Massive School Shooting at an Elementary School

[Regulus]

It's funny how no one has mentioned that it's still possible to fight back without a gun. If they're close enough for me to hand them my wallet, they're close enough for me to knock the gun out of their hand.

[Carl]

When a gun gets pointed at you you'd better keep perfectly still.

One move and you're dead.

And what if you have a gun of your own? The simple act of defiance, of showing that you won't cooperate and you will fight back, works wonders.

Again I say that is not always the case. I can't find an article about it online, but my brother remembers hearing about it also: there was an old man who was being mugged a couple of years ago, he couldn't hear what the robbers were saying, so he reached into his pocket to turn up his hearing aid, they assumed he was going for a gun, and so they shot and killed him. Having a gun doesn't necessarily make one safer.

[DGFone]

It is possible to fight back without a gun. But are you really going to risk letting them get to you that close? What if they are not alone?

The simple matter of the fact is that if you ban guns, the regular responsible people who don't kill anyone anyways... will not kill anyone. The criminals who get their guns illegally (and they are all illegal as to not show who committed the crime through a paper trail), will still have their guns, and a target base suddenly much easier to frighten off.

In short, you ban guns? Nothing will change.

Having a gun might not necessarily make me safer, but having the option to have one is certainly a good on, don't you think? If you honestly feel like you don't need a gun, then don't get one. Leave everyone else alone.

[Regulus]

It is possible to fight back without a gun. But are you really going to risk letting them get to you that close? What if they are not alone.

Yes, I totally would, especially if they have a gun. Guns are ineffective in hand to hand combat.

And if there's more than one, well then, don't you think I'd be screwed either way? The moment I draw a gun and shoot one, what's the other going to do? Return fire, of course.

That's not the solution. That's the problem.

You know what would help in a situation like that, though? Pepper spray. Knock them all out, and run away as fast as possible.

But nonlethal weapons are worthless, right?

[DGFone]

Guns are ineffective in hand to hand combat? They are made out of metal.

At the end of the day, I would much rather die fighting back, then die standing still. You can always distract them by tossing your wallet at them, then surprising them when they are not concentrating at you.

It's a matter of mindset: Are you going to entrust your life to the roll of the dice, or are you going to do something about it?

And is it really so important to stop the people who would like the option to fight back to do so?

[Regulus]

What is more of a roll of the dice than a gunfight? I'm a hell of a lot more confident in my ability to jab the guy in the neck with my car keys than to be able to pull a gun out of my pocket, aim it, and shoot before the guy that's already aimed at me fires.

And is it really so important to stop the people who would like the option to fight back to do so?

Hell yes it is. Ending violence with violence gets us nowhere. We are not barbarians.

[Carl]

It is possible to fight back without a gun. But are you really going to risk letting them get to you that close? What if they are not alone?

The simple matter of the fact is that if you ban guns, the regular responsible people who don't kill anyone anyways... will not kill anyone. The criminals who get their guns illegally (and they are all illegal as to not show who committed the crime through a paper trail), will still have their guns, and a target base suddenly much easier to frighten off.

In short, you ban guns? Nothing will change.

Not true. Some people who wouldn't kill otherwise, kill in a fit of emotion, jealousy, anger, what have you, and only do so because the weapon they have available is a gun. If someone gets really emotional and only has their fists or a knife, they are less likely to kill someone in a sudden fit of rage than if they have a gun. Even responsible people will shoot first if they're riled up.

Having a gun might not necessarily make me safer, but having the option to have one is certainly a good on, don't you think? If you honestly feel like you don't need a gun, then don't get one. Leave everyone else alone.

If everyone else has a gun, then I'll be more likely to feel like I need one. And besides, as I already pointed out, the only guns they're trying to stop us civvies from having are the military grade guns we don't even need. If I don't get a gun, that's not going to stop others from legally getting guns and killing people. It has to be made so that no one can get a gun if we want to lower crime. At this point, banning guns would not work, since so many people already have them. However, banning guns civvies don't need and selling non-lethal (or rather, less lethal) bullets should be acceptable alternatives.

[TheLionPrince]

Guns are also equalizers. If a woman was being attacked with a knife, could she stop her attacker with a knife? Now how about with a gun?

Yeah, I think so. Especially a woman with children.

There are some things you just don't want to mess with. Even an unarmed woman is one of them. Because of adrenaline and all that.

But that's not your decision to make. It's up to the woman to choose for themselves if they want defend themselves in this manner. I seem to recall you being pro-choice when it comes to abortion, Regulus. Doesn't you logic here seem to contradict that?

It's funny how no one has mentioned that it's still possible to fight back without a gun. If they're close enough for me to hand them my wallet, they're close enough for me to knock the gun out of their hand.

Oh, so we're talking about muggings? I was thinking this was about home invasions. Anyways, having a gun during a mugging won't help. However, having a gun at home will help, assuming you practice good firearm safety at home.

Newsflash: If you don't put yourself in bad parts of town, you aren't going to get mugged.

The criminals who get their guns illegally (and they are all illegal as to not show who committed the crime through a paper trail

I disagree here. Criminals aren't smart. Some are, but not most. The background check system has stopped 1.7 million criminals from buying guns. If they were smart, they would not have tried to buy them legally.

A question for you: Are you for or against banning automatic weapons? They have been banned since 1934. Are you ok with this or should civilians be allowed to have those?

Not true. Some people who wouldn't kill otherwise, kill in a fit of emotion, jealousy, anger, what have you, and only do so because the weapon they have available is a gun.

People still kill without guns.

[Carl]

People still kill without guns.

Of course they do. My point was just that some people who did not necessarily intend to kill would do so without thinking if a gun was handy and they were angry. It would be an impulse to fire. If they had another weapon that would take more than one hit to kill, they are more likely to come to their senses before the victim is dead.

[DGFone]

A question for you: Are you for or against banning automatic weapons? They have been banned since 1934. Are you ok with this or should civilians be allowed to have those?

There's a Catch 22 here: The ban lifted in 1994, and as a consequence, the US is now flooded with new automatic rifles and all that. So if you want an honest opinion, here it is: The worst thing we can do right now is to try and re-ban assault and automatic guns.

As with all bans, you try to ban something, during the period of legislation creation, the object in question will always get flooded into circulation even more. If you are truly worried about gun crime, the last think you want to do is to introduce another wave of assault-rifle buying right after people started relaxing from the fact that they can buy these weapons in the first place.

And because there are such guns in circulation already, the worst thing you can do is to deny people the right to have them if they see fit. Background checks? Absolutely. Fix loopholes to allow buying of guns without BG checks? Yes. But don't actually ban the guns all over.