Oregon College shooting

[SmokeHut]

Could have been prevented if students were able to be armed on campus. It's mindblowingly stupid how people think that banning weapons will cause less violence.

I think you're possibly forgetting what school life is like, I know when I was at school if I had a disagreement, it was a fight on the school field. Not a shoot up in the hallway.. Giving teenagers weapons to protect themselves in a school is idiotic. I mean, even at my work place I'm not allowed to use a fire extinguisher if I'm not trained.. Never mind mowing down any potential threats.

Pretty much all the pro gun arguments are moronic.

Protecting your family - if you have a family, then you likely have children. So your guns are locked away. Anyone breaks in, you're likely not going to have time to retrieve a weapon from your safe before you're being held at gunpoint.

Criminals Left With The Weapons - While this is true, and here in the UK that is true.. Getting hold of an assault rifle would cost a fair bit more than buying one legally in the US. So yes they're left with the weapons. However, the crazed kid who gets bullied at school won't be able to afford one.

Tyrannical Reasons - If you genuinely believe the population of America could rise up against the government then you're clearly lacking rationality. You are outgunned from the outset. When the first Apache helicopter wipes out half of your local militia you'll be quickly running and surrendering ( if you have any logic left ).

 

[Equin]

Most likely another False Flag Event set up by the Government. They're really trying to push gun control here in the states.

 

[Equin]

Most likely another event setup by the U.S government. Probably brainwashed the hell out of the dude just like they did to Dylan Roof. It's all part of their scheme to push gun control.

 

[Se Rogue]

In the united states its a simple fix. One that follows our Constitution, law abiding citizens are going to be following the Gun Zone free law/rule. However, a criminal will not. Now you have defensless people at the mercy of one person. Scrap the free zones. If you have 20 law abiding citizens armed, one criminal that wants a mass shooting would think twice.

I remember a case here in Las Vegas, Nevada. The Denny's is a Gun Free zone. Result? 4 National Guard Service men were killed, a long with a few civilians. One law abiding carrying citizen could have saved those lives. Instead of waiting for the police to show up.

Could have been prevented if students were able to be armed on campus. It's mindblowingly stupid how people think that banning weapons will cause less violence.

So why not allow people to defend themselves against the mentally ill who are trying to kill them? Look at all the damage the shooter was able to inflict before the police arrived (who are allowed to have guns) and killed him.

It's mind blowing that the same thing can be said for this shooting as the last one that I posted this in:

I think you're possibly forgetting what school life is like, I know when I was at school if I had a disagreement, it was a fight on the school field. Not a shoot up in the hallway.. Giving teenagers weapons to protect themselves in a school is idiotic.

SmokeHut is hitting the nail on the head here. You're giving the average american student far more credit than they deserve. This is not to say that every student in america is going to pop off with their glock every chance they get, but think about all the impulsive, angry and illogical people that start fist fights. In a fit of rage, do you think they would all have the common sense to NOT grab the handgun out of their desk drawer and blow someone away? You don't have to be mentally ill to use a gun improperly or in a lethal way -- you just have to be dumb. And just in case you live under a rock or are severely delusional, here is a reality check for you: a significant portion of the US population lacks not only intelligence but common sense as well.

Unfortunately gun control can be very situational, making a universally applicable law much less likely or even feasible. Banning all guns in absolute manner is considered unconstitutional (because it is) but the current screening process clearly isn't thorough or rigorous enough because guns are getting into the hands of the wrong people. If someone is depressed or schizophrenic or just insane they can walk into a gun store with a "mask" on, act as normal as possible for however long is necessary and simply wait for the forms to be filled or the paperwork processed or what have you -- provided they pass the background check, which isn't inherently an unreasonable assumption. Boom. There's a serious problem right there.

I had a short discussion with my Mother about this in light of the event and we both agreed that something a little more intensive, like perhaps an on-site interview/screening or a detailed gun safety and education class, would serve as a fair middle-ground between tyrannical control and handing guns out to everyone so they can return fire if the situation calls for it. What do you guys think of this?

 

I don't believe I've ever yet lost that many brain cells reading such trash from people. I can't even read past page 1.

It's pretty obvious more guns does not mean less violence, the whole reason violence is allowed, is because there's less gun restrictions in the US.

Also to those who are calling that person, who shot at 13+ people as "mentally ill". He was terrorising innocent students. Therefore he is a terrorist.

I've never heard of these type of shootings here in the UK. The only type of people allowed to have guns, are those who Hunt/Farmers, Police, Army Queen's Security. Any other form of weapon will mostly be a tazer. You're not going to walk into an off-license and ever see the cashier pull out a gun, if you try Rob them.

You only ever really hear of knife crime especially in London. And that honestly will never die down seeing as knives will never be restricted.

It should be common sense, that the US needs restrictions and tighter laws on Guns. Not put more guns into the equation. You don't think those students might just start shooting at someone who was bullying them?

Like for real....


Edit: +1 SmokeHut.

 

[OliAli]

It's the cost of Freedom I'm afraid. =,{

 

[Se Rogue]

I don't believe I've ever yet lost that many brain cells reading such trash from people. I can't even read past page 1.

It's pretty obvious more guns does not mean less violence, the whole reason violence is allowed, is because there's less gun restrictions in the US.

Also to those who are calling that person, who shot at 13+ people as "mentally ill". He was terrorising innocent students. Therefore he is a terrorist.

I've never heard of these type of shootings here in the UK. The only type of people allowed to have guns, are those who Hunt/Farmers, Police, Army Queen's Security. Any other form of weapon will mostly be a tazer. You're not going to walk into an off-license and ever see the cashier pull out a gun, if you try Rob them.

You only ever really hear of knife crime especially in London. And that honestly will never die down seeing as knives will never be restricted.

It should be common sense, that the US needs restrictions and tighter laws on Guns. Not put more guns into the equation. You don't think those students might just start shooting at someone who was bullying them?

Like for real....


Edit: +1 SmokeHut.

+1 to SmokeHut for sure, and +1 to you as well. (While we're at it, +1 for Tmoe's first page post.)

To quote the OP, Barack Obama is cited as saying:
"Other countries like the UK and Australia had been able to implement effective legislation, he said, and so should the US."

In my eyes, this should be a huge f*cking wake-up call not only to the American government but to the American population as whole. Unfortunately, a lot of the population has delusions regarding the current status of the country (prosperity, safety, etc.) Perhaps they're not delusional but simply ignorant towards these facts, or worse -- apathetic. We should be observing external laws and policies that have been implemented effectively and adapting them to our own needs. I don't think anyone would mind.

It's the cost of Freedom I'm afraid. =,{

It's the cost of having an incompetent government running our country and a mass of people who don't give enough of a shit to do anything but complain about it. There should not be an instance where we must sacrifice security for freedom. Problem is, a lot of folks have basically perverted the concept of freedom into meaning "I get to do whatever the f*ck I want and if you try to hinder me for any reason at all you've got a huge uproar on your hands."

EDIT: Here's a little quote that sums up my stance rather concisely

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
--George Washington

Swap the places of liberty and security and the statement works equally as well.

 

[OliAli]

Really? How could you question the wisdom of the Founding Fathers?

As others in this thread have stated, whether it is Apache Indians or Apache Helicopters the threat remains the same. The times may change but people stay the same, The Founding Fathers knew this.

Free people need the ability to defend both themselves and Freedom itself. I would go as far as to say The Second Amendment is the most important amendment of all when it comes to preserving the values of freedom.

Without the ability to defend Freedom (the rights of all individuals stated in the United States Constitution) , America is doomed. So yes, it is the cost of Freedom. It is unfortunate, but they died for your right to be free.

 

[kmjt]

So why not allow people to defend themselves against the mentally ill who are trying to kill them? Look at all the damage the shooter was able to inflict before the police arrived (who are allowed to have guns) and killed him.

The root problem should be addressed (mental health). Why was this guy so messed up in the head? Why do other countries with similar gun laws not have these problems? Putting guns in the hands of everyone will only cause shootings out of brief anger. People do stupid things when they get mad. In what was once a normal fist fight to solve an altercation might end badly because not everyone can control their anger.

 

[tMoon]

Also to those who are calling that person, who shot at 13+ people as "mentally ill". He was terrorising innocent students. Therefore he is a terrorist.

This is not what a terrorist is, terrorizing does not make a terrorist. A terrorist MUST be a non-state actor, using violence towards civilians, in order to attempt to make some political change.

Details are still coming out of the shooter, but as of now I have gotten a more terroristic than mentally ill vibe (they do not exist exclusively and could overlap).

Really? How could you question the wisdom of the Founding Fathers?

As others in this thread have stated, whether it is Apache Indians or Apache Helicopters the threat remains the same. The times may change but people stay the same, The Founding Fathers knew this.

Free people need the ability to defend both themselves and Freedom itself. I would go as far as to say The Second Amendment is the most important amendment of all when it comes to preserving the values of freedom.

Without the ability to defend Freedom (the rights of all individuals stated in the United States Constitution) , America is doomed. So yes, it is the cost of Freedom. It is unfortunate, but they died for your right to be free.

The Founding Fathers were not Gods, they were every-day people (well, they were still in the higher echelon of society). People should question everything, why are things set up the way they are? Is there a more efficient way to do things? What makes this the right way?

People have a very bad understanding of the second amendment. #1 it is an AMENDMENT and it can be removed like any other amendment (people seem to forget this). While I acknowledge this is highly unlikely, it is still possible. #2, this amendment prohibits federal intervention, not state intervention and is built on the premise of states have militias and said militias having guns to protect against a tyrannous government. Sorry to break it to you, but the 2nd amendment doesn't care about an individual and his affinity for assault rifles, it was designed for militias (which states don't have) to fight against a tyrannous government.

Also, said amendment doesn't take in account modern-day technology, or the fact that the modern U.S. government has drones, massive gun ships, and technology that would absolutely crush any citizen "rebellion."

The root problem should be addressed (mental health).

I would argue the root of the problem is the easy access to guns, not the mental health of the individuals. Mentally ill people are much more likely to use a gun on themselves opposed to on someone else and can be used as a scape goat in an attempt to avoid a bigger problem. Now, mental health institutions are greatly lacking in the U.S. and mental health is definitely a problem in the U.S., but don't let this distract from the ineffective (and arguably moronic) gun policy of the U.S.

 

[Xier0]

I think you're possibly forgetting what school life is like, I know when I was at school if I had a disagreement, it was a fight on the school field. Not a shoot up in the hallway..

Even children have the core understanding that guns are purposefully dangerous weapons and to be responsible with them. It's not like these shootings take place on playgrounds either, there are almost exclusively adults around (except for the Sandy Hook shooting).

Giving teenagers weapons to protect themselves in a school is idiotic. I mean, even at my work place I'm not allowed to use a fire extinguisher if I'm not trained.. Never mind mowing down any potential threats.

Allowing people to defend themselves with guns is idiotic? Would you rather them try to drown their assailant with their own blood instead?

Pretty much all the pro gun arguments are moronic.

Protecting your family - if you have a family, then you likely have children. So your guns are locked away. Anyone breaks in, you're likely not going to have time to retrieve a weapon from your safe before you're being held at gunpoint.

This incredibly rare hypothetical scenario doesn't amount to anything. Guns are the single largest equalizer of combat ability, which allows everyone to protect themselves. A frail grandma can defend herself against an NFL linebacker if she has her weapon drawn.

Criminals Left With The Weapons - While this is true, and here in the UK that is true.. Getting hold of an assault rifle would cost a fair bit more than buying one legally in the US. So yes they're left with the weapons. However, the crazed kid who gets bullied at school won't be able to afford one.

Putting guns in the hands of everyone will only cause shootings out of brief anger. People do stupid things when they get mad. In what was once a normal fist fight to solve an altercation might end badly because not everyone can control their anger.

Making it so people can't afford weapons or making them unavailable disproportionately affects people who want to use them for defense rather than crime. This is why you don't see shootings at gun ranges or gun shows, and why you see them in churches, and schools.

Tyrannical Reasons - If you genuinely believe the population of America could rise up against the government then you're clearly lacking rationality. You are outgunned from the outset. When the first Apache helicopter wipes out half of your local militia you'll be quickly running and surrendering ( if you have any logic left ).

1776: Yeah, you shouldn't revolt against the British! They have the strongest navy the world has ever seen, the largest empire, and the largest army! What chance will you farmers have against them??

The absolute most important reason to own a firearm is for defense, especially against the government.

 

[Logic]

Sounds like you've been listening to bull-shit NRA rhetoric. There is already in excess of 340 millions guns in the U.S., guns literally out number every individual in the U.S. If more guns were a solution to the American problem of mass shootings, the problem would be solved.

No, gun free zones don't discourage someone who is going to murder people from walking in with a gun. Why would it? That individual is literally on their way to kill other people.

The problem (well, part of it) is that guns are WAY to easy to get in the U.S. There are numerous flaws in the background system and the mental health system as a whole; furthermore, there is no real reason your John Smith living in a suburb needs an assault rifle. People like guns, so be it, but don't use this bullshit argument that guns save lives. If you have a gun in your house, you are more likely to use it on yourself then somebody else; furthermore, guns are correlated with increased homicide rates, turning a non-deadly encounter into one.

A majority of these shooters are getting their weapons legally, they are cheap, available, and are given out with very little restriction. Restricting access to guns does work, examples can be found both abroad and domestically. States with better gun control have less gun violence, that kind of just how it goes.

I'm not advocating that guns are evil, or down with all firearms, but there needs to be a sensible discussion and implementation of gun policy. I am absolutely sick of continually monitoring doors and my surroundings as I sit in my classes. I know what I'll do if there's a shooter and frankly that's sad, I should not be worried that I am going to get shot and potentially killed while sitting in Political Theory.

Note: I am aware correlation does not equal causation, but correlations can help you glean a little bit of information. Also, I'm not just making baseless assertions, if you do not believe anything I have stated, feel free to look it up, I don't feel the need to go digging around for information I already know.



The American population as a whole is pretty clueless when it comes to politics, the constitution, and laws in general. Not to be a debby-downer, but the constitution (specifically the bill of rights, constitution is rather irrelevant regarding this) has lost its' weight. Practically every one of the first 10 amendments has been trampled on, hello Patriot Act (among other things).

The U.S. prison and Judicial system is a shit-show and the main reason the U.S. is the largest jailed is because we have an archaic policy centered around drugs alongside the wonderful system of posting bail that the lower class often cannot afford to do (so they end up sitting in jail for weeks, months, years, waiting for their "speedy" trial.)

I really think you are not giving the full story here. It just isn't fair to say "furthermore, guns are correlated with increased homicide rates". It does not take a genius to figure out that more guns = more gun related deaths, but it does take a bit more intelligence to look at the overal violent crime and how gun ownership affect that. The last time I read about the subject there was no proof available that low firearm ownership rates = low crime/suicide rates and higher firearm ownership rates = higher crime/suicide rates. My common sense says that if a neighborhood is known for having a high gun ownership rate then there will be a lot less crime cause people don't want to get shot. If i was a criminal then I would avoid places where I might get shot.

This whole gun grab thing feels like an emotional bs, for me it lacks proof that taking guns away from the population will make the country safer for everyone. Sure you might have less gun related incidents (this should be obvious to everyone, including children), but there is just not enough proof that it will not result in higher violent crime, burglary, rape etc rates. My common sense says that the result would be higher violent crime, burglary, rape etc rates, cause criminals would be less worried about getting shot.

After all these years all I get to read is emotional people making an emotional case for banning guns, but if you mention disarming the police then everybody be like "Are you stoopid, who will protect us then?". More data driven research and less emotional bs pl0x. Getting really tired about reading/seeing the victims of a gun crime on national platforms, cause all this says to me and many others is that the people pushing gun control know very well that the data isn't supporting their stance and instead they are pushing the emotional aspect.

Just my 2 cents on the whole gun grab topic.

 

"Stricter gun laws won't stop this"

Like.. look at the UK.. there's maybe been a handful of mass/school shootings in a whole generation. Yes, stabbings are maybe more common than shootings - but how likely is it that someone with a knife can kill 30 people without being apprehended first.. not likely.

SOMETHING needs to change. If you giving up your precious guns saves lives, stop being selfish.

 

[Logic]

"Stricter gun laws won't stop this"

Like.. look at the UK.. there's maybe been a handful of mass/school shootings in a whole generation. Yes, stabbings are maybe more common than shootings - but how likely is it that someone with a knife can kill 30 people without being apprehended first.. not likely.

SOMETHING needs to change. If you giving up your precious guns saves lives, stop being selfish.

The school staff didn't let an armed soldier to go and take out the shooter, another veteran tried to disarm him while being unarmed himself, he was shot 5 times but survived luckily. Just fuck these gun free zones and the liberal fuckers who ran the school.

Something needs to change indeed, for example, lets arm the security guards and actualy have a working security system, but yeah no need to look further, GUNS BAD, GUNS KILL, THE SCHOOL POLICES ARE NOT TO BLAME ONCE AGAIN!

For more info: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrBPoX7yMKo

 

Lmfao. Liberal fuckers? I.e. people who live in a country where this NEVER happens. Okay, continue to let your kids die.

 

[SmokeHut]

Even children have the core understanding that guns are purposefully dangerous weapons and to be responsible with them. It's not like these shootings take place on playgrounds either, there are almost exclusively adults around (except for the Sandy Hook shooting).

Right.. However, what I was saying is that allowing the children/teenagers to bring their weapons to school would end up with shootings on the playground. When I served in the Army, we weren't allowed to carry our weapons around base, they had to be locked in an armory.. For good reason.

Allowing people to defend themselves with guns is idiotic? Would you rather them try to drown their assailant with their own blood instead?

Fighting fire with fire is not always the solution. Here in the UK it's very unlikely you'd need a firearm to defend yourself. Whilst it would seriously increase your odds of survival, it's not an absolute.

This incredibly rare hypothetical scenario doesn't amount to anything. Guns are the single largest equalizer of combat ability, which allows everyone to protect themselves. A frail grandma can defend herself against an NFL linebacker if she has her weapon drawn.

You're right, it's likely a very rare scenario.. That's my point.

Making it so people can't afford weapons or making them unavailable disproportionately affects people who want to use them for defense rather than crime. This is why you don't see shootings at gun ranges or gun shows, and why you see them in churches, and schools.

However, the weapons used in the majority of these events were purchased legally?

1776: Yeah, you shouldn't revolt against the British! They have the strongest navy the world has ever seen, the largest empire, and the largest army! What chance will you farmers have against them??

Yeah, let's talk from a time when we used muskets to defend yourself. A good thing about a musket is it gave you a lot of time to calm down from a situation. Rather than filling another with lead.

The absolute most important reason to own a firearm is for defense, especially against the government.

However, if you genuinely believe that your pesky 5.56 is going to be any sort of resistance against the government, you're highly mistaken. When you build your little window defenses in your house and try to hold out against the government. You'll likely be rendered a terrorist; you and your family will receive a payload that will level your house and probably neighboring houses. It's not a fight you can win, and therefore that argument is pointless. It's hard enough to get people to sign a petition never mind unite, take up arms and revolt against the government.

What people with these arguments lack, is rationality. A society cannot survive when people do not rationalize. In my opinion everyone should be able to drive as fast as they can. However, because of the small percentage of people that can't drive for shit, or drive cars with huge stopping distances. We must all abide the law to drive at certain speed limits. Same with guns, because of the small percentage of people that are using it for harm rather than defense or sport. It spoils it for everyone, that is society.

 

[Logic]

Lmfao. Liberal fuckers? I.e. people who live in a country where this NEVER happens. Okay, continue to let your kids die.

If 92% (2007-2014) of these mass shootings happened in GUN FREE ZONES then maybe, just maybe it's the zones that make it possible for such events to happen. This is just a guess but before these gun free zones maybe the shooters were shot by other people before they managed to shoot that many.
Gun free zones are like fishing from a barrel with a hand grenade, it's very effective.

 

[Anish]

"Stricter gun laws won't stop this"

Like.. look at the UK.. there's maybe been a handful of mass/school shootings in a whole generation. Yes, stabbings are maybe more common than shootings - but how likely is it that someone with a knife can kill 30 people without being apprehended first.. not likely.

SOMETHING needs to change. If you giving up your precious guns saves lives, stop being selfish.

That is the UK. Not tye United States. Two VERY diferente sociedad.

We should do away WITH the GFZ.

 

[tMoon]

I really think you are not giving the full story here. It just isn't fair to say "furthermore, guns are correlated with increased homicide rates". It does not take a genius to figure out that more guns = more gun related deaths, but it does take a bit more intelligence to look at the overal violent crime and how gun ownership affect that. The last time I read about the subject there was no proof available that low firearm ownership rates = low crime/suicide rates and higher firearm ownership rates = higher crime/suicide rates. My common sense says that if a neighborhood is known for having a high gun ownership rate then there will be a lot less crime cause people don't want to get shot. If i was a criminal then I would avoid places where I might get shot.

This is why I stated correlation does not equal causation. Suicide rates have dropped with increased gun control and following your logic, states with more guns will have lower crime rates and states with less guns would have higher. While only referring to gun crimes (assault with a gun, etc.), this is inaccurate and states with lower gun ownership (NJ, Connecticut, and such) have lower gun-crime rates (and homicides as a whole) then states that have more guns (ex: West Virginia). Now, while gun crime drops, does that mean overall crime drops? That I'm not sure, if I remember correctly there is a correlation, but I'm writing all of this off my prior reads and may lookup the "answer" later.

This whole gun grab thing feels like an emotional bs, for me it lacks proof that taking guns away from the population will make the country safer for everyone. Sure you might have less gun related incidents (this should be obvious to everyone, including children), but there is just not enough proof that it will not result in higher violent crime, burglary, rape etc rates. My common sense says that the result would be higher violent crime, burglary, rape etc rates, cause criminals would be less worried about getting shot.

There is certainly an emotional factor, but if that's what is needed, then so be it. This does not happened in other advanced democracies and there's a reason why, guns are not so available. Honestly, I really wouldn't care if crime remained the same, but guns were off the table. Crime is at all-time-lows in American history and guns make it more likely for said crime to not turn into a homicide.

Now, as for "proof." You can compare the lack of mass shootings (considering the U.S. hasn't gone more then a week in 3 years without one), or you could look at the very good example of Australia. 1996, guy kills dozens of people at a tourist attraction, the prime minister says "never going to happen again" and overalls the country's gun laws. They opened up a gun buyback program, illegal/legal gun, it didn't matter, bring it in, the government would buy it. Assault rifles are completely banned, semi-automatic rifles are only available to people that can show why they need them (aka the farmers out in the middle of no where defending their farms from the various Australian wild-life), and gun clubs were still allowed. In order to get yourself a gun, you had to go through a thorough screening process. People refrain their rights, can still go hunting and sport with their guns, but John Smith cannot walk into his local gun show, pick up a semi-automatic rifle, two hand guns, and a shotgun without a background check.

After all these years all I get to read is emotional people making an emotional case for banning guns, but if you mention disarming the police then everybody be like "Are you stoopid, who will protect us then?". More data driven research and less emotional bs pl0x. Getting really tired about reading/seeing the victims of a gun crime on national platforms, cause all this says to me and many others is that the people pushing gun control know very well that the data isn't supporting their stance and instead they are pushing the emotional aspect.

I am quite questionable about police. U.S., they lack training (ex: in my state you have to train longer to become a hair stylist then you do a police officer) and often over-use force. In modern-day America, I do think police need to carry guns, but their training needs to be enhanced and their needs to be a push towards non-lethal means. There are police in other countries in which they do not all carry guns, but I don't think the U.S. is anywhere near that point (and likely never will.)

If 92% (2007-2014) of these mass shootings happened in GUN FREE ZONES then maybe, just maybe it's the zones that make it possible for such events to happen. This is just a guess but before these gun free zones maybe the shooters were shot by other people before they managed to shoot that many.
Gun free zones are like fishing from a barrel with a hand grenade, it's very effective.

A sign is not going to deter a would be mass-shooter, it is meant to ensure students and adults know not to bring guns on campus (whether high school, college, etc.) Having guns casually on campus would put people on ease; furthermore, I guess your shooter can now openly carry his gun into the building. Nothing about these guns are illegal, nearly all mass shootings that have occurred have been completed with legal guns.

These guns are being purchased illegally, they are be purchased compArmed security guards might be needed, but that is not a solution to this problem, it is a "well, it's going to happen so lets just make sure someone can kill the guy before he kills too many people" solution.

Also, I'm not sure what your gun ownership perception is in the U.S., but not everyone owns guns, not even a majority of people own guns. Rather, it's a minority that own multiple guns.

That is the UK. Not tye United States. Two VERY diferente sociedad.

We should do away WITH the GFZ.

Thanks for your response to the post I made addressing everything you said.

 

[Se Rogue]

Really? How could you question the wisdom of the Founding Fathers?

As others in this thread have stated, whether it is Apache Indians or Apache Helicopters the threat remains the same. The times may change but people stay the same, The Founding Fathers knew this.

Free people need the ability to defend both themselves and Freedom itself. I would go as far as to say The Second Amendment is the most important amendment of all when it comes to preserving the values of freedom.

Without the ability to defend Freedom (the rights of all individuals stated in the United States Constitution) , America is doomed. So yes, it is the cost of Freedom. It is unfortunate, but they died for your right to be free.

See below:

The Founding Fathers were not Gods, they were every-day people (well, they were still in the higher echelon of society). People should question everything, why are things set up the way they are? Is there a more efficient way to do things? What makes this the right way?

People have a very bad understanding of the second amendment. #1 it is an AMENDMENT and it can be removed like any other amendment (people seem to forget this). While I acknowledge this is highly unlikely, it is still possible. #2, this amendment prohibits federal intervention, not state intervention and is built on the premise of states have militias and said militias having guns to protect against a tyrannous government. Sorry to break it to you, but the 2nd amendment doesn't care about an individual and his affinity for assault rifles, it was designed for militias (which states don't have) to fight against a tyrannous government.

Tmoe said it better than I could have. There is no reason NOT to question ANYONE. Appeal to authority is one of the worst fallacies to ever corrupt logical thinking. If your Dad told you to jump butt naked into a freezing cold lake in the middle of winter, would you do it just because he's your Dad? Or would you say "Why would I do that, it makes no sense?"

Furthermore, I think you should maybe actually read the literal context of the second amendment, because (as Tmoe also pointed out above) it says nothing of individual rights of gun ownership. The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

(source)

"Stricter gun laws won't stop this"

Like.. look at the UK.. there's maybe been a handful of mass/school shootings in a whole generation. Yes, stabbings are maybe more common than shootings - but how likely is it that someone with a knife can kill 30 people without being apprehended first.. not likely.

SOMETHING needs to change. If you giving up your precious guns saves lives, stop being selfish.

+1, if other countries are effectively managing their gun laws so as to prevent frequent mass shootings we could definitely learn a thing or two from them.