One More Massacre

Raees wrote: Mass casualty shooting in Canada: two killed. That's a typical Saturday night in Aurora.

Then head north. That will raise the intelligent quota of both countries.

Raees wrote: A bunch of yahoos with guns would be no match for an invading military force.

This one merited a separate response.

Problem that an invading force would have here that they don't have elsewhere is that here there isn't simply a bunch of people here - there's millions of citizens armed in this union. The more the laws restrict the weapons that they are allowed to possess, the less effective that body of citizens is capable of being. I would agree with you that a bunch of citizens armed with shotguns and handguns would be very ineffective against an invading military force - regardless of whether that force was foreign or domestic in composition. That's why so many of us are willing to stand up and resist any attempts to make us potentially less effective than we already are. We have the potential to be a much more effective force than at present, but for some odd reason our federal government, and many left leaning groups and individuals, doesn't want us to be able to possess what would make us more effective. Why would that be?

Because we're killing our fellow Americans in droves while waiting for the bogey man that never comes.

Raees wrote: Because we're killing our fellow Americans in droves while waiting for the bogey man that never comes.

Droves? You sounding sillier and sillier.

You should increase your vocabulary:

Droves: A large number of people or things doing or undergoing the same thing: "tourists stayed away in droves".

I'd say 31,000 people dying from guns each year in the U.S. is droves.

Raees wrote: Because we're killing our fellow Americans in droves while waiting for the bogey man that never comes.

Stats refute this. Despite record numbers of guns being sold, the murder rate in America continues to fall.

Raees, maybe you should move to Putin's Russia. Guns are banned yet the murder rate is higher than the US. (The downside of only letting one side, the goverment have guns.)

Raees wrote:

PrintSmith wrote:

Raees wrote:

PrintSmith wrote:

Raees wrote: PrintSmith, your chances of getting blown away by someone carrying a gun in the U.S. are pretty good. Your chances of "being the subjects of, or subjugated to, a despotic and tyrannical government" are not even calculable.

The reason that I have a better (though slim) chance of getting blown away by someone carrying a gun than I do living as the subject of, or subjugated to, a despotic and tyrannical government lies in the fact that the 2nd Amendment is part of the Constitution. Without that protection, I have a greater possibility of being subjugated to a despotic and tyrannical government than I do being harmed by a gun. I'd rather the former be the condition under which I live than the latter.

A bunch of yahoos with guns would be no match for an invading military force.

And Fred, Canada has much stricter gun laws than the U.S. but has 1/5 the murder rate.

And Canada also had its own mass casualty shooting not too long ago. So much for stricter gun laws being able to stop incidents like this from happening.

So Canada's one mass casualty shooting is equal to the dozens in the U.S.? Perhaps stricter gun laws helped cut down on the the number of incidents in Canada.

Mass casualty shooting in Canada: two killed. That's a typical Saturday night in Aurora.

And despite their strict gun control laws, both the number of shootings and the number of dead from those shootings both continue to climb in Canada. The ability of the Canadian citizen to protect themselves from that escalation, however, remains the same - very, very limited by the gun control laws.

Raees wrote: Because we're killing our fellow Americans in droves while waiting for the bogey man that never comes.

Evidently the boogeyman comes quite often - isn't that what you want us to believe to be the case especially with regards to mass casualty events? Isn't that why the left wants stricter gun control laws, max 10 round magazines and a ban on scarier looking guns that are functionally indistinguishable from ones that don't look so scary? So that when the boogeyman does, inevitably, come, he won't be able to harm so many in such a short period of time with such ease? Isn't the main argument against a 30 round magazine the one that says that when the boogeyman comes to get you he'll have to reload more often if his magazines hold fewer rounds?

PrintSmith wrote:

Raees wrote: Because we're killing our fellow Americans in droves while waiting for the bogey man that never comes.

Evidently the boogeyman comes quite often - isn't that what you want us to believe to be the case especially with regards to mass casualty events? Isn't that why the left wants stricter gun control laws, max 10 round magazines and a ban on scarier looking guns that are functionally indistinguishable from ones that don't look so scary? So that when the boogeyman does, inevitably, come, he won't be able to harm so many in such a short period of time with such ease? Isn't the main argument against a 30 round magazine the one that says that when the boogeyman comes to get you he'll have to reload more often if his magazines hold fewer rounds?

I was referring to attempts to take over the U.S. I should have been more clear.

Raees wrote: You should increase your vocabulary:

Droves: A large number of people or things doing or undergoing the same thing: "tourists stayed away in droves".

I'd say 31,000 people dying from guns each year in the U.S. is droves.

One in ten million certainly qualifies as being a member of a drove - who could possibly argue with that?

Opps - one in ten thousand - my mistake. Still, a drove by anyone's measure, right Raees?