http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01 … tucky?lite
1 injured, 2 kill
Of course it is a shooting. Clearly having these guns should do solve a lot of problems don't they?
When we can stop shooting people with guns there won't be any need to talk about people having to defend themselves against guns.
Before you talk about the other weapons that can be used for killing, pretty much the articles I've read from people in law enforcement agree that the gun is the weapon of choice.
"Before you talk about the other weapons that can be used for killing, pretty much the articles I've read from people in law enforcement agree that the gun is the weapon of choice"
And the point of that is? That because it is the weapon of choice that nothing else will be substituted if they are not available?
We can't stop people from shooting each other with guns. That's the reality, good or bad, of the cultural, political, and geographical nature of the US.
Yup, so why are we talking about guns, instead of the real problem?
I'd be interested to know if you can have a knife, bowl & narrow crossbow, anything that does not fall within the gun shooting range what is your weapon of choice if you had to go up against someone with a gun?
If I'm understanding, you're asking what the chosen weapon would be against a gun, and within the guns range, but outside the range of whatever I choose?
I suppose a crossbow. Why?
It could be just me but I don't hear 20 or 30 people begin taking up with a crossbow. In fact I don't see modern infantry units stocking up on bows and arrows nor do I see fighting soldiers focusing their training on kitchen butcher knives. I pretty much never hear 70 are 80 people being taken out with a piano wire etc.
But isn't it surprising that military's foreign and domestic have hundreds, thousands if not millions of guns. Things that make you go hmmmmm!
It sounds like you're promoting the idea that we all need to carry guns instead of fists or knives in case someone 100 yards away starts shooting.
Somehow I don't think that's your point, though!
First of all there is no need to point out people should carry guns because from all the gun supporters I've listened to that is exactly what they want to do. My point is it has been said with as many guns as in circulation in America today that rounds out to approximately a gun for every man woman and child in this country. For some people not even that figure is enough guns.
Now, claiming that I want everyone to carry a weapon is as silly as claiming that you are demanding that no one any weapon at all. Gross exaggeration in both cases.
The major claim I've made (and can back up with hard numbers and facts) is that limiting gun ownership does not bear any relationship with the homicide rate anywhere in the world. Given that, there is no useful purpose in banning or limiting gun ownership outside of then being able to claim that we are doing something about the killings while the body count continues to grow. I go on to suggest we need to put our efforts and resources into something that at least might pay a dividend in limiting the murder rate instead of putting them into something that hasn't worked in any other country.
The problem with presenting the argument you have just made sound like a positive approach and I'll give you credit for that but here is the thing-day after day, year after year the only thing people get is Talk. All those years of murder and death by guns and where are we-right where we always are, dealing exactly with the same issues we said we were going to resolve before-I'm sorry but that record is old needs to be thrown out. Whatever you think about owning guns my position is just as strong if not stronger when something is always at the center of the problem that is a problem.
Well, we certainly agree here - what we've been doing isn't working.
Making gun ownership harder all the time, banning or relieving bans, increased documentation or limiting types of ammunition - none of it has worked.
So why do you propose more of the same old, same old?
Why aren't we looking at the roots of violence instead of the means to do it with? Things like mental illness, childhood violence, the war on drugs, our infatuation with and glorification of violence in all it's forms? Why aren't we training our kids to handle bullying and how to accept and control their emotional upsets instead of suiciding or going postal? Why are we letting murderers, particularly murders of helpless infants and children, return to society after a few years? Why do we allow gangs and gang violence, in both slums and jails?
That old, old response of limiting guns hasn't worked, isn't working and is highly unlikely to work in the future. There are so many things that might work - why do we stick with something we know won't?
No single approach in isolation will work. That is why we all have to take on the approaches that inconvenience us and require our participation, as well as those we can push off on other people.
No it won't. Unfortunately, though, our resources and time are both limited; we are forced to make our best guess as to what will work, whether it be one facet or 10. Let's leave behind, at least for now, the policies of gun control that have already been tried here and elsewhere and shown to be a failure. Let's look at something else with whatever resources we have.
We can't lose by doing so, after all. At worst we waste time and money while the body count climbs, which is exactly what we've been doing for years and years.
The shooting happened in the parking lot of a community college;it was a personal retaliation issue.
No ,I'm condoning it, but local police wanted to emphasis that point.
Guns are prolific in the hills of Kentucky and the people there will shoot to defend their right to own them. many are unregistered and traded like paying cards.
by Mike Russo4 years ago
Today marks six months since the Sandy Hook shootings. Over 5,000 people have been killed by guns since then. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ … oting.htmlWhat are your thoughts?
by SpanStar3 years ago
A 1-year-old baby girl shot to death by a Gunman who was shooting at a babysitter carrying the child running away.http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08 … lence?liteI wonder what other countries think of a...
by Ralph Schwartz16 months ago
Until 1989, there were only a few school shootings in which more than two victims were killed. This was despite widespread ownership of — and familiarity with — weapons and an absence of “gun-free zones.” ...
by Mike Russo19 months ago
Let's face facts people. The 2nd amendment was written for another time and another place. It has no place in today's world. It is causing mentally ill people to commit mass killings. The gun...
by phion5 years ago
Thanks to the NRA and many other Americans, the second amendment has been able to stand up to this same kind of onslaught before. This same attempted correlation of individual’s rights to have firearms, and the acts...
by jleblanc13174 years ago
Why do the the left wingers think that tighter gun laws and more through background checks will keep the "bad guys" from getting guns? The bottom line here is that "bad guys" are not going into gun...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.