1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Mall shooting in Omaha

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by markvid, Dec 5, 2007.

  1. Italian_Stallion

    Italian_Stallion Active Member

    This argument is like saying we shouldn't prosecute rapists because they'll just end up doodling little boys. The fact that there are other ways to kill people doesn't make a gun any less dangerous.

    But I really have no interest in the gun ownership issue. I just wish people would come up with something more solid. I'll buy the argument that guns keep people safe. But I won't buy this one.
     
  2. spup1122

    spup1122 Guest

    Or this one... look familiar?
     
  3. Platyrhynchos

    Platyrhynchos Active Member

    Bubbler-

    All I'm pointing out is that America is saturated with guns. That's why psychos have access to them. They're not going away. You think the war on drugs is a complete failure, try a war on firearms. Assault rifles and machine pistols are the preferred firearm of drug dealers and gang members. Yes, gang members. A lot of them are felons to begin with, making it illegal for them to possess any kind of firearm. But still, they get them. It's all about who you know and how much cash you have.
    I have no need for an AK-47, other than perhaps target shooting. Police departments - especially those in urban areas - should have more than their share just to level the playing field.

    The gun control debate is just like political debates. Anything I say won't sway your opinion, and anything you say won't sway mine. We're kicking the proverbial dead horse here.

    More than anything, I think cultural diversity helps form one's opinion on the gun control thing. Rural areas are clearly more pro-gun than are urban areas. Naturally, there are exceptions.

    And Fen, I don't have a TV, so I get my news from papers and the internets. I was referring to the gun control debate that would inevitably spring up on SJ. It certainly wasn't my intention, but I might have accelerated it a bit.

    My point is, again, firearms saturate the United States. They aren't going away.
     
  4. Bubbler

    Bubbler Well-Known Member

    I do not understand for the life of me why there as those who are so attached to guns. Why is this? Are they that fucking vital to one's everyday life?

    And spare me any silly hunting argument, the vast majority of Americans do not live and die based on what they hunt.
     
  5. Platyrhynchos

    Platyrhynchos Active Member

    There is no such thing as a "silly" hunting argument. I hunt. You apparently don't.
    Hunting is a way of life for some, self included. Firearms are a key ingredient to that way of life.
    That's why I own them.
     
  6. BBJones

    BBJones Guest

    And a way of death for others.

    I won't condemn hunting, because I don't understand it. I don't understand why people feel the need to go and intentionally kill animals for food when there are stores that supply food, and you don't even have to wear an orange jump suit to go to them.

    I don't understand sitting in a treestand for hours waiting for Bambi's mom to happen by so I can blow a hole in her head.

    I don't understand how people that hunt couldn't do without it, the way other people do without cigarettes after they quit smoking. Is seeing a deer tip over dead a physical addiction?

    I don't understand how people that hunt can't just take empty guns into the woods, wait for a deer, get it in their sights and yell "BANG," because isn't it supposed to be about the thrill of the chase?

    Yeah, so maybe I will condemn it. It's stupid and pointless, it's not 1843 anymore and the hunting argument, whether silly or not, fails to explain how anyone needs the type of weapon that is always used in these types of mass shootings. You never hear of Psycho du Jour carrying out a school shooting or mall shooting with a hunting rifle.
     
  7. Oggiedoggie

    Oggiedoggie Well-Known Member

    Then be a vegan or be a hypocrite because you don't agree with how someone else's meat is killed.
     
  8. Bubbler

    Bubbler Well-Known Member

    It is a silly argument, because that doesn't answer my question, nor does it address the need to own firearms that are not used for hunting.

    What the heck does an AK-47 or some hand cannon have to do with hunting? And why is ownership of those guns so fiercely protected? Why do hunters run to defend the rights to own these guns too?

    If I were a hunter, I'd be agast that my hunting rights are lumped in with the right of some gun freak who wants to own a fucking arsenal because it makes him feel like a big man.

    That's a major problem I have with NRA types and the gun lobby, they do not separate the issue, it's turned into an all or nothing thing, and if that's the way the want it, fine, I'll choose nothing.

    It perplexes me, because I would think hunters would be the biggest gun control advocates of all, so they could go about their hunting, and owning hunting rifles, without nutcases tainting their fun. I may not hunt, but I do know that serious hunters are zealots about being professional about what they do. So why align with the penis-envied Soldier Of Fortune gun nuts?

    And as far as hunting itself goes, I'm sorry to say, but unless you're living in a freaking cabin in the middle of a prairie somewhere, your life isn't determined by whether you hunt or not. You can call it a "way of life", but at the end of the day it's just something you enjoy. For 99 percent of the population, hunting is no more a "way of life" than sitting around in your home and playing XBox 360 is a "way of life".

    To me, there's something wrong with going overboard to protect something that is basically a leisure activity versus controlling a dangerous item that time-and-again is used by psychos who want to kill people, kill them quick, and be efficient about it. I would think hunters would be on board with this too.
     
  9. BBJones

    BBJones Guest

    If I thought all hunters did it right, I might agree with you. But I have a feeling plenty of dead deer are scattered about the woods when people just shot them and left them there to die slow deaths. If hunting were actually a means of survival rather than a sport, it might make sense. But remember, it's not a sport if only one side is playing.
     
  10. Pastor

    Pastor Active Member


    Bubbler has it nailed.

    I have in-laws living outside of the country. Everytime this shit goes down, I have to answer questions about guns. It has become increasingly difficult with every nutcase that decides they are unhappy about life.

    AK-47s serve no purpose. None. You can't hunt with it; the bullets would shread the animal, the noise would chase away others, there is no sport to it. I'm sorry, but to say that this gun should be on the market and available to others is like saying grenades should be openly available to consumers.
     
  11. heyabbott

    heyabbott Well-Known Member

    While the 2nd Amendment is poorly written, it has never been held to deny law abiding individuals the right to bear arms. This shooting like so many others, Columbine, Virginia Tech, etc is but a product of American freedoms.

    We routinely let criminals free because police violate the 4th amendment. 9-11, to a large extent, was the cost of American civil rights. Pre-9/11, would most folks have wanted preventative detention for Muslims learning how to fly planes?

    Either Amend the Constitution to re-write the 2nd Amendment or accept the cost that goes with Liberty.

    Personally, I would like to re-write the Constitution, personally.
     
  12. Platyrhynchos

    Platyrhynchos Active Member

    Bubbler -

    Hunters are a huge minority in the United States, and their numbers are declining. We all know there is no bigger lobbyist in Washington than the NRA, and hunters are clinging to that coat tail because of its strength. Sure, there are other organizations that lobby for hunting and firearms rights, but they pale in size and strength to the NRA.
    Because firearms are an integral part of hunting, hunters look for the biggest umbrella they can find, and like it or not, it is the NRA (I'm not a member, by the way. Never have been, never will be).

    I have no problem with gun collectors getting as many as they can get their hands on. If that includes AK-47s and .50 caliber handguns, so be it.
    To me, firearms are a tool. That's why I wouldn't collect them anymore than I would start a screw driver collection. Others, however, appreciate the look and feel of a side-by-side Purdey 28-gauge and realize the value only rises. To each his own. But I don't purchase a firearm just to have it sit somewhere and do nothing. I purchase them because I know they will fit a specific need for me.

    I think my first paragraph answers why hunters don't distance themselves from the NRA. The rest of it is just me.

    And, I am a hell of a lot closer to living in a cabin in the middle of the prairie than you will ever imagine.

    And again, your arguments won't change my opinion, and mine won't change yours. I can live with that.

    Just for giggles, find the book "Inherit the Hunt" by Jim Posewitz. It might help you realize that hunting is, indeed, a "way of life."


    And BBJones:
    The instrument has yet to be invented which can measure my indifference to your asinine, uneducated posts.

    With that, I'm no longer part of this discussion.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page