it's got nothing to do with me. it's far away and happened to no one i know. and yet i feel hurt. i am sad and depressed over it. i may be too sensitive and perhaps i am drawn to emotional hurt and cling to it. i tend to hurt for too long and hold on for too long.
this, as Obama said, have happened too many times. it's senseless, it's needless, it's ridiculous.
a 'mad man' go on a rampage and kills a number of people with gun(s). some people will say ban guns except for people with a legal right to use them. the opposite will say, it's not guns that kill people, it's the people who are mad that pulls the trigger and other weapons can kill as well.
let's put it this way. when i think i am going to crush your head with my bare hands, you don't die. when i pick up a knife and stab you, you can escape that as easily as running away. when i have a gun and i have the element of surprise, there is almost no doubt that you will die.
say i have a knife, no a sword, or even a spear, how many can i kill before i am over powered or all who are threatened run away so that i cannot do them harm. if i have a gun with enough ammo, or even two gun, just in case, how many can i kill before i am overpowered or neutralized?
no one will argue that it's the people behind the weapons that are the killers. the difference is the method and the ease of killing. how many people can be killed in a given time frame with a given weapon and how easily it can be avoided or neutralized?
as for arming more 'good people' with guns to fight back when such things happen, let's me just say two words : arms race. say you legalize hand guns, pistols and revolvers, these supposed disturbed persons will go for body armor and rifles, SMGs and what not. there was a case where two bank robbers suited up in bomb squad body armor was only taken down after hours of gun fight. then the police allowed patrol cars to have high powered rifles in the trunks to counter these type of events. then the drug gang are reported to now have AKs and RPGs to fight the police. soon, we will have police riding in APCs instead of Chevrolets.
and to add to that, say there are more than one gunman crazee, then there are armed people shooting at them. in a confused situation, how can the police tell who to trust, who to shoot, who to help? you could easily end up helping the crazee kill the innocent and no one the wiser until much later! and if there are armed resistance to these crazees, they would more likely take precaution and very likely take hostage to secure themselves longer.
what is the solution? my opinion, totally uneducated, is to restrict guns to those who need it, law enforcement and armed forces, and licensed hunters who show proficiency, no criminal record and so on. and on top of that, those who keep guns at home have to have a gun locker that is tagged to signal to the police when opened without proper password or access, and in case there is an emergency and the gun is needed for self defense, that could signal to the police that something is wrong without even calling them.
based on statistic, the US do not have the highest rate of violent crime, but they do have the highest number of death due to violent crimes. it shows something, doesn't it?
this, as Obama said, have happened too many times. it's senseless, it's needless, it's ridiculous.
a 'mad man' go on a rampage and kills a number of people with gun(s). some people will say ban guns except for people with a legal right to use them. the opposite will say, it's not guns that kill people, it's the people who are mad that pulls the trigger and other weapons can kill as well.
let's put it this way. when i think i am going to crush your head with my bare hands, you don't die. when i pick up a knife and stab you, you can escape that as easily as running away. when i have a gun and i have the element of surprise, there is almost no doubt that you will die.
say i have a knife, no a sword, or even a spear, how many can i kill before i am over powered or all who are threatened run away so that i cannot do them harm. if i have a gun with enough ammo, or even two gun, just in case, how many can i kill before i am overpowered or neutralized?
no one will argue that it's the people behind the weapons that are the killers. the difference is the method and the ease of killing. how many people can be killed in a given time frame with a given weapon and how easily it can be avoided or neutralized?
as for arming more 'good people' with guns to fight back when such things happen, let's me just say two words : arms race. say you legalize hand guns, pistols and revolvers, these supposed disturbed persons will go for body armor and rifles, SMGs and what not. there was a case where two bank robbers suited up in bomb squad body armor was only taken down after hours of gun fight. then the police allowed patrol cars to have high powered rifles in the trunks to counter these type of events. then the drug gang are reported to now have AKs and RPGs to fight the police. soon, we will have police riding in APCs instead of Chevrolets.
and to add to that, say there are more than one gunman crazee, then there are armed people shooting at them. in a confused situation, how can the police tell who to trust, who to shoot, who to help? you could easily end up helping the crazee kill the innocent and no one the wiser until much later! and if there are armed resistance to these crazees, they would more likely take precaution and very likely take hostage to secure themselves longer.
what is the solution? my opinion, totally uneducated, is to restrict guns to those who need it, law enforcement and armed forces, and licensed hunters who show proficiency, no criminal record and so on. and on top of that, those who keep guns at home have to have a gun locker that is tagged to signal to the police when opened without proper password or access, and in case there is an emergency and the gun is needed for self defense, that could signal to the police that something is wrong without even calling them.
based on statistic, the US do not have the highest rate of violent crime, but they do have the highest number of death due to violent crimes. it shows something, doesn't it?
