NRA: Put a Gun in every school, Media to blame for shootings

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4
 

DJjaffacake:

If that is absolutely impossible, then yes, I would rather you get beaten up[1] than someone get killed.

As I posted in another thread, I keep seeing examples of how anti gun people prefer victimhood. Not only do they have trouble imagining successful self defense with a gun, they think it's unjustified and assume that the criminal has the mildest of bad intentions. If they have any empathy, they certainly aren't giving it to the victims of violent crime.

If a criminal confronts you with a deadly weapon, it is HIM, that raised the stakes to the point that someone could die. If said criminal is shot by his intended victim, it is morally and legally right. I've even seen cases like that where the anti gun person goes to extremes to lionize the dead criminal and demonize the person who defended himself. If the anti gunners had their way here in America, gun ownership would be a privilege of criminals and the very rich. Criminals would be emboldened to hurt more people knowing that armed self defense is prohibited.

[1] Although obviously I don't want that to happen

Reginald:

If you can prove beyond a measure of a doubt that that's what'll happen, I'll dig it.

So the sudden surge of people doing that isn't enough?

If you're as weak as you're always claiming you are, and I'm already attacking you, whose to say you'll in any state to draw?

I might not be. You're right.

If you can, do you think you'll be fast enough, or failing that, strong enough to stop me from disarming you?

You said yourself you can't outrun a bullet. Fairly sure unless your name is Neo you can't dodge it either.

I'd never rob or attack you in the first place, I'm very against violence, but if I wanted to your gun isn't necessarily going to stop me.

Hence why you'd get shot. If the presence of the gun isn't enough, maybe a gunshot injury is.

Hoping for the best is actually better than actively getting yourself killed

Since when?

Because actively trying to get yourself killed is more likely to get you killed than attempting to not get killed.

That's what predators count on. Charles Manson went to great lengths to tell his victims that all of this would be over, all they wanted was money, ect..he even joked with them, tried to engage them in conversation. Before he and his cronies strangled them all and left messages on the house walls in their blood.

I'm worried you're letting your fear and paranoia rule you, that's really not healthy.

I'm a fearful person. I won't deny that. But I have good, damn good in fact, reasons to be given the world we're in and the people that inhabit it.

JRslinger:

As I posted in another thread, I keep seeing examples of how anti gun people prefer victimhood. Not only do they have trouble imagining successful self defense with a gun, they think it's unjustified and assume that the criminal has the mildest of bad intentions. If they have any empathy, they certainly aren't giving it to the victims of violent crime.

I don't need their empathy at this point. I've already done the victim thing. I don't like it. Not one bit. I'll be damned if I let myself be it again.

If a criminal confronts you with a deadly weapon, it is HIM, that raised the stakes to the point that someone could die. If said criminal is shot by his intended victim, it is morally and legally right. I've even seen cases like that where the anti gun person goes to extremes to lionize the dead criminal and demonize the person who defended himself. If the anti gunners had their way here in America, gun ownership would be a privilege of criminals and the very rich. Criminals would be emboldened to hurt more people knowing that armed self defense is prohibited.

Ain't it funny how many anti gun advocates have armed bodyguards?

Protection is only for the privledged. Falsename and Blahab made that quite clear. To quote the former, we little people are supposed to just "hang on and hope for the best."

GunsmithKitten:

Shaoken:

Hey if someone is threatening your life and you have to kill them, by all means do. If someone's trying to mug you and you can secure your safety without having to kill him, then killing him is completely unnessicary and morally wrong.

Sir, I don't live in a world where criminals have ID indicators that say "I'm not going to kill you, just rob you."

But why should I be forbidden from using a firearm to defend myself if I'm being assaulted? Are you like DJ and the sort that says I should succumb to the beating which will invariably damage me big time given my size?

I will not. If I'm assaulted, I will produce a firearm. If the presence of the gun is not enough, I will use it.

And I thank all the good gods that I live in a state where that stance is respected.

Look at it this way, if you pull the gun and they back off, don't shoot. If they attack you with the gun, well you tried to give them a chance, his survival is on him now. If someone sees a gun pulled on whoever they're mugging and still decides to press on the attack, they're probably either incredibly desperate or were never the brightest bulb.

That said, if you pull the gun out and shoot him straight away, or shoot him in the back as he's running, or shoot him after he's stopped assaulting you, that's all wrong.

Shaoken:

Look at it this way, if you pull the gun and they back off, don't shoot.

That's what you're supposed to do anyway. If they're surrendering, down on the ground as you instruct, ect...then they are generally viewed as legally no longer a threat.

That's why I screamed myself hoarse when right wing gun advocates cheered on a pharmacy owner who ordered three youths attempting to rob his store to get on the ground, but when they did, he returned and shot them. That's not self defense, that's an execution and he's rightly being charged with murder.

That said, if you pull the gun out and shoot him straight away, or shoot him in the back as he's running, or shoot him after he's stopped assaulting you, that's all wrong.

No argument. If the threat is neutralized and you still fire, then you've crossed into the land of second degree murder.

GunsmithKitten:

Reginald:

If you can prove beyond a measure of a doubt that that's what'll happen, I'll dig it.

So the sudden surge of people doing that isn't enough?

No. Partially because that's a claim you made without any citation, and partially because you can't prove it beyond a measure of a doubt, which was my point.

If you can, do you think you'll be fast enough, or failing that, strong enough to stop me from disarming you?

You said yourself you can't outrun a bullet. Fairly sure unless your name is Neo you can't dodge it either.

You'd have to get to the point where you can actually shoot me for that to be a valid point. If you can draw, aim, and shoot like The Man With no name, your gun will help, otherwise I could easily take your weapon at close range.

I'd never rob or attack you in the first place, I'm very against violence, but if I wanted to your gun isn't necessarily going to stop me.

Hence why you'd get shot. If the presence of the gun isn't enough, maybe a gunshot injury is.

So, wait, I wouldn't rob you in the first place, and that's why you'd shoot me? Nice reading comprehension. I'm saying that if, hypothetically, I was the robbing type, your gun isn't guaranteed to stop me.

Hoping for the best is actually better than actively getting yourself killed

Since when?

Are you actually serious? Since living was a better option than dying.

Because actively trying to get yourself killed is more likely to get you killed than attempting to not get killed.

That's what predators count on. Charles Manson went to great lengths to tell his victims that all of this would be over, all they wanted was money, ect..he even joked with them, tried to engage them in conversation. Before he and his cronies strangled them all and left messages on the house walls in their blood.

Wow, I guess that single piece of anecdotal evidence proves that every robber is actually also a murderer. "That's what predators count on" is a rubbish statement, unless you're every predator ever.

I'm worried you're letting your fear and paranoia rule you, that's really not healthy.

I'm a fearful person. I won't deny that. But I have good, damn good in fact, reasons to be given the world we're in and the people that inhabit it.[/quote]

It looks to me like you had a bad experience and you're letting it rule your life. Do you think that instead of moving past it and growing as a person, you're clutching for something to make you feel secure? Or that the experience has tainted your view of the world, and you can look past it now?

I was pretty annoyed with the Wayne's crazy old man ranting, but in the end I don't really care. I don't pay the NRA to defend the First Amendment, I pay them to the defend the Second. A ban on assault weapons seems much more likely than restrictions on violent video games, so triage dictates focusing on the biggest risk. I'd rather not support the NRA, but the anti-gun side doesn't seem to give me much choice, politics and strange bedfellows and whatnot.

Reginald:

It looks to me like you had a bad experience and you're letting it rule your life. Do you think that instead of moving past it and growing as a person, you're clutching for something to make you feel secure? Or that the experience has tainted your view of the world, and you can look past it now?

The latter, especially when combined with an interest for true crime and second helpings of Law and Order, James Patterson books, and Criminal Minds.

theamazingbean:
I was pretty annoyed with the Wayne's crazy old man ranting, but in the end I don't really care. I don't pay the NRA to defend the First Amendment, I pay them to the defend the Second. A ban on assault weapons seems much more likely than restrictions on violent video games, so triage dictates focusing on the biggest risk. I'd rather not support the NRA, but the anti-gun side doesn't seem to give me much choice, politics and strange bedfellows and whatnot.

image
"Politics doesn't make for strange bedfellows. Marriage does."

There are other pro gun organizations and think tanks that don't tow the Republican old man line out there. Guns are my living and I still want nothing to do with La Pierre's band of codgers.

CaptainChip:

Shaoken:

I have a question: how do you respond to the fact that in Australia and the UK they have restricted guns to a much further degree than the US has, and subsequently the amount of gun homicides dropped significantly and the death toll of rampages dropped?

First of all, never just account for gun homicides. Always account for total homicides. Because if the same amount of people are just getting stabbed instead of shot, then you've solved absolutely nothing. Secondly, in those countries, when guns were banned, crimes shot up. The UK has the most violent crimes in the EU, and even more than the US. Australia also had their crime rate go up as well.

While other aussie violence rates have gone up, their murder rate has gone down. Unfortunately for those attempting to link it to the port arthur laws, the US homicide rate has gone down by virtually the same percentage over the same time period.

GunsmithKitten:
Kicking in the balls? Yea, sure. Besides my lack of any real momentum, one of my legs can't kick period.

Punch then. It doesn't require a lot of force.

And the presence of a loaded firearm is precisely why I'm not a corpse.

As I've already said, in a situation where your life is actually threatened, using guns is not unreasonable.

JRslinger:

DJjaffacake:
If that is absolutely impossible, then yes, I would rather you get beaten up[1] than someone get killed.

As I posted in another thread, I keep seeing examples of how anti gun people prefer victimhood. Not only do they have trouble imagining successful self defense with a gun, they think it's unjustified and assume that the criminal has the mildest of bad intentions. If they have any empathy, they certainly aren't giving it to the victims of violent crime.

If a criminal confronts you with a deadly weapon, it is HIM, that raised the stakes to the point that someone could die. If said criminal is shot by his intended victim, it is morally and legally right. I've even seen cases like that where the anti gun person goes to extremes to lionize the dead criminal and demonize the person who defended himself. If the anti gunners had their way here in America, gun ownership would be a privilege of criminals and the very rich. Criminals would be emboldened to hurt more people knowing that armed self defense is prohibited.

See above.

[1] Although obviously I don't want that to happen

DJjaffacake:

Punch then. It doesn't require a lot of force.

I'm not Johnny Cage. Think about the physics as well as the fact I have very little power.

GunsmithKitten:

DJjaffacake:

Punch then. It doesn't require a lot of force.

I'm not Johnny Cage. Think about the physics as well as the fact I have very little power.

I meant it when I said it doesn't require a lot of force. Unless the guy is a man of iron, any kind of impact will be very painful, not to mention making him feel sick.

farson135:
Citation.

The NRA does not want criminals to have open access to guns. I do not believe the NRA has even mentioned people on terrorist watch lists but as an NRA member I personally do not like the idea that some random bureaucrat can bar me from a gun purchase without any oversight or reason.

As for selling guns, the NRA is a sporting organization that deals in marksmanship with firearms. The selling of firearms is a condition of their success (more people buy guns). That does not mean their purpose is to sell guns.

Sure:
http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/fact-sheets/2011/why-nra-opposes-gun-control-supporters%60.aspx?s=&st=&ps
I mean, you can argue that their reasons for opposing such restrictions make sense, but you can't really argue that they don't oppose such restrictions.

Anyway, as for your last point: I would agree that the NRA started out as a sporting interests club of sorts, but in the last few decades it's become highly hijacked with gun manufacturers' interests over its members'.

Skeleon:
Snip

I am going to condense these two posts onto one topic sense we really are not dealing with the topic Australia and are just talking gun control.

Sure:
http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/fact-sheets/2011/why-nra-opposes-gun-control-supporters%60.aspx?s=&st=&ps
I mean, you can argue that their reasons for opposing such restrictions make sense, but you can't really argue that they don't oppose such restrictions.

OK, I didn't know that the NRA had even discussed the bill.

Anyway, as for your last point: I would agree that the NRA started out as a sporting interests club of sorts, but in the last few decades it's become highly hijacked with gun manufacturers' interests over its members'.

How? The NRA still does the same exact things that it has always done. The NRA does by extension help gun manufacturers because it lobbies to keep them in business so that its members can buy guns. In many ways helping gun manufacturers is the same as helping its members but that has not stopped the NRA from attacking companies like Ruger for supporting the assault weapons ban of 1994 (Ruger is under new management now and they are against the AWB). In fact many people are to this day boycotting Ruger because the company cut a deal to keep their firearms off the ban list in exchange for their support for the full bill.

Skeleon:
I actually did see that movie. He was reckless in a lot of ways: It's not just that he was alone. He didn't let anybody else know where he was, he didn't bring his cell phone (or locator beacon or alternatives) because he couldn't be bothered, he didn't use proper climbing equipment but did some freestyle jumping shit, he cared more about speed than security.

The most reckless thing about it was that he was alone. You can do a lot of dangerous things if you have a partner to watch your back. I rarely bring climbing gear when I go hiking despite the fact that I probably need it on some parts of my land. Not a real problem when I have someone else to help me out.

But nothing he did had anything to do with guns (unless he wanted to be prepared shoot his arm off or commit suicide, I guess).

You are comfortable being alone when hiking/climbing/ect and so was he. You see how well that turned out. The problem with many of you non-Americans is that y'all do not see how we Americans generally view gun ownership. Y'all generally see guns as special. We see it as just being prepared. Apparently that guy had been out hiking/climbing on his own several times. Odds are he would have been just fine. We do not carry guns because we expect an attack at any point. We carry guns because there is a possibility of attack and carrying a gun is not that big of a hassle.

I'm quite capable of evaluating risks when I hike alone and I don't do stupid shit when I do.

Then you must do some very boring hiking (walking along clear cut paths, close to civilization, etc). This is where I hike and everywhere there are hazards from rock formations that would love to break your leg, to snakes, to the overwhelming heat, etc)-

Anyway, I only see you creating more danger, is the thing.

Creating more danger? How so? My home town has a 100% gun ownership rate. Not a single murder in at least 160 years and not a single major assault since the late 1990s. I have been around guns all of my life and it is hard for me to view such a valuable tool with the anxiety that some of y'all feel.

I'd be fine with this, assuming it was paid for with taxes on firearms. There are approximately 98,000 public schools in the US with 30,000 private schools. The logisitics of paying for this is mind boggling. Assuming you pay someone a 40k salary, without considering benefits, were looking at billions of dollars.

Link to school numbers:
http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/facts_for_features_special_editions/cb11-ff15.html

I haven't found numbers yet on how much the firearm industry contributes to the economy, but I'm tempted to suggest that the NRA is effectively arguing the cost of protecting us from gun ownership is actually worth more than the firearm industry, which is an interesting paradox to consider.

What? The dickless lunatics of the NRA said something stupid in response to a massacre? NOOOOOOOO!

In all seriousness while i don't think it's possible to make a civilian gun ban in the U.S, stricter gun control, ESPECIALLY measures aimed to take down people who "Collect" activated weapons, are something we should be moving towards. While measures to prevent these massacres should take top priority, gun control is badly needed in a country with way too many guns on legal and illegal markets.

farson135:
How? The NRA still does the same exact things that it has always done. The NRA does by extension help gun manufacturers because it lobbies to keep them in business so that its members can buy guns. In many ways helping gun manufacturers is the same as helping its members but that has not stopped the NRA from attacking companies like Ruger for supporting the assault weapons ban of 1994 (Ruger is under new management now and they are against the AWB). In fact many people are to this day boycotting Ruger because the company cut a deal to keep their firearms off the ban list in exchange for their support for the full bill.

For instance: "In addition, 71 percent of current or former NRA members and 80 percent of the other gun owners supported banning people on a terrorist watch list from purchasing guns."
- http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/07/24/577091/nra-members-agree-regulating-guns-makes-sense/?mobile=nc

While you may agree with the NRA's official position, clearly the NRA does not represent the majority of its members. That's pretty much my point: The gun manufacturer's motives have overtaken the NRA's members goals, because the former is the more profitable one. It's not about coinciding goals.

The most reckless thing about it was that he was alone.

No, that combined with nobody knowing where he was going as well as his actions on the mountain themselves. Being alone is not reckless if you have backup and proper precautions.

You can do a lot of dangerous things if you have a partner to watch your back. I rarely bring climbing gear when I go hiking despite the fact that I probably need it on some parts of my land. Not a real problem when I have someone else to help me out.

True. The reckless part is when you try something that you know you should have help for but decide to do it anyway. Again, it's not an issue of being alone, it's being alone combined with additional failure: Not realizing that being alone brings some boundaries with it.

Then you must do some very boring hiking (walking along clear cut paths, close to civilization, etc).

Creating more danger? How so? My home town has a 100% gun ownership rate. Not a single murder in at least 160 years and not a single major assault since the late 1990s. I have been around guns all of my life and it is hard for me to view such a valuable tool with the anxiety that some of y'all feel.

Maybe you are, but it only takes somebody to overreact, to be short-fused, to be scared, to think of me as a threat for some outlandish reason. I'm not comfortable around guns and - especially since GunsmithKitten's little tirades - around people who are seemingly constantly on edge with one hand on their holster. I'll certainly grant you that it has to do with what one is used to, but I think it's more than that. I don't just feel safer, I'm genuinely safer based on statistics from being shot dead than you are. I think me feeling apprehensive around guns is - while perhaps exaggerated - understandable considering this very real statistical difference.

Skeleon:
For instance: "In addition, 71 percent of current or former NRA members and 80 percent of the other gun owners supported banning people on a terrorist watch list from purchasing guns."
- http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/07/24/577091/nra-members-agree-regulating-guns-makes-sense/?mobile=nc

While you may agree with the NRA's official position, clearly the NRA does not represent the majority of its members.

Less than a 1,000 people is a majority now? There are over 80 million gun owners and over 4 million NRA members in the US. I have been attacked on this site for using studies that have far more representative numbers than that, nevertheless polls that are twisted to different peoples wants.

As for the terrorist watch list dig, most people do not even know what makes a person eligible to be on a terrorist watch list (I don't). People THINK they know but they do not. If you actually told people that then they would not support it. Once again, polling.

That's pretty much my point: The gun manufacturer's motives have overtaken the NRA's members goals, because the former is the more profitable one.

So gun manufacturers are against keeping people on terrorist watch lists from owning guns? Do you have any proof of that? Even if you are right that the NRA is not representing its members if you cannot show that the gun manufacturers want the NRA to keep that position then all you are proving is that the NRA is unrepresentative.

You may not realize this but the NRA's board of directors is voted on by the NRA's Life (and above) members.

No, that combined with nobody knowing where he was going as well as his actions on the mountain themselves. Being alone is not reckless if you have backup and proper precautions.

In that situation, yes being alone is the most reckless part. Even if he had said where he was going to someone, mapped out his exact route, and promised to call when he got back he still would have been screwed without dumb luck. Where is he going? The middle of fucking nowhere. A search team would not be sent for at least 48 hours and even then that is a massive area to cover.

As for the climbing, that is not really dangerous IF you have someone to watch your back.

Maybe you are, but it only takes somebody to overreact, to be short-fused, to be scared, to think of me as a threat for some outlandish reason.

Somebody. And yet those people never show up in my town. 160 years is a long time and a lot of people were born during that time. Have you ever considered that maybe y'all are the problem and not the guns?

I don't just feel safer, I'm genuinely safer based on statistics from being shot dead than you are.

Am I?

I am a whitish male in my mid-20s. I come from a rural background and I am close to getting my doctorate (please god let it be soon). I am a long time gun owner and a CHL. I drink but not to excess (I have never gotten drunk and I never have more than a beer or two in public). I do not use drugs. I have had multiple stable relationships that are few in number but lasted a good long while. I live in a semi-urban area right now but I am hoping to move to somewhere more rural after college. I try not to stay out too late at night and I prefer to get to the library early now rather than late.

So, aside from being a mutt, a young male, and living in a semi-urban environment I have no risk factors whatsoever for being murdered. In fact my socio-economic cultural status makes it highly unlikely that I will be murdered. I probably forgot a few things but you get the point.

Skeleon:

farson135:
Citation.

The NRA does not want criminals to have open access to guns. I do not believe the NRA has even mentioned people on terrorist watch lists but as an NRA member I personally do not like the idea that some random bureaucrat can bar me from a gun purchase without any oversight or reason.

As for selling guns, the NRA is a sporting organization that deals in marksmanship with firearms. The selling of firearms is a condition of their success (more people buy guns). That does not mean their purpose is to sell guns.

Sure:
http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/fact-sheets/2011/why-nra-opposes-gun-control-supporters%60.aspx?s=&st=&ps
I mean, you can argue that their reasons for opposing such restrictions make sense, but you can't really argue that they don't oppose such restrictions.

Anyway, as for your last point: I would agree that the NRA started out as a sporting interests club of sorts, but in the last few decades it's become highly hijacked with gun manufacturers' interests over its members'.

Are these fuckers serious? If I was to be on the terror watchlist, I can't challenge it, I can't know the reason why I was on the list, and I can't get a fucking fair trail, not only that but if they fuck up and put me on the list by accident and I own a firearm, I go to prison for ten years anyway? I was in favor of people not owning guns if they are on the terror watchlist, but this shit? I would ask how this manage to pass, but proganda and buzzwords can do anything. Hell no to this bull shit, this is on some other level, plus the NDAA, and home boy Joe Biden Patriot Act among other things. I'm reaching levels of rage, that I haven't felt in some time here. I usually detach myself emotionally from this stuff.

Magenera:
I'm reaching levels of rage, that I haven't felt in some time here. I usually detach myself emotionally from this stuff.

Well, don't. It's a link from the NRA, meaning it's probably 60% made up rubbish, 39,5% exageration and 0,5% true. No point in getting worked up over some gun lobby lies.

Blablahb:

Aur0ra145:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/man-attempts-to-open-fire-on-crowd-at-movie-theater-armed-off-duty-sheriffs-deputy-drops-him-with-one-bullet/
http://www.kcra.com/news/3-wounded-one-intruder-dead-in-Sacramento-home-invasion/-/11797728/17875642/-/2o7y1hz/-/index.html
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=8927858

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=8926517

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/home-invasion-suspect-killed-in-gunfight-at-dekalb/nTZnJ/

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=23445000&nid=148&title=pastor-pulls-gun-on-unsuspecting-burglar-

http://www.wsoctv.com/news/news/local/police-cmpd-officer-fires-shot-would-be-intruder/nTY3J/

http://www2.wnct.com/news/2012/dec/04/9/internet-cafe-robberies-continue-pitt-county-ar-2831692/

http://www.wral.com/intruder-killed-in-henderson-home-invasion/11885004/

http://www2.nbc4i.com/news/2012/dec/14/teen-suspected-burglar-shot-homeowner-identified-ar-1277434/

Totally never happens.

A whole bunch of those were murders, perpetrated upon someone who wasn't a threat. Only a single case of mortal danger.

Now you just need to come up with 30.539 more examples, before you can offset the number of unnecessary deaths due to firearms possession in the US of just a single year.

I'd think my argument wins if the score is 30.540 - 1

Or wait, this just in, more gun violence. An upstanding gun owner who thinks the government is threat, shot at four firemen and murdered two of them in Webster in New York.

I'm sure the gun lobby is very please at how their fellow patriot defended himself against those evil librul guvernment people. I'm not sure the relatives of the firemen will be though.

So correction, I win 30.542 - 1

Because this thread isn't dead...

Can I equally say that banning certain types of communication in no way affects 1st Amdendment right? How about this: "You have a right to free speech, but not on the internet, because that rapid-fire, high capacity format reaches way too many people in too short an amount of time. High powered free speech distribution methods like the internet should be limited to official news outlets and the White House press corps."

http://gunssavelives.net/self-defense/video/son-uses-dads-ar-15-to-defend-home/

http://www.infowars.com/obama-signs-bill-giving-him-armed-protection-for-life/

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2013/01/01/hollywood-loophole-fiscal-cliff

Gun control works...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-humboldt-park-shooting-leaves-2-hospitalized-20130101,0,6730065.story

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/report-532-murdered-chicago-2012_693417.html

And our government never tries to hide stuff...

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/17/Holder-begs-court-to-indefinitely-delay-group-s-lawsuit-fighting-for-release-of-Obama-s-executive-privilege-Fast-and-Furious-documents

Totally not popular...

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/gun_control/65_see_gun_rights_as_protection_against_tyranny

Let's not forget about when the liberal government tried to carry out reassessment of 2A

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_siege

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wounded_Knee_Massacre

wombat_of_war:
apparently some guy has set a fire and ambushed the firefighters who arrived illing two of them. im half expecting the NRA to say they need to arm all firefighters now

Actually, some firefighters are armed. Do you research.

Nice try everyone, facts are not on your side.

GunsmithKitten:

theamazingbean:
I was pretty annoyed with the Wayne's crazy old man ranting, but in the end I don't really care. I don't pay the NRA to defend the First Amendment, I pay them to the defend the Second. A ban on assault weapons seems much more likely than restrictions on violent video games, so triage dictates focusing on the biggest risk. I'd rather not support the NRA, but the anti-gun side doesn't seem to give me much choice, politics and strange bedfellows and whatnot.

image
"Politics doesn't make for strange bedfellows. Marriage does."

There are other pro gun organizations and think tanks that don't tow the Republican old man line out there. Guns are my living and I still want nothing to do with La Pierre's band of codgers.

Can I just say thank you for being one of the few anti-legislation posters to be willing to condemn the more dogmatic elements of your side.

Ta.

Where permitted or not, you have probably been around gun carriers and did not even know it. Curiously, there already are (lawful) gun carriers in many schools. There was at least one in my high school; they're called school cops (and in some cases, legitimately ordained guards are present).

Armed police/security professionals is a sensible idea, one part of a many-pronged solution for schools which are no different than government buildings, malls, banks, corporations, even public streets. We allow police and armed security in other places, so if you don't oppose them there, why oppose them in a school?

If you cannot fundamentally support a police officer to protect a building and the lives within then I'm curious, are they just around to write traffic tickets and chase purse-snatchers?

AgedGrunt:
Where permitted or not, you have probably been around gun carriers and did not even know it. Curiously, there already are (lawful) gun carriers in many schools. There was at least one in my high school; they're called school cops (and in some cases, legitimately ordained guards are present).

Armed police/security professionals is a sensible idea, one part of a many-pronged solution for schools which are no different than government buildings, malls, banks, corporations, even public streets. We allow police and armed security in other places, so if you don't oppose them there, why oppose them in a school?

If you cannot fundamentally support a police officer to protect a building and the lives within then I'm curious, are they just around to write traffic tickets and chase purse-snatchers?

Perhaps people would rather make such a drastic action unnessicary by tackling the problem at it's source?

Or perhaps they object to the fact this would cost in the billions of dollars, which schools cannot afford?

Or could it be that Columbine did have an officer protecting the building which did absolutely nothing to stop that massacre from coming?

Shaoken:
Perhaps people would rather make such a drastic action unnessicary by tackling the problem at it's source?

Or perhaps they object to the fact this would cost in the billions of dollars, which schools cannot afford?

Or could it be that Columbine did have an officer protecting the building which did absolutely nothing to stop that massacre from coming?

"Drastic"? Having a cop in a building is "drastic" and doesn't attack the problem at its source (read: someone with a gun)? I didn't say it was the panacea, it's one good idea that should be on the table, generally just the whole involvement of law enforcement working with administrations, teachers and students not unlike fire departments with safety, prevention, drilling, etc. Schools have equipment to deal with fires but no one wants anything in a school to put down a shooter, which unlike fires actually is killing a lot of students.

However, from the reactions everywhere, one would think the NRA is asking for drones, SWAT and tattoo-covered Confederate gun owners to watch their children. It's a police officer, they are public servants and education is generally a public service.

Cost is a clear issue, but set up some pilot programs and at least see where it goes. This is tax money being spent well and means jobs. I'd rather have this than officers arranging "seat belt enforcement zones" and wasting resources in drug enforcement. The resources are there, we have our priorities screwed up.

And no one said this is a sure-thing, nothing is. Banks have security and get robbed all the time, but does that mean they should have no one standing there just in case of violence? I'd rather know my child's school had someone there and they at least tried rather than did nothing to save lives.

Aur0ra145:
Because this thread isn't dead...

Can I equally say that banning certain types of communication in no way affects 1st Amdendment right? How about this: "You have a right to free speech, but not on the internet, because that rapid-fire, high capacity format reaches way too many people in too short an amount of time. High powered free speech distribution methods like the internet should be limited to official news outlets and the White House press corps."

I have no idea how your post relates to mine. I can however say that some forms of 'communication' are banned. You can't make child pornography for instance. Does that ban abolish freedom of speech? No. So would a gun ban abolish the right to have a sort of armed militia? No.

As for the anecdotes, none of which seem related to my post, please check your sources. Breitbart? Really? That's one of those ultra-right wing hardcore conservative commentators that even many conservatives shake their heads at. You can't use that as a source. Conservative commentators are known to lie, deceive and manipulate numbers more often than they don't.

Same story for Infowars. If you couldn't tell by their site that Infowars is unreliable, you have a lot to do in terms of learning to check and verify sources, and estimate their reliability. Infowars and conspiracy nuts in general are quite literally a joke in debating.

AgedGrunt:
"Drastic"? Having a cop in a building is "drastic" and doesn't attack the problem at its source (read: someone with a gun)? I didn't say it was the panacea, it's one good idea that should be on the table, generally just the whole involvement of law enforcement working with administrations, teachers and students not unlike fire departments with safety, prevention, drilling, etc. Schools have equipment to deal with fires but no one wants anything in a school to put down a shooter, which unlike fires actually is killing a lot of students.

That's not a good analogy. There's plenty of work done to prevent fires, and most fires as a result start naturally.

School shootings however aren't being prevented. If anything they're being encouraged by clinging to weapons possession. There's a difference between asking someone to be prepared to handle a natural occurance, and asking someone to handle the consequences of a problem you (as in: the country) has caused yourself.

It's basically the same as first legalising rape, and then demanding that all women do something against being raped. You don't just cause a problem yourself and then ask others to clean up the fallout, and that's what putting armed guards in schools basically is: asking schools to quite literally take a bullet for the troubles caused by gun ownership.

AgedGrunt:
I'd rather know my child's school had someone there and they at least tried rather than did nothing to save lives.

And what about exposing small children to firearms? That's not good. Plus that said guards and officers aren't immune to going postal either. The rate at which guards go postal and start a school shooting is probably going to be higher than the rate at which they stop school shootings. The second Virginia Tech shooting proved that.

The shooter just walked up and second amended the guard on the spot, and could've gone on a rampage just like the first shooter if he wanted. All armed guards at schools is going to change who the first deaths are.

AgedGrunt:

Shaoken:
Perhaps people would rather make such a drastic action unnessicary by tackling the problem at it's source?

Or perhaps they object to the fact this would cost in the billions of dollars, which schools cannot afford?

Or could it be that Columbine did have an officer protecting the building which did absolutely nothing to stop that massacre from coming?

"Drastic"? Having a cop in a building is "drastic" and doesn't attack the problem at its source (read: someone with a gun)? I didn't say it was the panacea, it's one good idea that should be on the table, generally just the whole involvement of law enforcement working with administrations, teachers and students not unlike fire departments with safety, prevention, drilling, etc. Schools have equipment to deal with fires but no one wants anything in a school to put down a shooter, which unlike fires actually is killing a lot of students.

Wow, so many things wrong with this.

First, I'd wadger that fire has killed more students in the past decade than guns have, and fires have broken out at more schools in any varity than shooters have drawn/brought weapons to schools in any varity.

Two, it's a band-aid on missing limb that's being passed off as a solution. The NRA isn't saying "let's use this as a stop-gap measure while we treat the problem at it's source" it's "had you done this five years ago it would have stopped this one latest shooting."

Three, this is not the source, the source of the problem is why people are going on rampages to begin with, since they're rarer in any other first-world nation but America.

Four, putting armed guards at school to ensure children's safety is an unpredented move in the entire first world. Even Israel, who's experienced many terrorist attacks, only went to the point of allowing teachers to carry weapons on campus in schools that were in a war zone, and they stopped doing that many years ago.

However, from the reactions everywhere, one would think the NRA is asking for drones, SWAT and tattoo-covered Confederate gun owners to watch their children. It's a police officer, they are public servants and education is generally a public service.

Well the NRA is asking for completely privately trained specialists, not police. But even if it was a police officer, every police officer you put at a school (and realistically you'd have to put more then one; a cop at the front door is worthless if a gunman comes through the back and starts shooting) is one who can't be patrolling the streets, and the police are another instution in America that is woefully under equipped and under trained for the problems it has to deal with.

Plus, as Gunsmith Kitten has said many times, the Police in the US are under no obligation to protect society, just to catch criminals, as upheld in a Supreme Court verdict.

Cost is a clear issue, but set up some pilot programs and at least see where it goes. This is tax money being spent well and means jobs. I'd rather have this than officers arranging "seat belt enforcement zones" and wasting resources in drug enforcement. The resources are there, we have our priorities screwed up.

Tax money on even more guns is it being spent well instead of, I don't know, being spent to tackle the issue of why people go on Gun Rampages in America with greater frequency than in Europe, even after factoring in population differences?

As for enforcing seat belts, that's a good fucking idea since if a person get's into a crash without a seatbelt it ceases to become their own problem and effects everyone else around them; from the time it takes ambulances to pull them out of the car, to the extreme of their body leaving the car and becoming a long smear on the ground, and that's without the possiblity of them hitting another person with their body and adding another death to the tally.

And drug enforcement...are you honestly serious with that? You think drug enforcement is wasted money, even though a lot of gun violence in the US is tied to drug abuse and related crimes? Hell the largest increase of gun-related robberies in Australia since the was tied to herion.

Really your proposition is like breaking one leg to fix the other. Even if it worked, you're still in a bad place.

And no one said this is a sure-thing, nothing is. Banks have security and get robbed all the time, but does that mean they should have no one standing there just in case of violence? I'd rather know my child's school had someone there and they at least tried rather than did nothing to save lives.

Banks have something that is valuable enough to get people to try and steal it. There is really no value in killing people, especially not children, so the comparison is wrong.

Banks also get robbed with much greater frequency than schools getting shot up. I mean, between Virgina Tech and Sandy Hook, a period of five years, there were no school shootings in the US (I'm assuming, since I'd imagine Blab would have run his mouth off about it if there was). So for five years, having cops at all schools in America would have had no tangible improvement in safety, yet increased the cost to the nation and seen an increase in crime in other areas because as stated before, there is only a limited number of cops avaliable with a finate number of resources who can't be stopping crime and guarding every school.

It's not a solution, it's the illusion of a solution.

Blablahb:
There's plenty of work done to prevent fires...

School shootings however aren't being prevented...

Do you think smoke detectors, alarms, fire extinguishers, axes and fire departments are for the prevention of a fire or dealing with a fire?

Blablahb:
It's basically the same as first legalising rape

Police officer in a school = legalized rape -- Got it.

Blablahb:
And what about exposing small children to firearms? That's not good. Plus that said guards and officers aren't immune to going postal either.

I don't like when someone's first exposure to firearms comes from a person mowing them down. Who do you want to educate the people? Good, decent, honest members of law enforcement or the media and anti-violence groups that invest in scare-tactics and convince people children are not safe in their own classrooms? Get law enforcement involved, educate people, including to not be afraid of a firearm or the nice people that carry them, it's the sick maniac shooting innocent people that we need to be concerned about.

Do you run from every cop and shield children from seeing the weapons they carry? A group of detectives were approached by a restaurant manager in my country and were told their guns made people uncomfortable. I mean good grief.

Shaoken:
First, I'd wadger that fire has killed more students in the past decade than guns have, and fires have broken out at more schools in any varity than shooters have drawn/brought weapons to schools in any varity.

...the source of the problem is why people are going on rampages to begin with, since they're rarer in any other first-world nation but America.

...Police in the US are under no obligation to protect society, just to catch criminals, as upheld in a Supreme Court verdict.

http://www.policeone.com/active-shooter/articles/2058168-Lt-Col-Dave-Grossman-to-cops-The-enemy-is-denial/

You have a wager, I have an expert that says zero child deaths in the past 50 years in North America. If he's wrong, source, but compare it to school violence.

The problem is the why, not the what, yet here we are watching new gun legislation fly around government and not a single serious, comprehensive discussion about drugs, violence and a debased culture.

And as I understand that legal matter is about liability, which doesn't seem to be relevant here. Please elaborate.

Shaoken:
Tax money on even more guns..

As for enforcing seat belts that's a good fucking idea...

And drug enforcement...

A lot of money is spent on gun regulation. Some changes are passable, bans will just exacerbate resources like drug bans, which clog the legal system and throw people in jail with violent criminals. Prisons are harmful, a person is much more likely to enter criminal culture by spending time there. Mountains of laws and heavy-handed approaches with a diverse criminal culture thriving on it all. You talk about breaking one leg to save another...

Shaoken:
Banks have something that is valuable enough to get people to try and steal it. There is really no value in killing people, especially not children, so the comparison is wrong.

Banks also get robbed with much greater frequency

If you're arguing that banks have something of value, you imply schools do not. I'll try to save you: you cannot put a value on innocent life because it's priceless.

If even one life can be saved, it's worth trying, I'm going to do it -- Just curious, what happened to this argument for gun control? Good here? No? Dang, I need a rule book for where to use that one, it's super effective.

apparently there was a new shooting in new mexico and fox news doesnt know what to do with it. a 15 year old killed his entire family (3 children and his parents) the catch this time his father is a pastor, he was home schooled, he was limited in what movies he could watch and wasnt allowed to play video games.

watching them talk about it briefly, it was like they didnt know what to say as the usual things they blame arent an issue

wombat_of_war:
watching them talk about it briefly, it was like they didnt know what to say as the usual things they blame arent an issue

Do you have a link? I'd love to see that...
"Well that's what happens when you take God out of... when you let public schools indoctrinate... when youngsters consume violent videogames and... erm. We'll come right back to this breaking story after commercials."

Blablahb:

Magenera:
I'm reaching levels of rage, that I haven't felt in some time here. I usually detach myself emotionally from this stuff.

Well, don't. It's a link from the NRA, meaning it's probably 60% made up rubbish, 39,5% exageration and 0,5% true. No point in getting worked up over some gun lobby lies.

Considering that Americans can be locked up with out a trial and held for indefinite time period, warrantless wiretapping, having both the NSA and Homeland security spy on us, this shit is not really new, assassinating American citizens. Americans compromise on their rights and we got fucked. Not that the left or the right gives a shit, because it's only wrong when the other side does it, but when their side takes power and do the same shit, their mummed about it.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked