Oslo Bombing

[il Padrino Ute]

If the Columbine guys wanted to do it legally, they could have. The brains behind the shootings had turned 18 and had no record so he could easily have done it himself. He had a friend do it anyway for unknown reasons. It's a pretty silly distinction, as either way a kid obtained a gun because guns were available for purchase.

Are there people who buy guns for nefarious reasons? Sure. But prohibiting everyone from purchasing guns because of the actions of a few is not going to solve the problem of bad guys obtaining weapons. Punish the culprit for the deed, not the populace who abides by the law.

[wuapinmon]

Are there people who buy guns for nefarious reasons? Sure. But prohibiting everyone from purchasing guns because of the actions of a few is not going to solve the problem of bad guys obtaining weapons. Punish the culprit for the deed, not the populace who abides by the law.

I really dislike handguns, but this sums up my take on the right to bear arms. I don't see how I can advocate unfettered access to narcotics and other habit-forming drugs while saying that gun access should be limited.

[Green Monstah]

Interesting. Norway has a ban on all semi-auto firearms and high-caliber handguns. They also have a rich tradition of hunting and competitive shooting.

BD will flame me, but I think this may be a perfect example of why a well-armed citizenry is actually a good thing...because crazies will find a way to get the guns they want/need to do their nefarious deeds. Imagine if three or four camp counselors were licensed and carried concealed weapons. It may have saved dozens of lives.

Even if draconian gun control laws could eradicate violent crimes, that's only 1/2 my worry. What then stops the military from having complete control of the country? What judicial, executive or legislative actor could stop a rogue military? Maybe we're too big and diverse of a military for that to be a worry, but I do think well-armed citizens keep the military balanced, just as the colonists needed their muskets, cannon, ball and powder to counterbalance the British Regulars in ye early days of this country.

I'm sure this will be blown off as another rightwing nutjob rant, but there is no easy answer to this question, IMO. Wolf by the ears; we can neither hold on or let go. Maybe we all need to roll anti-Nephi-Lehi style, bury our weapons of war, and let our enemies slaughter us if they want to. I just don't know the absolute best solution.....

[venkman]

In some of these massacres, the nut jobs was stopped by an armed citizen. That can't happen in a place like Norway.

Sometimes freedom is messy and dangerous.

[venkman]

Sadly, my mother--who is basically a fascist (aka, a Utah Republican)--immediately seized upon the opportunity to rail on the muslims and shariah law.

The gun-toting right are the scary people in America, who are so stupid, they willingly give up personal freedom in the name of cause (note: Patriot Act). Morons.

You couldn't be more wrong. The far right gun nuts like me are the ones against the patriot act. It's generally the "reasonable" conservatives and moderates who are ok with the patriot act. Also, most libs too since they haven't uttered a peep about it since their guy is now the one in charge.

I'm for all of the bill of rights, which means I'm for the right to keep and bear arms and against the patriot act.

[woot]

[Tim]

Folks such as Viking (And perhaps you as well?) would force people to not be able to have a handgun. You living in fear of being shot is irrational because I have no reason to shoot you, unless you put my life in danger.

LOL. Force you to NOT have something? Do you speak English? Does that even make sense?

[Tim]

Are there people who buy guns for nefarious reasons? Sure. But prohibiting everyone from purchasing guns because of the actions of a few is not going to solve the problem of bad guys obtaining weapons. Punish the culprit for the deed, not the populace who abides by the law.

The problem is that there's no way to differentiate between the two. People buy handguns through legal means and then kill people with them. You use "legal purchase" as your theoretical dividing line but the reality shows that gun violence is frequently committed by people who obtained weapons through legal means.

No one's talking about "forcing" you to not have something. We need laws that prevent people from doing stupid things within the sphere of other people who may be affected when the risks are just too high, like they are with guns, not unlike how we have laws against driving 150 MPH on the freeway or lighting off bottle rockets in the middle of the city.

[Uncle Ted]

Interesting. Norway has a ban on all semi-auto firearms and high-caliber handguns. They also have a rich tradition of hunting and competitive shooting.

BD will flame me, but I think this may be a perfect example of why a well-armed citizenry is actually a good thing...because crazies will find a way to get the guns they want/need to do their nefarious deeds. Imagine if three or four camp counselors were licensed and carried concealed weapons. It may have saved dozens of lives.

What happened with 911 most likely won't happen again because of the fact that many of pilots now carry handguns. I have been at the gun range when many of these pilots were being trained and have discussed this with them. They said they were not allowed to have guns before 911 and they would have carried if they could have. If they had handguns before the attacks then it may not have happened in the first place.

One has to wonder what would have happened if the teachers at Columbine had handguns. Just the fact that the teachers might be armed might have been enough of deterrent for the assailants that it may have never happened. The same could be true for the VT massacre if students and teachers with CHLs would have been allowed to carry a handgun. Gun free zones are a bad idea because it just creates "fish in a barrel" environments for these crazies.

As for government regulation of guns it just creates an environment where only the bad guys have the guns. Mexico is a good example. Most of the illegal guns in Mexico don't come from the USA. A good number of the guns that do come from the USA may be supplied by own stupid government with programs like the ATF's "Fast & Furious".

You've probably heard about the ATF operation called Operation Fast and Furious. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives allowed guns to flow illegally into Mexico. The idea was to track the guns and snag some heavy-hitters in the Mexican drug cartels.

The program backfired disastrously. ATF lost track of many of the approximately 1,700 guns once they crossed the border.

Nearly 200 of those weapons were later found at crime scenes in Mexico. We're learning the horrific toll the guns have taken in a country trying to quell a de facto civil war: Mexican lawmakers say at least 150 people have been killed or wounded with weapons that were smuggled into their country while ATF agents watched. And the damage wasn't limited to the Mexican side of the border: Two of the guns were recovered last December after a U.S. Border Patrol agent was killed in Arizona.

[Tim]

What happened with 911 most likely won't happen again because of the fact that many of pilots now carry handguns. I have been at the gun range when many of these pilots were being trained and have discussed this with them. They said they were not allowed to have guns before 911 and they would have carried if they could have. If they had handguns before the attacks then it may not have happened in the first place.

One has to wonder what would have happened if the teachers at Columbine had handguns. Just the fact that the teachers might be armed might have been enough of deterrent for the assailants that it may have never happened. The same could be true for the VT massacre if students and teachers with CHLs would have been allowed to carry a handgun. Gun free zones are a bad idea because it just creates "fish in a barrel" environments for these crazies.

As for government regulation of guns it just creates an environment where only the bad guys have the guns. Mexico is a good example. Most of the illegal guns in Mexico don't come from the USA. A good number of the guns that do come from the USA may be supplied by own stupid government with programs like the ATF's "Fast & Furious".

You'd put a handgun in the hand of everyone, it seems. What if the McDonald's drive thru worker was carrying a gun? What if the librarian was carrying a gun? What if the professor was carrying a gun? Rather than solve the problem of guns your answer (speaking generally, not directly to you, UT) continues to be to put guns in more and more peoples' hands. It's not a sustainable model, though! The scales will tip. Hell, they've already started to tip. The more guns you put out there, the more people are going to use them! We can't keep saying things like "What if the pilots had had handguns?" Making judgements based on hindsight is foolish. In doing so we lose sight of the practical and simple answer, which is to work to remove the risk altogether, not just spread it out across more people.

[wuapinmon]

If someone ever goes crazy on my campus, my colleagues joke that they'll come to my office. I have machetes, daggers, a bow and arrows (it works too), and several cudgels. We would be like the early September 1939 Polish cavalry, but our charge would be glorious.

[Viking]

Maybe Chris Rock had it right:

Appease you whack jobs with your handguns by keeping them legal. Put a price floor on bullets of a million dollars.

[Uncle Ted]

You'd put a handgun in the hand of everyone, it seems. What if the McDonald's drive thru worker was carrying a gun? What if the librarian was carrying a gun? What if the professor was carrying a gun? Rather than solve the problem of guns your answer (speaking generally, not directly to you, UT) continues to be to put guns in more and more peoples' hands. It's not a sustainable model, though! The scales will tip. Hell, they've already started to tip. The more guns you put out there, the more people are going to use them! We can't keep saying things like "What if the pilots had had handguns?" Making judgements based on hindsight is foolish. In doing so we lose sight of the practical and simple answer, which is to work to remove the risk altogether, not just spread it out across more people.

No, handguns should only be in the hands of the "good guys" that have taken the time to get a legit concealed handgun license (CHL). If the bad guys don't know which of the good guys has a gun then the risk of doing their crime is much getter. Because of the greater risk they may decide that it is not worth it to do the crime in the first place.

Removing the risk altogether is impossible. The bad guys will always find a way to get a handgun. One would think that we, as a world community, could remove all the nuclear weapons on the earth. It hasn't happened. Let me know when all the nuclear weapons have been removed and that risk has been removed altogether then we can revisit the possibility of removing all the handguns in the world.

[Green Monstah]

No, handguns should only be in the hands of the "good guys" that have taken the time to get a legit concealed handgun license (CHL). If the bad guys don't know which of the good guys has a gun then the risk of doing their crime is much getter. Because of the greater risk they may decide that it is not worth it to do the crime in the first place.

Removing the risk altogether is impossible. The bad guys will always find a way to get a handgun. One would think that we, as a world community, could remove all the nuclear weapons on the earth. It hasn't happened. Let me know when all the nuclear weapons have been removed and that risk has been removed altogether then we can revisit the possibility of removing all the handguns in the world.

My sole complaint about gun laws is that we actually need a more rigorous screening process (sorry you 2nd Amendment aficianados). I think the Giffords-Loughner episode made me realize that we don't properly screen the mentally ill for gun ownership/possession.

[Devildog]

People have a basic right to defend themselves and their families.

Americans have the right to own guns because we are citizens and not subjects. The founding fathers recognized that we are a free people.

Humans haven't always had the rights we take for granted, other people died to make and keep it so.

You can't legislate your way to utopia.

Thank God for the people that will never sit back and allow others to strip away their protected rights and freedoms.

*edit, added videos

[YOUTUBE]_YY5Rj4cQ50[/YOUTUBE]


[YOUTUBE]joBMq6b4MmE&feature=related[/YOUTUBE]