Sandy Hook Elementary School Shootings

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Sam Harris, outspoken atheist whose books deal with topics from free will to the ridiculousness of religion, wrote a good FAQ the other day on his views of guns in America: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/faq-on-violence

"Many readers do not seem to understand how difficult it would be for the U.S. to follow the example of the U.K. or Australia, both of which stiffened their gun laws in response to atrocities similar to Newtown. Neither the U.K. nor Australia had anything like the level of gun ownership—or the political, legal, and historical commitment to it—that we have in the U.S. And the results of their own experiments with stricter laws have been ambiguous.

The murder rate in the U.S. has fallen by 50 percent in the last twenty years—so it is moving in the right direction despite the omnipresence of guns. It remains extremely high when compared to rates elsewhere in the developed world, of course. And there seems little doubt that access to guns has a lot to do with this. The pressing question, however, is not how we can get rid of these guns—because the barriers to doing so seem insuperable. The question is what should we do in light of the fact that dangerous people are guaranteed to have access to firearms in the U.S. for the foreseeable future."

Even if all the good citizens turned their guns in, the criminals sure as hell wouldn't follow suit (and it's irrational and ignorant to think they would).

Like I said before, I am for stricter background checks, limits on mags, etc...but don't take away my right to defend myself against some gang trying to break into my house (which happened to me as a kid - part of the reason why I am pro-gun).

For me, it's not about my right to fight back against a tyrannical government (and as has been stated above, is a preposterous thought), it's about my right to sleep soundly at night.

Good points about defense, sounds like you had a scary break-in.   The gun store near my house has so many cool surplus military bolt action rifles gathering dust because the assault rifles have been selling like hot cakes since sandy hook.

I'm unconvinced. When the research shows that "the claim of many millions of annual self-defense gun uses by American citizens is invalid" and that "Guns in the home are used more often to intimidate intimates than to thwart crime" and that "Adolescents are far more likely to be threatened with a gun than to use one in self-defense" then I do believe that this notion that guns increase self-defense to be nothing other than a fairy tale, more than likely concocted by the weapons industry.

[rab2591]

The murder rate in the U.S. has fallen by 50 percent in the last twenty years—so it is moving in the right direction despite the omnipresence of guns. It remains extremely high when compared to rates elsewhere in the developed world, of course. And there seems little doubt that access to guns has a lot to do with this.

I particularly like here how the last two sentences nullify the first one.

Like I said before, I am for stricter background checks, limits on mags, etc...but don't take away my right to defend myself against some gang trying to break into my house (which happened to me as a kid - part of the reason why I am pro-gun).

For me, it's not about my right to fight back against a tyrannical government (and as has been stated above, is a preposterous thought), it's about my right to sleep soundly at night.

But that, of course, is not what guns are typically used for. Guns, I think, typically give one the illusion of self-defense which is probably a comfortable illusion in a country where so many people have guns. Again, I refer you to the recent research findings which illustrated that many people who claim to have used guns in self defense pull them out in illegal and undesirable situations, and guns in a home are more likely to be used to intimidate family members than to defend against intruders.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use/index.html

It seems to me that in just about every scenario, then, access to guns works to threaten one's security rather than reinforce it.

The fact that citizens have guns probably deters a lot of criminals from committing acts of violence in the first place.

"Guns, I think, typically give one the illusion of self-defense which is probably a comfortable illusion in a country where so many people have guns."

I've been in situations before where it's not an illusion. Thus, given my anxiety-prone persona, I sleep better knowing I can defend myself in similar situations.

Besides, gun-control is a bandaid over the actual problem. The real question is what drives these criminals/psychos to murder in the first place....solve the actual problem and I'll willingly/gladly give up my firearms.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

The fact that citizens have guns probably deters a lot of criminals from committing acts of violence in the first place.

Probably not, actually. The United States is about on par with most other industrialized countries when it comes to crime with one exception - they are off the charts when it comes to gun violence. Otherwise, crime is about the same.

I've been in situations before where it's not an illusion. Thus, given my anxiety-prone persona, I sleep better knowing I can defend myself in similar situations.

I'm glad that was the case for you - of course, if people in the country didn't have the kind of access to guns you support, you wouldn't need to defend yourself with a gun. So I would suggest that it is an illusion. And it is certainly an illusion to believe that people are more likely to use a gun in self-defense rather than to threaten others.

Besides, gun-control is a bandaid over the actual problem. The real question is what drives these criminals/psychos to murder in the first place....solve the actual problem and I'll willingly/gladly give up my firearms.

That is a good question and certainly should be asked but in the meantime you could solve a lot of problems by significantly reducing access to guns. The other things will take a lot longer to address and fix.

[SMiLE Brian]

Sam Harris, outspoken atheist whose books deal with topics from free will to the ridiculousness of religion, wrote a good FAQ the other day on his views of guns in America: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/faq-on-violence

"Many readers do not seem to understand how difficult it would be for the U.S. to follow the example of the U.K. or Australia, both of which stiffened their gun laws in response to atrocities similar to Newtown. Neither the U.K. nor Australia had anything like the level of gun ownership—or the political, legal, and historical commitment to it—that we have in the U.S. And the results of their own experiments with stricter laws have been ambiguous.

The murder rate in the U.S. has fallen by 50 percent in the last twenty years—so it is moving in the right direction despite the omnipresence of guns. It remains extremely high when compared to rates elsewhere in the developed world, of course. And there seems little doubt that access to guns has a lot to do with this. The pressing question, however, is not how we can get rid of these guns—because the barriers to doing so seem insuperable. The question is what should we do in light of the fact that dangerous people are guaranteed to have access to firearms in the U.S. for the foreseeable future."

Even if all the good citizens turned their guns in, the criminals sure as hell wouldn't follow suit (and it's irrational and ignorant to think they would).

Like I said before, I am for stricter background checks, limits on mags, etc...but don't take away my right to defend myself against some gang trying to break into my house (which happened to me as a kid - part of the reason why I am pro-gun).

For me, it's not about my right to fight back against a tyrannical government (and as has been stated above, is a preposterous thought), it's about my right to sleep soundly at night.

Good points about defense, sounds like you had a scary break-in.   The gun store near my house has so many cool surplus military bolt action rifles gathering dust because the assault rifles have been selling like hot cakes since sandy hook.

I'm unconvinced. When the research shows that "the claim of many millions of annual self-defense gun uses by American citizens is invalid" and that "Guns in the home are used more often to intimidate intimates than to thwart crime" and that "Adolescents are far more likely to be threatened with a gun than to use one in self-defense" then I do believe that this notion that guns increase self-defense to be nothing other than a fairy tale, more than likely concocted by the weapons industry.

Not saying those aren't problems either, the real problem is a gun culture that mythologizes guns to the point of obsession. The truth is a firearm is a cold tool that should be kept under lock and key until it is needed to be used for target shooting, hunting, and self defense as a last resort. Hell, I don't understand why people like assault rifles in the USA either.

[rab2591]

The fact that citizens have guns probably deters a lot of criminals from committing acts of violence in the first place.

Probably not, actually. The United States is about on par with most other industrialized countries when it comes to crime with one exception - they are off the charts when it comes to gun violence. Otherwise, crime is about the same.

I've been in situations before where it's not an illusion. Thus, given my anxiety-prone persona, I sleep better knowing I can defend myself in similar situations.

I'm glad that was the case for you - of course, if people in the country didn't have the kind of access to guns you support, you wouldn't need to defend yourself with a gun. So I would suggest that it is an illusion. And it is certainly an illusion to believe that people are more likely to use a gun in self-defense rather than to threaten others.

Besides, gun-control is a bandaid over the actual problem. The real question is what drives these criminals/psychos to murder in the first place....solve the actual problem and I'll willingly/gladly give up my firearms.

That is a good question and certainly should be asked but in the meantime you could solve a lot of problems by significantly reducing access to guns. The other things will take a lot longer to address and fix.

On your first point: There are over 300 million firearms here in America (I'd suspect more than any other industrialized country)....take away the guns from responsible citizens, and you're left with a slew of criminals with firearms who have the knowledge that they have the upperhand in most confrontations (whether home breakins, robberies, etc).

Second point: Couldn't agree with you more. However, the damage has been done (300 million firearms on our streets now) and criminals won't magically hand over their firearms to the police (this is why even if strict gun control were to take place, Obama, Pelosi, and Justin Bieber would still have armed guards because they're not idealistic enough to believe that because the laws are in place everyone will follow those laws).

Third point: I've agreed that stricter guns laws should be put in place....stricter background checks, hell even psych evaluations. But to ban guns completely would be a foolish endeavor in America (what with the amount of guns (illegally or legally obtained) on our streets already).

[Chocolate Shake Man]

The fact that citizens have guns probably deters a lot of criminals from committing acts of violence in the first place.

Probably not, actually. The United States is about on par with most other industrialized countries when it comes to crime with one exception - they are off the charts when it comes to gun violence. Otherwise, crime is about the same.

I've been in situations before where it's not an illusion. Thus, given my anxiety-prone persona, I sleep better knowing I can defend myself in similar situations.

I'm glad that was the case for you - of course, if people in the country didn't have the kind of access to guns you support, you wouldn't need to defend yourself with a gun. So I would suggest that it is an illusion. And it is certainly an illusion to believe that people are more likely to use a gun in self-defense rather than to threaten others.

Besides, gun-control is a bandaid over the actual problem. The real question is what drives these criminals/psychos to murder in the first place....solve the actual problem and I'll willingly/gladly give up my firearms.

That is a good question and certainly should be asked but in the meantime you could solve a lot of problems by significantly reducing access to guns. The other things will take a lot longer to address and fix.

On your first point: There are over 300 million firearms here in America (I'd suspect more than any other industrialized country)....take away the guns from responsible citizens, and you're left with a slew of criminals with firearms who have the knowledge that they have the upperhand in most confrontations (whether home breakins, robberies, etc).

Second point: Couldn't agree with you more. However, the damage has been done (300 million firearms on our streets now) and criminals won't magically hand over their firearms to the police (this is why even if strict gun control were to take place, Obama, Pelosi, and Justin Bieber would still have armed guards because they're not idealistic enough to believe that because the laws are in place everyone will follow those laws).

Third point: I've agreed that stricter guns laws should be put in place....stricter background checks, hell even psych evaluations. But to ban guns completely would be a foolish endeavor in America (what with the amount of guns (illegally or legally obtained) on our streets already).

You may misunderstand my point, then. It's a difficult process but gun control does not in itself mean that you immediately "ban guns completely." I mean, yes, that would make for a good end goal but I can't imagine that you could ever do that right away.  So, on this count, I think we could largely agree or at least come to an agreement. I do think that this bit about how if you ban guns then only criminals would have access to guns is pretty misleading. That simply doesn't happen to any serious degree in countries where access to guns is minimal because the access is restricted to criminals as well. So one could say theoretically that the criminal element in England could have the upperhand but the fact is that typically they don't and it's probably because they can't.

[SMiLE Brian]

Another problem that faces the United States is controlling the black-market of weapons to and from Mexico right now.

[GreatUrduPoet]

Another problem that faces the United States is controlling the black-market of weapons to and from Mexico right now.

It might be less of a problem if the Justice Department didn't themselves aid and abet illegal gun trafficking using taxpayer money:

http://www.amazon.com/Fast-Furious-Bloodiest-Shameless-Cover-Up/dp/1596983213/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1357933167&sr=1-1&keywords=Fast+%26+Furious

[rab2591]

The fact that citizens have guns probably deters a lot of criminals from committing acts of violence in the first place.

Probably not, actually. The United States is about on par with most other industrialized countries when it comes to crime with one exception - they are off the charts when it comes to gun violence. Otherwise, crime is about the same.

I've been in situations before where it's not an illusion. Thus, given my anxiety-prone persona, I sleep better knowing I can defend myself in similar situations.

I'm glad that was the case for you - of course, if people in the country didn't have the kind of access to guns you support, you wouldn't need to defend yourself with a gun. So I would suggest that it is an illusion. And it is certainly an illusion to believe that people are more likely to use a gun in self-defense rather than to threaten others.

Besides, gun-control is a bandaid over the actual problem. The real question is what drives these criminals/psychos to murder in the first place....solve the actual problem and I'll willingly/gladly give up my firearms.

That is a good question and certainly should be asked but in the meantime you could solve a lot of problems by significantly reducing access to guns. The other things will take a lot longer to address and fix.

On your first point: There are over 300 million firearms here in America (I'd suspect more than any other industrialized country)....take away the guns from responsible citizens, and you're left with a slew of criminals with firearms who have the knowledge that they have the upperhand in most confrontations (whether home breakins, robberies, etc).

Second point: Couldn't agree with you more. However, the damage has been done (300 million firearms on our streets now) and criminals won't magically hand over their firearms to the police (this is why even if strict gun control were to take place, Obama, Pelosi, and Justin Bieber would still have armed guards because they're not idealistic enough to believe that because the laws are in place everyone will follow those laws).

Third point: I've agreed that stricter guns laws should be put in place....stricter background checks, hell even psych evaluations. But to ban guns completely would be a foolish endeavor in America (what with the amount of guns (illegally or legally obtained) on our streets already).

You may misunderstand my point, then. It's a difficult process but gun control does not in itself mean that you immediately "ban guns completely." I mean, yes, that would make for a good end goal but I can't imagine that you could ever do that right away. I do think that this bit about how if you ban guns then only criminals would have access to guns is pretty misleading. That simply doesn't happen to any serious degree in countries where access to guns is minimal because the access is restricted to criminals as well. So one could say theoretically that the criminal element in England could have the upperhand but the fact is that typically they don't and it's probably because they can't.

Crime is an industry in this country - and criminals will ALWAYS have access to guns (heck, our government was giving guns to criminals not but a few years ago (fast and furious))...even if you were to ban guns (in a transition that lasted a while), with the amount already here in the country criminals would be hard-pressed not to find a gun somehow.

And as Mr. Harris pointed out in that article, it is silly to compare the US to the UK in regards to gun control - the UK never had the amount of firearms that we have...they never had the gun culture that we have here.

Guns aren't the actual problem here. From the war on drugs, inner-city life, abusive spouses, etc...The fact that government is unwilling to solve the primary problems make me wary of their motivations for gun control in the first place.

Once the government/society starts solving these problems, the more inclined I will be to giving up my firearms.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Crime is an industry in this country - and criminals will ALWAYS have access to guns (heck, our government was giving guns to criminals not but a few years ago (fast and furious))...even if you were to ban guns (in a transition that lasted a while), with the amount already here in the country criminals would be hard-pressed not to find a gun somehow.

And as Mr. Harris pointed out in that article, it is silly to compare the US to the UK in regards to gun control - the UK never had the amount of firearms that we have...they never had the gun culture that we have here.

Again, there's nothing I can see that makes the United States substantively different in terms of crime, other than gun-related deaths. Also, I don't mean to be too dismissive but I think that Sam Harris is a vulgar charlatan and place very little stock in anything he says. I do agree that you cannot compare the US to the UK which is why gun control should be a long process in the United States.

Guns aren't the actual problem here. From the war on drugs, inner-city life, abusive spouses, etc...The fact that government is unwilling to solve the primary problems make me wary of their motivations for gun control in the first place.

Well, the government is typically not that motivated in terms of gun control and haven't been for a long time. But to pretend as if guns aren't a problem is to be living in a dream world and it's ok to live in a dream world until you are putting 80+ people to death a day precisely because you're living in a dream world.  As far as I'm concerned there is one element that puts out the notion that guns aren't a problem - namely gun manufacturers who proceed to fund a major lobby group called the NRA that works to largely brainwash people into believing that guns aren't a problem. It's an effective campaign given just how transparent the problem really is.

Once the government/society starts solving these problems, the more inclined I will be to giving up my firearms.

Why can't we solve several problems at once?

[GreatUrduPoet]

No guns = No Republic. Nothing complicated there. If one is a fan of tyranny, disarm voluntarily by all means. A man is being prosecuted in the U.K. now because the family dog might have injured a burglar who was breaking into his home. That's the kind of America that I've been longing for. Personal property rights and individual self-defense are all so "20th Century".

[Jason]

[rab2591]

Crime is an industry in this country - and criminals will ALWAYS have access to guns (heck, our government was giving guns to criminals not but a few years ago (fast and furious))...even if you were to ban guns (in a transition that lasted a while), with the amount already here in the country criminals would be hard-pressed not to find a gun somehow.

And as Mr. Harris pointed out in that article, it is silly to compare the US to the UK in regards to gun control - the UK never had the amount of firearms that we have...they never had the gun culture that we have here.

Again, there's nothing I can see that makes the United States substantively different in terms of crime, other than gun-related deaths. Also, I don't mean to be too dismissive but I think that Sam Harris is a vulgar charlatan and place very little stock in anything he says. I do agree that you cannot compare the US to the UK which is why gun control should be a long process in the United States.

Guns aren't the actual problem here. From the war on drugs, inner-city life, abusive spouses, etc...The fact that government is unwilling to solve the primary problems make me wary of their motivations for gun control in the first place.

Well, the government is typically not that motivated in terms of gun control and haven't been for a long time. But to pretend as if guns aren't a problem is to be living in a dream world and it's ok to live in a dream world until you are putting 80+ people to death a day precisely because you're living in a dream world.  As far as I'm concerned there is one element that puts out the notion that guns aren't a problem - namely gun manufacturers who proceed to fund a major lobby group called the NRA that works to largely brainwash people into believing that guns aren't a problem. It's an effective campaign given just how transparent the problem really is.

Once the government/society starts solving these problems, the more inclined I will be to giving up my firearms.

Why can't we solve several problems at once?

On your first point: If you take guns away these criminals won't magically stop killing nor committing crime. A man can just as easily intimidate his wife with a steak-knife as he can with a gun (and as you say, a lot of gun related deaths are not out of self defense, but intimidation in the home environment). Taking guns away won't solve the problem of domestic violence - it will just force people to resort to other measures of violence.

On your second point: guns in the hands of criminals are a problem. Guns in the hands of a hunter, a concerned citizen who is afraid of burglary is not a problem, in my opinion. Make people take mandatory gun safety classes, psych evaluations, have clip-size regulation, mandatory gun-safes, etc - but to take away all guns is utterly ridiculous. There are ways to regulate guns that could deter crime as well as keep guns in the hands of responsible citizens.

On your third point: I don't see firearms in the hands of responsible citizens a problem. I see firearms in the hands of criminals as a problem. Solving what makes criminals tick may be a start to curve the gun-related deaths in this country. Get guns out of the hands of criminals, and people in America will be more than happy to give up their firearms.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

No guns = No Republic.

That wasn't true in India. They kicked out the British with passive resistance and that was when the British were more powerful.

So, yes, that's bulls#!t - another myth perpetuated in order to keep the weapons industry profiting.

If one is a fan of tyranny, disarm voluntarily by all means.

I suggest you look back at the thread. I mean, this claim is even more ludicrous than the first one. This is not 1776. You're living in a highly technological first world country that has the most powerful military in the world and an enormous stock of nuclear weapons. If you are going to pretend as if you could fight off the tyranny of that kind of state with guns, then you might as well be living on Neptune. Furthermore, it is simply ignorant of how power operates now. Now, the country is owned by a small group of wealthy elite who are far more powerful than the government. They essentially create the day-to-day conditions of the nation, they basically decide who gets into power, and most importantly they control information and knowledge. The way you truly subordinate people is not by taking away their guns - that may have been true in 1776 or it may be true now in Somalia or something but it's a different world now. Now, you subordinate people by shaping their beliefs to the extent that they share the same point of view as the extremely small minority running the country and exploiting the population. Once the population dutifully argues in favour of their own exploitation, which is by now the norm, it doesn't matter if they have guns or not. Obviously if an authoritarian tyranny is truly going to work, it will work best when the population doesn't realize it's being subordinated or gleefully subordinates themselves. Therefore the powerful elements in society are only too happy that the population is misguided into the belief that the real enemy is some government planning on taking their guns.

[Bean Bag]

Get guns out of the hands of criminals, and people in America will be more than happy to give up their firearms.

You're on the right track.

I've got the solution to all this.  We don't want bad guys to have guns... or really -- to do bad things with guns.  I mean, who knows who the bad guys are right?  Right.  So, what I'm proposing we do to get the guns out of bad guy's hands is this:  We put guns in the hands of good guys.  And as the bad guy tries to do something bad with the guns in his hands, the good guys unload on the bad guy before another school shooting can be completed.

It's gonna be tough.  But it's fool proof... even with all the fools 'round here.

Allow me to explain.  Studies and research has shown, these school shootings only end when the assailant is dead.  And they end up dead when they realize that the good guys are on their way.  And it's then and only then that they end their cowardly assault and take their own cowardly life.  But... what if the good guys are already there?  It would only end that much quicker!  Eventually, it might even stop for good!

This is a positive solution that is inarguable.  And I'm being genuine... I have no evil, crackpot agenda like all the Leftist.  No theories.  No laws.  No loss of freedom.  No mistrust and disdain for human independence!  Only REAL SECURITY.  Like the kind all the rich liberals have for their rich politician kids.  REAL solutions.  No phony bologna, Bill Clinton style "feel good" laws... like "gun free zones."  Oh... sleep easy tonight parents...your child is safely packed into a GUN FREE CLASSROOM!  

I laugh... well, because our adversaries on this topic actually think they're smart.  They're not smart.  Show me how they are smart!  You can't!  No one can!  They're failures!  They only present vague, feel-good sissy theories.  They NEVER WORK!  "let's limit the amount of bullets.  and... and.. let's only allow this gun." Poo on that!  Poo on them!!  I present strong, bold solutions that work!  Solutions that take their little baby ideas and crush them like the doo-doo they are.

Run home to your mommies liberals. Your disingenuous, lame-o ideas stink on ice.  Quit boring people with your stupidity.  Lick your wounds and come back MEN!

 

Next topic.


 

[GreatUrduPoet]

No guns = No Republic.

That wasn't true in India. They kicked out the British with passive resistance and that was when the British were more powerful.

So, yes, that's bulls#!t - another myth perpetuated in order to keep the weapons industry profiting.

If one is a fan of tyranny, disarm voluntarily by all means.

I suggest you look back at the thread. I mean, this claim is even more ludicrous than the first one. This is not 1776. You're living in a highly technological first world country that has the most powerful military in the world and an enormous stock of nuclear weapons. If you are going to pretend as if you could fight off the tyranny of that kind of state with guns, then you might as well be living on Neptune. Furthermore, it is simply ignorant of how power operates now. Now, the country is owned by a small group of wealthy elite who are far more powerful than the government. They essentially create the day-to-day conditions of the nation, they basically decide who gets into power, and most importantly they control information and knowledge. The way you truly subordinate people is not by taking away their guns - that may have been true in 1776 or it may be true now in Somalia or something but it's a different world now. Now, you subordinate people by shaping their beliefs to the extent that they share the same point of view as the extremely small minority running the country and exploiting the population. Once the population dutifully argues in favour of their own exploitation, which is by now the norm, it doesn't matter if they have guns or not. Obviously if an authoritarian tyranny is truly going to work, it will work best when the population doesn't realize it's being subordinated or gleefully subordinates themselves. Therefore the powerful elements in society are only too happy that the population is misguided into the belief that the real enemy is some government planning on taking their guns.

"Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." - Mohandas Gandhi, an Autobiography, page 446.

[SMiLE Brian]

Can we have an honest debate here without yelling out soundbites and claiming the other political side is "evil"

[Chocolate Shake Man]

No guns = No Republic.

That wasn't true in India. They kicked out the British with passive resistance and that was when the British were more powerful.

So, yes, that's bulls#!t - another myth perpetuated in order to keep the weapons industry profiting.

If one is a fan of tyranny, disarm voluntarily by all means.

I suggest you look back at the thread. I mean, this claim is even more ludicrous than the first one. This is not 1776. You're living in a highly technological first world country that has the most powerful military in the world and an enormous stock of nuclear weapons. If you are going to pretend as if you could fight off the tyranny of that kind of state with guns, then you might as well be living on Neptune. Furthermore, it is simply ignorant of how power operates now. Now, the country is owned by a small group of wealthy elite who are far more powerful than the government. They essentially create the day-to-day conditions of the nation, they basically decide who gets into power, and most importantly they control information and knowledge. The way you truly subordinate people is not by taking away their guns - that may have been true in 1776 or it may be true now in Somalia or something but it's a different world now. Now, you subordinate people by shaping their beliefs to the extent that they share the same point of view as the extremely small minority running the country and exploiting the population. Once the population dutifully argues in favour of their own exploitation, which is by now the norm, it doesn't matter if they have guns or not. Obviously if an authoritarian tyranny is truly going to work, it will work best when the population doesn't realize it's being subordinated or gleefully subordinates themselves. Therefore the powerful elements in society are only too happy that the population is misguided into the belief that the real enemy is some government planning on taking their guns.

"Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." - Mohandas Gandhi, an Autobiography, page 446.

Yeah, thanks for the usual quote that I see consistently from the reactionary right - a real testament to the lack of independent thought amongst your ranks. Again, like I said in the post that you quoted entirely without addressing, the United States is not a third world country, nor are they currently in a colonial relationship. To use the situation of India in the early 20th century to make a comparable case for the US now is a textbook definition of ignorance. And even if that's what Gandhi felt, he nevertheless illustrated very clearly how colonial power can be overthrown without guns and therefore your initial point before you shifted the goalposts that "No guns = No Republic" is flat out false.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Get guns out of the hands of criminals, and people in America will be more than happy to give up their firearms.

You're on the right track.

I've got the solution to all this.  We don't want bad guys to have guns... or really -- to do bad things with guns.  I mean, who knows who the bad guys are right?  Right.  So, what I'm proposing we do to get the guns out of bad guy's hands is this:  We put guns in the hands of good guys.  And as the bad guy tries to do something bad with the guns in his hands, the good guys unload on the bad guy before another school shooting can be completed.

It's gonna be tough.  But it's fool proof... even with all the fools 'round here.

Allow me to explain.  Studies and research has shown, these school shootings only end when the assailant is dead.  And they end up dead when they realize that the good guys are on their way.  And it's then and only then that they end their cowardly assault and take their own cowardly life.  But... what if the good guys are already there?  It would only end that much quicker!  Eventually, it might even stop for good!

This is a positive solution that is inarguable.  And I'm being genuine... I have no evil, crackpot agenda like all the Leftist.  No theories.  No laws.  No loss of freedom.  No mistrust and disdain for human independence!  Only REAL SECURITY.  Like the kind all the rich liberals have for their rich politician kids.  REAL solutions.  No phony bologna, Bill Clinton style "feel good" laws... like "gun free zones."  Oh... sleep easy tonight parents...your child is safely packed into a GUN FREE CLASSROOM!  

I laugh... well, because our adversaries on this topic actually think they're smart.  They're not smart.  Show me how they are smart!  You can't!  No one can!  They're failures!  They only present vague, feel-good sissy theories.  They NEVER WORK!  "let's limit the amount of bullets.  and... and.. let's only allow this gun." Poo on that!  Poo on them!!  I present strong, bold solutions that work!  Solutions that take their little baby ideas and crush them like the doo-doo they are.

Run home to your mommies liberals. Your disingenuous, lame-o ideas stink on ice.  Quite boring people with your stupidity.  Lick your wounds and come back MEN!

 

Next topic.


 

"Good guys with guns"?  I love this line of bullsh*t..... A good guy with a gun is a guy I don't want to get into an argument around the dinner table with.... I've actually seen people threatened with guns and shot this way... No joke!

The good guys you're talking about who motivated these school shooters to take themselves out weren't a posse of overweight, wheezing white guys with assault rifles, they were cops, swat teams, etc etc.... I hate the police state this country has become, but I'd be far more scared of a bunch of hicks patrolling the streets "keepin dem bad guys off my property, dammit"!!! ... First off, they'd probably shoot me on site for being "some kind of a Mexican or Arab" and they'd be little more than a less intelligent and less agile version of the lowest squad of SS thugs.... and with far worse taste in beer.

Oh, the endless entertainment you folk provide due to a cursory (to be generous) understanding of the word "liberal" ....

[hypehat]

Bean Bag, you are Wayne LaPierre and I claim my £5

[Bean Bag]

"Good guys with guns"?  I love this line of bullsh*t..... A good guy with a gun is a guy I don't want to get into an argument around the dinner table with.... I've actually seen people threatened with guns and shot this way... No joke!

That's impossible.  An illogical impossibility, what you just described.

I'd be far more scared of a bunch of hicks patrolling the streets ... they'd probably shoot me on site

Sure, the "We'll just become Dodge City" maneuver.  That's a good one.  Would you like me to show you what's wrong with this?

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

What's impossible? And a moron with a gun is supposed to be logical? Tell this to my friend Pat who got into an argument with a friend at a BBQ (held in honor of him enlisting in the Marines) and this friend went in the house and came back, held a gun to Pat's head before it was taken away from him by a "responsible gun owner" .... Oh, but the gun went off as he was showing off how to safely unload it and hit
Pat in the leg severing an artery. He was dead before he made it to the hospital.

You are a fucking idiot.

[Bean Bag]

What's impossible?

This is...

A good guy with a gun is a guy I don't want to get into an argument ... with."

This is illogical, Pinder.  It's impossible!  Why would one fear a good guy with a gun?  Totally ridiculous!  Unless... (wait for it...)

You are a f***ing idiot.

  You're words not mine.

Ok... I really don't think you're an idiot.  Just emotional.  But, I do find it rich that you're calling me an idiot.  Especially after relaying a story that likely involved people calling people idiots.  (This is called irony.)  Actually, much of your rhetoric pertaining to this issue points to a self-fulfilling prophecy thing.  Shall I explain?  Well... since you admitted to owning a gun in an earlier post -- and given that you've just attacked me personally ("You are a f***ing idiot.") -- by your own "rationale" you are the hot-tempered idiot with a gun that you fear.  And you need to hand'em over.   

Clearly... you're at an intellectual disadvantage on this issue now.  Your south wall has been severely comprised.  Would you like to forfeit?  Cuz it's gonna get worse.   

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

I don't presently own a gun and you are an absolute moron. Just a lummox with a keyboard. You are at an intellectual disadvantage in general.
You are a completely cool aid drunk indoctrinated scoundrel who thinks this fact makes you some sort of great intellectual but all you can do us put other people. Yes, I am putting you down at the moment, but you deserve it.

What I meant is there so no such thing as a good guy with a gun. We all have the potential for losing control. Every single one of us. This is not some sort of emotional video game with points and scores. You are a complete idiot.

And the guy who accidentally (but stupidly) shot and killed my friend was an off-duty police officer. Good guys make mistakes too.

[Bean Bag]

if you fast forward to the end of my presentation... it says that you can't legislate away evil.  Your story is a testament to my point.