Shooting rampage master thread

[da_bish]

If you asked the average Brit, who was more important, the Prime Minister or their family, you'd probably get a smack in the mouth followed by 'Fuck off! What d'yer fuckin' think?'

Who's personally more important to you isn't really the issue. Obama is not asking you to love his family more than your own.

It's who has the more pressing need for armed security.

Ask that same Briton "which is more likely to be targeted by Al Qaeda, 10 Downing or your flat?"

This whole thing is an absurd distraction by the NRA, of course. The fact that this argument is the best they can come up with really shows how pathetic their reasoning is.

[Rev Nice]

If you asked the average Brit, who was more important, the Prime Minister or their family, you'd probably get a smack in the mouth followed by 'Fuck off! What d'yer fuckin' think?'

Who's personally more important to you isn't really the issue. Obama is not asking you to love his family more than your own.

It's who has the more pressing need for armed security.

Ask that same Briton "which is more likely to be targeted by Al Qaeda, 10 Downing or your flat?"

And then ask the same Briton, how many politicians died in the last major terrorist attack.

[SaigonSaddler]

And an attempt to change the subject that you're struggling to debate? Have you got one lined up for everyone with an opposing argument, or will you, at some point, address the pertinent questions?

I don't feel like I'm struggling here. I've approached this discussion with logic more than emotion.

Other people on this topic use terms to describe people with guns as "stupid" or being in favor of supporting gun ownership facilitating baby killers. That's quite insulting.

I haven't shot anyone. This fear your neighbors, and trust your government to do the right thing is a bit misguided. I've already posted some figures and a link on democide in the last century. That's curiously the same time gun controls have evolved the way they have. My point was largely ignored here. Everyone wanting firearms confiscated I would ask to apply that philosophy to confiscation of their car and other possessions, prohibitions on their speech or limits on their ability to associate with others.

I think the problem is in the society and the feeling for the need to rely on weapons to ward off something largely conspiratorial and what amounts to a fantasy.

Also the need to debate every single point makes some of the arguments sound absurd, even if there could be a vaguely reasonable point hidden in the details.

For example, of course the president is going to have armed guards - and that's not a erosion of civil liberties based on inequality of access.

[da_bish]

Saw something amusing and quite on point last night. If you have five or ten minutes, have a look at this:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-j ... s-the-boom

It explores the NRA's chief talking point -- "we don't need new laws, we just need to enforce the laws on the books." Interesting they would argue that based on what's revealed in the clip.

By the way, that clip really shows how bankrupt telly news analysis is in the states. It takes a satire programme to actually inform you about the issues of the day -- perhaps why more young people get their news from these satire programmes than from the straight news. You'd NEVER see such an analysis on a "real" news show.

[da_bish]

And then ask the same Briton, how many politicians died in the last major terrorist attack.

No one wants anyone to die in terrorist attacks.

Question remains the same though -- is it not obvious that the government and other important "symbol targets" are vastly more likely to be attacked than a random chap's house in Aldersley?

I prefer my own family to Obama's but I readily accept that his children are much more likely to be kidnapped by terrorists than mine are. And I prefer my own skin to Obama's, but I recognise that if I were kidnapped it would have less of an effect on the lives of hundreds of millions of Americans than if Obama were kidnapped.

[Goldwyrm]

It's who has the more pressing need for armed security.

Security is not something to be rationed to only the powerful, for the powerful.

Ask that same Briton "which is more likely to be targeted by Al Qaeda, 10 Downing or your flat?"

Guns don't help much with most random suicide car bombings. Although no cars or trucks in the hand of private citizens might reduce that risk...oops that's not happening.

Regarding flats, I can't speak for anyone in the UK. However, in the U.S. I doubt the police could respond in time if most families were to suffer a home invasion. What are the victims to do, rely on the mercy of their attackers who would likely prefer no witnesses if caught?

[Rev Nice]

And then ask the same Briton, how many politicians died in the last major terrorist attack.

No one wants anyone to die in terrorist attacks.

I think you'll find terrorists do.
It's kind of the point.

If you mean the average person, then no.
Of course not.
Why on Earth would they?

[da_bish]

Security is not something to be rationed to only the powerful, for the powerful.

Only? No. Same level? Come on.

Are you arguing that every American should have their own Secret Service detail? Or that the president shouldn't have one?

[Colonel Kane]

If you asked the average Brit, who was more important, the Prime Minister or their family, you'd probably get a smack in the mouth followed by 'Fuck off! What d'yer fuckin' think?'

Who's personally more important to you isn't really the issue. Obama is not asking you to love his family more than your own.

It's who has the more pressing need for armed security.

Ask that same Briton "which is more likely to be targeted by Al Qaeda, 10 Downing or your flat?"

And then ask the same Briton, how many politicians died in the last major terrorist attack.

Just so long as one of those politicians is Norman Tebbit...

[da_bish]

I think you'll find terrorists do.
It's kind of the point.

See my query to Goldwyrm above. What's the point, exactly? What are you proposing for the security of HM government?