jump to last post 1-4 of 4 discussions (20 posts)

Kentucky, Community College Shooting

  1. SpanStar profile image60
    SpanStarposted 4 years ago

    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?

    1. profile image0
      JaxsonRaineposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      How about stories of people defending themselves with guns?

      Or do you not care about that side of the story?

  2. SpanStar profile image60
    SpanStarposted 4 years ago

    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.

    1. wilderness profile image98
      wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      "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?

    2. profile image0
      JaxsonRaineposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      1. SpanStar profile image60
        SpanStarposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        And That Is the Real Problem in America!

        1. profile image0
          JaxsonRaineposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          Yup, so why are we talking about guns, instead of the real problem?

          1. wilderness profile image98
            wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            Because some people fear guns as killing machines.  They hate them and want them gone from society.  A tragedy with emotional loss behind it reinforces that fear with the expected result of demands for gun bannings.

  3. SpanStar profile image60
    SpanStarposted 4 years ago

    Wilderness,

    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?

    1. profile image0
      JaxsonRaineposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      What distance?

    2. wilderness profile image98
      wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      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?

      1. SpanStar profile image60
        SpanStarposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        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!

        1. wilderness profile image98
          wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          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! smile

          1. SpanStar profile image60
            SpanStarposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            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.

            1. wilderness profile image98
              wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              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.

              1. SpanStar profile image60
                SpanStarposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                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.

                1. wilderness profile image98
                  wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  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?

                  1. psycheskinner profile image83
                    psycheskinnerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                    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.

  4. Stacie L profile image90
    Stacie Lposted 4 years ago

    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.

 
working