School shooting at taft high school in california

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:
This is just fucking ridiculous. This is, what, the third major shooting in the space of just one year? And in the previous years, you've also had senators getting shot, the Virginia tech shootings...

Seriously, America, sort it the fuck out! Your kids are now being regularly caught in the line of fire! The Dunblaine shooting was enough for us to outlaw handguns in the UK, and we've been pretty free of shootings ever since. Get your fucking guns in order, and stop putting your kids at risk. This is mental. It's beyond mental. No first world nation should be subject to such ludicrous violence on such a regular basis.

What was that?

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

Not to mention the statistics FelixG posted.

A fascist ban on guns will only empower organized crime, I don't have any idea how it works in the UK but in most countries the criminals do not surrender their weapons to gun control agencies. The notion that only first world nations should be exempt from violence is endearing by the way.

Combustion Kevin:
so, wait, he missed his shot inside the classroom with a shotgun?

how do you miss from that range?

A lot of 'people' think that a firearm will turn you into rambo or some super soldier, nope, a lot of them take a little bit of training to use well, my first shotgun knocked my shoulder wide, and I was barely able to use that arm the next day (particularly as no one showed me how to seat it properly)

Sixcess:
"The police department has also confirmed that there is usually a full-time sheriff's deputy on duty in the school"

Is this normal in the USA?

Speaking as a brit, it seems really strange to me that there'd be a (presumably armed) law enforcement officer in a school, all the time.

it is fairly normal, we call them Resource Officers and mostly they are there for anti drug stuff. And they tend to be really fun! Got to sit in his office cleaning weapons with him and BSing for a class when a teacher was out sick to get some extra credit instead of going home early.

I hope this isn't one of those snow ball effects, where constant coverage on these mass shootings incites more lunatics to go on a rampage.

The same sort of thing happened in my country a while back with people killing their own families.

Casual Shinji:
I hope this isn't one of those snow ball effects, where constant coverage on these mass shootings incites more lunatics to go on a rampage.

The same sort of thing happened in my country a while back with people killing their own families.

It probobly will, the media is worse in this case than guns, as the insane fuck would find some way else to attack people if they didnt have a gun, its the media plastering their faces everywhere that drives insane people to acts of immortality.

A fun law would be that if you name or show a picture of a shooter in media you are an accessory after the fact. Let these assholes die in obscurity with their names nothing more than [Redacted] or just [Insane Fuck #12].

Moved to R&P by user request.

So two people were injured, they had time to direct pupils out of the classroom, and the shooter missed his apparent prime target, because he had a shotgun with buckshot that he needed to reload every few shots?

I want to see the gun lobby try and weasel themselves out of the fact that magazine reduction and banning semi-automatic weapons will not reduce the lethality of a shooting. Go ahead, struggle, twist and lie, it should be really amusing in the face of this demonstration that it does indeed work. ^_^

Auron:
A fascist ban on guns will only empower organized crime

Unfortunately for you, there's not a scrap of evidence for that claim. And maybe you shouldn't use words of which you don't understand the meaning, like fascism. Here's an explanation of what fascism actually is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism


In reality, criminals do disarm you see. They rely primarily on legal weapons being 'disappeared', so if guns are banned, that supply dries out. Then they have to rely on smuggling, which is prohibitively expensive for most average criminals. In reality you end up with a situation where pretty much all firearms violence is high-profile criminals killing eachother.
The average thug can be safely assumed to be unarmed. If someone tries to rob me, I laugh at them and tell them them which sport I practise, and they run away. Beats getting a gun pushed in your face by a robber, going for your own gun, and getting shot dead, or getting robbed, and murdering the robber, after which you'll be seeing the blood a few times more in your dreams, and have to justify for yourself why you ended someone's life.

And the effectiveness of a ban has been demonstrated before. Australia had no more spree shootings since theirs. The UK, which you showed us, such a thing occurs every decade, as compared to every week in the gun-loving US. Belgium has seen their number of firearms deaths cut in half since they tightened their already restrictive gun ban in 2006, especially suicides, without the same rise in deaths by other causes.


No, the gun lobby stands empty-handed when it comes to arguments. All the empirical evidence is against them. Which is why they flee to anecdote and unfounded claims.

Strazdas:
Hey, havent i told you theres a shooting every month in America, see, now do you believe me its not once a decade?

I don't recall, though saying it only happens "once per decade" doesn't sound like something I'd say when even a simple Wikipedia search proves that inaccurate. That said, I also don't recall it happening with this kind of frequency prior to the media deciding to make a huge spectacle out of tragedies. I also don't recall the shootings being quite so deadly prior to the media turning it into a sport for the deranged looking to top each other's "scores" and giving them their fifteen minutes of fame for trying.

Notice the difference though, he had a shotgun instead of a faster gun, no dead people.

It's also believed at current time that this particular gunman had only two specific targets and wasn't looking to shoot up the entire school, so firing speed of the weapon really doesn't matter. It's also believed that he did successfully hit one of his intended targets, accidentally hit a teacher, then dropped the gun when the teacher he accidentally hit asked him to.

As for why the targets survived, there are any number of reasons. Skill of the shooter is a big factor. Contrary to popular belief, shotguns do require accurate shooting. They aren't the room-sweepers they're portrayed as in the games and movies. They do have pellet spread, but with a typical consumer shotgun it's still usually going to be pretty tight at that kind of range. Also, ammunition matters. Shotguns have an incredibly wide range of various shells, some being better than others for stopping power. Birdshot shells for example possess far less stopping power than Buckshot shells. Both are absolutely capable of killing a human being, but Birdshot is more likely than Buckshot to leave survivors. I don't think I've read anywhere what type of shells the gunman was using, but it's possible he had birdshot since it's a pretty common pellet load.

Sixcess:
"The police department has also confirmed that there is usually a full-time sheriff's deputy on duty in the school"

Is this normal in the USA?

Speaking as a brit, it seems really strange to me that there'd be a (presumably armed) law enforcement officer in a school, all the time.

I do believe most, if not all Highschools have officers at the schools, I know even in the smallest county in the state of Texas, ( not least populated however) we had 2 officers at the school at all times, including school functions after hour. We also had one officer on duty at the middle schools (7th and 8th grade only school). What they are proposing now is to expand that to all schools,including elementary schools, not just highschools and middles schools.

Mr Dizazta:

Sixcess:
"The police department has also confirmed that there is usually a full-time sheriff's deputy on duty in the school"

Is this normal in the USA?

Speaking as a brit, it seems really strange to me that there'd be a (presumably armed) law enforcement officer in a school, all the time.

They're mostly there for either drug busts or gang activity. I am speaking as a native of Kern County(born and raised in Bakersfield).

Actually the majority of what our officers dealt with was fighting amongst students, truancy and theft, as in Rockwall, there was not gang activity, and it was uncommon for anyone to be found with drugs at the school. However, the officers at Samuel and Skyline in hardcore gang territory primarliy had to deal with gangs, weapons, drugs. I guess what they focus on at the school is related to what crime is present in that area, rather than a "set agenda".

At the new Highschool built in Forney, they built a "Sheriffs hub" ( mini substation) on campus, strategically located within 2-3 min of 4 schools. There has been much discussion of this being the new planned design for future schools here.

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:
This is just fucking ridiculous. This is, what, the third major shooting in the space of just one year? And in the previous years, you've also had senators getting shot, the Virginia tech shootings...

Seriously, America, sort it the fuck out! Your kids are now being regularly caught in the line of fire! The Dunblaine shooting was enough for us to outlaw handguns in the UK, and we've been pretty free of shootings ever since. Get your fucking guns in order, and stop putting your kids at risk. This is mental. It's beyond mental. No first world nation should be subject to such ludicrous violence on such a regular basis.

England/Wales violent crime per 100,000 is 3.5 times higher than the U.S., and America's violent crime rate over the last 20 years has dropped 50%. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ooa98FHuaU0

And we know where the real crime is, where it comes from, but it's just easier and fits with the right peoples' agendas to go after firearms and demonize peaceful owners rather than shake up education, culture, poverty and have the tough conversations about the real roots of violent crime.

Sixcess:
"The police department has also confirmed that there is usually a full-time sheriff's deputy on duty in the school"

Is this normal in the USA?

Speaking as a brit, it seems really strange to me that there'd be a (presumably armed) law enforcement officer in a school, all the time.

I think there can be good reason for it.

I went to a high school in a very quiet part of Saint Louis County. However, we bused in students from the inner city and had problems with gang related activity. As a result, we would usually have three law enforcement officers (all carrying guns) in case there was ever any issue. I don't recall there ever being an instance where they had to pull their guns on anyone, but at least once where they did have to arrest someone for bringing a knife to threaten a rival.

Strazdas:
Notice the difference though, he had a shotgun instead of a faster gun, no dead people.

Faster gun? A semiautomatic rifle is ineffective at close range. There are reports from the battlefield of insurgents being shot with an entire magazine of ammo and crawling away while the soldier is reloading. Shotguns are very effective at close range. Plus, you can fire one as fast as you can rack it and you can also reload it very quickly-

Blablahb:
I want to see the gun lobby try and weasel themselves out of the fact that magazine reduction and banning semi-automatic weapons will not reduce the lethality of a shooting. Go ahead, struggle, twist and lie, it should be really amusing in the face of this demonstration that it does indeed work.

Type of firearm =/= lethality

It's this formula:

Training = lethality

A highly trained soldier or police officer is going to be far more effective with a Mossberg 590 than a guy who's never touched, or has very few hours of training with the firearm.

I shoot skeet whenever I visit family land (about ever couple of months), and my cousin (who's also the same age) has never fired a gun in his life. Who's going to be the bigger threat?

This isn't really news, when I turn on the news here the first 10 minutes are about people who were murdered. I fail to see why this incident is all that important, to me it's just business as usual.

Smagmuck_:

Type of firearm =/= lethality

It's this formula:

Training = lethality

A highly trained soldier or police officer is going to be far more effective with a Mossberg 590 than a guy who's never touched, or has very few hours of training with the firearm.

I shoot skeet whenever I visit family land (about ever couple of months), and my cousin (who's also the same age) has never fired a gun in his life. Who's going to be the bigger threat?

And who's gonna be more of a threat the soldier with a musket or the one with an M4 ? Obviously both factors are very important.

generals3:
And who's gonna be more of a threat the soldier with a musket or the one with an M4 ? Obviously both factors are very important.

Exactly, which is why the Second Amendment is such a big issue. The people deserve the right to be on par with their government firepower wise because history has proven that democratic governments have shifted to totalitarian regimes when there is a large issue at hand.

It happened to Germany.
It happened to Italy.
It happened to Russia.

And it can happen to America just as easily as it did to those countries.

Smagmuck_:

generals3:
And who's gonna be more of a threat the soldier with a musket or the one with an M4 ? Obviously both factors are very important.

Exactly, which is why the Second Amendment is such a big issue. The people deserve the right to be on par with their government firepower wise because history has proven that democratic governments have shifted to totalitarian regimes when there is a large issue at hand.

It happened to Germany.
It happened to Italy.
It happened to Russia.

And it can happen to America just as easily as it did to those countries.

When did Russia shift to a totalitarian regime from democracy? It went: Despotic => Other kind of Despotic => Shady Democracy.

Germany's example is bad because the dictator in question had a lot of civilians on his side. So if people would rise up you'd get a huge massacres where civilians+soldiers kill other civilians. If you want lots of bodies than yes arming the civilians would seem like a good thing to do. And the same goes with Mussolini (he did get unpopular near the end but than again, dictators tend to lose popularity when they keep on losing/failing)

Also an other fun fact: civilians who were willing to use violence JOINED the dictators: The SA and Blackshirts were respectively Hitler's and Mussolinis civilians militias which they used before they gained full power to "spread the word". And you can thank the great armed civilians for allowing Mussolini to take over Italy.

Actually if you want to use European History the logical conclusion is that arming the civilian population to potentially fight dictators is the stupidest thing to do.

generals3:
When did Russia shift to a totalitarian regime from democracy? It went: Despotic => Other kind of Despotic => Shady Democracy.

Germany's example is bad because the dictator in question had a lot of civilians on his side. So if people would rise up you'd get a huge massacres where civilians+soldiers kill other civilians. If you want lots of bodies than yes arming the civilians would seem like a good thing to do. And the same goes with Mussolini (he did get unpopular near the end but than again, dictators tend to lose popularity when they keep on losing/failing)

Also an other fun fact: civilians who were willing to use violence JOINED the dictators: The SA and Blackshirts were respectively Hitler's and Mussolinis civilians militias which they used before they gained full power to "spread the word". And you can thank the great armed civilians for allowing Mussolini to take over Italy.

Actually if you want to use European History the logical conclusion is that arming the civilian population to potentially fight dictators is the stupidest thing to do.

My point was preventing one, not stop one that's already happening.

But I think Ben Shapiro got it right when he completely shut down Piers Morgan. Saves you a lot of reading and me a lot of typing.

Not that anyone will pay attention to my post, but here's how this whole thing seems to have played out from my viewpoint.

Kid gets bullied for some time, obviously can't handle it. Kid literally told people that he was thinking of something like this and everybody dropped the ball and ignored this.

Kid ends up going to school with the intent of ending his bullying. Shoots one of his targets, wounds a bystander and gets talked down from pursuing the other target.

He definitely wasn't there to shoot up the school, he was there to get two specific people and doing it at school meant that they would be there for sure and that his actions/plight would make national news.

Smagmuck_:

My point was preventing one, not stop one that's already happening.

But I think Ben Shapiro got it right when he completely shut down Piers Morgan. Saves you a lot of reading and me a lot of typing.

I don't see the relevance of that video. He rambled a lot about "why not ban handguns than" to which i would have answered: screw an outdated piece of constitution, get rid of em.

And what do you mean with "not one that is already happening". The SA and BlackShirts were formed before Hitler and Mussolini became Führer/Duce. They actively used civilians to ensure their rise to power. If you're going to use Germany and Italy as examples to defend the second amendment ask yourself this: How would arming civilians help stopping the rise of dictators which were backed by civilian militias and used those to ensure their dominance. Don't underestimate the role of the SA to beat down on socialist opponents or media that didn't support the Führer. And the King of Italy allowed Mussolini to become supreme ruler because he feared a civil war, would he have done the same if Mussolini didn't have a huge civilian armed militia on his side?

generals3:
Actually if you want to use European History the logical conclusion is that arming the civilian population to potentially fight dictators is the stupidest thing to do.

Really? Success does not mean they did not try. Mussolini was overthrown by the people. Germany's troops were harried constantly by armed civilians. The White Russians fought against the Communists. The Spanish fought against everybody. Thousands of Jews were saved by armed citizens in Belorussia. The Poles managed to build a significant army while under Nazi control. And the resistance was very large in Germany (cultural problems kept is quiet).

And that is just in the 20th century. If you go further back to the 1830s and even before then armed civilians were the ones that brought democracy to Europe in the first place. Plus, you have the Landwehr that fought against Napoleon and became a very liberal force within Prussia. And I can go on.

farson135:

Really? Success does not mean they did not try. Mussolini was overthrown by the people. Germany's troops were harried constantly by armed civilians. The White Russians fought against the Communists. The Spanish fought against everybody. Thousands of Jews were saved by armed citizens in Belorussia. The Poles managed to build a significant army while under Nazi control. And the resistance was very large in Germany (cultural problems kept is quiet).

And that is just in the 20th century. If you go further back to the 1830s and even before then armed civilians were the ones that brought democracy to Europe in the first place. Plus, you have the Landwehr that fought against Napoleon and became a very liberal force within Prussia. And I can go on.

Mussolini was losing battle after battle. He wouldn't have been overthrown if he wouldn't have engaged in crappy military campaigns. His own military dillusions overthrown him, not the people.

And how did the white russians and civilians harassing communists/german troops fare? Did they defeat the oppressor or die in vain? And did the Poles defeat any oppressors? No they lost to the nazis and soviets. Their "army" was a pointless waste of flesh. Just like the French Resistance for that matter. Actually the only kind of resistance that may have mattered was the Wehrmacht's officers hatred towards Hitler, they almost got him. And if you ask me that's how you defeat dictators: from the inside. Join the army, become an officer and turn the army against the fool. You know, just like Mubarak essentially got defeated by his own army which refused to kill Egyptians.

And off course the more you go back civilians mattered more. But do you know why? Because Governments had less power. Governments didn't have army with armament ridiculing any armament civilians could get. Oh sure be happy about your AR 15 but when that M1 Abrams is aiming at your house you might as well have had a pitchfork. Meanwhile back in time it was muskets vs muskets, swords vs swords, etc. The cost of proper military equipment was much much lower and as such the gap in armament was minimal. And that's why a lot of people say: the 2nd amendment is outdated (=> clear reference to the fact TIME matters)

Okay, while we're talking militias in Europe; let me just push forth a little example relating to this "armed uprising of a civilian militia" thing. Not to say anything about why you should or should not allow guns or militias or whatever. This post is also not directed at anyone specific, thus quoting nobody.

The schism between the Slovene Liberation Front and the Slovene Home Guard back then is still causing us all kinds of problems over here even today. The proponents of each side, today, still claim that they were the "true" defenders of the nation, while the "other guys" where just on the Nazi/Commie payroll. It was a complete clusterfuck and it still haunts us.

I'm half-convinced, give everyone over here 50 a gun, and they'll just off each other until only like 50 are remaining altogether. Obviously this is a hyperbole, but I'm just trying to illustrate just how deep the issue still goes, and it's hindering us, it's spitting us. Though, admittedly, lately people have been waking up, stopping to care about whose grandfather fought on which side, and realizing we have more immediate issues to tackle.

But what am I saying here? Right, basically that you can't assume an "armed uprising" will go the way you want it to go if it happens, and that there's no way you should consider it to necessarily bring a change for the better. It's not to be idealized. We're not in an action flick where the heroes ride into the sunset/bang the wench/whatever after they've shot up the place and made life a living hell for everyone living in it and not having plot armor.

Sixcess:
"The police department has also confirmed that there is usually a full-time sheriff's deputy on duty in the school"

Is this normal in the USA?

Speaking as a brit, it seems really strange to me that there'd be a (presumably armed) law enforcement officer in a school, all the time.

Yeah it's normal. I lived in rural Virgina, and we had two of them bitches in my Highschool, and Middle School. Though we only got a bombed threat like 6 times, and one was done my friend as a prank, or did she light a trash can on fire? She graduate that year too.

Sixcess:
"The police department has also confirmed that there is usually a full-time sheriff's deputy on duty in the school"

Is this normal in the USA?

Speaking as a brit, it seems really strange to me that there'd be a (presumably armed) law enforcement officer in a school, all the time.

Around here they started installing police in the schools a year or so after Columbine (which of course everyone claims is working because we haven't had a school spree shooting since, ignoring that we hadn't had one before either), along with a truly shocking number of cameras.

When my nephew hears me talk about what things were like when I was in high school and compares his to a prison, my new response is "and Newtown will be the reason your nephew (my grandnephew is 5, so we're talking about a decade away) compares his high school to a SuperMax."

farson135:

Strazdas:
Notice the difference though, he had a shotgun instead of a faster gun, no dead people.

Faster gun? A semiautomatic rifle is ineffective at close range. There are reports from the battlefield of insurgents being shot with an entire magazine of ammo and crawling away while the soldier is reloading. Shotguns are very effective at close range. Plus, you can fire one as fast as you can rack it and you can also reload it very quickly-

That's more because the 5.56x45 shot out of an M16A4 or M4A1 has shit for stopping power, not because it's coming from a semi-automatic rifle. I still agree that the semi-auto still sucks for close range, especially when compared to a shotgun, something I didn't think you agreed with at all, but for different reasons.

Edit: Bolded the specific part I'm addressing

generals3:
Mussolini was losing battle after battle. He wouldn't have been overthrown if he wouldn't have engaged in crappy military campaigns. His own military dillusions overthrown him, not the people.

No, the people overthrew him. Also, his economic and social policies pissed off a lot of people.

And how did the white russians and civilians harassing communists/german troops fare?

Quite well actually given their limited numbers and equipment.

And did the Poles defeat any oppressors?

Quite a few actually. That is why there are still Jews left in Poland.

Their "army" was a pointless waste of flesh.

Waste of flesh? Not only is that extremely insulting it is also wrong. The Germans wasted valuable manpower fighting against an inferior force.

And off course the more you go back civilians mattered more. But do you know why? Because Governments had less power.

Bullshit.

Oh sure be happy about your AR 15 but when that M1 Abrams is aiming at your house you might as well have had a pitchfork.

You think I care about the Abrams? Use it. I would love it if the US military used heavy armor against civilians. Not only because it would be a PR boon for the resistance but because you would have to supply it while all of your refineries are in flames and while your home base is rebelling.

Also, I will be very happy with my AR-10 since your average soldier cannot effectively engage a target at 300 meters. That means that I have 700 meters of range on them. Good luck.

Meanwhile back in time it was muskets vs muskets, swords vs swords, etc. The cost of proper military equipment was much much lower and as such the gap in armament was minimal.

The cost was lower? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

In comparison to what? A state with modern finances and modern manufacturing processes? You consider the cost in comparison to our times but not theirs.

And that's why a lot of people say: the 2nd amendment is outdated (=> clear reference to the fact TIME matters)

One of my favorite historical figures is a man by the name of Paul Emil von Lettow-Vorbeck. During his campaign in German East Africa his force of 14,000 men led a force of 150,000 British soldiers around in circles. The Germans easily won that campaign despite being horribly outnumbered and having far inferior equipment.

As for outdated, if I do not kill those wild pigs then who is going to? You? The government? Or what about my friend who lives on the Arizona/Mexico border? Who is going to protect him? The issues that made the 2nd Amendment necessary to begin with are still present.

LetalisK:

farson135:

Strazdas:
Notice the difference though, he had a shotgun instead of a faster gun, no dead people.

Faster gun? A semiautomatic rifle is ineffective at close range. There are reports from the battlefield of insurgents being shot with an entire magazine of ammo and crawling away while the soldier is reloading. Shotguns are very effective at close range. Plus, you can fire one as fast as you can rack it and you can also reload it very quickly-

That's more because the 5.56x45 shot out of an M16A4 or M4A1 has shit for stopping power, not because it's coming from a semi-automatic rifle. I still agree that the semi-auto still sucks for close range, especially when compared to a shotgun, something I didn't think you agreed with at all, but for different reasons.

Edit: Bolded the specific part I'm addressing

The problem with semi-auto firearms is that the bullet is traveling too fast. I am not aware of any common semi-auto rifle round (aside from the various .22 rounds) that would not overpenetrate too badly at say 10 yards. If you talk about a round like the .25-20 that is one thing but that is more of a lever action rifle round.

Why didn't you think I would agree?

This is not at all a surprise. When the media glorifies killers as much as they did, of course there will be copycats. If someone has given up on life, has no hope of any sort of satisfaction and nothing to lose, why not go for a brief bit of extreme notoriety before dying or going to jail forever?

Auron:
What was that?

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

Please try harder, the UK has had less spree shootings in thirty years than the US suffered in the last twelve months.

farson135:
Why didn't you think I would agree?

Never mind, I was thinking something else. XD

generals3:

farson135:

Really? Success does not mean they did not try. Mussolini was overthrown by the people. Germany's troops were harried constantly by armed civilians. The White Russians fought against the Communists. The Spanish fought against everybody. Thousands of Jews were saved by armed citizens in Belorussia. The Poles managed to build a significant army while under Nazi control. And the resistance was very large in Germany (cultural problems kept is quiet).

And that is just in the 20th century. If you go further back to the 1830s and even before then armed civilians were the ones that brought democracy to Europe in the first place. Plus, you have the Landwehr that fought against Napoleon and became a very liberal force within Prussia. And I can go on.

Mussolini was losing battle after battle. He wouldn't have been overthrown if he wouldn't have engaged in crappy military campaigns. His own military dillusions overthrown him, not the people.

And how did the white russians and civilians harassing communists/german troops fare? Did they defeat the oppressor or die in vain? And did the Poles defeat any oppressors? No they lost to the nazis and soviets. Their "army" was a pointless waste of flesh. Just like the French Resistance for that matter. Actually the only kind of resistance that may have mattered was the Wehrmacht's officers hatred towards Hitler, they almost got him. And if you ask me that's how you defeat dictators: from the inside. Join the army, become an officer and turn the army against the fool. You know, just like Mubarak essentially got defeated by his own army which refused to kill Egyptians.

And off course the more you go back civilians mattered more. But do you know why? Because Governments had less power. Governments didn't have army with armament ridiculing any armament civilians could get. Oh sure be happy about your AR 15 but when that M1 Abrams is aiming at your house you might as well have had a pitchfork. Meanwhile back in time it was muskets vs muskets, swords vs swords, etc. The cost of proper military equipment was much much lower and as such the gap in armament was minimal. And that's why a lot of people say: the 2nd amendment is outdated (=> clear reference to the fact TIME matters)

1. The US has armories, some of them aren't even fully staffed yet they have tanks, howitzers, and supplies out there in the yard. California alone has plenty of armories, the playing field will be leveled quickly. Since a rebellion has some time before the government responds, a smart one will take over the armories as their first action.

2. The US sucks at guerrilla warfare. Any time the modern military fights them, the US loses. Not only that, but we aren't even counting the soldiers who will inevitably defect. You cant order a soldier to shoot his own family and expect loyalty.

Well, unless you're Kony and it was pre-2006 Uganda.

3. Where's the oil gonna come from? America's infrastructure is bad as it is, supply lines would be hard to come by and easily ambushed and delayed.

4. The Abrams is actually a pretty shitty tank when push comes to shove, its incredibly expensive to make and logistically impossible to maintain in a civil war.

Its the King Tiger all over again. The US isn't rebellion proof as you think it is.

I find it funny that I can tell, within the first five posts, if a topic was moved here from Offtopic. Not only are there a clearly distinct method of posting and expressing oneself in the R&P that is separate from the other forums, but you realize how few people actually post in the R&P as compared to the OT.

And I'm just going to say, before this gets derailed into another gun-debate, that I find the thought of having a Police Officer in a school to be bizarre. Really, that's just fucked up. In a major university, with a campus, I can see it..But in a school? Eh..Maybe security-guards (I know some US-schools are fucking huge, with thousands of students), but police? Hm..

farson135:

As for outdated, if I do not kill those wild pigs then who is going to? You? The government? Or what about my friend who lives on the Arizona/Mexico border? Who is going to protect him? The issues that made the 2nd Amendment necessary to begin with are still present.

Alright, for this argument only, I'll bite: Wild boars? Hunting-rifles. No one ever claimed it should be illegal to hunt. Sweden, where I live, have an absurdly tight gun-law, but proportionately to population has a very high gun-concentration. Why? Hunting-rifles allowed for hunting (with proper licenses, etc). And yes, if you use them for 'self-defense', you will most likely (legal gray-area) go to jail.

Who will protect your friend? The police.
Not enough police-officers? Hire more, pay them higher wages.
No room for that in economics? Make cut-backs somewhere else. Maybe the army-budget, maybe state-spending, I don't know. But in most western nations, the police protects a states citizens. Citizens don't necessarily need to protect themselves. This issue has a solution that does not need to be 'guns'.

Realitycrash:

farson135:

As for outdated, if I do not kill those wild pigs then who is going to? You? The government? Or what about my friend who lives on the Arizona/Mexico border? Who is going to protect him? The issues that made the 2nd Amendment necessary to begin with are still present.

Alright, for this argument only, I'll bite: Wild boars? Hunting-rifles. No one ever claimed it should be illegal to hunt. Sweden, where I live, have an absurdly tight gun-law, but proportionately to population has a very high gun-concentration. Why? Hunting-rifles allowed for hunting (with proper licenses, etc). And yes, if you use them for 'self-defense', you will most likely (legal gray-area) go to jail.

Who will protect your friend? The police.
Not enough police-officers? Hire more, pay them higher wages.
No room for that in economics? Make cut-backs somewhere else. Maybe the army-budget, maybe state-spending, I don't know. But in most western nations, the police protects a states citizens. Citizens don't necessarily need to protect themselves. This issue has a solution that does not need to be 'guns'.

No on can afford more cops, and even when they do the cops do NOTHING.

California did a cop surge, and all that happened was nothing but bankruptcy.

Gangs still did whatever they wanted.

Cops were still spread thin.

Response time was just as bad in the areas that needed it most.

Whenever anyone does a "cop surge" it doesn't always go to everyone. Sometimes the cops just go to the richer areas Which never needed more cops in the first place. Nothing changed.

Ultratwinkie:

Realitycrash:

farson135:

As for outdated, if I do not kill those wild pigs then who is going to? You? The government? Or what about my friend who lives on the Arizona/Mexico border? Who is going to protect him? The issues that made the 2nd Amendment necessary to begin with are still present.

Alright, for this argument only, I'll bite: Wild boars? Hunting-rifles. No one ever claimed it should be illegal to hunt. Sweden, where I live, have an absurdly tight gun-law, but proportionately to population has a very high gun-concentration. Why? Hunting-rifles allowed for hunting (with proper licenses, etc). And yes, if you use them for 'self-defense', you will most likely (legal gray-area) go to jail.

Who will protect your friend? The police.
Not enough police-officers? Hire more, pay them higher wages.
No room for that in economics? Make cut-backs somewhere else. Maybe the army-budget, maybe state-spending, I don't know. But in most western nations, the police protects a states citizens. Citizens don't necessarily need to protect themselves. This issue has a solution that does not need to be 'guns'.

No on can afford more cops, and even when they do the cops do NOTHING.

California did a cop surge, and all that happened was nothing but bankruptcy.

Gangs still did whatever they wanted.

Cops were still spread thin.

Response time was just as bad in the areas that needed it most.

Whenever anyone does a "cop surge" it doesn't always go to everyone. Sometimes the cops just go to the richer areas Which never needed more cops in the first place. Nothing changed.

Cops who do nothing get fired. I think you don't fully understand how a police-department works if you think cops do 'nothing'.
Also, all these things you say are practical issues, not issues concerning the Second Amendment. You asked 'who will protect my friend?'
I answered: 'Police Officers, it's their job'.
You said: 'They are poor at their job and cost a lot of money'
To which I reply: Then get better cops and pay for them by making cut-backs.

I'm not claiming I have a way to explain how to afford paying for cops, or making them sufficiently effective in a large enough area to hamper crime. What I am saying is that 'we need the second amendment because people need to protect themselves' isn't an end-all solution. There ARE other solutions, and they seem to work fine for other nations. Right now no-one might be willing to pay for more police, rather than allowing people to defend themselves with their own weapons, but that doesn't mean that this is the only possible solution.
There will always be crime, so the 'reason for the second amendment' will always exist, if you think that protecting yourself from criminals is said reason. I'm saying that given sufficient police-protection, said reason becomes more trivial, even if there always will be a possibility of violent crime or threats.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked