You're not a firearms expert so you're not qualified to opine on the subject with any authority. I am.Rum wrote:Unfortunately his arguments are full of shit and based on ideology, not practicality or for that matter common sense.Warren Dew wrote:Seth is discussing a practical way to reduce the body count of incidents like this. Everyone else is just wringing their hands and doing nothing.Rum wrote:Seth makes me puke. 87 kids are dead and he makes it an opportunity to spew his libertarian bullshit. He should be ashamed of himself.
Red herring. You might want to note that once again, there was only one gun present, and it was in the hands of the killer. Firearms may be used offensively or defensively, and people get killed with many other types of weapons than firearms all the time. But it's a fact that the most effective tool for self defense is a firearm, because it can be used against any attacker using any sort of weapon.Five dead in Texas after a family argument 'escalated from a private family dispute'' for example..
Your example doesn't prove anything other than that one needs to be prepared to defend oneself if one has family members prone to violence. I note as a counter example the several incidents in Japan and China where deranged persons killed and injured numerous schoolchildren with knives. Had one teacher in the classrooms been armed with a handgun, the toll would have been much smaller.
We can toss examples back and forth all day, but in the end the truth remains that firearms are effective tools of self defense, and it is immoral for government to prohibit their possession and use for self-defense, particularly on the notion that some people are acceptable casualties in the quest for lower firearms murder statistics.