L.A. Airport Shooting

[PsYcO aSsAsSiN]

oh sweet Jesus, what has happened to this thread.

Back on topic:

The gunman was an Egyptian living in America via a green card. He was packing a .45 (which he used), a 9mm (which he didn't), and a 6-inch knife. He had 100's of rounds on his possession which looks like he thought he would last for more than 10 seconds...but of course as we now know, the El Al security agent killed him with an Uzi. Both of the innocents who died were from Israel.

Plane crash: 4 killed (pilot, co-pilot, 12 year old girl, and 15 month old boy), 4 more critically wounded.

[jn.loudnotes]

yawn...this stuff happens everyday...

It just makes front page news when paranoid media types realize that it happened ON THE 4TH OF JULY!

gasp...



and yes, I think r6 and rs have desensitized me to violence.

[Ace]

Loud, this ain't exactly a yawn when it happened at the same airport people here, such as myself or Assassin, use. While it wasn't in the terminal I'm usually in, it's still disturbing to think about how many times I've flown in and out of LAX. It's going to make the front page regardless of what day it is on.

[Bondo]

Grifter, no matter how many guns you get, the goverment will have superior weponry so that excuse is bullshit.  You aren't going to put down govermental oppression with a pistol.

And I wasn't saying that guns are all actually used to shoot people, I said that that is their only purpose and that either they haven't been used (training doesn't count as use) or they HAVE shot someone.

And in truth it doesn't matter if banning guns would be constitutional or not as Congress can change the contsitution.  We live in a day when having guns in homes does absolutely no good other than to have people die.  More kids die from gun accidents that robbers do from people who have the gun for defense using it.  Actually, more people who have a gun for defense have probably died as a result when compared to robbers.  It just doesn't work.  And  that doesn't take into account the incredible amount of gun violence in our nation that isn't present in any nation with strict gun control or bans.  And hunting is not a right, it should be banned like the rest and any killing of animals (because hunters argue animal overpopulation) can be handled by the proper govermental agencies.  Of course I'll accept a start by banning all non-hunting guns (meaning handguns despite a people who do use it to hunt) and letting hunting contiune but I think it must go as well.

If everyone bore guns, they wouldn't get nicer, they would get deader.

[Grifter]

Well Bondo.... for an environmentalist (you did call yourself one), you have some screwy views on hunting.  Every environmentalist I know understands carrying capacity and the preditor / prey relationship.  Man is a preditor, btw.  And hunting is a right to Native Americans (one of the perks of having a blue card.... as a registered Native American, I can hunt or fish anytime, anywhere).  Or are you telling them how to live thier lives??

As for your point about people not being able to overthrow the government.... two things.  

Fist, our rights to bear arms have already been infringed (look up the meaning and tell me how Congress passed anti assult rifle laws without changing the Constitution first??  Now THAT was unconstitutional!).  If we had the unfettered right to bear arms that they did in 1791.... anything that the militia had the people had (cannons even).  So going back to the SPIRIT of the second amendment.... YES, it is what it was meant.

Second.  I have news for you...  if the majority of America rised up with just a good rifle and handgun, the US Armed Forces wouldn't stand a chance...  The standing forces of the US are actually a pretty small number.  And a "varment rifle" (which is a legal sniper rifle for killing pests on farms) can kill at over 1000 yards too...  Remember.. the IDEA was that Americans would be armed... so that no threat... forign or domestic... would bring down the democracy.  And having superior NUMBERS has beaten having superior WEAPONS on many occasions.... or did you sleep through lectures on Vietnam and WW2?

And Bondo, here is your quote:

The only thing guns do is shoot people (outside of hunting), or in other words invade their rights. ?Thus every time a gun is sold, someone's rights are violated, that makes it wrong.
You said someone's rights are violated each time a gun is sold.  I couldn't disagree with you more.  Since it's our RIGHT to have these arms, it would be a violation to not be able to buy them.  And I also pointed out that the overwhelming majority of guns have never been fired AT a person, let alone hitting them.  

Let me break it down for you simply....  taking away guns from the people in order to reduce violent crime is like taking alcohol away from the people in order to stop drunk driving deaths.  They both are trying to solve a problem by attacking a tool... not holding the PEOPLE responsible.  Now, I'm pretty sure you are not for making alcohol and drugs illegal....  you just think that people should be allowed to do them, and if they cause a problem, make the punishment actually scare people... right??  Why not do the same for guns....?  Just make all crimes commited with a gun that much more punishable (an automatic 10 years, not 2 in Michigan let's say... or more).  Hold the owner of the gun responsible for not locking it up properly... and not teaching his kid to respect it if he was going to have it in the house.  

I can't believe that liberals want to take rights away from the people because they think the people can't handle themselves.... when it's just the FEW that don't.  

One more little fact for you... Texas has a lower (one of the lowest) rate of gun related crimes in the US... and it's legal there to wear a sidearm still (go to west Texas sometime and see the guys still wearing their gun belts).  There are two reasons.... 1) if everyone is packing heat, then you having a gun to comitt a crime with isn't so overwhelming.  2) their punishments are HARSH in Texas.  I mean, passing a bad check for over $50 the first time is a FELONY.... and people go away forever in their prison system.  Hell, Texas is the only state where it's still legal to have both a rifle and open aclohol in your vehicle (unless that has changed in the past 4 years, since last I was there).  

[Bondo]

People can use alcohol without getting drunk or driving, but the use of pistols is in defense (to shoot attackers) or in crimes (to shoot hostages if needed).  This is all outside of hunting.  Considering that the only use then is a possible (once again I never said a majority have been used to shoot someone, just that a majority are owned with the main purpose that it might be used to shoot someone, whether in defense or not).  Getting shot is a violation of rights greater than the ownership of guns, therefore guns should be illegal.

About the Native American thing, fine, let them hunt under the auspices of the govermental agencies I spoke of to keep animals from overpopulating areas.  But southern white hicks don't NEED to hunt.  Removing guns is an act for the greater good of the majority, even if a few people are hurt by having it affect their hobby (they should just go fishing as that would still be legal).  But I think the first part covers that predator capacity that you claim I was ignoring.

And last time I checked gun control was a liberal agenda and anti-gun control was what conservatives supported (NRA moneymen).

As for the goverment being overthrown, while they may be ineffective and slightly corrupt, they aren't going to start being a dictatorship (it is to bipartisn to do so).  And saying that if all people rose up (and you must remember that all people wouldn't rise up, only half as most are not bold, example the revolutionary war) that the army would be defeated, then I guess you are saying that China would kick our asses.

[Grifter]

First, China did kick our asses.... twice.  If we invaded China today, we'd get our asses handed to us.  

If half the population of the US rose up against a forign or domestic threat.... yeah, they'd pretty much kick any ass involved there too....  The US Armed Forces is pretty damn small compared to the population of the country.  And it's not like Air Power would make that much of a difference in a war of that sorts.  Or the Navy.

Now, let's go to your argument against GUNS.....

People can use alcohol without getting drunk or driving, but the use of pistols is in defense (to shoot attackers) or in crimes (to shoot hostages if needed). ?This is all outside of hunting. ?Considering that the only use then is a possible (once again I never said a majority have been used to shoot someone, just that a majority are owned with the main purpose that it might be used to shoot someone, whether in defense or not). ?Getting shot is a violation of rights greater than the ownership of guns, therefore guns should be illegal.


First, one of your premises is still false.  Guns are not purchased just to shoot people.  I've never even thought of using a hand gun to shoot anyone... in defense of my home or not.  I have taken it to a gun range and shot the shit out of paper targets though (and no, not human shaped targets, just bullseyes).  So I contest that most people that own guns don't plan on ever using them... and don't.

As for those that do, here's another example of one of the truths behind guns that the "gun control" advocates don't like being brandied about.

Take this for example:

Another study, by Prof. John Lott of the University of Chicago, showed that by adopting "shall issue" concealed carry handgun laws, 31 states have reduced murders, on average, by 7.7 %, rapes by 5 %, aggravated assaults by 7 % and robbery by 3%. If those states that did not permit concealed handguns in 1992 had permitted them back then, citizens would have been spared approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and 12,000 robberies.

As Prof. Lott characterized his findings: "Criminals, we found, respond rationally to deterrence threats." "More Guns, Less Violent Crime," The Wall Street Journal, p. A13, August 28, 1996.


My point still stands... taking away a tool wont stop the way people act.  It'll just change the tool.  Sure, less people will die from stab wounds, but it wont stop any violence... it'll just change the type.  There will be as many stabbings as there are shootings.

Also, my other point still stands.  The last stitistics I could find were from 97... (and according to everything I've read, gun related deaths are down from then.. but no hard numbers).  In 97, there were 31,000 deaths from guns (of all types) in the US.  In that same year there were over 60,000 deaths from Automobiles.... it's estimated that half of those involved drugs or alcohol (I couldn't find a hard number anywhere on it yet).  Add to those numbers how many people die from OD's and other Alcohol / Drug related causes (shooting yourself while drunk or high counts as both a gun death and an alcoholl related death... no?)...  So why would you be for things like legalized drugs and alcohol and not for guns??  Alcohol can be used without killing someone... so can guns... what's your point??  Both are dangerous.

Now, for hunting... you say that people should go fishing instead... my, aren't you becoming the Republican... You should drink alcohol instead of doing drugs.  This is why I love being a moderate.  Liberals and Conservatives are bipolar.  They switch sides and don't even realize it.  Seriously, you have not said why hunting is wrong, just that other ways could be found around it.  Why should they be??  Why should my liberty be infringed upon??  

It's the same with alcohol, drugs, driving, hunting, guns... all of it.  Why in the hell should my liberties be cut off just because some people aren't responsible enough to handle it??  Punish the guilty, not the innocent.  Hell, automobile accidents cause twice the number of deaths in the US then guns.... let's get rid of them!  Or, most of those are by people under the age of 26... let's make the new driving age 26!!  Stupid, isn't it.

The government doesn't need to protect me from myself... I don't need to be told to wear a helmet, seatbelt, what I can't drink or smoke, who I can sleep with (and what it will cost) or if I can own a gun.  I am an adult and can be responsible for myself.

[Bondo]

I didn't say if we invaded China, I said if China invaded us (as I was talking about the ability of our army to defend agains a huge but underequiped force attacking in this country).  That is a big difference.

But why do you shoot the paper targets?  To become better at hitting what you want to hit?  And why would one do that?  So they can hit the robber if they need to.  Like I said, target practice doesn't count as the use, that is just training for a real use.

You made my argument for me...less people would die from being stabbed.  And people don't accidentally stab themselves because they found their daddy's knife in the closet and thought it wasn't loaded.  How about this, guns are not allowed to be kept in privite dwellings, only at registered gun clubs with secure gun vaults.  Because then it could be garenteed that the gun would be used for recreation/hunting and not for shooting people.  Also, while the numbers changed, it isn't a direct corelation that the gun situation had any impact, it could have been a number of other factors.

Hunting is wrong because guns should be outlawed, and I'm not switching sides, I'm still supporting the removal of guns.  And you are wrong to think that a liberal donotes some sort of stance, liberal is a way of thinking, not a specific party platform on issues.  And like I said, Republicans are the ones who are against gun control so I am in no way taking a "conservative" stance.  I'm not against hunting for moral obligations, I'm against hunting because I feel guns need to be outlawed.  And you said I claim that someone should use alcohol and not do drugs?  I never said that.

Cars are necessary (unless we had a successful mass transit system for the whole nation), guns aren't.  And guns shouldn't be a right for the reasons I've already said.

[Grifter]

I didn't say if we invaded China, I said if China invaded us (as I was talking about the ability of our army to defend agains a huge but underequiped force attacking in this country). ?That is a big difference.

You didn't say who invaded who... you just said if we fought China.

But why do you shoot the paper targets? ?To become better at hitting what you want to hit? ?And why would one do that? ?So they can hit the robber if they need to. ?Like I said, target practice doesn't count as the use, that is just training for a real use.

Bondo, thanks for telling me what I think and what my motivations are.  You never let me down.  No, I shoot little paper targets to win $$ from my buddies... just like they do with me out on the golf course.  My guns are kept in a gun safe, the the ammo is nowhere near them... they are never loaded at home.  So, if a robber actually entered my house... grabbing my gun would be the last thing I would personally do.  I live in a very safe neighborhood... crime here is mostly coporate or car theft... so I'm not to terribly worried about being invaded in my own home.  If it did ever happen, I'd call the cops, keep me, the wife and the dogs all locked up in the bedroom and grab that sword off my bookshelf.  I wouldn't shoot someone for trying to steal my TV.   So you have shown you don't know what the hell you are talking about in this case.

You made my argument for me...less people would die from being stabbed. ?And people don't accidentally stab themselves because they found their daddy's knife in the closet and thought it wasn't loaded. ?

Again, hold the people responsible for their weapons.  Don't protect them from themselves... if you are right to infringe upon this liberty... then why isn't it right for the government to say no to Alcohol, Drugs and Prostitution??  It's just them trying to protect people from themselves....  takign away the tools of the stupid acts.. not correcting the acts themselves.

I'm not against hunting for moral obligations, I'm against hunting because I feel guns need to be outlawed. ?And you said I claim that someone should use alcohol and not do drugs? ?I never said that.

So, you take away an activity like hunting because you object to guns....  that means that if you object to drunk driving killing people, you'd be for the outlaw of Alcohol and Drugs... right??  It's the exact same thing afterall..  And I didn't say that you said that... I meant that is the way you are acting... exactly like our government acts (in its' stance on alcohol v drugs).

Cars are necessary (unless we had a successful mass transit system for the whole nation), guns aren't. ?And guns shouldn't be a right for the reasons I've already said.

Cars are necessary in your opinion...  but they have only been around for a hundred years.... so I guess the country could survive without them....  So it's ok that they kill so many people... because you think they are necessary... I see.

Ok, so let me see if I have all those reasons right... guns are bad because they are used to kill people... besides hunting and other uses.. they are used to kill...  and that some children find their daddy's loaded gun and blow their own heads off... or thier sisters....  That about sum it up?  Guns kill people... especially stupid people or the children of really stupid people.

That's the problem you want solved.... right?

So why not endorse some of the new technologies that keep guns from being fired by accident??  That keep anyone but the owner from firing it??  Wouldn't that make the accidental deaths go way down??  

It's old but it's true... guns don't kill people, people kill people.  A gun doesn't point itself or pull it's own trigger.   (Ok, really bullets kill people... but you get the point).

If you don't want to take alcohol and drugs away from people to stop drunk driving (and OD's and all the other deaths that they cause), you shouldn't want to take away guns to stop killings... it's the same argument in both cases.  Either we are free to be responsible adults, or we are not.  Which do you believe in?  How can you seperate them?

Continued in next post....

[Grifter]

America hasn't been invaded since the mid 1800's (I don't count the Indian Wars), but that doesn't mean it wont ever happen again.... does it?  Who says that the next Hitler wont decide to invade the USA?  That he wont rouse the economy and blood lust in Mexico?  Nobody has a crystal ball... we can just count on the fact that history repeats itself... and be prepared.  Just think how much different WW2 would have been if the French had all had weapons in their homes 60 years ago... They may have never needed our help... the Nazi's may have been stopped then and there.  That is the kind of thinking that made our forefathers write the second ammendment...  granted, they were thinking Brits... but it's the same thing.  

BTW, of historical note, it's almost 190 years since the Fort Dearborn Massacre (my home town), which was the last time that Detroit and Michigan was invaded.  We still have a celebration every August part of which is a rememberance of it (Fort Detroit and Michilimackinac (aka Mackinac or Mackinaw Island) also fell.  Many women and children died, along with the men and the militia.  This isn't important to my points... but came to mind as I was writing the post.

[PsYcO aSsAsSiN]

For clarification, the last time America was invaded was by the Mexican rebel Pancho Villa in 1916.

Obviously this debate is going nowhere with Grifter taking the Conservative side of the issue and Bondo taking the ultra-liberal side of the issue...personally I agree with Grifter.

[Bondo]

Grifter, hunting is a use of guns, drunk driving is a by product of irresponsible drinking, it isn't a use of alcohol so yes there is a difference.

And I noticed you skipped over the part where I said (as what would be a compromise) that guns be allowed but they have to be stored only in licensed gun clubs or hunting lodges of sorts.  Places where the gun will be used for recreational purposes (like your shooting of paper) and not for personal use?  And if the gun isn't turned back in then the gun shop just calls the police and tells them that you didn't return your gun and you are arrested.  How is that for a means of gun control that would solve problems.  Then you jack up the penalty for crimes committed with a gun and that helps as a deterent.

[Ace]

Grifter, hunting is a use of guns, drunk driving is a by product of irresponsible drinking, it isn't a use of alcohol so yes there is a difference.

Bondo, gun deaths are by and large the result of irresponsible gun use. Since the two seem quite analogous, I guess you should be arguing that alcohol be banned too. Of course, we already know how you feel about the government regulating stuff like drugs and alcohol. (Read any thread about weed for more info.) You can't have it both ways.

[Mr. Lothario]

As for the goverment being overthrown, while they may be ineffective and slightly corrupt, they aren't going to start being a dictatorship (it is to bipartisn to do so).

    Actually, the ineffectiveness of the American government is intentional. The framers of the Constitution were understandably cautious about the effects of having a government which is too powerful or too effective, or both. When you have an effective government, what ends up happening is the people lose their rights. Of course, Americans are doing a pretty good job of discarding their rights anyway, but that's beside the point.

The government doesn't need to protect me from myself... I don't need to be told to wear a helmet, seatbelt, what I can't drink or smoke, who I can sleep with (and what it will cost) or if I can own a gun. ?I am an adult and can be responsible for myself.

    Booyah. Preach on, brother. : ) The caring-parent role of the government is highly offensive. Besides which, it only attacks the tools, not the problem (to steal a phrase).

Hunting is wrong because guns should be outlawed, and I'm not switching sides, I'm still supporting the removal of guns.

    I apologize for employing this old saw, but it is both germane and a truism: If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Drugs are illegal. Last time I checked, that doesn't prevent anyone who wants them from being able to get them. People under 21 (in CA) aren't supposed to be able to get alcohol, but anybody who wants it badly enough can get it with little trouble. Fully automatic weapons are illegal in California, but people can still get them. Think this through. Forbidding people to have things does not stop them from having them. It never has, and it never will. It is much more logical to simply punish the snot out of anyone who commits a violent crime, or who commits vehicular manslaughter while drunk, etc., rather than punishing everyone indiscriminately.

[Grifter]

Grifter, hunting is a use of guns, drunk driving is a by product of irresponsible drinking, it isn't a use of alcohol so yes there is a difference.

I disagree with you Bondo...  you said it right, but have the arguments confused... yes, Hunting is a use of guns... but you said hunting wasn't bad...  you said guns were... because they kill people.

So killing people is a result of the abuse of guns and of alcohol and drugs and driving automobiles.  Combining the abuse of a couple of these is a sure fire recipe for disaster....

So why ban guns and not the others??  It's all the same... either you are protecting us from ourselves or you aren't!  Wanting it both ways isn't logical.

BTW, the so called conservatives and so called liberals (because most of them switch gears like we've seen here) both are for forms of gun controll in our country... The so called conservatives just don't take it as far as the so called liberals...

See, the problem is, the Liberals want to make gun issues different then any other personal right and responsibility....  The Conservatives feel the same way... guns are DIFFERENT in their arguments.  My point is that this shouldn't be about guns (or drugs, or alcohol, et al).  It's about taking personal fucking responsibility.  If someone shoots, treat it as attempted murder and put them away for the rest of their lives (unless justified under the law for some reason).  If someone commits a crime while using a handgun... treat it almost as bad as attempted murder... lock them up and throw away the key.  Guess what... if that started happening, that abuse of guns would go way down.  Fuck cruel and unusual punishment... punishment is supposed to be cruel. It's what the word means.  Prison isn't supposed to be a summer camp...  Hell, public floggins worked.  If you ever read Starship Troopers (which is absolutely nothing like that aweful movie).  He has an interesting position on punishment.  First, it was immediate.  Second it was usually a public caining (to paraphrase.... 'god put some great pain receptors on your ass... where you can't really cause any damage.  That used as negative reenforcement has worked for thousands of years.  Who are we to think we know better').  Thrid, if it were a younger offender, their parent was flogged right next to them.  Tell me getting your mother or father publiclly whipped wouldn't put you back in line (if you survived the trip home).

To coin a few other popular phrases... why take away guns when the government doesn't enforce gun laws now??  We don't need more laws, we need better enforcement of the ones we already have.

Bottom line.  I'm the truely liberal one on my feelings towards personal liberties....  Let people do what they want... make it all legit.  Then hold people responsible for themselves.  If another person dies because of someone's abuse, hold them responsible.  That goes for little johnny finding his daddy's gun, to taking his mother's coke and OD'ing... all of it.  Don't let that mother stay in that house and give another kid the chance to do it too... don't give that father a second chance to leave the gun unloaded.  Don't let people off the hook.  Run a red light and kill another driver... go to fucking jail for a while to think about it. But give the rights and the liberty to the people!!  Don't infringe upon my rights because some dickheads abuse those rights.

[Mr. Lothario]

If you ever read Starship Troopers (which is absolutely nothing like that aweful movie).

    Ah, Heinlein. : ) His writing was strictly average, but his ideas were fascinating. Starship Troopers is one of his books that I will recommend to anyone, based on the strength of the ideas. Stranger in a Strange Land and The Moon is a Harsh Mistress are the others (and maybe The Puppet Masters for being good old pulp sci-fi). The Hollywood-izing of Starship Troopers was pretty infuriating - they managed to suck out nearly every important philosophical part of the story, leaving it as just a war movie against bugs. (And they even ruined that! Three words: no power armor.) The only redeeming part of it is that in the scenes where Rico's teacher is lecturing, the teacher's dialogue is verbatim from the book. Those scenes also the most intellectually interesting parts of the movie. No coincidence there. Anybody who hasn't read Troopers, go read it. It's a pretty short book, and despite a little bit of silly-to-the-point-of-being-annoying writing (the apparent asexuality of the main character, specifically), it's excellent and thought-provoking.

    Now, I must reparaphrase your paraphrasing, Grifter. Heinlein's phrasing was more along the lines of, "Pain is a highly evolved survival mechanism. If something hurts, it's contra-survival. Pain is therefore an excellent punishment for many crimes, since it sends a message that has been hard-coded by millions of years of evolution." And something you forgot to mention about his views on punishment: if the offender is a juvenile, his identity is absolutely NOT protected. Keeping it a secret just because he's a kid means that he does not suffer the humiliation which is an integral part of this system of punishment (that's the reason the floggings are public and publicized on TV).

    Pain and public humiliation would work rather well to reduce crime, I think. According to some research or other, Americans are more afraid of giving a speech in public than they are of death. We're mortified by the thought of being embarrassed publicly. Start making a huge public spectacle of humiliating and beating the crap out of guys who rob liquor stores, and the guys who are planning on robbing a liquor store might think twice.

[cookie2]

warning: strong opinion which may be objectable follows.

First of all, quoting Henry David Thoreau, "That government is best which governs least".  While I have never been a user of weapons (outside of RS..hehe) I think that citizens should retain the right to possess weapons as it is people that kill people and not the guns.  In the end government laws don't do shit for anyone because if someone wants a gun, they are going to get it, just like drugs. Further gun control laws/the removal of guns would mean that the people that want to obtain guns for more innocent reasons wont get them and the people with other things in mind will resort to other means of getting a gun which is ten times worse. Plus, who the hell wants a police state where the government can do what they want and the citizens are helpless to fight back? I think the laws are fine how they are, you can't do anything to stop what has already begun. Guns have been around for ages, guns last for ages. I am anti-violence and ANTI-HUNTING, but i still support the right to bear arms.

[†FiRE Infection]

(which is absolutely nothing like that aweful movie).

I enjoyed that movie but I guess I'll read the book

[Mr. Lothario]

I enjoyed that movie but I guess I'll read the book

The movie wasn't all that bad, in and of itself. It just wasn't faithful to its source material. Did you ever watch the cartoon series based on Starship Troopers, called "Roughnecks"? Now that was flurking great. Far more faithful than the movie was, and really well-written. Naturally, it only lasted a couple of seasons.

[Grifter]

Lothario, yes, you did a much better job of paraphrasing it. ?I haven't read that book in 18 years or so, but some of it's messages are still with me.

Bondo, btw, the reason I didn't comment on the gun club suggestion is that I ran out of space... ?so here you go.

First, I've stated a good case on why these rights should not be infringed upon AT ALL... ?

Second, That's what they did in England.. now, two of my English friends come to America to hunt... because they can't even have the gun at the gun club anymore. ?It was tried there... and they went down that slippery slope... to the point where they lost their shotguns almost completely.

Third, that still goes against the ideals of our forefathers about being able to protect themselves against threats both domestic or forign in nature.

Fourth, it doesn't let the women fight off the rapist murderer that's attacking her... which is a very legit useage in my opinion.

If you want to take away the guns.. take away the private sale of alcohol too... and put breathalizers on the door so you aren't allowed to leave the bar until you are sober... that sounds about equal. ?Both are infringing upon the rights of people that haven't actually done anything wrong.... ?why do you want to punish the innocent along with the guilty??