Take a look at near any gun control thread, or any tragedy. The shooting in the Oceanography lecture for example - one member pointed out that it occurred in a gun free zone, and that if the university wasn't a gun free zone then perhaps it wouldn't have occurred (or would have been less serious). If there had been more guns in that lecture theatre, the argument goes, things wouldn't have been so bad.
This is exactly the crap I'm talking about. Yeah, perhaps if the people killed at Port Arthur had had guns they would have been better off. We don't know. What we do know is that this all occurred prior to the strict gun laws in Australia - the people could have had guns, but they still didn't.
Saying, "If only they'd had guns," is missing the point of the whole thing. "If only they'd all been wearing body armour." "If only guns shot confetti instead of bullets." We can throw hypotheticals around until the cows come home, but Port Arthur is an example where looser gun laws didn't do squat.
Oh good. Only law abiding citizens should be allowed guns. I'm glad you've invented a test to determine who is and who isn't going to commit a crime in the future...you have invented a test, right? Otherwise how are we going to put your wonderful plan into action?
Huge difference, though I suspected the goalpost would be moved on that, between your statement originally and your new one. Originally you just said our side said more guns would make us safer - now, after I point out I do not recall us ever saying that, you change to more guns IN A SPECIFIC LOCATION
like the auditorium in the news this past weekwas what was meant. More guns - even just one or two- would likely have resulted in the murderer being dropped after two or three shots at most. No other guns resulted in at least six people dead (well, subtract the murderer, I don't give a - for it). If you think that is a good thing, then we strongly disagree.
Apparently you hate guns, do not worry about being protected, do not care if others are protected and assume if you remove protection from others no one will have guns to shoot you with and you'll be fine. Statistically, you may be right to a very small degree more than statistically you are unlikely to be shot now. In reality, you are still just as much in danger for all practical purposes. Only the format changes.
By the by, of course you can't predict who will go insane or suddenly decide a life of crime will be a great thing to do in the future. I would not be spending time on this forum if I thought that at the current level of our technology/science. But we can identify people have have had/are having mental difficulties that preclude access to weapons and or criminal tendencies that should preclude access to weapons and put them on a computerised list with photos and other id that would be available to all sellers of weapons and would result in forfeiture of their store and financial accounts if they were found to have sold weapons to anyone on that list. That is certainly technologically feasible and is a situation I have no trouble with.
As I have no trouble with the other side, people not on the list should be able to obtain and carry, after training and certification, weapons for self/other protection into any area they go into in the normal activities of life. If they misuse/do not follow the requirements of their certification, their weapons a confiscated and they go on the list.
As to Port Arthur, I agree we can't know how it would have ended since we only have what did occur to go by. But I doubt really seriously that it could have been somehow made worse by someone else having a weapon who knew how to use it. Unless you believe the CT in Aust. that slime thing had help.
I really cannot get my head even half way around the idea that it is better for a person or group of people to have to stand around and get murdered by a shooter (or other) than to have the option to return fire. Makes it sound like you and the others on your side of this are saying it is better to have an occasional sacrifice to the gods of slaughter than to have people with protection available so we are sorry for the ones who died, but they died so we would live. I have avoided pointing this out previously, but I truly cannot see it any other way. I said, by the way, "sounds like" because I hope you just have not thought that through.
