Terrorism and gun control

Status
Not open for further replies.
:"Not against concealed carry nor am I in favor of gun control, as it is usually presented. Just prefer a realistic point of view. Those shooters were heavily armed and had ill intent. Seemed downright cold blooded. So resistance was unlikely to deter them for even a moment. ":

Maybe it won't deter them, but a bullet in the head may have slowed them down significantly. CCW for the good guys would not encourage the terrorist, I am pretty sure.
 
Don't want to run anybody's life, don't want any money I didn't rightfully earn, and I mind my own business and expect everyone else to do likewise. Seems like that is not too much to ask.
Click to expand...

You would think so, wouldn't you, but the reality is that it seem to be entirely too much to ask of a LOT of people, both in the US and around the world.

EVERY religious and political zealot wants to run your life. and there are a LOT of them, of every possible permutation, from the zoning board that says you have to keep your lawn mowed to the radical jihadist who will happily kill you for the greater glory of their version of God.

And they ALL believe their way is the only way to the greater good.

There is NO way to look into the mind of man and know what he or she will do in the future. NONE.

The best we can do, is GUESS at what they MIGHT do, based on past actions.

NO screening process can stop the person who has not yet committed evil, but plans to in the future. No background check, no questionnaire, possibly not even a lie detector test can do that.

one report on the latest shooting said they got the ARs 3 years before the shooting rampage. (currently unconfirmed).

Putting people on a watch list because of what they MIGHT do is one thing, and arguable as to its ethics. (a no fly list is even worse)

Deny or restrict basic rights WHEN NO CRIME HAS BEEN COMMITTED by the individuals is simply wrong, and contrary to our claimed system of innocent until PROVEN guilty.

But, that's what gun control is. And a lot of people think its just fine.

I don't.

If you want to end terrorism, you have to end the terrorists, and what creates them. You can take the current 21st century route, limited strikes against identified individuals and overall "nation building" to improve their living conditions in the hope that different opportunities will remove the reason for terrorism. So far, it hasn't done that, because we still have these attacks happening.

Or you could use the method used in previous centuries, which is overwhelming force, kicking the crap out of everyone in the region to pointedly deliver the message, "if you do this, or allow others here to do it to us, this is what happens to ALL of you".

Brutal? yes. Collateral damage? HIGH
Effective? History says yes.

We think of ourselves a better than that, today, and don't seem to have the will to go that far. The people we are fighting think differently.
 
This recent attack was a lot smaller, the scumbags were killed fairly quickly by the police, and the largest reaction in the US is by liberals who think that making people defenseless will create a more peaceful world.
Click to expand...

Both sides are guilty in using tragedies to get their pro and anti gun view across.
 
Both sides are guilty in using tragedies to get their pro and anti gun view across.
Click to expand...

Again I feel I must disagree . The anti's use tragedies to "push" there agenda . We only defend the right and are on defense at all times . In almost all cases if the anti's just said nothing about gun control . Are side would say nothing about it either .

I said it before , The anti's have been winning the fight of ideas and how people look at guns since 1992 . Just recently in the last couple years the tied has begun to change .

We must keep trying to win the fight of how guns are perceived . It's to bad we have to fight with private money while the anti's get to use the unlimited budget of the government . Here in CA they sign into law at least 3 new gun laws every year . While it takes 3 or 4 years for us to get only one of those reversed in the courts . That 12 to 1 ratio is unwinnable and has not made CA safer .
 
Again I feel I must disagree . The anti's use tragedies to "push" there agenda . We only defend the right and are on defense at all times . In almost all cases if the anti's just said nothing about gun control . Are side would say nothing about it either .
Click to expand...
I can only go on what i see, on one forum they were using the shootings in Paris to push the pro gun view while the attack was still ongoing.
 
Sorry I thought we were talking only about the US and are debate on gun control and the US constitution . I forget some times that this forum is much more international then others .

I have not followed that debate in Paris but did they not once allow the citizens there to own more guns and at some point restricted them . I'd bet before all the restriction . The pro gun lobby was not pushing for more access to guns . At least no where near as much as they are now . Likely do to the fact they have all but been taken away .
 
I was at lunch with some friends and on the way back there was some mention on NPR that Obama may use the terrorist attacks to proposal more gun control in his Oval Office speech tonight. They didn’t go into much detail, but could he use the Patriot Act or some other emergency powers act to make some radical change. Could he do something temporary with hopes that it might become permanent?
 
I've deleted a number of off-topic posts but even with the deletions it's not going to be salvageable.

Once the discussion turns away from gun control and terrorism to just terrorism, it goes off topic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top