'everybody Has To Have Guns....'

agchristie | 09:55 Tue 16th Feb 2016 | News

45 Answers

Eagles of Death frontman says....

'Until nobody has guns everybody should have guns'

How irresponsible is this comment?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/16/eagles-of-death-metal-frontman

Are We Entering An Endless Cycle Of Irrelevant Stupidity?

Emma Thompson Says The Uk Is 'a Cake-Filled Misery-Laden Grey Old Island'

Answers

1 to 20 of 45

1 2 3 Next Last

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by agchristie. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.

andy-hughes

It is irresponsible - but that is the price we pay from freedom of speech.

I don't that, in the scheme of things, Mr Hughes' opinion will change many of the minds in a position to actually affect and indeed effect gun control.

I think his assertion that he "... never saw anyone with a gun dead ... " despite its clumsy grammar, is clearly just wrong - Mr Hughes should acquaint himself with the thousands of pictures of thousands of soldiers lying dead with guns in their hands in wars all around the world.

I view his opinion as a simplistic solution to an unsolvable situation, coloured by his own horrendous personal experience.

Cloverjo

Reading this chilled me. There are teenagers murdering their classmates and small children accidentally killing their mums or siblings; he should think again.

ToraToraTora

That's what the NRA say every time there is a massacre.

woofgang

Well it got him column inches which I guess was his objective....not sure why I should take any more notice of his views on guns that I do of David Cameron’s views on music.

jackthehat

He is a 'a long-time advocate for access to gun ownership' so it is entirely reasonable to expect him to have had these views long before the tragic events of that night.

To call for such a thing in gun-obsessed America is one thing but he needs to understand that it's not the way things are done in Europe (with the exception of Switzerland).

Booldawg

I'm guessing if he's an advocate of gun ownership he applies the logic that if 3 or 4 gunmen storm a building they are at free will to shoot who they want. But if everyone had guns (for 'personal protection') the death toll would've been a lot lower, as the gunmen would've been taken out of action a lot sooner.

jackthehat

That's as I see it, booldawg.
Unfortunately, it assumes that none of the others present with guns will get drunk/angry, etc. and use their own weapon on impulse.

andy-hughes

Booldawg - //I'm guessing if he's an advocate of gun ownership he applies the logic that if 3 or 4 gunmen storm a building they are at free will to shoot who they want. But if everyone had guns (for 'personal protection') the death toll would've been a lot lower, as the gunmen would've been taken out of action a lot sooner. //

I am sure you are right.

The fault in the premise is that everyone who advocates everyone carrying guns likes to think that they are clear-headed, just, responsible, cool under pressure, moral, kind, and protective - and this is the important point - that everyone else is the same.

This of course ignores the simple fact that all humans are different, and react in different ways.

So every imagined super-person that Mr Hughes doubtless sees himself as being, there are a thousand more who are nasty, small minded, judgemental, panicking, trouser-wetting idiots who, in that situation, would simply shoot at anything that moved until either their gun was empty, or someone else, behaving in the same way - shot them.

Mr Hughes should cut down on the Steven Segal movies, and spend some more time in the real world.

andy-hughes

jack - we cross-posted, but as usual, we agree entirely with the unreasonable scenario that Mr Hughes is painting here.

Old_Geezer

In which case the gunmen turn up with automatic weapons and kill everyone before they can react. Plus it assumes everyone is capable of killing and can shoot straight if they try. It's clearly nonsense and merely escalates an already bad situation. It's born out of fear for a time when only the bad guys (and authorities) will have part if the dwindling supply of firearms. He should find the courage to "bite the bullet" and get the threat removed; or at least reduced to minimal size.

youngmafbog

I thimk I get where he is coming from.

As we have it in much of Europe its only the crims that are armed meaning Joe Average is at their mercy.

Ellipsis

The terrorists had hand grenades too ...

Until nobody has hand grenades everybody should have hand grenades.

youngmafbog

No need. If you have a gun you can shoot someone getting a hand grnade out.

If anything you have highlit the need for the public to be armed !!

Clanad

As a "gun- obsessed American" I had a good conversation with two of our deputy-sheriffs here in rural western U.S. Regardless of one's own beliefs concerning gun ownership, one of the deputy's was especially insightful when he commented that "... a gun in one's hand is far better than a police-officer on the phone..."

The testing and licensing of "conceal carry" certificates is extensive and a requirement of most States (some, like Vermont are open carry and no permit is required). Facts support those so trained and licensed have a superior record of safety and responsible actions.

Ironically States with the highest rates of gun related crime are those with the most restrictive ownership laws... especially Chicago in Illinois.

Old_Geezer

In the short term a gun in your hand might be better than an officer on the phone, although that's debatable. Longer term it makes no progress in changing the existing situation.

Clanad

Try as I may, OG, I haven't a clue as to your intended point... more of a criticism of myself in lack of comprehension than you in clarity, I suspect...