gun control

[formant]

Seeing as the crazy attackers usually kill themselves at the end of their rampage I can't see how the danger of being killed would deter them.

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Mich the Tester again."
Bugger.

[doodab]

Their argument is that by being armed it won't be possible for one crazy attacker to kill 30-40 people, that attacker would die pretty quickly, maybe take 2-3 with him.

This would be a deterrent because attackers go for crazy rampages precisely because they want to kill a lot of people - that's why they target places like schools which were specifically forbidden to have guns on premises.

And my theory is that an attacker with the advantage of surprise, a few smoke grenades, a bulletproof vest and a semi automatic rifle with a high capacity magazine will do a lot more damage than that before they get it together to bring him down.

[d000hg]

No, i think their argument that by being armed they are somehow safe is bollocks. The obvious way to prove this is to shoot them.

Which works as long as the attackers win.

[AtW]

And my theory is that an attacker with the advantage of surprise, a few smoke grenades, a bulletproof vest and a semi automatic rifle with a high capacity magazine will do a lot more damage than that before they get it together to bring him down.

Yes, but such attacker would prefer to attack unarmed people because it would give higher probability of success - all serious shootings happened in places where people could not defend themselves because firearms were banned in those places.

Attacker might have advantage of suprise, but he does not know who is armed with concealed firearm - only takes one man to shoot the **** out of that scambag and save others.

[AtW]

Seeing as the crazy attackers usually kill themselves at the end of their rampage I can't see how the danger of being killed would deter them.

It would deter them it they knew they can only kill 2-3 peopel rather than 20-30, this deterrent is already in effect - they choose to attack soft targets with lots of unarmed people.

[Mich the Tester]

It would deter them it they knew they can only kill 2-3 peopel rather than 20-30, this deterrent is already in effect - they choose to attack soft targets with lots of unarmed people.

Yep, they choose soft targets right now, but if there are no more soft targets then how do they get the headlines and the attention? Yep, seek 'hard targets'.

I get the impression that most of the arguments I hear from those who campaign against gun control are actually contrived nonsense to avoid saying what they really feel which is ' I like guns and I want to own and carry guns so I'll use any convoluted argument I can conceive to defend my supposed right to do so, including the completely nutty argument that if I have a gun then you will be safer '.

[doodab]

Which works as long as the attackers win.

How does anyone 'win'?

[darmstadt]

Just nuke America, problem solved and you get a ****-off big ice rink into the bargain

[d000hg]

How does anyone 'win'?

By not dying.

[Mich the Tester]

Shoot the mother****er in the head.

AtW.

Somehow I suspect 'mother****er' is a perfectly accurate definition of many NRA members, but Sister****er and Auntie****er would probably work too.