Because a depressed kid out to kill his mother = a white supremacist intent on destroying the government. Is your argument that if we take away their guns they'll make bombs? Makes you wonder where all the Oklahoma City bombers are hiding in gun-control-crazy Europe.
And suggesting anyone go to the parents hours after this tragedy happens and say such things is ridiculous. gun advocate or not its disgusting to even suggest it..
Look, you would indeed have to be a colossal asshole to actually do it. But this whole "don't politicize a tragedy by using it to call for gun control" thing is total bullshit (which was the point of my analogies above). Every other tragedy is a call to do something to prevent further similar events. If you don't believe that gun control WILL do anything, fine, you're wrong, but fine. But to say that you can't even discuss the issue has become a reliable gun-fan talking point. It allows you to become all self-righteous ("show some respect!") while achieving the agenda of maintaining the status quo. Of course nobody should be talking to the parents about this stuff, that would be monstrous. I can't imagine what they must feel like. That said, if any of the parents later come out for gun control, watch the "respect" on the right disappear, just as it did for the 9/11 widows.
Rasta, can you please expound on your "I would gladly trample (everyone in the world's) rights to prevent one single death" post? I mean, I'm having a seriously hard time understanding what you're saying, and I don't want to extrapolate out (to what I think is the logical conclusion) without understanding more of what you meant.
cars aren't designed and produced for the sole purpose of killing something. If I drive my car on the road with other cars or people around, chances are I don't kill anyone. If I shoot my gun on the road, with other cars or people around, chances are I'll accomplish what the purpose of the gun was intended for.
OK. Rasta, since you live in Flint, where there's a 1-in-42 chance that you're going to be a victim of a violent crime, I'm going to impose a complete gun ban, because as you said, trampling rights is ok if it saves one life. I'm also going to impose a 6pm curfew, b/c a vast majority of these crimes takes place at night. If making everyone stay inside after dark saves at least one life, I don't care how many people's rights are trampled. And since it seems that we can't trust average citizens, then we're going to quarter a couple of soldiers in everyone's house. Yeah, your rights are being trampled, but having someone trained with weapon use in every home will probably save at least one innocent life. And cameras will be installed in every home, so we can see if you're planning to do bad things. If it saves one life, I don't care if your privacy rights are trampled. Since a majority of people convicted of mass murder have pled insanity, I'm also going to indefinitely imprison everyone who has a diagnosed mental problem. If it saves one life, then I don't care whose rights are trampled.
There are 300,000,000+ guns in the USA. Why aren't there 300,000,000 shootings, crimes, etc? Seems there are other purposes.
Wow - not sure what to think of this: (By "Oz" he means Australia, not over the rainbow. Here's what he's talking about: Hmm. If only Rupert Murdoch was in charge of a huge multinational media empire that had some shred of influence on exactly the politicians who always work to undermine gun control laws...
Automatic =/ semi-automatic. What is more scary is how ignorant Murdoch seems to be of the weapons used today and in Clackamas. Guns are still allowed in Australia, just not automatic weapons and some semi-automatic rifles. That said, their "massacre rate" was tiny to begin with, which points more toward a sociological problem, it could appear.
