gun control

[InBoobieWeTrust]

Also, aren't most of these school shootings outside of urban environments? I don't think it's inner-city or struggling districts that are of greatest concern. I think a place like Newtown, Connecticut probably has relatively low crime and could spare two off-duty cops during the day.

This is the truest statement that nobody really wants to point out...

Even someone as psychotic as Adam Lanza isn't dumb enough to roll up to Collinwood High or Lincoln-West in an attempt to shoot the school up.

The places with the most money, and the least amount of problems, are the ones most susceptible to things like this, and at the end of the day these are random events that have no real pattern besides the shooter initially losing his mind.

There's a reason the FBI has been unable to accurately build a profile of the quintessential school shooter for 25 years, because it could be anybody, from any walk of life, for whatever convoluted insane reason.

I don't think teachers should be armed, but if I hear that god damned alert go off while I'm teaching I already have a plan. All of my students are going into my lab supply room and if anyone with a gun comes in the room they're getting a splash of hydrochloric acid to their face.

[RappSoda]

NRA wants us to ignore fact that armed guards present at Columbine, Virginia Tech, Ft. Hood.These were not "gun-free" zones.

— Adam Winkler (@adamwinkler) December 21, 2012

I would just like to point out that I think it is noble for average citizens wanting to have the backs of the complete strangers that surround them, but you can't blame those people for questioning your motives. A gun not in someone's control is an immediate hazard if they're within the shooter's/owner's range. I do also believe, however, that some people buy guns just to make them feel bad-ass rather than for safety.

I just read a facebook post about how a guy I know bought an AR-15 and a S&W Shield. I mean, what the fuck do you need a shield for? Are you Captain America fighting the Nazi's?

[Ignatius]

So a few exceptions makes things different? Does not change much of anything.

Also, NOTHING will change the fact that those who die by guns or any other relative, physical trauma (unless accidental) could have survived if they had guns.

There is absolutely no argument against this.

[Ignatius]

NRA wants us to ignore fact that armed guards present at Columbine, Virginia Tech, Ft. Hood.These were not "gun-free" zones.

— Adam Winkler (@adamwinkler) December 21, 2012

I would just like to point out that I think it is noble for average citizens wanting to have the backs of the complete strangers that surround them, but you can't blame those people for questioning your motives. A gun not in someone's control is an immediate hazard if they're within the shooter's/owner's range. I do also believe, however, that some people buy guns just to make them feel bad-ass rather than for safety.

I just read a facebook post about how a guy I know bought an AR-15 and a S&W Shield. I mean, what the fuck do you need a shield for? Are you Captain America fighting the Nazi's?

How about firstly to protect themselves and the ones they love?

[Tornicade]

noone has stated that there are not gun accidents or that kids can do stupid things with them. showing an article where this happens. although sad. does not change things.

[Ignatius]

[Jack Brickman]

How I feel every time BigMar posts an image that completely misses the point:

............................................______ __
....................................,.-'"...................``~.,
.............................,.-"..................................."-.,
.........................,/...............................................":,
.....................,?........................... ...........................,
.................../.................................................. .........,}
................./.................................................. ....,:`^`..}
.............../.................................................. .,:"........./
..............?.....__............................ .............:`.........../
............./__.(....."~-,_..............................,:`........../
.........../(_...."~,_........"~,_....................,:`........_/
..........{.._$;_......"=,_......."-,_.......,.-~-,},.~";/....}
...........((.....*~_......."=-._......";,,./`..../"............../
...,,,___.`~,......"~.,....................`.....}............../
............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-"
............/.`~,......`-...................................../
.............`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....,__
,,_..........}.>-._...................................|............ ..`=~-,
.....`=~-,__......`,.................................
...................`=~-,,.,...............................
................................`:,,.............. .............`..............__
.....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``
........................................_......... .._,-%.......`
...................................,

[gourimoko]

To the gun control advocates, Boobie and Jack Brickman particularly, what endgame do you envision? Honestly, not half-measures, or compromises, but if you were King for a Day, what would American gun policy be?

Boobie, you've said you don't think "doomsday scenarios" are realistic. But as I pointed out, when was the last time we as a nation went without the threat of war or catastrophe? I'm curious as to how old you are, and if you remember the very real threat of nuclear annihilation that entire generations of Americans lived under since the 1950's? I don't want to put words in your mouth, but are you saying that there is no scenario in which the government would not come to our immediate aid? There is no reason to want to protect yourself, rather than total reliance on the police?

Do either of you accept the premise, laid out in the Constitution, for the need to have an armed citizenry?

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.

The Supreme Court as recently as 2008 decided that the term "militia" historically refers to able-to-serve men who were the primary defense of the nation. It is also noted that the militia is in stark contrast to a standing army, and that the militia is to check the powers of government.

Now you may not think armed citizens have a chance against the government, but I disagree (many rebellions start small but ultimately succeed). In fact, several President's feared armed uprisings during the Civil Rights Movement and the Watergate Tapes detailed Nixon's fear, prior to 1965, of African Americans taking to arms in order to protect their freedoms. Rebellion isn't some far off concept. The United States is not a perpetual institution. It has not and will not always exist.

My point, concisely, is that The People are the last arbiter of the social contract. If the three branches of government fail to protect our rights, the People are charged with dismantling the government and erecting a new one in it's place. To that end, government may simply fail, for a myriad of reasons, and so goes the protection from nature. At that point, people will need to fend for themselves.

So when I hear people say "you don't need an assault rifle," what I really hear them say is "the government is perpetual; it is and always will be just; to offer counterbalance is absurd because there is no hope for resistance; disarm; submit; obey."

Where am I going wrong?

[Jack Brickman]

I believe I've posted the laws I would like to see in place at least twice in this topic. Feel free to go find them.

[gourimoko]

I believe I've posted the laws I would like to see in place at least twice in this topic. Feel free to go find them.

Yeah, that's cool.. and what of the argument of civil defense, and personal protection? Have they no merit?

[Jack Brickman]

Yeah, that's cool.. and what of the argument of civil defense, and personal protection? Have they no merit?

I've never posted a single thing advocating banning guns altogether, so I'm not sure where civil defense and personal protection are limited.

[Ignatius]

To the gun control advocates, Boobie and Jack Brickman particularly, what endgame do you envision? Honestly, not half-measures, or compromises, but if you were King for a Day, what would American gun policy be?

Boobie, you've said you don't think "doomsday scenarios" are realistic. But as I pointed out, when was the last time we as a nation went without the threat of war or catastrophe? I'm curious as to how old you are, and if you remember the very real threat of nuclear annihilation that entire generations of Americans lived under since the 1950's? I don't want to put words in your mouth, but are you saying that there is no scenario in which the government would not come to our immediate aid? There is no reason to want to protect yourself, rather than total reliance on the police?

Do either of you accept the premise, laid out in the Constitution, for the need to have an armed citizenry?

The Supreme Court as recently as 2008 decided that the term "militia" historically refers to able-to-serve men who were the primary defense of the nation. It is also noted that the militia is in stark contrast to a standing army, and that the militia is to check the powers of government.

Now you may not think armed citizens have a chance against the government, but I disagree (many rebellions start small but ultimately succeed). In fact, several President's feared armed uprisings during the Civil Rights Movement and the Watergate Tapes detailed Nixon's fear, prior to 1965, of African Americans taking to arms in order to protect their freedoms. Rebellion isn't some far off concept. The United States is not a perpetual institution. It has not and will not always exist.

My point, concisely, is that The People are the last arbiter of the social contract. If the three branches of government fail to protect our rights, the People are charged with dismantling the government and erecting a new one in it's place. To that end, government may simply fail, for a myriad of reasons, and so goes the protection from nature. At that point, people will need to fend for themselves.

So when I hear people say "you don't need an assault rifle," what I really hear them say is "the government is perpetual; it is and always will be just; to offer counterbalance is absurd because there is no hope for resistance; disarm; submit; obey."

Where am I going wrong?

Gourimoko, you are never wrong.

These guys will argue anything, even with themselves. It's been quite the adventure, and I'm sure there are some great times ahead lol.

[gourimoko]

Semiautomatic handguns and assault rifle bans... if you don't support these then I must have your position wrong.

[Ignatius]

Semiautomatic handguns and assault rifle bans... if you don't support these then I must have your position wrong.

"We do with the proper restrictions which OBVIOUSLY aren't in place now"

"As long as people like bigmar lion have advance mental screenings and take rigorous training blah blah blah"

[Ignatius]

4 Dead, Including Shooter, in Central Pennsylvania