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!

Six dead in mall shooting

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by mannheimadler, Feb 13, 2007.

  1. OK, you're JFK, right? Riding down Elm Street in Dallas without a care in the world.
    Somebody's up in that building with a knife.
    Somebody else is over by that fence there with a telescopic rifle.
    Who scares you the most?
    (Anyone answering, "Oliver Stone" will hear from F_B World HQ.)
  2. Mystery_Meat

    Mystery_Meat Guest

    You think Lee Harvey would have taken his history maker to the cops as soon as he heard that guns were illegal?
  3. andyouare?

    andyouare? Guest

    You forgot the blue sarcasm font.
  4. alleyallen

    alleyallen Guest

    MM, I understand your arguments but we're not talking about an all-or-nothing approach. Any law tightening up gun laws isn't going to be 100 percent effective against those who would commit crimes like this, but as it was mentioned earlier, you can't take the attitude that if we can't get all the guns, we won't get any.

    I think it was Idaho who mentioned something legit. Start at one point and it'll likely have a trickle-down effect on others. We've got to start tightening up the laws somewhere.
  5. Mystery_Meat

    Mystery_Meat Guest

    I don't deny any of that, but the discussion in this thread quickly turned to "no more guns", which is an admirable goal that has almost no reasonable chance of working.
  6. alleyallen

    alleyallen Guest

    Would you agree that we could set that as a goal and work toward it, even if we knew we'd never actually reach it? Imagine if a politician unveiled a plan to find a job for every unemployed American. It's probably not possible, but imagine the good that would come from the effort.
  7. Mystery_Meat

    Mystery_Meat Guest

    It depends. If you say "no guns" and it takes them out of the hands of law-abiding citizens but keeps them in the hands of criminals, then it's a net loss, even if it means less total guns.

    Before we work towards banning guns, we should work towards making the illegal use of guns a more damning offense in the courts. Maybe an automatic upgrade in charge if a gun is used in the commission of a crime?
  8. Flying Headbutt

    Flying Headbutt Moderator Staff Member

    For what it's worth, handguns are illegal in DC and have been for many years. A lot of good it seems to be doing.
  9. spnited

    spnited Active Member

    MM. why do "law-abiding citizens" need guns?
    So they can shoot someone?
    Then they wouldn't be law-abiding anymore.
  10. andyouare?

    andyouare? Guest

    So would you be in FAVOR of the legalization of all drugs? Because banning them hasn't accomplished much. But it has accomplished something.

    I guess the argument is if something is better than nothing.
  11. NoOneLikesUs

    NoOneLikesUs Active Member

    War trauma probably made the guy snap (and THAT war was pretty damn brutal). Who knows if really had anything to do with terrorism.
  12. Mystery_Meat

    Mystery_Meat Guest

    Self-defense is a legal use of guns. Hunting is a legal use of guns.

    Put it this way: if you institute a total ban on guns, you're a lot more likely to take away the gun from the person defending his or her house from a robber than you would take it from the robber him/herself. Unless you'd propose the government take on the role of forciably removing guns from EVERYONE's possession, which would almost certainly require an ungodly expense and serious civil liberty issues.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page