Jump to content


- - - - -

Shooting in Conn. School


#181 Temporaryscars   Talks like a Dalek CAGiversary!   23339 Posts   Joined 9.8 Years Ago  

Temporaryscars

Posted 17 December 2012 - 04:04 AM

There is no need for many of the guns people like to buy. No civilian needs an assult rifle, I don't care that it's not full auto. Like I said earlier, since we've got chest thumpers here who like to bring up the 2nd amendment, I'll even work within the context of the time that was written. You want a musket? Knock yaself out. Cause that's what the authors had in mind when it was written.


Stupid argument is stupid. Does that mean that the first amendment shouldn't apply to TV, radio and other modern forms of communication? Does the fourth not apply to automobiles? After all, that's not what they had in mind! Get real.

You standing there with your little assault rifle is equivalent to standing there with a musket because neither you, nor your compatriots have shit when it comes to the arms the military has access to. The time when military and civilian arms were roughly equal has long since passed, and there is no way in hell that any civilian needs a a rocket launcher or other explosives.


Yes, so lets take all of those things away then. That'll really improve our chances! Talk about a defeatist attitude.


So in short, you're delusional if you think your little cache of arms is going to stop the government. You need to stop using that argument and wake up to reality.


So if people's "little cache of arms" isn't going to do anything, then, do tell, how will having next to nothing help?



#182 Dr Mario Kart   SD/2D Defense Force CAGiversary!   10945 Posts   Joined 11.3 Years Ago  

Dr Mario Kart

Posted 17 December 2012 - 04:20 AM

We share the top gun ownership rates in the world with Yemen, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq. Having next to nothing helps when the alternative is unrelated local gun crime which is the result of poverty.

We also share that list with the Swiss, but the Swiss aren't delusional.

Or in other words, if it is the case that having yellow teapots wont help fight off aliens, how will NOT having them help.

#183 Feeding the Abscess   CAGiversary! CAGiversary!   2716 Posts   Joined 5.8 Years Ago   Has been playing Diablo III: Ultimate Evil Edition
PS3

Feeding the Abscess

Posted 17 December 2012 - 05:08 AM

http://tribune.com.p...-children-died/

As for the 2nd Amendment/it's stupid to arm yourself against the government tangential discussion, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq didn't exactly roll over for the largest military in the world.

And yeah, let's profile those who we assume are mentally challenged. Because if there's anything wrong in this world, it's that mentally challenged people aren't stigmatized enough.

Anti-State, Anti-War, Pro-Market

 

ThroneofSeth.png


#184 RealDeals   CAGiversary! CAGiversary!   1043 Posts   Joined 3.8 Years Ago  

Posted 17 December 2012 - 05:47 AM

Stupid argument is stupid. Does that mean that the first amendment shouldn't apply to TV, radio and other modern forms of communication? Does the fourth not apply to automobiles? After all, that's not what they had in mind! Get real.



Yes, so lets take all of those things away then. That'll really improve our chances! Talk about a defeatist attitude.




So if people's "little cache of arms" isn't going to do anything, then, do tell, how will having next to nothing help?


Do you seriously believe the government would come attack it's own people? Is that seriously something that you fear in the back of your mind? Can you think of even ONE feasible scenario that doesn't sound like a hack-neyed Stephen King book of that happening? I swear, Libs want government to be completely unintruding on business, which actually would kill you if it meant making a profit, but apparently the guys who actually need you alive enough to vote for them are the real threat. :roll:
http://t3.gstatic.co...4wtuy3FpqqoZSRA

Originally Posted by the4thnobleman Posted Image
I need power to come back on! I still need to spend $10 or so to get my $20. Stupid hurricane Sandy Vagina!

Posted Image

#185 Temporaryscars   Talks like a Dalek CAGiversary!   23339 Posts   Joined 9.8 Years Ago  

Temporaryscars

Posted 17 December 2012 - 05:51 AM

Do you seriously believe the government would come attack it's own people? Is that seriously something that you fear in the back of your mind? Can you think of even ONE feasible scenario that doesn't sound like a hack-neyed Stephen King book of that happening? I swear, Libs want government to be completely unintruding on business, which actually would kill you if it meant making a profit, but apparently the guys who actually need you alive enough to vote for them are the real threat. :roll:


I certainly don't think it's likely, but impossible? Perhaps it hasn't been tried thus far because they knew they'd be met with resistance.

As far as your shoe-horning of markets into the discussion, I may be taking a wild stab at this, but something tells me that a company that kills its customers for profit probably wouldn't stay in business for long, since they too need customers in the same way that these politicians you speak of need votes. Guess you didn't think it out that far ahead though.



#186 UncleBob  

Posted 17 December 2012 - 06:12 AM

Do you seriously believe the government would come attack it's own people?


Yes.

Oh, and if you want something closer to home, Yes.

Edited by UncleBob, 17 December 2012 - 06:41 AM.

"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it."

#187 elessar123   "AT LAST, SIR TERRY, WE MUST WALK TOGETHER." CAGiversary!   10003 Posts   Joined 6.1 Years Ago  

Posted 17 December 2012 - 06:40 AM

I swear, Libs want government to be completely unintruding on business, which actually would kill you if it meant making a profit, but apparently the guys who actually need you alive enough to vote for them are the real threat. :roll:


You mean conservatives, right?

As far as your shoe-horning of markets into the discussion, I may be taking a wild stab at this, but something tells me that a company that kills its customers for profit probably wouldn't stay in business for long, since they too need customers in the same way that these politicians you speak of need votes. Guess you didn't think it out that far ahead though.


I think he means cases like pharmaceuticals, and manufacturers of certain things that have caused harm many times, like drop-down cribs and buckyballs.

Yes.


And we don't live in that kind of country. And even if we did, I really doubt that if the government wanted assassinate you, a gun is going to change a thing.

elessar123.png


#188 RealDeals   CAGiversary! CAGiversary!   1043 Posts   Joined 3.8 Years Ago  

Posted 17 December 2012 - 06:54 AM

I certainly don't think it's likely, but impossible? Perhaps it hasn't been tried thus far because they knew they'd be met with resistance.

As far as your shoe-horning of markets into the discussion, I may be taking a wild stab at this, but something tells me that a company that kills its customers for profit probably wouldn't stay in business for long, since they too need customers in the same way that these politicians you speak of need votes. Guess you didn't think it out that far ahead though.


I was referring to businesses that knowingly overlook safety hazards in their products to maintain cost-effectiveness. My entire point was that both have an equally vested interest in their audiences (the people), but you seem only to be fearful of the government. Why?
http://t3.gstatic.co...4wtuy3FpqqoZSRA

Originally Posted by the4thnobleman Posted Image
I need power to come back on! I still need to spend $10 or so to get my $20. Stupid hurricane Sandy Vagina!

Posted Image

#189 RealDeals   CAGiversary! CAGiversary!   1043 Posts   Joined 3.8 Years Ago  

Posted 17 December 2012 - 07:02 AM

You mean conservatives, right?


And we don't live in that kind of country. And even if we did, I really doubt that if the government wanted assassinate you, a gun is going to change a thing.


Libertarians in particular seem to be particularly apocalyptic in their view of the government. Conservatives aren't afraid to support if it means supporting their agendas, but Libs just seem to be infatuated with and have this fetish of a fighting the good fight against a government that aims to enslave its own people in salt mines. For what reason.... CUZ THEY EVILZZZ!1!1!1 :lol:
http://t3.gstatic.co...4wtuy3FpqqoZSRA

Originally Posted by the4thnobleman Posted Image
I need power to come back on! I still need to spend $10 or so to get my $20. Stupid hurricane Sandy Vagina!

Posted Image

#190 UncleBob  

Posted 17 December 2012 - 07:19 AM

I'm curious - anyone have any recent examples of US companies attacking citizens for marching in the streets?

Because there are more than a couple of examples of the government doing it.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it."

#191 Temporaryscars   Talks like a Dalek CAGiversary!   23339 Posts   Joined 9.8 Years Ago  

Temporaryscars

Posted 17 December 2012 - 07:19 AM

I was referring to businesses that knowingly overlook safety hazards in their products to maintain cost-effectiveness. My entire point was that both have an equally vested interest in their audiences (the people), but you seem only to be fearful of the government. Why?


Businesses that overlook safety hazards in products tend to not stay in business very long. I don't know about you, but I tend to avoid hazardous products. Then again, I doubt you read the monthly recall list, am I right?

Libertarians in particular seem to be particularly apocalyptic in their view of the government. Conservatives aren't afraid to support if it means supporting their agendas, but Libs just seem to be infatuated with and have this fetish of a fighting the good fight against a government that aims to enslave its own people in salt mines. For what reason.... CUZ THEY EVILZZZ!1!1!1 :lol:


Generalizations for the win. I suggest you try presenting us with some sort of real and meaningful argument rather than act like a clown, engage in hyperbole and treat people like cartoons. I mean, I know this is vs and all, and it's the name of the game, but you're better than that!

That being said, which do you think has the higher number throughout history? The number of dictatorships/monarchies or the number of democracies/republics? Oh, sorry, I forgot, liberals are only all "POWER TO THE PEOPLE" when a republican is in office. Remember all those protests when Bush was in office? Man, I sure miss those.



#192 RealDeals   CAGiversary! CAGiversary!   1043 Posts   Joined 3.8 Years Ago  

Posted 17 December 2012 - 07:49 AM

Stop dodging the question. You yourself said that both business and gov't has an interest in people. Then why is the government scenario the one that frightens you?
http://t3.gstatic.co...4wtuy3FpqqoZSRA

Originally Posted by the4thnobleman Posted Image
I need power to come back on! I still need to spend $10 or so to get my $20. Stupid hurricane Sandy Vagina!

Posted Image

#193 mykevermin   Queen of Scotland CAGiversary!   36392 Posts   Joined 10.9 Years Ago  

Posted 17 December 2012 - 12:47 PM

I already spoke of my uneasiness of having officers in school. I don't see how having a small outpost outside of the school, where they wouldn't have day to day interaction with students, meets your description. After all, better to have them there than sleeping in their car at the outskirts of those small towns.


Hmm. A snarky question and a legit question:

1) The difference between "police state" and "legitimate response" is a couple hundred yards, then? Or is there more that you're not getting at here?

(EDIT: Pardon, not enough coffee yet. I see you mention interaction as a difference. dmaul, given your research interests, can you speak to benefits or pitfalls of regular interaction with police in this specific context?)

2) How is the outpost going to be any different than a standard police force?

3) We struggle to fund education at all these days for a litany of reasons; where will we find the funds for this "education security force"? Not just the personnel, but an auto if they need it, firearms (they're gonne want tactical gear and firearms beyond simply a handgun), a facility to place them, etc.

We can't even get reasonably recent textbooks and computers in schools; where will we reasonably find the funds for a security force for every educational facility? Or will we leave it up to private/charter schools to staff their own?
Posted Image

#194 Clak   Made of star stuff. CAGiversary!   8079 Posts   Joined 6.1 Years Ago  

Posted 17 December 2012 - 02:11 PM

Do you seriously believe the government would come attack it's own people? Is that seriously something that you fear in the back of your mind? Can you think of even ONE feasible scenario that doesn't sound like a hack-neyed Stephen King book of that happening? I swear, Libs want government to be completely unintruding on business, which actually would kill you if it meant making a profit, but apparently the guys who actually need you alive enough to vote for them are the real threat. :roll:

And it isn't even about having a defeatist attitude, it's about being realistic (something I know the libertarians are loath to do). The time when we could reasonably physically defend ourselves from our government has come and gone. If we really wanted to be able to, then we should have stopped the military from developing the shit they have.

Be real, they think their guns mean a damn thing in the face of a laser guided bomb? Get the Fuck outta here.
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that. -George Carlin

“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.” -Mark Twain

“When a great genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." -Jonathon Swift

#195 UncleBob  

Posted 17 December 2012 - 02:52 PM

I love how quickly the conversation goes from "the government wouldn't attack its own citizens" to "the government will use laser guided bombs against you".

It's so subtle, you almost wouldn't even notice.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it."

#196 Temporaryscars   Talks like a Dalek CAGiversary!   23339 Posts   Joined 9.8 Years Ago  

Temporaryscars

Posted 17 December 2012 - 05:05 PM

Hmm. A snarky question and a legit question:

1) The difference between "police state" and "legitimate response" is a couple hundred yards, then? Or is there more that you're not getting at here?

(EDIT: Pardon, not enough coffee yet. I see you mention interaction as a difference. dmaul, given your research interests, can you speak to benefits or pitfalls of regular interaction with police in this specific context?)

2) How is the outpost going to be any different than a standard police force?

3) We struggle to fund education at all these days for a litany of reasons; where will we find the funds for this "education security force"? Not just the personnel, but an auto if they need it, firearms (they're gonne want tactical gear and firearms beyond simply a handgun), a facility to place them, etc.

We can't even get reasonably recent textbooks and computers in schools; where will we reasonably find the funds for a security force for every educational facility? Or will we leave it up to private/charter schools to staff their own?


It's like you're not even listening.

1. And you accuse me of black and white hyperbole? Ridiculous.

2. Well for one, it would be closer. Second, they wouldn't be there to police students, but be there as an available resource if needed.

3. As I said before (thus you not listening), police are already paid for. As are their vehicles. Instead of allowing cops to sleep in their cars, harass people for filming them or engage in other daily dickery that they tend to partake in, have them near the school within earshot, that way, when something like this DOES go down, there's somebody there to offer at least some resistance.

I love how quickly the conversation goes from "the government wouldn't attack its own citizens" to "the government will use laser guided bombs against you".

It's so subtle, you almost wouldn't even notice.


Isn't it mind boggling? "You don't stand much of a chance, therefore, I'm going to make it so you stand no chance at all."



#197 elessar123   "AT LAST, SIR TERRY, WE MUST WALK TOGETHER." CAGiversary!   10003 Posts   Joined 6.1 Years Ago  

Posted 17 December 2012 - 05:12 PM

I love how quickly the conversation goes from "the government wouldn't attack its own citizens" to "the government will use laser guided bombs against you".

It's so subtle, you almost wouldn't even notice.


No, it's merely to invalidate the argument that you should have guns to protect yourself from the government taking you out. Which is a paranoid idea to begin with, unless you're guilty of something, but then I hope they come after you, and you probably shouldn't have a gun anyways.

#198 Clak   Made of star stuff. CAGiversary!   8079 Posts   Joined 6.1 Years Ago  

Posted 17 December 2012 - 05:52 PM

No, it's merely to invalidate the argument that you should have guns to protect yourself from the government taking you out. Which is a paranoid idea to begin with, unless you're guilty of something, but then I hope they come after you, and you probably shouldn't have a gun anyways.

bob's brain doesn't work in a sensible way. He lives his life in fear of the government, as does temp apparently. I'm actually surprised some of them aren't posting from some militia bunker in the northwest.
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that. -George Carlin

“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.” -Mark Twain

“When a great genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." -Jonathon Swift

#199 Dr Mario Kart   SD/2D Defense Force CAGiversary!   10945 Posts   Joined 11.3 Years Ago  

Dr Mario Kart

Posted 17 December 2012 - 05:56 PM

Given who would be fighting against the US Government internally if it came down to it, I will be fighting on the side of the government.

The number of guns owned in the country is on pace to exceed the number of people. However, actual gun ownership has been trending down for ~30 years. The crowd is getting smaller and more "enthusiastic", to put it nicely. Those so called small arsenals are getting larger and larger.

Even as those two trends continue to worsen, along with the increase in high profile negative externality incidents, we're really not anywhere near having the political will to do anything. There is no gun safety lobby controlling both politicians and the dialogue in opposition of the NRA. The Brady campaign and the like simply dont command that kind of power.

Since Congress has lately decided on a very unorthodox way of passing legislation, I present the following off the cliff scenario:

Congress passes a law where both sides of the issue enter a game where one side has to present every case they can find where owning a gun has improved a situation. For every one of those, the opposition has to present one hundred cases where owning a gun made the situation worse. Whichever side loses triggers automatic passing of new laws to the liking of the group that won.

#200 elessar123   "AT LAST, SIR TERRY, WE MUST WALK TOGETHER." CAGiversary!   10003 Posts   Joined 6.1 Years Ago  

Posted 17 December 2012 - 06:19 PM

Congress passes a law where both sides of the issue enter a game where one side has to present every case they can find where owning a gun has improved a situation. For every one of those, the opposition has to present one hundred cases where owning a gun made the situation worse. Whichever side loses triggers automatic passing of new laws to the liking of the group that won.


So 100 lives lost to guns equals a life saved by guns? So I guess 3 more CTs have to happen to balance out one person being saved somewhere in the States.

#201 UncleBob  

Posted 17 December 2012 - 08:15 PM

I, too, think that the Israeli government should go in and take away the firearms of the Palestinians. I mean, the Israeli military is so far advanced, Palestinians have no chance against them anyway.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it."

#202 Temporaryscars   Talks like a Dalek CAGiversary!   23339 Posts   Joined 9.8 Years Ago  

Temporaryscars

Posted 17 December 2012 - 08:25 PM

Stop dodging the question. You yourself said that both business and gov't has an interest in people. Then why is the government scenario the one that frightens you?


:lol: Ok, you can't be fucking serious.



#203 Dr Mario Kart   SD/2D Defense Force CAGiversary!   10945 Posts   Joined 11.3 Years Ago  

Dr Mario Kart

Posted 17 December 2012 - 08:46 PM

So 100 lives lost to guns equals a life saved by guns? So I guess 3 more CTs have to happen to balance out one person being saved somewhere in the States.

I think you might possibly be misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm saying that there is statistically no good reason for private gun ownership. I'm saying that the number of situations where private gun ownership has improved a situation (not including hunting and law enforcement) is a statistically anomaly, not significantly different from zero.

Austrailia's last mass shooting was in 1996. After that they passed gun safety measures, including buying back guns. Gun deaths of any sort (homicide, suicide, accidental) are all sharply lower. Non-firearm homicide and suicide are up slightly, but not as much as firearms were down. Prior to 1996, they were having a mass negative externality incident every other year or so going back to the early 80s.

Guns are not like drugs. Guns have to be manufactured, they dont grow in a person's backyard. Prohibition does work, but its going to take a lot of work to clean up the ones already out there, as well as change the culture and making the investments (spending) necessary to improve the quality of life.

#204 Temporaryscars   Talks like a Dalek CAGiversary!   23339 Posts   Joined 9.8 Years Ago  

Temporaryscars

Posted 17 December 2012 - 09:34 PM

I think you might possibly be misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm saying that there is statistically no good reason for private gun ownership. I'm saying that the number of situations where private gun ownership has improved a situation (not including hunting and law enforcement) is a statistically anomaly, not significantly different from zero.

Austrailia's last mass shooting was in 1996. After that they passed gun safety measures, including buying back guns. Gun deaths of any sort (homicide, suicide, accidental) are all sharply lower. Non-firearm homicide and suicide are up slightly, but not as much as firearms were down. Prior to 1996, they were having a mass negative externality incident every other year or so going back to the early 80s.

Guns are not like drugs. Guns have to be manufactured, they dont grow in a person's backyard. Prohibition does work, but its going to take a lot of work to clean up the ones already out there, as well as change the culture and making the investments (spending) necessary to improve the quality of life.


Actually, if the Australian Bureau of Criminology can be believed, Americans would be insane to concern themselves with what non-Americans think about American gun rights.
In 2002 — five years after enacting its gun ban — the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner.
Even Australia’s Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:
In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault — Australia’s equivalent term for rape — increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
Moreover, Australia and the United States — where no gun-ban exists — both experienced similar decreases in murder rates:
Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America’s rate dropped 31.7 percent.
During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault — Australia’s equivalent term for rape — increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent.
Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.

So, if the USA follows Australia’s lead in banning guns, it should expect a 42 percent increase in violent crime, a higher percentage of murders committed with a gun, and three times more rape. One wonders if Freddy even bothered to look up the relative crime statistics.
The International Crime Victims Survey, conducted by Leiden University in Holland, found that England and Wales ranked second overall in violent crime among industrialized nations. Twenty-six percent of English citizens — roughly one-quarter of the population — have been victimized by violent crime. Australia led the list with more than 30 percent of its population victimized. The United States didn’t even make the “top 10″ list of industrialized nations whose citizens were victimized by crime.


BTW, this idea that people can't make guns on their own is completely ridiculous. A little machining know-how is all it takes.



#205 mykevermin   Queen of Scotland CAGiversary!   36392 Posts   Joined 10.9 Years Ago  

Posted 17 December 2012 - 10:21 PM

You're citing the NCPA, a partisan hack group, who cites the Examiner, a user-generated content shitshow of a website.

The internet is over.

Back to your "outpost" theory of policing - Newtown is < 60 square miles, so police are not that far away as long as they're in the town at all. And to do this for every school in every jurisdiction means hiring more officers in almost every jurisdiction. Your whole thought exercise is predicated on do-nothing donut-eating, car-sitting, ain't-got-shit-to-do police officers. Which is pretty far off the mark from what police actually do. Therefore, your idea that saving schools will add zero/little cost is utterly preposterous.
Posted Image

#206 skiizim   CAGiversary! CAGiversary!   8464 Posts   Joined 6.6 Years Ago  

Posted 17 December 2012 - 11:09 PM

Is there any kind of statistic with Police Officers already in schools vs not being and if it has actually changed anything?

The high school I graduated from has been gated up and has a full time police officer on the premises when school is in session. I'm sure other parts of the country aren't like this but I'm sure more urban areas are.

#207 Clak   Made of star stuff. CAGiversary!   8079 Posts   Joined 6.1 Years Ago  

Posted 17 December 2012 - 11:44 PM

I'd like to point out a few things.

1. The guns used in this shooting were legally acquired. Not bought on the black market like it's assumed criminals will just do. He used his mother's guns, which brings me to point 2...

2. This man's mother, whom he also killed, was not a responsible gun owner. I've read where people said she was responsible with them, but then her son used them to kill her and many others, so yeah. So I say to "gun enthusiasts" here or otherwise, lock up your shit. If someone uses your weapon to commit a crime, you should be held responsible for what was done with your weapons.
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that. -George Carlin

“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.” -Mark Twain

“When a great genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." -Jonathon Swift

#208 EdRyder   CAGiversary! CAGiversary!   468 Posts   Joined 5.4 Years Ago  

Posted 17 December 2012 - 11:48 PM

What could we do about our violent culture though? I don't see any clear solutions for that.

Take away their guns
You asked the question , and thats my response. (sorry , because I know you hate it)
Think about what your post is actually touching on: In a place like Chicago where thugged out gangsters have gone full retard -
Do those kids need to see a mental healthcare professionalism and prescribed medication?
Or do they just need all their guns taken away.

Heres the thing , Just so you understand me because believe or not, I do get it.

Whenever we go down this path we end up regurgitating the same attack line. I know that when I say "Take away their guns" What the average law abiding responsible gun owner actually hears is: "You're a dumbass". And thats when the conversation falls apart. Thats really what almost every versus convo should teach everyone in the end.

When you have ideological beliefs that are allowed to sort of 'flourish' inside its own vacuum where nothing can touch it , it'll just grow and thrive and become this sacrosanct edict. If you take those same ideological beliefs , remove them to the bubble and then apply them to the actual circumstances / situation - They die. Simply because it could only live in the bubble.
And thats the point I cant let go of.

The circumstances have changed. We're not talkin about a dude and a clocktower or a nut in a book depository anymore. Chicago isnt going to just fix itself , thats for sure.

#209 Temporaryscars   Talks like a Dalek CAGiversary!   23339 Posts   Joined 9.8 Years Ago  

Temporaryscars

Posted 18 December 2012 - 12:08 AM

I'd like to point out a few things.

1. The guns used in this shooting were legally acquired. Not bought on the black market like it's assumed criminals will just do. He used his mother's guns, which brings me to point 2...

2. This man's mother, whom he also killed, was not a responsible gun owner. I've read where people said she was responsible with them, but then her son used them to kill her and many others, so yeah. So I say to "gun enthusiasts" here or otherwise, lock up your shit. If someone uses your weapon to commit a crime, you should be held responsible for what was done with your weapons.


I couldn't agree more.

We should also point out that CT has its own AWB which mirrored the one we had before in this country. And yet, despite this ban, it still happened.

Take away their guns
You asked the question , and thats my response. (sorry , because I know you hate it)


Except they're still violent, so your "solution" solved absolutely nothing.

Think about what your post is actually touching on: In a place like Chicago where thugged out gangsters have gone full retard -
Do those kids need to see a mental healthcare professionalism and prescribed medication?
Or do they just need all their guns taken away.


Ah yes, sort of like how people addicted to drugs would stop being addicted to them if we just ban drugs! Oh wait...

All you'll succeed in is taking away the ability of law abiding citizens to defend themselves. Again, look at the restrictive rights in Washington DC, Baltimore and Chicago. Despite this, they still get guns, the murders continue.

Heres the thing , Just so you understand me because believe or not, I do get it.

Whenever we go down this path we end up regurgitating the same attack line. I know that when I say "Take away their guns" What the average law abiding responsible gun owner actually hears is: "You're a dumbass". And thats when the conversation falls apart. Thats really what almost every versus convo should teach everyone in the end.

When you have ideological beliefs that are allowed to sort of 'flourish' inside its own vacuum where nothing can touch it , it'll just grow and thrive and become this sacrosanct edict. If you take those same ideological beliefs , remove them to the bubble and then apply them to the actual circumstances / situation - They die. Simply because it could only live in the bubble.
And thats the point I cant let go of.

The circumstances have changed. We're not talkin about a dude and a clocktower or a nut in a book depository anymore. Chicago isnt going to just fix itself , thats for sure.


Sorry, but I'm just more interested in real solutions. Banning guns is not the solution. More background checks? Better systems? Safety requirements? These types of requirements don't hamper your average law abiding citizen. Full out bans on ownership of things is never a good idea (except slavery of course). Owning something should not be outlawed, because there will always be a demand and those determined will always get them, regardless of the law.

Need an example? Just remember that CT had a ban on the deadly weapons that weren't even used in this crime, and yet, there are calls to ban said weapons? Does. Not. Compute.



#210 EdRyder   CAGiversary! CAGiversary!   468 Posts   Joined 5.4 Years Ago  

Posted 18 December 2012 - 12:25 AM

Ah yes, sort of like how people addicted to drugs would stop being addicted to them if we just ban drugs! Oh wait...


So you do think that when people are determined to do something they'll find a way? So determined people who want to kill kids , they'll find a way. If its not guns it'll be something else.
Just like when I take away the thugged out kid's guns. I didnt take away his violent nature so the murder statistics and death toll would stay exactly the same. Ive solved nothing.