armed....    One person who was shot several times attacked the shooter to try and stop him....   if he had been armed it's very likely only one person might have been hurt....              These things are only happening in places where it is illegal to carry weapons.....    so only good law abiding people there are unarmed and that's simply not good.

 

That would be the solution coming from someone who is a gun advocate.A gun is what started all of this.

No it didn't   a mentally deranged person started this....    and a stable trained armed person could have ended it quite quickly....

 

what we need is more people armed....    One person who was shot several times attacked the shooter to try and stop him....   if he had been armed it's very likely only one person might have been hurt....              These things are only happening in places where it is illegal to carry weapons.....    so only good law abiding people there are unarmed and that's simply not good.

 

Yes,a mentally deranged person who unfortunately had access to a gun.I think it is impossible to keep guns out of their hands since there are so many on the street who will illegally give them a gun.I really can see your reactions on here that all guns should not be taken away from people.But look at the tragedies in the news.These incidents are becoming routine.What is the solution?

Edited October 2, 2015 by bopeep1909