In a mass murder situation, the police will never get there fast enough. (Consider the Luby’s shooting in Texas.)
The only way to stop a situation like that is with a gun. The question is, why weren’t there rifles at the camp?
When I was a kid, I used to go to a summer camp in South Park where I spent much of my time shooting. What an incredible shame that the kids on that island were not given what they needed to defend themselves. Not only did they have to watch their friends die, but their society stripped them of the ability to protect themselves and their friends.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1u0Byq5Qis]
I live about 25 miles from Killeen, TX. That day is still very real.
Yea, I was living in Houston at the time.
A peace loving democratic liberal people need to protect the citizens from potential accidents so weapons use is not taught to the youth.
This riveting piece of history recorded on video made a strong impression on me several years ago. Thank you, Steve, for posting it. I obtained my concealed carry permit and have exercised that right and responsibility ever since.
“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed lamb.” Benjamin Franklin
The real question is why that island did have any security and police presence. If there was security, the gunman couldn’t have safely gathered the group together because the security guard would have got announced this guy isn’t a policeman. Without them gathered he found it so hard to kill many people.
The security guard was one of the first killed. He was an off duty police man!
That testimony should be replayed every time something like this happens. That stated, this happened in Norway, not the U.S.
Our societal norms and mores are not the same. This is why we can’t export the American way of life. It doesn’t work for many. It is ours and uniquely ours.
That video clip is shown every time something like that happens suyts, it seems to be saying that if guns were not allowed then that madman wouldn’t have been able to start firing in the first place so her forgetting her gun wouldn’t have mattered. She wouldn’t have had to worry either about shooting someone else by mistake either when returning fire.
Steve, the reason they didn’t have guns at the camp is because you shouldn’t give people the chance to use them on each other. Examples of this , when there are too many guns, are of kids and young adults shooting teachers, other kids and their parents.
This sort of planned shooting happens very infrequently, you start arming people at every gathering and you will one or two shootings every month. The total will quickly get past 100.
Say in this case you gave them a lot of guns, none of them would know who started it, so if one of the other kids has a gun do you take him out just in case? At least that policeman who just turned up is a safe bet … er, wrong again.
When the police turn up 1 hour later how do they know who started it if more than one person has been shooting?
I’m glad I live in the UK where the nearest gun to my daughters more than likely to be at least 5 or 6 miles away in one of nicer area’s of south London and not just over the road in some law abiding citizen’s hand. Law abiding today, possible nutcase tommorow.
Statisitics show more guns mean more deaths, more spree killings, more suicides, more accidents.
Andy
If they had a rifle, a lot fewer people would be dead.
Statistics can be used to support anything from Anthrogenic Global Warming to contrasting conclusions regarding the effect guns have on civil order. In fact statistics also show automobiles are far deadlier than guns. The entire argument is irrelevant. The 2nd Amendment exists, as Dr. Hupp remarked, to place a curb on the aspirations of politicians to curb the freedom of the rest of us.
The Penn and Teller bit is mistaken since the framers, such as Jefferson differentiated between military (armies and navies) and militia. Article One, Section Eight of the US constitution actually provides for an army and a navy. Neither is the militia. The militia is the body public (civilian), able to protect itself and to impose civil order when administrative bodies fail. A state remains free only so long as its citizens are willing to defend it. Thus “people” have the right not the army or navy. The 2nd Amendment exists in short because had the colonists been unarmed, no revolutionary war could have been fought.
“…it seems to be saying that if guns were not allowed then that madman wouldn’t have been able to start firing in the first place so her forgetting her gun wouldn’t have mattered.”……. lol, no, I don’t believe that’s the message she wanted you to take with you. BTW, laws don’t really influence the behavior of criminals.
Also, you state, “Statisitics show more guns mean more deaths, more spree killings, more suicides, more accidents.” No, I don’t recall the name of the town now, but I can find it if need be, but gun ownership was legalized and encouraged and crime rate went down……. this may be unique to America, but I’m pretty sure the more legal guns per capita, the lower the crime rates including murder by gun.
But Andy, and you may find this hard to understand, even if your statistics were universally correct, I’d still side with the free ownership of firearms. Defending ones person and property is an inalienable right and the protection of person and property must be afforded the ultimate ability. If one cannot ultimately protect themselves, then one cannot protect themselves at all.
Throughout this nation’s history, our forefathers defended that right with their lifeblood. We would be negligent of our birthright and shame the memory of their sacrifice were we to do the unforgivable and determine their lives held less meaning than ours. In summation, I find that living with liberties, while bearing a risk, is far more preferable and less dangerous than living without. But, then, that’s why we’re here. 🙂
James
Cars kill a million people per year. They need to be banned.
Can’t argue with that James, you are happy with the downsides given what you say are the benefits you mention above ie a price worth paying.
Andy
“Cars kill…..”
Yes, and lawn mowers maim, swimming without a lifeguard is dangerous, as is improper diet. I guess, Andy is one that wishes to eliminate risk from life, but I find that wouldn’t be preferable even if we could achieve it. It is the risk that makes life worth living. It is risk that hones the skills and creates a hardier people. It is to societal detriment that we move in such a direction.
It is a sad thing to watch.
I said in another posts soon cars would be brought into the argument, it’s not a very strong argument. Duster said “In fact statistics also show automobiles are far deadlier than guns” What statistic is that? If you take the number of hours driven each year per car death it is far far lower than the number of gun deaths equalised up to the same number of hours shooting. The only reason that gun deaths is less than cars is because people spend a lot less time shooting than driving.
If guns stop muggings and burglaries to some extent I still do not think it is a worthwhile trade off, I’d far rather be filling out an insurance claim than having someone fill out my death certficiate. There is the argument that what happens if someone comes into my house with the intent to kill me, then I can’t defend myself. True, but that is unlikely, certainly a lot more than being shot by my wife, relative, neighbour etc.
Andy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nf1OgV449g
http://thearmedcitizen.com/
Here’s a clue, it is not down to having guns. Having guns gives them a really high suicide and domestic gun violence rate.
This is just propaganda, as you can tell from the place you got it from
Try harder
Andy
If the students had access to a rifle, there would have been a lot fewer dead + one scumbag in hell.
I think the definition of criminal is someone that breaks the law…..
….how is making it against the law to have guns going to change that?
It’s already against the law to kill people………….
“their society stripped them of the ability to protect themselves and their friends”
In a comparison of the rate of private gun ownership in 179 countries, Norway ranks 11th highest. (www.gunpolicy.org).