Comments:Thirteen dead, several wounded in Fort Hood, Texas shooting

I give this a little while longer before some other bozo says, "See, we should outlaw guns because of this!" 128.210.124.120 (talk) 18:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * See, we should outlaw guns because of this! Den dodge  T\C 19:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. If all the attacker had access to was a bow and arrow, this tragic event could have been prevented. Bawolff ☺☻ 19:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Gun laws wouldn't have helped anything in this instance. Since this was a military centre, I would assume that firearms would have been readily available to troops anyway. Tempodivalse [talk]  22:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm just suprised that he was able to kill 13 people in an Army base. Aren't there quite a few armed people there. I remember someone saying that more guns=Smaller shooting spree fatalities. I understand holw that works, but here it didn't. It was only 2 deaths less than Columbine. Actually, in the 15 for Columbine, 2 were the shooters themselves. So, it was just as many deaths as Columbine. I guess more guns=Jack squat.-66.110.236.187 (talk) 22:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The area the shooting took place was the ready station.--KDP3 (talk) 22:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah taking guns away from law abiding citizens totally going to work!--66.229.23.225 (talk) 22:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

And to all the "individuals" that want to outlaws our second amendment right. FUCK YOU! Look at england and see our anti gun laws are working.--KDP3 (talk) 22:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 5 things. 1; Why is idividuals is quotation marks. 2; It's kind of hard to "outlaws" guns from the Army. 3; Find a representative republic with similar gun laws, then law/effect arguements would be relevant. 4; Please refrain from profanity. 5; No one is trying to take anyone's guns (unless they broke a serious law or they're crazy). The Supreme Court and Congress have recently done a few things that would be considered pro-gun. If you can still purchase a gun from a licensed gun dealer, you're fine. Also, there are other arms besides guns, but some of those are illegal.-66.110.236.187 (talk) 22:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

"Religion of peace", eh? Forget guns, ban Islam. 206.74.5.136 (talk) 04:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't personally agree with any religion, and think they harbour only violence in general (Crusades, anyone? Didn't WW2 have something to do with Jews? What about Ireland?). However, banning Islam won't work: it is what people believe, and they will continue to believe it even if you tell them not to. Banning the religion will only outrage the extremists more, and the normal, sensible, law-abiding Muslims will be forced underground. Den dodge  T\C 08:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm non-religious. While I feel that many reliions do a lot of harm, the extremist element is just that - extreme. Ultimatly, I'm of the view that as a whole religion does do more good than harm. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 11:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe that religious ideals can be conveyed well through social principles, rather than through an exclusive and irrational belief in a supreme deity. Since all religions, in essence, share the same basic views (they differ on more complex points, but things like "thou shalt not kill" are pretty universal), this should not create more conflict. Den dodge  T\C 00:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * That may be fine for you and me, but religion gives a great deal of comfort to many people. The psychological benefits are enourmous and undervalued. I can think of certain people I know that I would hate to take that away from. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 19:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is a fundamental human right to believe whatever one wants to believe, and we should not prevent people from doing so. Outlawing any religion would cause mass outrage and do more harm than good. Den dodge  T\C 19:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)