Attack on Christians in Denver :
https://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/12/10/co ... index.html
"Security guard who stopped shooter credits God"
Note that it is a gun which stopped the gun man. I am all for the maintaining the
2nd amendment
Attack on Christians in Denver
Attack on Christians in Denver
Last edited by Mandy on Tue Dec 11, 2007 11:56 am, edited 2 times in total.
I don't see religions in this equation at all - that's just a smoke-screen. As is the '2nd amendment' nonsense - get rid of guns and you'd get rid of 9/10 of this type of maniac and then as years went by the incidents would become less and less. What's the problem with that?
It's like saying that you need a knife to walk down the streets of certain areas here - if you do then you're MUCH more likely to get involved in a situation. Of course, macho bullshit and religious zealotry is something we've been dealing with for hundreds of years.
It's like saying that you need a knife to walk down the streets of certain areas here - if you do then you're MUCH more likely to get involved in a situation. Of course, macho bullshit and religious zealotry is something we've been dealing with for hundreds of years.
Report on the same incident
https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/14 ... etail.html
"Police: Same Gunman Attacked Both Churches"
"Murray Was Kicked Out Of Youth With A Mission Program"
As to the 2nd amendment, all these massacres happen in zones where people don't tend to carry guns.
I am not for arming children, but adults in the US should be allowed to bear arms as per the 2nd amendment.
https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/14 ... etail.html
"Police: Same Gunman Attacked Both Churches"
"Murray Was Kicked Out Of Youth With A Mission Program"
As to the 2nd amendment, all these massacres happen in zones where people don't tend to carry guns.
I am not for arming children, but adults in the US should be allowed to bear arms as per the 2nd amendment.
there's a massive difference between a criminal and a maniac. Remember that guy who ran amok in a nursery a few years back with a sword? Surely in america he'd have been likely to have been able to get a gun and do so much more damage?
note: this isn't an attack on america, but on people killing each other.
note: this isn't an attack on america, but on people killing each other.
America is a gun culture. If they tried to get rid of the guns it would end up causing a lot more problems than solving them.
Just like the prohibition of alcohol in the states caused the growth of the mafia and other social problems if guns were made illegal there would be a lot more growth with the black market in guns and other things.
Not to mention I do not believe the government should be the only ones that is able to have guns. Why does the government get to be armed but not the people?
Instead of getting rid of guns there needs to be more thorough screening and precautions taken. The problem with guns here is the lax attitude toward them.
Just like the prohibition of alcohol in the states caused the growth of the mafia and other social problems if guns were made illegal there would be a lot more growth with the black market in guns and other things.
Not to mention I do not believe the government should be the only ones that is able to have guns. Why does the government get to be armed but not the people?
Instead of getting rid of guns there needs to be more thorough screening and precautions taken. The problem with guns here is the lax attitude toward them.
Whilst risking straying off topic, I believe I am being consistent by both supporting the right to bear arms, and supporting the legalisation of drugs (the right to ingest what you want, alongside tobacco and alcohol).
I think it is being inconsistent to support one but not the other. They both have social / third party effects, and the answer is to legalise, but regulate.
I think it is being inconsistent to support one but not the other. They both have social / third party effects, and the answer is to legalise, but regulate.
In Iraq, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, WW1, WW2 etc. people got reduced to 18th century living (or prior "bombed back to the stone age").faceless wrote:I would have agreed with both of you if this was the 18th century.
With the risky world we live in, waiting too late to invoke your "rights" could be fatal.
We are told to stock pile food for an emergency (break down in society). What good is that if you can't protect it your food from the criminals who WILL be armed ?
Indeed, the US government's instinct after Katrina to confiscate all weapons when they couldn't provide the basic amenities of life shows you can NOT trust the government in an emergency (which, by definition, would imply some sort of break down in society).