Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Guns GUN CARRYING MAN ENDS STABBING SPREE AT SALT LAKE

Getting back to the actual subject of the thread, do y'all think that the knife-wielder in the original story picked Smith's because it was a "soft target"? Or, maybe he stabbed other people, simply because he was mentally disturbed, and really didn't think about where he was (or was even aware of it)?

We have spent a great deal of mental effort and emotional frustration dealing with a miniscule, unrepresentative, exceptional example to supports a paranoid fantasy as a justification for an unreasonable and socially counter-productive position.

Indeed, from the study I cited earlier, over 6 million apparently law abiding citizens got permission to transfer firearms in 2010 alone, and only 72,000 were denied - a rate of 1.2% Seems like a pretty small "infringement." Of course, that was only for the 60% of transactions that required background checks. Who knows how many criminals were included in the other 40%? (Logic, of course, dictates that it will be a much higher percentage.)

I think the guy just went ape shìt. There seems to be an increase in reported stabbings recently. Also, just today the New York Times reported Suicide Rates Are Rising Sharply. It is a most stressful time. People for a number of reasons are not able to cope as they once did. Probably the social support isn't there to the level it is needed.

The soft target was nothing more than coincidence unless he had some direct connection to the store or the people working in the store. Could even be ethnically triggered, crazy still, no matter.

NWP, I think you are avoiding what he wrote. (emphasis mine)



I would agree ...
Yours,
Issodhos

But only if it were convenient.

I think it is quite obvious to anyone who read it, that rp point is about accessibility to weaponry, not criminality. Not having guns is not going to make those with a criminal bent suddenly law-abiding. But if one takes away the means, it will make them less effective/lethal. The harder you make it for one to obtain something, the less that something is to acquire.

40% of the gun market is "unregulated." That is, conducted without background checks. It doesn't take a leap of logic to realize that those inclined to cloak their activities in secrecy will gravitate in that direction. Eliminate that market, and it becomes more difficult to hide. Require universal registration, it becomes more difficult. Limit number of purchases, more difficult still. The more roadblocks, the harder it becomes. The harder, the more expensive. Slowly, the beast is starved.

Even if you triple the rate of application denials, the vast majority - 95% - of transactions would still go through, hardly affecting law-abiding applicants. For the criminal class, however, obtaining those weapons would become significantly more difficult. And for he rest of us, the streets concomitantly safer.

My point, precisely. The whole "soft target" meme is a red herring, interjected to score an ideological point, but completely devoid of import, and completely without substantive merit.

No. Once again you shamelssly take my words out of context. You do it with such increasing frequency, one might suspect you incapable of establishing firm reasoning to support your sweeping gun control argument.

The circumstances at Aurora, Va Tech, Tucson, Newton, the Sikh Temple, for example, were mass murders, planned and prepared, with targets selected for maximum effect. In your facile attempt to paint mass murders as spontaneous and random acts of violence you would you submit the OP as proof and foolishly suggest that I agree. LOL! No. No, I don't agree.

What's all this unconstitutional nonsense about denying arms to "mentally insane" or "criminals"? No where in the 2nd are there any such restrictions on the Almighty given Right to carry arms for protection from a usurping government. Allowing such restrictions just shows how far the Liberal Statists have won. With such restrictions, the government merely needs to railroad one to a conviction or deem one insane and "poof" one's Rights have vanished.

Excellent point. Just because you are deranged does not mean that you have no need to defend yourself

And felons who have served their time likely have more need than most to defend themselves.

Indeed the Founders were wise. Had they wished to deny Rights to any class of people, they would've explicitly done so. All these restrictions - from those on guns to those on speech and religion - are manifestations of the endless battle the Statists are waging against us - the Real Americans.