Talking about this horrible event.
"In addition, her mother was injured as was another pregnant woman. Guns are dangerous."
Japete, it isn't the guns fault when a man, set on revenge because his PREVIOUS assault was thwarted by a "Good Samaritan" comes back to finish the job. As usual, the Police were no where to be found until it was time to fill out the paper work. How about the previous assault? Any point in commenting that the MAN was dangerous?
"police believe that a man living at the house saw the gunman assaulting another woman Monday and got involved, allowing the unidentified woman to escape"
So a good guy, came to her aid. But she didn't leave? Didn't call the police? Didn't even get a restraining order.
The outcome is a predictable snow in winter and it really is not about guns being dangerous.
Would it have been different had the pregnant mom and been armed? We don't get to know. It could hardly be worse.
What I'd love to hear is what your side would do differently and how your ideas would have changed the outcome for this woman and child, given the realities of guns in society.
We all clearly know that you think that guns are dangerous.
Let's grant that for a second and ask. So, what ideas do you have that would have kept that woman alive?
and this was the answer..
We could close the private seller loophole at gun shows to shut off some of the illegal guns that get into the market. We could fund the ATF better so they can monitor bad apple gun dealers who fail to report lost and stolen guns or knowingly sell to straw purchasers. We can do a better job of educating people about safe storage of guns so they don't get stolen. We can have a society where guns are not worshiped and carried everywhere people go so that the status quo would be like it is in other countries which have strict gun laws and many fewer gun deaths. We can but we won't because of the gun lobby and people like you who refuse to allow for the fact that some gun laws do work but we haven't tried them out yet because of strong resistance.
So here we are again..
You answered with the usual talking points.
I could do that too, but I was trying to take this in a different direction. We've already gone over the usual talking points from my side, from your side.. I don't think there is anything new to be discovered there.
"We could close the private seller loophole at gun shows to shut off some of the illegal guns that get into the market."
Did he get THIS gun from private seller at a gun show?
"We could fund the ATF better so they can monitor bad apple gun dealers who fail to report lost and stolen guns or knowingly sell to straw purchasers"
Was this a lost gun from a dealer or a straw purchase?
"We can do a better job of educating people about safe storage of guns so they don't get stolen."
Did he get the gun because it was not stored properly or did he steal it?
" We can have a society where guns are not worshiped and carried everywhere people go so that the status quo would be like it is in other countries which have strict gun laws and many fewer gun deaths. "
Perhaps, when men stop committing violence against women and the strong no longer attack the weak we can talk, but it hasn't happened in last 3000 years so I'm not holding my breath.
There is a gangster/thug worship that pervades the culture. There is a sense that getting caught is the bad thing, not being good in the first place. Look at the flash mobs. Sooner or later that will turn deadly. While I agree that our society has a problem, it goes both ways. Just look at how quickly the rule of law breaks down when a storm hits or others start rioting.
It says something about our culture for sure, but that doesn't change reality.
The reality on the ground is that we DO live in a society awash in guns. We live in a society that has violent aspects to it, gangs and drugs and rapes and looting. That's not changing any time soon and closing a "gun show loophole" will do nothing measurable to prevent these sort of killings.
Bad people can and do murder each other and the innocent every single day. You point it out all the time on your blog.
This incident was one of those times. It was a BAD guy, that did this (twice) and was not stopped until someone was dead.
Actually, he is wasn't even STOPPED he is still ON THE LOOSE. All the police can do is to ASK for him to turn himself in and promise to catch him if he doesn't. What do you think a man that has no trouble killing kids is going to do? Walk into the police station? I don't.
I won't be the least bit surprised if he takes someone hostage, kills someone else or a policeman, before he is really "stopped"
That is reality.
This fact is not lost on the abiding people that have millions of guns that are never used to harm anyone. They are never going to agree to give them up or give up the right to self defense with a tool equal in power to what the bad guys have and this includes having that tool on their person, more and more frequently. Not now. Not EVER. That's why the CCW laws are sweeping the nation. Why Castle Doctrine is passing everywhere and why even permit less carry has it's fans.
I said once before. An armed man will kill an unarmed man with monotonous regularity and even though you point out when the unarmed prevail, that's not the way I'd bet.
What I asked was how the laws you support changing would have saved THIS child's life and prevented the women from being harmed.
What I want to know is, how you square all these bad people doing bad things on a regular basis with the idea of the average person should willingly disarm. Sure guns can be dangerous in the hands of the wrong person but they can also STOP a much larger attacker intent on evil for the very same reason in the hands of the law abiding.
I didn't see a SINGLE posting (I don't think EVER) where you show the police stopping a bad guy before he started shooting. They always arrive after the harm has started and you lament another mass killing.
I don't like it, but that is simply not going to change by giving the ATF more money because it's human nature that is the problem.
I imagine that the people you reach with your message are, on average, educated, law abiding people. Those are the people you are trying to convince to not own guns. The bad guys are not reading your blog, and would not take your advice anyway.
So, given the realities of the country we live in RIGHT NOW.. The only people that you will convince to disarm themselves are the one's that didn't intend to harm anyone anyway.
That's why I asked, how your ideas would actually have saved THAT kid. Not in the abstract, but in the reality of our country as it is.
I think our side readily admits that having a gun might not change a thing. Might not be used and, In fact, on occasion, might make things worse. But a little girl is dead, and I'm having a hard time imaging how it gets worse.
You clearly stated what your side wants. What I fail to see is how any of those changes make a MEASURABLE bit of difference in the reality of life in America.