Is there another uni shooting?

**Euroholic** · 06-07-2013, 07:04 PM

I just herd on the radio that in the california unviersity 6 people have been shot dead and 2 people burnt in a house? Can someone confirm this? I only ask cause of all the uni talk on here lately!!!

**BeastBro66** · 06-07-2013, 07:17 PM

It was more of a killing spree that started in a residential neighborhood and ended at the library of Santa Monica college.

As many as seven dead, including gunman, in shooting rampage near Los Angeles - U.S. News

**MuscleInk** · 06-07-2013, 07:19 PM

Yes. Near LA.

**Euroholic** · 06-07-2013, 07:20 PM

Ok cheers for the link i only herd a bit of it on the radio. Im starting to get sick of these random killings ay. Clearly civies and guns is a bad idea!!!!

**zaggahamma** · 06-07-2013, 07:21 PM

wow close to where obama was going to visit

shooting unrelated to the visit said secret service

lunatics

**OnTheSauce** · 06-07-2013, 07:23 PM

Originally Posted by Euroholic

Clearly civies and guns is a bad idea!!!!

Clearly you're an idiot

**Euroholic** · 06-07-2013, 07:24 PM

Originally Posted by zaggahamma

wow close to where obama was going to visit

shooting unrelated to the visit said secret service

lunatics

Really!! Intereesting. I wonder if he will still go? Will they just beef up security?

**MuscleInk** · 06-07-2013, 07:25 PM

This is going to start the whole damn "guns kill people" crap again.

Just bought my first guns this week. Legislative changes coming and gun sales are up in reaction to possible changes.

**Euroholic** · 06-07-2013, 07:25 PM

Originally Posted by patrick4588

Clearly you're an idiot

Because my view is diffrent than yours? No flaming other members!!!!

**OnTheSauce** · 06-07-2013, 07:27 PM

Because your view is wrong. We wouldn't have this country if civilians weren't allowed arms. You can't legislate away evil as much as you libtards like to think u can. Taking guns from responsible people and keeping criminals armed is about the most ironic thing I've ever heard. Quit having knee jerk reactions and contemplate the fact murder is illegal yet still occurs daily in many ways.

**MuscleInk** · 06-07-2013, 07:32 PM

It's crap like this that pisses me off about the no carry laws in most counties in California.

**Euroholic** · 06-07-2013, 07:40 PM

Originally Posted by patrick4588

Because your view is wrong. We wouldn't have this country if civilians weren't allowed arms. You can't legislate away evil as much as you libtards like to think u can. Taking guns from responsible people and keeping criminals armed is about the most ironic thing I've ever heard. Quit having knee jerk reactions and contemplate the fact murder is illegal yet still occurs daily in many ways.

I aint no liberal!!! Im so right my country does not even have a party for me to vote for. My country has the tightest gun laws in the world and guess what? We dont have random mass shooting. Only drug dealers and bikies have guns and they only shoot other crims joe citizen has nearly 0% chance of being shot for a random reason. Clearly there is a connection between letting everyman and his dog being armed and mass shooting. Unless your a rec shooter there is no need for a gun. I think you need to see how other first world countries live you seem to have this fear that there are people waiting around every corner to harm you

**MuscleInk** · 06-07-2013, 07:46 PM

I lived in Toronto where laws prohibit gun ownership. There was a lethal civilian shooting every month - often more than one a month.

I recently (this month) became a gun owner. Before living in California, I never owned or wished to own any firearms until recently and now I am an enthusiast! My interests are for sport and home protection but to be completely honest, I'd much rather defend myself with NONLETHAL force. I have an x26c taser and this would be my first choice in defense rather than a more lethal option.

**BeastBro66** · 06-07-2013, 07:57 PM

It's not the guns that are the issue. It is the psychopaths that are determined to kill. Regardless of laws and restrictions, they will still find a way to inflict pain and carry out their desire to kill. If it is not a gun, it will be a bomb.

Whether you choose to own a gun or not, the good thing is being given the choice to do so and protect yourself the best way you see fit.

**basketballfan22** · 06-07-2013, 08:53 PM

Originally Posted by patrick4588

Because your view is wrong. We wouldn't have this country if civilians weren't allowed arms. You can't legislate away evil as much as you libtards like to think u can. Taking guns from responsible people and keeping criminals armed is about the most ironic thing I've ever heard. Quit having knee jerk reactions and contemplate the fact murder is illegal yet still occurs daily in many ways.

"Libtards"? Really? There is no denying the strong points against gun ownership in a developed country. While I enjoy guns a lot, there is certainly a case for strict gun control laws. It is ignorant to think otherwise. Personally, I am still ambivalent about what side I am on in the matter; but to blindly deny gun control is ridiculous. Even though I am very confident I can own a gun responsibly and never go on a killing spree, the reality is there are people that can't be trusted with such a powerful weapon. Without guns, there would certainly still be crimes and homicides; but the rate and severity of them would be down in my opinion. I believe that since guns have been so ingrained in our country since its foundation, we believe they are the greatest thing ever. The point that the country exists because we were allowed arms is foolish too. This country developed at a remarkable rate because of slavery too. Should we still have that? There is certainly a lot of evidence suggesting our gun infatuation leads to higher homicide and crime rates compared to other developed countries. With the exception of South Africa (a country that has a lot of civil unrest for the majority of the last century), the United States ranks dead last out of the developed countries in many crime and homicide related data.

**tigerspawn** · 06-08-2013, 01:06 AM

Originally Posted by MuscleInk

This is going to start the whole damn "guns kill people" crap again.

If they were able to move around on their own and were able to make decisions about what they were going to do I would believe this. The only people that gun control laws affect are law abiding citizens that need them for protection. Read the statistics criminals don’t acquire guns through legal channels.

**OnTheSauce** · 06-08-2013, 06:02 AM

I carry a gun everyday. I've had to use a gun in self defense before. There isn't an argument on the planet that will change my mind because I've been in the situation and im still here because I had a gun. Regardless of personal defense, the constitution has the 2nd amendment to protect the people from a tyrannical govt. Its the last line of defense. Take away the citizens means to protect themselves and the govt is at free will to do as they please. Which is incredibly frightening with our current POTUS.

Where is the uproar about the amount of deaths from cars and automobiles everyday? How many innocent lives are lost by incompetent drivers? This is a much bigger problem that nobody will address.

**OnTheSauce** · 06-08-2013, 06:09 AM

Originally Posted by basketballfan22

The point that the country exists because we were allowed arms is foolish too. This country developed at a remarkable rate because of slavery too

We overthrew an oppressive government by means of force. So yes, citizenry gun ownership is required.

People have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat-it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation ...

**PaxJax2** · 06-08-2013, 09:16 AM

The world has changed since I was a child, for the worse.......

**boz** · 06-08-2013, 10:49 AM

All i do is shake my ahead, and think not again?

**basketballfan22** · 06-08-2013, 11:45 AM

Originally Posted by patrick4588

We overthrew an oppressive government by means of force. So yes, citizenry gun ownership is required.

People have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat-it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation ...

Now THAT is more like it (with the exception of the subtle shot at Obama). There are many good points to what you said, and those are some of the reasons that I am conflicted with my stance on this issue. There are a few points that I disagree with though as well. The majority of gun owners are similar to you in my opinion, but there are those people who should never be entrusted with a gun. There are a lot of points to the self-defense argument, but the need for an automatic rifle (as much as I enjoy using them) to defend yourself is overkill. Please don't tell me you are one of the conspiracy theorists that think FEMA camps are really internment camps, and the government is seeking to imprison us all. The argument that we need automatic weapons to be capable of forming militias to fight against our government is absurd.

There is also no denying the much lower major crime rate in other developed countries who aren't as laissez-faire about guns. Admittedly, one issue with implementing strict gun laws is in the short term. Criminals will still have access to guns and ways to acquire them while innocent people will be defenseless. It would take time for the country to be as safe as our fellow developed countries, and that is pretty intimidating.

Also your point of overthrowing the government is weak in my opinion. I never understood the infatuation with the Constitution too either. It was written hundreds of years ago during a MUCH different time period. There is nothing wrong with altering it, and I believe there are several aspects of it that are grossly outdated. This just reinforces my point that we have been so accustomed to having guns that many people (Democrats and Republicans alike) can't even consider the possibility of changing what we have become so familiar with. The Constitution was absolutely necessary, and there are many great aspects of it; but it is not the word of God so it should be subject to change in a world that is always changing itself.

Also there will always be crime. Homicides will occur via stabbings, beatings, etc.; but again look at the statistics in other developed countries. These crimes are much lower than in the US. Guns make crimes like those far more easy to commit. I understand where you are coming from, especially considering you have been in a situation of self defense; but not everyone is as competent as you are. There is no denying that this is a very complex issue (at least for me).

**OnTheSauce** · 06-08-2013, 12:17 PM

There will always be bad apples, that's just how it is. Because there are so many poor drivers who shouldn't own cars, do we ban all vehicles? Banning guns from law abiding people to reduce gun crime is about as effective as banning cars from sober people to prevent dui's. Everyone has the right to self defense. I wouldn't ever take that away from anyone. I still carry a gun everyday, everywhere I go. I have my wife training as well.

**zaggahamma** · 06-08-2013, 12:44 PM

Originally Posted by patrick4588

There will always be bad apples, that's just how it is. Because there are so many poor drivers who shouldn't own cars, do we ban all vehicles? Banning guns from law abiding people to reduce gun crime is about as effective as banning cars from sober people to prevent dui's. Everyone has the right to self defense. I wouldn't ever take that away from anyone. I still carry a gun everyday, everywhere I go. I have my wife training as well.

this

**Flagg** · 06-08-2013, 01:32 PM

There really is no point in debating stuff like this anymore.

**basketballfan22** · 06-08-2013, 03:59 PM

Originally Posted by Flagg

There really is no point in debating stuff like this anymore.

This is probably true, but it's hard not to.

In response to the above posts, the analogy of cars to guns makes no sense. In our society having a vehicle is almost a necessity to get from A to B. We also have food and resources that must be transported, so it is not at all feasible to ban all cars because of drunk drivers. I understand the goal was to compare the high amount of deaths that occur at the hands of drunk drivers thus making vehicles a weapon, but it is tragically flawed. Also there is a difference between manslaughter and homicide. I don't need a gun to buy my food, to get to work, etc. There are far better analogies that can be used.

**OnTheSauce** · 06-08-2013, 04:39 PM

I need a gun to protect myself and my family in case of the incidents like above.

Going to work won't matter if you get your head chopped off in the street. Poor guy had that happen middle of the day in London in a busy area.

Or the new mother who had her 10 month old shot in the face during a robbery.

These are things people in this world are capable of. I wont just go around with the "it won't happen mentality." With all these violent and crazy acts around us, to me it seems absurd not to own a gun to protect yourself.

**basketballfan22** · 06-08-2013, 04:53 PM

Originally Posted by patrick4588

I need a gun to protect myself and my family in case of the incidents like above.

Going to work won't matter if you get your head chopped off in the street. Poor guy had that happen middle of the day in London in a busy area.

Or the new mother who had her 10 month old shot in the face during a robbery.

These are things people in this world are capable of. I wont just go around with the "it won't happen mentality." With all these violent and crazy acts around us, to me it seems absurd not to own a gun to protect yourself.

I understand the need to protect oneself and one's family. I think part of the issue is when you don't look at the big picture. From my own perspective I want a gun to protect my family regardless of what happens in the outside world; however from the perspective of an entire society, gun control most likely will lead to less severe crimes and homicides (look at other developed countries). This may end up hurting me specifically; but as a whole, it benefits society. I think this sacrifice is something many are not willing to make.