The whole "If everyone has a gun, then no one is unsafe" sounds like Syndrome... uh, syndrome.
You know, from the Incredibles? "If everyone has powers, then no one will be super."
Except, no? It's more like "Holy shit, everyone has super-powers/guns!" than it is "Oh well since YOU have one I guess it doesn't matter that I do."
That movie always bugged me. Moral of the story: Technology is bullshit and doesn't give you -real- powers, and you're only worth something if everyone else isn't. :I
The argument is more accurately, "The most polite conversation is one in which all participants are armed." No one rocks the boat, so to speak, because there are immediate and overwhelming consequences.
The issue with people having firearms is that some types of people will feel "more powerful" than others and will want to exert that power. They have the capability to threaten others and get what they want without fear of immediate retribution. They rob, they steal, they rape. It is an accessory of empowerment. The only thing that negates that empowerment is either removing the capability of possessing one (the gun control argument) or disallowing anyone being empowered by having a gun since other people also have guns (the anti-gun control argument, roughly). This is further compounded by gun-controlists thinking that gun control eliminating ownership of firearms is possible in this country, and anti-gun-controlists thinking that would be as successful as Prohibition or the War on Drugs in addition to being contrary to the culture of the United States, especially considering past government-endorsed public shooting of unarmed civilians in the US and the wholesale government-endorsed slaughter of civilians in other places in the world. I realize that the additional reasoning I've provided for the anti-gun-controlists is unfair to the gun-controlists, but I honestly don't know how the gun-controlists confront those particular issues. I'll leave it up to someone else to more accurately outline their arguments. I don't think anything I've said is wrong though.
Lol
Everyone, run and put on your psychopath apologist caps because it's a toy you like.
He's not being a psychopath apologist, he's saying the airport isn't as protected as it should be.
Exactly. You're saying "Oh, look, people against gun control are wrong because the airport is supposed to be the most secure in the world and this still happened."
My argument is, "If he wasn't stopped at the airport gates, or if he wasn't shot and killed when he brought out his weapon, then the airport obviously isn't the most secure in the world." How are anti-gun-controlists wrong if the airport doesn't even apply to anti-gun-control,
especially when it's in California?
This is also to say nothing of the failure of adequate psychological filtering that would prevent someone like this guy from ever being near a gun.The above had to do with him being a part of the TSA, which now he maybe isn't? /shrug. It's still applicable, but much less so.
According to the chief of police the shooter has survived and has been taken into police custody. It looks like the Chief of Police is an idiot after all.
The LAPD is rather notorious for its shittiness.
Why do either of you say that? I mean, if the guy was shot and killed then the Chief is an idiot because he's reporting false information, but assuming the guy is alive, why? Unless that has to do with the youtube video, which I'm not going to watch just yet because I'm downloading something and my connection sucks for doing more than one thing at a time.