world

4 dead, 14 wounded in Kansas shootings

50 Comments
By ROXANA HEGEMAN

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2016 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

50 Comments
Login to comment

Yup, more guns for everyone, young and old. Oh, wait. I should have written: if Espinoza had had his own gun...

1 ( +7 / -6 )

what America needs is more guns - let'm shoot each other up just like their old wild west fantasies.... wait till Trump wins later this year and he privatizes all law enforcement functions to save a buck...

9 ( +11 / -2 )

Oh well. Moving on....

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Reporting on shootings taking place in America is like doing a story about the sun rising in the east. It's just redundant these days.

8 ( +10 / -2 )

It is warped that the mass shootings that dominate the news now are the cases that have a link to large companies like Excel Industries, Uber, or Apple vs. the FBI in the San Bernardino investigation. Shootings at the workplace still inspire shock, but other mass shootings like domestic violence cases don't get much attention. There was one with five victims from a single family in Phoenix days after the Uber driver rampage that didn't seem to get reported outside of Arizona. Isn't America's quarter million gun deaths per decade absolutely grotesque no matter what side of the issue you are on?

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Again.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

No doubt the sales of guns and ammo increased shortly after this mass murder (one of how many this week?) when those already holding private arsenals, those fearing their .50 calibre assault weapons and other firearms might possibly be questioned in some way, went out to buy even more guns and ammo. And the gun industry smiled.

Interesting that those who use the 'make America great again' mantra are the ones shouting 'come and take it' the loudest. Many among the US reactionary rightwing want to have the US constitution interpreted using the language of the time (1780's). This is called 'originalism', meaning 'fixed as of the time of enactment'. I think these same people, especially those who claim constitutional rights to own firearms, should be required to give up their modern weapons and use the musket weaponry of that time.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

"Reporting on shootings taking place in America is like doing a story about the sun rising in the east. It's just redundant these days."

Not quite. A really epic massacre or one involving children can still make waves.

Give it a few years and people may even become desensitized to those. That's an NRA wet dream.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

A major problem in America. I was impressed how the GOP candidates took time during their debate to discuss this issue in detail. Their concern about the carnage was impressive, and the detailed, nuanced plans they presented to address these tragedies were inspirational.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Reporting on shootings taking place in America is like doing a story about the sun rising in the east. It's just redundant these days.

The shooter in this case is a black gangbanger type with an extensive criminal record which won't get the attention of a white conservative perpetrator but does double down on the the fact that there are so many guns held by people who shouldn’t have them that I don’t know how you get rid of them at this point without an autocratic and massively intrusive government. There are stolen and illegally transferred weapons all over the place.

2 ( +8 / -6 )

Once upon a time, there were people living in an open-carry state in America... ... and they died happily ever after.

6 ( +9 / -3 )

At the going rate, we should end up with almost 300 mass shootings by the time 2016 is over. That's not 300 lives, that's 300 mass shootings. That's just the icing on gun violence in the US.

America . . . land of the free.

9 ( +11 / -2 )

Another day in the Yee-haw USA!

"The shooting comes less than a week after authorities say a man opened fire at several locations in Kalamazoo, Michigan, leaving six people dead and two severely wounded."

Who even counts anymore?

But hey, MarkG, bass4funk, and others, this guy could have done the same thing simply with intent and with... say... a playboy calendar! or a sponge! or some Scotch tape, right? Isn't that the line? It was not guns, but he could have done the same thing with anything else (despite those other things serving purposes besides killing), right?

Just look at the 14-year-old in Canada who used a knife to kill... oh wait... no one died and she was quite easily taken down (and not killed, either). Oops! Guess it's the guns after all, put so very easily in the hands of the people with intent. I'm going to take a wild guess in thinking the guns were not illegal, either.

6 ( +10 / -4 )

The officer who killed the man is “a hero as far as I’m concerned,” Walton said.

And the US's care free gun totting culture KILLED 4 & WOUNDED 14!!! Just sayin!

6 ( +8 / -2 )

I was considering all shootings even the massacres. They happen in the states just as much it seems as the sun rises. The star spangled banner is starting to look bullet ridden if you ask me. Maybe the NRA and gun rights supporters there should replace the gold and silver crosses hanging around their necks with little six-shooters and baby Kalashnikovs?

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Horrible thing that happened. Guns, are very destructive. There are people that use them for recreation. Being from the pacific northwest outdoor recreation was very enjoyable. Trap and skeet shooting, hunting upland game birds, big game hunting and such. So yes, in the hands of a nutcase they are very bad.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Soon they will eliminate mass shootings in Iowa, because even the kids will be armed: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/iowa-kids-handguns_us_56ce4af9e4b0bf0dab30cae7?section=politics

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

"Oh my God, we need to ban guns immediately so the killings will stop!"

And there are long-standing laws against MURDER already.........you see how well they work.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

I'm surprised that only a few people here want to ban guns... there is usually more.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Get the guns out of US society. So simple.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

None of the gun rights supporters coming out with their usual piffle about guns not killing people, but the nutters? No? Pity. Wanted a laugh.

Seriously though, America is now trapped in a paradox: they own guns to protect themselves from villains with guns, who are protecting themselves from police and private citz with guns, who have guns because villains have guns... etc... what came first, chicken or the egg? This is just crazy. This is only going to escalate - there WILL be more killings because America can't escape from this loop... moreover, it doesn't want to escape from it. As long as there are those who think guns are cool, you will have people who will want them. They are more than a means of self defence - they are a macho symbol, a death dealing lump of steel for some posturing gangster, thug or petty crim who wants to be taken seriously by his peers.

It's pathetic!

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Every year, the city ilive in USA get voted for the safest city in USA. For years.Population grows and bunch of billionaires live now. How. safe? Only two or. Three shooting in a week.That is why I still live here.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

They are more than a means of self defence - they are a macho symbol, a death dealing lump of steel for some posturing gangster, thug or petty crim who wants to be taken seriously by his peers.

Heh. The shooter was Black. And more than likely, the officer (doing his job) who killed him -was white. So now watch the "racist cops" jargon pile this thread.

Worse, the shooter was served a restraining order, or something similar, 90 min prior to the shootings. . . Oh, what happened to Black Lives Matter? . . . but its okay cause he was "armed" and didn't shoot at rival gang members.

It's pathetic!

http://ktla.com/2016/02/26/kansas-shooting-gunman-kills-3-at-lawn-care-company/

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Wyatt Earp: “Skin that smoke wagon and we’ll see what happens.” .....Still lots to learn.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Every year, the city ilive in USA get voted for the safest city in USA. For years.Population grows and bunch of billionaires live now. How. safe? Only two or. Three shooting in a week.That is why I still live here.

Thank you for saying so Toshiko-san. Nevada (the silver state) is a great place. Look! Trump just won that state. Nevada must be safe, always. The whales and world travelers love to pass through there. Especially LV.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

@smith. No fair. She was a little HS girls, pig-tails & little-bo-peep dress.

I doubt it. But regardless of what she was wearing, had she had a gun, people probably would have ended up dead. Lack of guns means less ability to kill. It's a pretty simple concept.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

But hey, MarkG, bass4funk, and others, this guy could have done the same thing simply with intent and with... say... a playboy calendar! or a sponge! or some Scotch tape, right? Isn't that the line? It was not guns, but he could have done the same thing with anything else (despite those other things serving purposes besides killing), right?

As tragic as this incident is, it has nothing to do or shouldn't have anything to do with my right to own a firearm and nothing should change the 2nd amendment.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

As tragic as this incident is, it has nothing to do or shouldn't have anything to do with my right to own a firearm and nothing should change the 2nd amendment.

Yes. Tragic. It won't change the 2nd bass. b. Hussien obama himself loves trap & skeet.

Lack of guns means less ability to kill.

I was watching a Christian Slater flick recently -"True Romance." One of my fav quotes go: " . . . better to have a gun & 'not' need it, rather to 'not' have a gun when you need it."

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

The best take-down on stupid gun freaks. Ever:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rR9IaXH1M0

and

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9UFyNy-rw4

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Since the perpetrator is black and the mass media is so focused on taking down Trump right now, this probably won't move the needle much on the gun control debate.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

bass4funk: Just curious, have you ever lived in Japan? If so, did you own a firearm while in Japan? Probably not. If you think your 2nd amendment is so right, then why don't you carry a gun everywhere you go in the world? My point is that laws (including the 2nd amendment) can be changed, and if you think that you must own a gun because the law allows you to and not because you think it is necessary, then I question your intelligence. But if you do think you must own a gun because it is necessary, then I think it's a real sad state of affairs in the country you live in, and I want you to know that you can probably seek refuge in Canada if you ever get tired of sleeping at night with a gun to feel safe.

To me, the question Americans should be asking themselves is: Are guns really, truly, and absolutely necessary for anyone that wants to own one?

People who are against guns are not saying that you personally can not be trusted so you cannot own a gun. We're saying that if there were no guns, then there would be less death.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

.....let's ignore the elephant in the room, as always.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

30,000 dead Americans a year is a small price to pay for gun owners' feeling of safety when they have their weapon on them. When they drop their kids off at the movies that's another matter since their actions make it far easier for a nutter to get a gun and start shooting, but again, they key is that the gun owner personally feels safer. And it's not like he's watching the movie with his kids.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

As tragic as this incident is, it has nothing to do or shouldn't have anything to do with my right to own a firearm and nothing should change the 2nd amendment.

Wrong. It is the inane insistance of you and people like you that believe your right to easy gun access trumps everyone's right to live peacefully, which guarentees these crimes continue to occur.

@smith. No fair. She was a little HS girls, pig-tails & little-bo-peep dress.

Completely fair. The point is that you won't be killing so many people with a knife as you would a gun. Easy access to guns means anyone, even little girls, can easily kill far more than they ever would without.

And there are long-standing laws against MURDER already.........you see how well they work.

Ah, yes. We shouldn't have homicide laws, because they aren't always effective. Silly logic.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

30,000 dead Americans a year is a small price to pay for gun owners' feeling of safety when they have their weapon on them. When they drop their kids off at the movies that's another matter since their actions make it far easier for a nutter to get a gun and start shooting, but again, they key is that the gun owner personally feels safer.

Yup. Actually... just out of curiosity... How many pro-gun people here support the FBI in their battle against Apple. I've seen that a couple of commenters do, just wondering what the ratio would be. 30,000 deaths for the sake of gun "rights" vs sacrificing actual privacy and security to "protect against a potential terror attack."

0 ( +1 / -1 )

To all the pro gun and second amendment advocates riddle me this: the first amendment gaurantees my right to free speech. But what if I yell "bomb" on a plane or " fire" in a crowded room? I present a clear and present danger and that type of speech is agreeably restricted. The second amendment as the NRA and pro gun advocates understand it present a clear and present danger to society and their notion of gun rights needs to be scrapped.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The officer who killed the man is “a hero as far as I’m concerned

He is a hero. We should be commending law enforcement.

Just like in San Bernardino. Clinton & Sanders were quick to blast guns, when they should've been condemning radical islam. Worse, these two showed no support nor praise for local law enforcement who responded to that terror incident.

Let's face it, in america, guns are here to stay. We might as well support, "the good guys." Purchase a firearm. Learn how to safely use it. Law Enforcement Agencies won't always be there to save you.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Use your rights in a constructive and positive manner.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

the key is that the gun owner personally feels safer.

This is exactly the problem. The private gun owner that loves to walk the streets with their weapon either concealed or open-carrying does not seem to comprehend that others do not feel safe around THEM.

I know I feel about as safe around them as a criminal walking around carrying a gun illegally.

I feel safe around law enforcement and military on active duty... because it is their job to protect citizens. Private gun owners are not.

I don't mind people keeping guns at home for defense or for hunting, or protection from wildlife in rural areas. But taking them out on the streets?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Wc626 Exactly. This is why there are liquor stores and gun shops in the "hood." Throw in a little crack coacaine and let them rock n' roll. You hardly ever see / hear decent, law abiding, educated, career folk shooting-up their communites.

Ok there are no liquor stores and gun shops in the "hood" but I bet you can find "heroine" in your "neighborhood" don't get it twisted there are more white people on heroin now than ever before there are complete cities in the east and Midwest where this "cheap" drug had wiped out complete white town or should I say neighborhoods as you want to call it. Here is a little more information you never talk about and it's not parented in the white media. White people killing their entire families. All of your post are so racist and pointed as if on Mexicans or blacks kill. White people kill to and when they do its in large number and yes they do drugs to but it's ok the media don't print neighborhood need only what's in the hood! I can list many articles this past week where a white family member has killed everyone in the house! Ok, with that said Mr. Orange County what's your excuse besides blaming blacks for all the ill going on in this sick country.

SEATTLE (Reuters) - A man fatally shot four people believed to be members of his own family then kept police at bay for several hours on Friday before killing himself, but a 12-year-old girl thought to be the gunman's daughter escaped the carnage.

The Medical Examiner released new details Friday about the tragic shooting deaths of the Dooley family. Police say they were killed by their family member, Cameron Dooley, who also killed himself. New Details Emerge In Shooting Deaths of Virginia Family Tribune Duration 0:00:36 The Medical Examiner released new details Friday about the tragic shooting deaths of the Dooley family. Police say they were killed by their family member, Cameron Dooley, who also killed himself.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Even if implemented, it'd take more than a generation, maybe a few generations, to get rid of enough assault guns already in the wild in a widespread country of 300 million anyways. While in the meantime, there'd still be the same growing pains. Not many people have the patience to wait that out.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

but I bet you can find "heroine" in your "neighborhood" don't get it twisted there are more white people on heroin now than ever before

Correct. I'll wear that shoe. Its been an epidemic on the down-low too. The majority of that cheap mexican tar-heroin come from . . . (yep, u guessd it) Mexico. See! We nee a wall. Not only illegal families, but for criminals and cartel thugs running the meth, pot, coke & heroin.

White people kill to and when they do its in large number and yes they do drugs to but it's ok the media don't print neighborhood need only what's in the hood!

Yes they do. The other shoe I'll wear. But look -more blacks & latinos are more likely to murder their own and or end up in prison. It is what it is.

Ok, with that said Mr. Orange County what's your excuse besides blaming blacks for all the ill going on in this sick country.

No excuses at all. If Black Lives really Matter, they need to start wearing the shoes too. Martin Luther King would be proud / disgusted. How long does it really take to "git ur act together" & stop playing the racist card?

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Maybe the NRA and gun rights supporters there should replace the gold and silver crosses hanging around their necks with little six-shooters and baby Kalashnikovs?

Um simple web search would show you that there is already quite a market for firearm necklaces. Heck they even have some made with real bullets but missing the explosive charge and primer.

Just look at the 14-year-old in Canada who used a knife to kill... oh wait... no one died and she was quite easily taken down (and not killed, either). Oops! Guess it's the guns after all, put so very easily in the hands of the people with intent. I'm going to take a wild guess in thinking the guns were not illegal, either.

@Smith- Ironic you make this comment and yet a day later a man in India kills 14 people with a knife. It turns out this shooters ownership of the firearms were illegal before he went and did what he did.

A major problem in America

@Laguna - Why is it a Major problem? Is society going to collapse because of it? Would you say this is a bigger problem than STDs in the USA? Would you say it is a bigger problem than accidental deaths? Would you say it is a bigger problem than Alcohol? I guess what I'm asking is why is it a major problem if the casualty rate is less than the one thousandth of one percent of the population?

Isn't America's quarter million gun deaths per decade absolutely grotesque no matter what side of the issue you are on?

@TorafusuTorasan - If you are naive about the death totals from mundane activities then yes this would be grotesque to you. If you are aware of the death totals from every day activities, like 22,000+ people die every single year from accidental falls in the USA each year, then no it really isn't grotesque it is actually quite normal and that such tolerance would be necessary in order to live your life other wise you would be paralyzed by fear from simply accidentally falling to your death from a slip and fall while walking. Did you know that 88,000 people die every single year from Alcohol in the USA? Did you know that more people die in the USA each year from HIV than from all homicides by every single weapon type combined in the USA? Death tolls from the Flu routinely reach 30,000+ people on an average year in the USA and yet its death toll is rarely in the news.

The USA is a country of 3 millions deaths annually from every single cause of death combined. Firearms make up ~1% as the cause of all deaths in the USA each year. On average more than 8,200 people die in the USA every single day.

This is only going to escalate - there WILL be more killings because America can't escape from this loop...

@Thunderbird2 - God you are as bad with the hyperbolic fear mongering as the NRA. Gun violence for the most part is declining in the USA, in the time between 1993 and 2013 the USA gun homicide rate dropped by around 49% and more importantly the non fatal gun assault rate dropped by 69%. During this time the USA added 100+ million firearms to its streets and sold over 25+ billion rounds of ammunition, that figure is not a typo either. The only real gun death statistic that is increasing as of late is old white guys committing suicide.

Odds are this is not going to escalate, the most likely thing that is going to occur is that the gun death rate stays basically the same but the amount of attention it receives is increased.

Are guns really, truly, and absolutely necessary for anyone that wants to own one?

@Tahoochi - And your point is what? That if something is not absolutely necessary that people should not be allowed to own a product?

We're saying that if there were no guns, then there would be less death.

That is a true statement with practically everything, if there was less alcohol less people would die, if less people were having sex less people would die from STDs, If less people engaged in hobbies and recreational activities then less people would die from those things. So what is your point? Is your point that your above quoted statement is really just a euphemism for saying that because you don't like guns means people should not be allowed to own firearms?

30,000 dead Americans a year is a small price to pay for gun owners' feeling of safety when they have their weapon on them

@SuperLib - This is coming from a person who thinks 88,000 dead Americans every year is a small price to pay so that they can drink Alcohol for pleasure.

But what if I yell "bomb" on a plane or " fire" in a crowded room? I present a clear and present danger and that type of speech is agreeably restricted.

@Mr. Noidall - Actually since 1969 it is not restricted at all. Your examples refer to a Supreme Court decision in 1919 when a war protester who distributed fliers to resist the the first world war conscription/draft was convicted during that war and was appealing that conviction. This protester was jailed under the 1917 Espionage Act and 1918 Sedition act. In other words his actions to resist a draft, non-violently I might, presented a clear and present danger to the USA government recruitment efforts during the war. It did not threaten violence against anyone or even endanger anyone's life for that matter, just merely civil disobedience. The clear and present danger argument basically criminalizes any type protest that is against a government objectives/goals.

The 1969 Supreme Court ruling dealing with KKK basically says that the Clear and Present danger standard is no longer sufficient grounds to restrict someone's free speech, in order to restrict someone's free speech you have to show they are about to commit or at the very least incite others to commit imminent lawless actions. So in other words if you shouting fire can be proven to incite imminent lawless actions they can convict, if they can't prove that but instead all they can prove is that you wanted to be jerk and yell it they can't convict you, even if it endangers other people's safety. Heck you can even claim you want to kill specific individuals by name and still not be convicted if they can't prove that it was intended to be an actual threat.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Noliving - as long as you are ok with the fact that the stance you are promoting directly leads to children getting shot in the face.

No big deal, right?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Noliving - as long as you are ok with the fact that the stance you are promoting directly leads to children getting shot in the face. No big deal, right?

Why not Stranger? You are perfectly at peace with the fact that Alcohol on a per capita basis results in more children dying in practically all of the developed world than firearms killing children in the USA. If you are at peace with that than what is so unacceptable with being OK with something that kills children at an even lower rate?

You have made repeated calls for restrictions to be put on firearm ownership and use as well as been highly condescending to owners of firearms in several threads. You justify your malicious attitude by attempting to wrap it in some faux "caring about human life" nonsense, while purposefully ignoring any number of larger behaviors/ownership of products that many (and nearly definitely you) participate in/own throughout society.

Get over yourself. You do not care about these people's lives and especially the lives of the children lost.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Why not Stranger? You are perfectly at peace with the fact that Alcohol on a per capita basis results in more children dying in practically all of the developed world than firearms killing children in the USA.

I accept it. I have some responsibility in this.

Can you do the same? Can you take responsibility for the fact that your stance ends up with some kids shot in the face?

You have made repeated calls for restrictions to be put on firearm ownership and use as well as been highly condescending to owners of firearms in several threads.

With good reason. Gun ownership by definition is moronic.

You justify your malicious attitude by attempting to wrap it in some faux "caring about human life" nonsense

It's not nonsense, you just don't want to accept that you are pushing a stance that directly results in children being shot in school, kids being shot on the street, wives being shot at home, police being shot everywhere.

while purposefully ignoring any number of larger behaviors/ownership of products that many (and nearly definitely you) participate in/own throughout society.

I'm not sure why you think that - I take responsibility for all my actions, and the results they produce.

Again, can you?

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

NolivingFeb. 29, 2016 - 10:55AM JST

@Tahoochi - And your point is what? That if something is not absolutely necessary that people should not be allowed to own a product?

We're saying that if there were no guns, then there would be less death.

That is a true statement with practically everything, if there was less alcohol less people would die, if less people were having sex less people would die from STDs, If less people engaged in hobbies and recreational activities then less people would die from those things.

@Noliving: I think you know the difference between those things you mentioned and guns. Guns are meant strictly for killing and nothing else. They were "invented" to kill human beings very quickly and effectively, and none of those other things you mentioned even come close. While the purpose for things like alcohol are admittedly questionable considering how many deaths it may be responsible for, the comparisons you make are absurd because guns only have one purpose, and if you don't plan on killing anyone (which no one should), I just think that you shouldn't be allowed to own one. The only things that I can think of that can compare to a gun is mouse traps and bombs. And one those is already illegal to own. So why don't you answer a question for a change and tell me what the difference is between a hand held bomb and an automatic assault rifle? Why is one illegal to own and the other, not?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I accept it. I have some responsibility in this. Can you do the same? Can you take responsibility for the fact that your stance ends up with some kids shot in the face?

Yes, I already have. I have known for a very long time that all activities carry the possibility of it resulting in people dying. If you can't accept people dying because of a hobby or recreation then we are all doom to an incredibly boring life.

So what I don't get is why you try to shame other people for saying yes other people, including children, are an acceptable cost to enjoy a product, hobby, activity, etc. especially when the subject in question kills less people than an activity that you approve of and participate in for purely reasons of pleasure.

With good reason. Gun ownership by definition is moronic.

Well considering Alcohol is more deadly to you than owning a firearm would you say Alcohol consumption is even more moronic than owning a firearm?

So it is your opinion that in general that if you own a product for recreational reasons and it increases the odds that you will be injured or killed or someone will be injured or killed as a a result of owning that product by a few hundredths of one percent each year that it is moronic?

It's not nonsense, you just don't want to accept that you are pushing a stance that directly results in children being shot in school, kids being shot on the street, wives being shot at home, police being shot everywhere.

It is entirely nonsense because your claim that you are doing it to save lives is not genuine, those body counts are entirely acceptable to you if it is a recreation that you approve of but if it is a recreation that you don't approve of well then suddenly those body counts are just unacceptable.

Are you kidding me that I don't accept the fact that my stance results in people being killed, including children?

I have repeatedly asked you if you have a product that 32-50% of the population owns or engages in for recreation and it results in one hundredth of one percent if you blame those people for saying that it is an acceptable cost, so how about an answer to the question, Stranger. Yes or No, which is it?

The fact that I'm asking that question means that I do in fact find it acceptable that when a product is owned or is used for recreation and it results in one hundredth of one percent of the population dying. In fact you tried to

shame me on another thread by saying you hoped that the families of the victims would get solace out of the fact that I find their loved ones death an acceptable cost to own firearms. So clearly you know that I accept that my stance will result in other people's deaths otherwise you wouldn't have said what you said in the other thread. Heck I have been the one repeatedly claiming that if the only acceptable cost to the pleasures of life is zero killed and wounded we would all live very boring lives.

I'm not sure why you think that

Seriously? You have repeatedly tried to shame other people for saying that the current body count from firearms is acceptable to own firearms for recreational reasons and yet you deliberately ignore the fact that you approve of a recreational activity that results in higher body count. In other words you are a hypocrite, how can you credibly try to shame other people for saying this many people is an acceptable cost to.

I think you know the difference between those things you mentioned and guns. Guns are meant strictly for killing and nothing else. They were "invented" to kill human beings very quickly and effectively, and none of those other things you mentioned even come close.

@Tahoochi - Yes I do know the difference between the two, what something is designed to do does not dictate it ends use, nor does it mean that there are not other uses for it that are contrary to what it was intended for and nor does it mean those other uses will not be it predominate use.

Do you really think it helps your argument that something that is not designed to kill kills more people than something that is?

While the purpose for things like alcohol are admittedly questionable considering how many deaths it may be responsible for, the comparisons you make are absurd because guns only have one purpose,

Tell me, why should I find the above persuasive? Both the consumption of Alcohol and the ownership of firearms in the USA is primarily used for recreation, is it not? So clearly guns have more than just one purpose. Would you not agree that how something is being used primarily in society is far more important than what it was designed for?

We both know that for a statistical fact that over 99.99% of gun owners don't hurt anyone each year. If you have a product where its usage is overwhelmingly not how it was intended well then harping on what a product is designed for is a waste of everyone's time and is very weak argument. Plus it is not a nuanced or practical argument/point either. I mean GPS is designed to kill people, it is designed for nuclear weapons to guide them to their targets. TNT for example is designed not to kill but to help people, particularly miners. Flash bangs are not designed to kill people either.

and if you don't plan on killing anyone (which no one should), I just think that you shouldn't be allowed to own one.

So in other words this isn't really about saving lives as it is more about getting rid of something you don't approve of. Why should people who just want to have fun and not hurt anyone be prohibited from using them for recreation, especially when it harms less people than a recreation that you approve of? Swords are allowed for recreation, we call it fencing, same is true with bow and arrows, we call it archery.

The only things that I can think of that can compare to a gun is mouse traps and bombs. And one those is already illegal to own. So why don't you answer a question for a change and tell me what the difference is between a hand held bomb and an automatic assault rifle? Why is one illegal to own and the other, not?

You will be happy to know that hand held bombs are not illegal in the USA they are classified as destructive devices, and technically fireworks are explosive devices themselves and those are for the most part not banned either.

Hand held bombs are explosive devices that are designed to be thrown from a hand and will detonate either upon impact, timer, or radio control and in general will send shrapnel in all directions. Assault rifles are designed to propel an intermediate powered rifle bullet out of a barrel by containing the explosion of a charge and redirecting the energy of that explosion out of the barrel, they have the ability to switch between pump-semi-and fully automatic modes.

But if they were to be banned the most likely reason is because some people just don't approve of them.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Nice long post justifying kids getting shot in the face, so that some people can enjoy a 'hobby'. I bet the parents of all kids shot in the face will find solace in the fact that others can continue their 'hobby'.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nice long post justifying kids getting shot in the face, so that some people can enjoy a 'hobby'. I bet the parents of all kids shot in the face will find solace in the fact that others can continue their 'hobby'.

Wow another petty hypocritical shame attempt, tell me again why it is OK for you to say that it is acceptable for children to die so you can enjoy the 'hobby' of drinking alcohol but not firearms. Remember more children die on a per capita basis from Alcohol than from firearms.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites