Freedom is dangerous, we should just get rid of it. The Government will take of us I'm sure.
Ummm....shows how much you know about politics, guns take away freedoms, they take away lives..
So based on your picture, you're comparing a nation such as the UK (with its strict gun laws as pointed out in my previous post) to right wing Nazi germany yeah?
Who is more right wing at the moment the USA or the UK?
USA is waaay more right wing bud, I know which country I'm safer in and I also know which country I'm more free in Freedom =/= everyone owning guns!
Back during the 1700-1800ss the second amendment allowed people to form their own militias. 40 muskets is a pretty hefty sum of people and they can get a point across should the government become too oppressive (in theory)
But nowadays one guy can go grab an AR and do the work of 60 people back then, its stupid.
If the government really wanted to get rid of guns they could buy EVERY gun for $10k, pretty much everyone will jump to that deal. If the government always offers to purchase guns for 10 thousands dollars then anytime one is present in society people will want to turn it in for the reward.
It's sad how people buy into the "hey guys look how bad the world is getting!! omg lol it's so wicked and stuff #comequickly" hype without actually researching the topic. Media is bigger and can spread news much faster than in the past. It has a way of skewing your view of the real world.
"You want to know why. This may sound cynical, but here's why.
It's because of the way the media reports it. Flip on the news and watch how we treat the Batman theater shooter and the Oregon mall shooter like celebrities. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris are household names, but do you know the name of a single *victim* of Columbine? Disturbed
people who would otherwise just off themselves in their basements see the news and want to top it by doing something worse, and going out in a memorable way. Why a grade school? Why children? Because he'll be remembered as a horrible monster, instead of a sad nobody.
CNN's article says that if the body count "holds up", this will rank as the second deadliest shooting behind Virginia Tech, as if statistics somehow make one shooting worse than another. Then they post a video interview of third-graders for all the details of what they saw and heard while the shootings were happening. Fox News has plastered the killer's face on all their reports for hours. Any articles or news stories yet that focus on the victims and ignore the killer's identity? None that I've seen yet. Because they don't sell. So congratulations, sensationalist media, you've just lit the fire for someone to top this and knock off a day care center or a maternity ward next.
You can help by forgetting you ever read this man's name, and remembering the name of at least one victim. You can help by donating to mental health research instead of pointing to gun control as the problem. You can help by turning off the news."
lol just because you ban guns doesnt mean every gang banger wont use theirs
People get stabbed lets ban every pointy thing in existance
If you sick in the head youll find a way to kill someone,look at people in prison
they find creative ways of shanking u lol
People like to blame anything and everything
lets all live in bubble wrap..stay home and wear our rfid chips,w'll be safer
Heres a thought why dont we help people out? talk,stop socially outcasting people ,stop being consummer whores..kindda hard to have morals when only thing u live for is ur next ios update @Skillmister hahahha wow great post with the facebook quotes lol that was crazy
lol, all you guys saying that owning guns is integral to your rights, and that you need them to rise up...
that's great!
but there comes a point when you have to ask yourself the following question:
sure, if someone is deranged enough that they want to go out and kill a number of people, then they will find a way to do it... but that said, why should you make it easier for them to do it, and particularly with weapons that are so easy to use to maximum lethal effect?
and again, something i've said before: anybody who owns a gun does so because they one day intend to use it. there is no such thing as an accidental shooting, or death by firearm. it's a lethal weapon and owning one comes with the responsibility of knowing that.
most americans... wait, most PEOPLE understand that, and i'm sure there are a huge amount of the american population who respect that fact. but unfortunately there's also a huge population who don't. and it's that population that needs to be controlled.
if infringing on your god given right to bear a lethal weapon should, in some small way, make your country a safer place to live... surely it's for the better?
and remember, gun control is NOT the same as making guns illegal. there are other countries in the world that have legalized gun control, with far fewer gun related crimes/deaths per capita than the US.
lol just because you ban guns doesnt mean every gang banger wont use theirs
People get stabbed lets ban every pointy thing in existance
If you sick in the head youll find a way to kill someone,look at people in prison
they find creative ways of shanking u lol
People like to blame anything and everything
lets all live in bubble wrap..stay home and wear our rfid chips,w'll be safer
Heres a thought why dont we help people out? talk,stop socially outcasting people ,stop being consummer whores..kindda hard to have morals when only thing u live for is ur next ios update @Skillmister hahahha wow great post with the facebook quotes lol that was crazy
they introduced knife control laws in the UK a few years ago, and the decrease in knife related crimes is actually pretty huge.
i should note, that the number of knife related murders/attempted murders has only dropped by a few percent, BUT again that comes down to "if someone really wants to, they will... and you can get a knife from your kitchen to do it".
but general knife crimes have fallen by over 15% in crimes such as robbery, and almost 40% in the case of sexual assaults.
so again... if somebody REALLY wants to commit a gun related crime in the US, they can... and lets face it you probably could find a gun in your kitchen in the US. so what would you say if gun control dropped crime by those same amounts? would that not be worth it? especially when you consider that all it takes is the pull of a trigger for one of the non-lethal crimes to suddenly turn lethal... at least with knives, there's a strong chance of surviving an attack unless they REALLY want you dead.
Hello, Polycount! It's been a long time. You never call, you don't write...
I'm an American, a gun owner, and I think that it is far too easy to get a gun in America. Guns are too woven into the fabric of American culture to make an outright ban possible (nor would I want one), but there is a lot of reasonable middle ground between the current legislation and the outlawing all firearms.
First, mandatory training and licensing for firearms as is done with motor vehicles. No one wants to share the road with untrained, unlicensed drivers, and no one complains that having to get a license or register their vehicle is a threat to their freedom; firearms ought to be similarly licensed.
Second, a stronger degree of culpability for negligently allowing the use of your firearms in the commission of a crime. Many gun crimes, including this school shooting, are committed with legally purchased but unsecured weapons. If you own firearms, you are responsible for storing them in such a way that no one else can access them. If a homeowner with an unsecured swimming pool negligently allows a neighbor's child to drown while he's not home, the homeowner can be charged with a crime (attractive nuisance laws). Firearms should be similarly secured.
Personally, I keep the one gun I own in a locked case, and the key hidden away where it won't be found. And even if it somehow should be found, I literally don't keep one single round of ammunition in my house, making my gun less deadly than any of the knives in my kitchen. While I wouldn't say that degree of caution is necessary in every case, a gun owner should be the ONLY person with access to their weapons and ammunition. Yesterday's shooter killed his mother with one of her own weapons and used her other firearms to kill children in the school.
Regarding the Second Amendment, I think many Americans forget that what makes the Constitution such an amazing document isn't that it was perfect as written the first time, but that it's flexible - *amendable* - and can be updated as the nation changes. The original, ratified Constitution did not outlaw slavery, ensure equal protections or give women the right to vote. It took later amendments to do that. Newer Amendments can even override earlier ones, as the Twenty-first Amendment repealed the Eighteenth (prohibition of alcohol.)
The fact that the founding fathers didn't look at the muzzle-loading flintlock rifles they took hunting and recognize a need for future firearm legislation is not a coffin nail in the debate. Our world has changed since 1788; the Constitution can change accordingly. If the Second Amendment won't allow for better licensing and legislation of firearms, then it's time to update the Second Amendment.
"anybody who owns a gun does so because they one day intend to use it. there is no such thing as an accidental shooting, or death by firearm. it's a lethal weapon and owning one comes with the responsibility of knowing that."
anybody who goes swimming does so because they like to swim. there is no such thing as an accidental drowning.... it's a lethal to inhale water and swimming comes with the responsibility of knowing that.
anybody who buys a car does so because they like to drive. there is no such thing as an accidental hit and run.... it's a lethal to be struck by a car and driving comes with the responsibility of knowing that.
lol, all you guys saying that owning guns is integral to your rights, and that you need them to rise up...
I laugh when I encounter people making that argument, because they never seem to consider the logistics involved.
When the Second Amendment was written, the American army and individual American civilians had almost exactly the same weaponry in the form of muzzleloading, single shot pistols and rifles. The army would have had some cannons and artillery, but nothing that would make rebellion impossible. All in all, an armed uprising was still entirely possible, as shown by the revolution just a decade and a half earlier.
Today, however... If the American army is *really* coming for you, they're not going to use handguns and hunting rifles. They're going to roll up your driveway with an M1 Abrams or drop laser guided munitions on you from an F18. While a populace armed with millions of semi-automatic weapons could resist for a time, if the army decides it's cool with killing American civilians, the American civilians can do exactly jack and shit about it.
As pertains to personal or home defense from similarly armed attackers, the right to bear arms is still a law that makes sense. With regards to armed revolution against the American military, the right to bear arms is a ragged 'security' blanket that people cuddle up with to better forget they have no fucking chance whatsoever of overthrowing the government in an armed conflict.
"anybody who owns a gun does so because they one day intend to use it. there is no such thing as an accidental shooting, or death by firearm. it's a lethal weapon and owning one comes with the responsibility of knowing that."
anybody who goes swimming does so because they like to swim. there is no such thing as an accidental drowning.... it's a lethal to inhale water and swimming comes with the responsibility of knowing that.
you ever hear of someone going swimming and someone else drowning as a result of it?
As pertains to personal or home defense from similarly armed attackers, the right to bear arms is still a law that makes sense. With regards to armed revolution against the American military, the right to bear arms is a ragged 'security' blanket that people cuddle up with to better forget they have no fucking chance whatsoever of overthrowing the government in an armed conflict.
That's more of an argument against the military-industrial complex, against keeping such a huge and powerful military, and a warning at just how bad things can get when we let the government get out of hand in the first place.
The people who would argue for gun-rights as an anti-government measure would (or at least should anyway) also argue in favor of stripping down government power, especially the military, to exactly a proportion so that an armed rebellion would be possible.
Hey, I don't want to argue one way or another how guns should be handled. It's only treating the symptom. I just think that we as a society do such a poor job in preventing people from going over the edge and hurting people. If we could effectively deal with the issues that cause violent behavior, issues like gun control wouldn't exist.
I feel bad for the kids that lost their lives, their parents and anyone else involved in this mess.
As a swede, it's pretty hard for me to grasp the gun debate. Personally I'm terrified of guns and abhorred by the need for them at all. Just seeing a swedish police officer with his sig sauer in his holster makes me tense up a bit.
If I knew that one of my neighbours kept guns I would definately feel more afraid than safe or perhaps even intimitaded enough to get a gun of my own purely out of fear for my own life myself and those I care for.
I think your average citizen is of average intelligence and will probably act as such.
As I said, I'm not too familiar with the US constition and laws so;
How exactly would the second amendment be used to "deterr a tyrannical government" (wikipedia) in a modern day society?
EDIT:
Missed topic, of course it as a incredible tragedy for everyone and I hope any afflicted the best, impossible to imagine such suffering from any angle.
There has been a lot great points made regarding it's cause and effect and I don't want to discredit anyone's emotional or mental response by concluding that outcome of school shooting will always result in hearts broken.
Why not? negligence in any environment can result in death
your argument was that there are never accidents with firearms, because they are lethal, and anyone that owns one should expect lethal consequences
I'm asserting that your acting like a silly person using that kind of logic...
Is it not silly using the argument that since cars and water can inflict the same type of damage as a gun(death?) that would in some way make the regulation and control of guns bad, and it's critique invalid?
Why not? negligence in any environment can result in death
Of course, over-consumption of any type of beverage, food or natural resource will lead to death. But the fact of the matter is that since guns are primarily constructed to kill and Cars are primarily not, the use and abuse of these items are and will always be different.
Regarding water; if the negatives for restricting water would weigh more than the positives, this argument would be good(same with cars, roller blades, bouncy castles). But both you and I see where this logic fails, and I don't think it needs more iteration.
Freedom is dangerous, we should just get rid of it. The Government will take of us I'm sure.
This joke that USA is a free country is so ridiculous, why not just agree to the fact that you like guns and shooting guns are a blast.
The US will still be the same segregated, country, with the same types of criminals in the same types of jails, from the same type of backgrounds, and while the minority weeps, the majority will still be fist pumping and raising flags, it's just an American thing the rest of the Western world will never get. I think it's called freedom for constitutions or liberty bell or other generic term.
Also; the image is completely and utterly incorrect as well as the statement. The photo is a (fake and manipulated) USSR propaganda poster developed during WW2 to propagate monster-like behavior from the Nazis (which there now is enough concrete evidence of).
Since it was the Nazis expansion, and the USSR soldiers would be armed(sitting next to a machine gun, fighting on their own territory) the only thing the picture would propagate is the ruthlessness of Nazis, not at all in any way the effects of restriction of guns.
Secondly the Nazi regime came to power by being in majority, and then using that power to segregate social forms, in every way. They segregated by race and political ideology, both in living and in restriction to guns.
Conclusion: people could work with and own guns, as long as they weren't Jews, Romani and perhaps outspoken political minority.
Fact is that the Nazis came to power by having a majority backing. Do you really think 12 000 000 Germans fought a war they didn't initially believe in? Of course not! The reason Nazis dictated Germany had very little to do with restriction of guns, it will always be hard to mobilize a minority(just look at Norway during WW2).
Sorry for drunkish nerd-rage. We can now all go back to rejoicing in Germany's and US current epic political, economical and social climate.
a gun is meant for one thing, and one thing only. death.
Actually, it was a Chinese invention by accident. When they were experimenting to create an elixir of life. Suddenly it blew up the lab and they found out that they invented a gun powder. Back then, it used to be tied to an arrow since a proper gun wasnt invented but the root of this entire gun thing was that.
There is no derailment ,it's discourse. Are we not adults ? Aside from the total Godwin fail earlier the discussion has been alright.
But to address that notion that you need guns to maintain freedom, that is just silly, just as an FYIi am an American and aside from growing in a ton with a ton of gun violence I have also lived in places with strict gun laws like Denmark, Holland and Germany, I also visit Sweden regularly. You know what, they handle freedom just fine, their governments are not trying to oppress them and based on experience these countries actually have more freedom then the US shock! Not to mention I've felt way safer in all of these countries compared to the US.
But let's take the argument that without guns the government will take your freedoms at face value.
If the people of the US were to rise against an oppressive government, what chance do they stand versus the largest, most advanced military in the world, were are talking pea shooters versus tanks,jet fighters and drones. Then what, legalize tanks and rocket launchers, come on. This idea that people need guns to protect themselves versus their government is as silly as more guns equal more safety.
I believe people should have access to guns and rifles for hunting and self protection and it should be regulated,but who really needs semi to auto matic rifles, assault rifles,extended gun clips and military grade weaponry.? There can be a discussion about control without all of the guns rights people thinking that they are gonna take all their guns.
At the moment it's just too damn easy to buy a gun and military grade weapons just shouldn't be legal.
But to address that notion that you need guns to maintain freedom, that is just silly, just as an FYIi am an American and aside from growing in a ton with a ton of gun violence I have also lived in places with strict gun laws like Denmark, Holland and Germany, I also visit Sweden regularly. You know what, they handle freedom just fine, their governments are not trying to oppress them and based on experience these countries actually have more freedom then the US shock! Not to mention I've felt way safer in all of these countries compared to the US.
That's subjective. To some people, not saying I'm one of them, but when for every 10 hours you work, 6 of those are for the government, some wouldn't exactly call that freedom. A golden cage is still a cage.
And you're forgetting some of the gun-loving countries right next door to you, like Switzerland (number4 in the world) and Finland (number8 in the world) who are also quite safe. It seems that there is no correlation here.
But let's take the argument that without guns the government will take your freedoms at face value.
If the people of the US were to rise against an oppressive government, what chance do they stand versus the largest, most advanced military in the world, were are talking pea shooters versus tanks,jet fighters and drones. Then what, legalize tanks and rocket launchers, come on. This idea that people need guns to protect themselves versus their government is as silly as more guns equal more safety.
I hear ya, but this argument defeats its own point. All you're proving is that at this point it's too late. We already gave up too much, and those above are already too powerful. By your own admission, they're too powerful to fight against.
The main argument is that such force as that the US government wields right now shouldn't exist. For evidence of this, look at the thousands that die in the middle-east each year from the US military's shenanigans. We should have stopped it long ago when it still made sense. And had people back then wanted to stop it, they would have needed their guns. Hence the clinging to the second amendment.
I'd agree that an armed revolt these days is ridiculous. But to some people, again, not counting myself among those, giving up the possibility and willfully becoming drones is not an option.
I believe people should have access to guns and rifles for hunting and self protection and it should be regulated,but who really needs semi to auto matic rifles, assault rifles,extended gun clips and military grade weaponry.? There can be a discussion about control without all of the guns rights people thinking that they are gonna take all their guns.
At the moment it's just too damn easy to buy a gun and military grade weapons just shouldn't be legal.
Those types of weapons are already illegal. The point is that they exist, because there are "legitimate" sources (like the US military, SWAT, IRS, DHS, KFC, etc) who absolutely need those or else we're totally not safe you guys, totally not safe (/sarcasm). So those weapons exist even though they're illegal. One set of laws for us, one set of laws for them.
The bottom line? Mass murderers who don't care about laws to begin with have access to all this equipment. It's just illegal. But then again, they weren't planning on making it past the day anyway, so what do they care about legality?
There isn't just one solution to this problem. The mental-health state of things needs to be looked at too. But on the gun-control issue, again, I'm not one of those gun nuts at all, but it seems absolutely ridiculous to me to ask the general population to disarm themselves, those that claim to want guns to defend against government tyranny, without also at the same time disarming that government.
I'm really quite anti-guns. But the argument that pro-guns people put forth, that the government is out of control and needs to be checked, while foolish, is true. Our military is doing horrible things, and it needs to be disarmed. Just disarming the citizenry while at the same time letting government madness continue seems disingenuous to me.
Actually, it was a Chinese invention by accident. When they were experimenting to create an elixir of life. Suddenly it blew up the lab and they found out that they invented a gun powder. Back then, it used to be tied to an arrow since a proper gun wasnt invented but the root of this entire gun thing was that.
You just posted about the accidental creation of gunpowder. Gir is talking about the contemporary use of guns, I don't see how that proves gir wrong.
I also agree with JO, this is discourse and not derailement. And thankfully civil, at that.
I can't watch footage of the kids being led out bawling their eyes out. I get about two seconds in before I want to punch something very very hard. Knowing he was in prison and is being tortured daily would make me feel so much better but unfortunately these scumbags (mostly) always take the easy way out.
Firstly, Switzerland has a nation service model where everyone is a reserve in the army, as a result they are issued with a fire arm, and trained in its use. Its a completely different model compared to the USA.
Also freedom has nothing to do with gun ownership, there have been many countries throughout history that allow you to own a gun but no rights to express yourself freely. Again I would argue we have more freedom here in UK than you do in the USA and I think our gun laws help with that. I do not fear my neighbours or members of the public may be carrying a gun.
Freedom to make money/ a free market economy
Free press, (almost too free, see Leverson enquiry)
Freedom of speech
Freedom of access to health care
Freedom of access to education
Freedom of access to legal help (if unable to afford)
Human rights, trial by jury, etc etc
and to top it off our rate of tax is no higher than a state like california, we have a basic level of income tax, we're not taxed on our first £10k of income, we do have a 50% take rate for the super rich but trust me we have many many mega rich corperations here in the UK, many billionaires etc. We have all the freedoms you have and more and we are only marginally more taxed.
Most countries in Western Europe follow a similar model and no one lives in a golden cage. I would argue, being an entrepreneur (the american dream of being self made)in the UK is easier due to the fact you have better access to good education, you dont need to work 2 jobs to access and pay for medical care.
Going back to guns and mass murderers, there is a direct correlation between the number of guns in circulation compared to murder rate and fire arms offences. I am statistically way more likely to be shot being a citizen in the USA than I am in the UK. Why is that?
An armed society is a safe society right? I've heard this so many times...if thats true how come the UK (an unarmed society by USA standards) has a far lower murder rate and the USA has a gun crime rate that is off the charts compared to here????
Now I may be mistaken, but here in Canada we do have more firearms per capita.
Perhaps taking a look at our failures as a society and looking into deeper cultural problems that breed such reactive and impulsive antisocial behaviors is more appropriate.
Everytime something like this happens it turns into a futile arms debate. Because its an easy target and nothing gets done in the end. It just adds fuel to political posturing rather than looking at the social problem, which I believe is at the root of this problem.
People's first reactions are emotional. So it doesn't always result in the most rational debate.
Those on either side of the arms debate are desperate to use these situations as fodder. There is a better more rational discussion that should be made by American citizens to try to solve these deseases that have been plaguing the culture.
i'm just wondering how many of your pro gun opinions would change if it were your kid that got shot, or your brother that went on a rampage but used your moms gun to kill her first...
it's not your problem as long as it doesn't happen to YOU, right?
I do wonder though, is it really impossible to take a middle ground here; allow everyone weapon, but make it less lethal...i mean, do you really HAVE to kill someone in self defense? I'm sure something could be done in this area...
i'm just wondering how many of your pro gun opinions would change if it were your kid that got shot, or your brother that went on a rampage but used your moms gun to kill her first...
it's not your problem as long as it doesn't happen to YOU, right?
When someone has a strep throat, do you treat the sore throat or do you deal with the infection that causes it? The same goes with gun violence; gun violence is a symptom of an underlying problem. Deal with the causal factors and the symptoms will go away. Gun violence is a social problem that needs a social solution, not an authoritarian one.
I don't understand why people want to slap a law on everything that goes wrong and ignore the reasons it happened in the first place. Intensifying the law isn't going to make a difference to people that live outside the law.
People's first reactions are emotional. So it doesn't always result in the most rational debate.
Those on either side of the arms debate are desperate to use these situations as fodder. There is a better more rational discussion that should be made by American citizens to try to solve these deseases that have been plaguing the culture.
you think this debate is new ?
it is a pretty old debate and these are not first reactions. in most debates, there is a side that leans more towards logic, rationality and science and the other side sticks to ideology, tradition etc.
countless debates have been had about slavery, women's right to vote, etc etc. until some people in the government had the guts to make some changes for the good.
the biggest point that gun advocates make is:
GUNS DONT KILL PEOPLE, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE
well, the logic in that statement is misleading to put it lightly.
of course people kill people, but giving easy access to guns makes it super easy to do that. you dont see the military going to war empty handed do you ? they take the best of the best guns with them because that is what they are meant for, to neutralize their enemy.
there are certain things like C4, dynamites, lethal chemicals, etc. that are not easy to access unless you pay a lot of money or have went through a whole lot of back ground checks or paper work.
why do you think that is the way it is ?
because they are very dangerous to public safety and in the wrong hand can be catastrophic.
there are lot of things that would be fun to own and use, but they are not safe for society.
there are lot of crazy/stupid people every where in the world. but not every where in the world do you have crazy/stupid people with easy access to deadly weapons. it should be common sense ...
also, why do we even have the common sentiment that Iran should never have a nuclear bomb ?
because, the argument is in the wrong hand it can be catastrophic.
surely Iran has the right to bare arms ....
TLDR: those that dont read full post - we dont need to ban anything, just controll access to semi-automatics, multiple guns, thousands of ammunition etc. all of which are overkill for the purpose of self defense. you do not need a bushmaster for self defense.
When someone has a strep throat, do you treat the sore throat or do you deal with the infection that causes it? The same goes with gun violence; gun violence is a symptom of an underlying problem. Deal with the causal factors and the symptoms will go away. Gun violence is a social problem that needs a social solution, not an authoritarian one.
I don't understand why people want to slap a law on everything that goes wrong and ignore the reasons it happened in the first place. Intensifying the law isn't going to make a difference to people that live outside the law.
Replies
Ummm....shows how much you know about politics, guns take away freedoms, they take away lives..
So based on your picture, you're comparing a nation such as the UK (with its strict gun laws as pointed out in my previous post) to right wing Nazi germany yeah?
Who is more right wing at the moment the USA or the UK?
USA is waaay more right wing bud, I know which country I'm safer in and I also know which country I'm more free in
But nowadays one guy can go grab an AR and do the work of 60 people back then, its stupid.
If the government really wanted to get rid of guns they could buy EVERY gun for $10k, pretty much everyone will jump to that deal. If the government always offers to purchase guns for 10 thousands dollars then anytime one is present in society people will want to turn it in for the reward.
http://news.yahoo.com/no-rise-mass-killings-impact-huge-185700637.html
It's sad how people buy into the "hey guys look how bad the world is getting!! omg lol it's so wicked and stuff #comequickly" hype without actually researching the topic. Media is bigger and can spread news much faster than in the past. It has a way of skewing your view of the real world.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/15/alabama-hospital-shooting-wounded-gunman-killed_n_2307505.html
It's because of the way the media reports it. Flip on the news and watch how we treat the Batman theater shooter and the Oregon mall shooter like celebrities. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris are household names, but do you know the name of a single *victim* of Columbine? Disturbed
people who would otherwise just off themselves in their basements see the news and want to top it by doing something worse, and going out in a memorable way. Why a grade school? Why children? Because he'll be remembered as a horrible monster, instead of a sad nobody.
CNN's article says that if the body count "holds up", this will rank as the second deadliest shooting behind Virginia Tech, as if statistics somehow make one shooting worse than another. Then they post a video interview of third-graders for all the details of what they saw and heard while the shootings were happening. Fox News has plastered the killer's face on all their reports for hours. Any articles or news stories yet that focus on the victims and ignore the killer's identity? None that I've seen yet. Because they don't sell. So congratulations, sensationalist media, you've just lit the fire for someone to top this and knock off a day care center or a maternity ward next.
You can help by forgetting you ever read this man's name, and remembering the name of at least one victim. You can help by donating to mental health research instead of pointing to gun control as the problem. You can help by turning off the news."
article
People get stabbed lets ban every pointy thing in existance
If you sick in the head youll find a way to kill someone,look at people in prison
they find creative ways of shanking u lol
People like to blame anything and everything
lets all live in bubble wrap..stay home and wear our rfid chips,w'll be safer
Heres a thought why dont we help people out? talk,stop socially outcasting people ,stop being consummer whores..kindda hard to have morals when only thing u live for is ur next ios update
@Skillmister hahahha wow great post with the facebook quotes lol that was crazy
that's great!
but there comes a point when you have to ask yourself the following question:
sure, if someone is deranged enough that they want to go out and kill a number of people, then they will find a way to do it... but that said, why should you make it easier for them to do it, and particularly with weapons that are so easy to use to maximum lethal effect?
and again, something i've said before: anybody who owns a gun does so because they one day intend to use it. there is no such thing as an accidental shooting, or death by firearm. it's a lethal weapon and owning one comes with the responsibility of knowing that.
most americans... wait, most PEOPLE understand that, and i'm sure there are a huge amount of the american population who respect that fact. but unfortunately there's also a huge population who don't. and it's that population that needs to be controlled.
if infringing on your god given right to bear a lethal weapon should, in some small way, make your country a safer place to live... surely it's for the better?
and remember, gun control is NOT the same as making guns illegal. there are other countries in the world that have legalized gun control, with far fewer gun related crimes/deaths per capita than the US.
they introduced knife control laws in the UK a few years ago, and the decrease in knife related crimes is actually pretty huge.
i should note, that the number of knife related murders/attempted murders has only dropped by a few percent, BUT again that comes down to "if someone really wants to, they will... and you can get a knife from your kitchen to do it".
but general knife crimes have fallen by over 15% in crimes such as robbery, and almost 40% in the case of sexual assaults.
so again... if somebody REALLY wants to commit a gun related crime in the US, they can... and lets face it you probably could find a gun in your kitchen in the US. so what would you say if gun control dropped crime by those same amounts? would that not be worth it? especially when you consider that all it takes is the pull of a trigger for one of the non-lethal crimes to suddenly turn lethal... at least with knives, there's a strong chance of surviving an attack unless they REALLY want you dead.
I'm an American, a gun owner, and I think that it is far too easy to get a gun in America. Guns are too woven into the fabric of American culture to make an outright ban possible (nor would I want one), but there is a lot of reasonable middle ground between the current legislation and the outlawing all firearms.
First, mandatory training and licensing for firearms as is done with motor vehicles. No one wants to share the road with untrained, unlicensed drivers, and no one complains that having to get a license or register their vehicle is a threat to their freedom; firearms ought to be similarly licensed.
Second, a stronger degree of culpability for negligently allowing the use of your firearms in the commission of a crime. Many gun crimes, including this school shooting, are committed with legally purchased but unsecured weapons. If you own firearms, you are responsible for storing them in such a way that no one else can access them. If a homeowner with an unsecured swimming pool negligently allows a neighbor's child to drown while he's not home, the homeowner can be charged with a crime (attractive nuisance laws). Firearms should be similarly secured.
Personally, I keep the one gun I own in a locked case, and the key hidden away where it won't be found. And even if it somehow should be found, I literally don't keep one single round of ammunition in my house, making my gun less deadly than any of the knives in my kitchen. While I wouldn't say that degree of caution is necessary in every case, a gun owner should be the ONLY person with access to their weapons and ammunition. Yesterday's shooter killed his mother with one of her own weapons and used her other firearms to kill children in the school.
Regarding the Second Amendment, I think many Americans forget that what makes the Constitution such an amazing document isn't that it was perfect as written the first time, but that it's flexible - *amendable* - and can be updated as the nation changes. The original, ratified Constitution did not outlaw slavery, ensure equal protections or give women the right to vote. It took later amendments to do that. Newer Amendments can even override earlier ones, as the Twenty-first Amendment repealed the Eighteenth (prohibition of alcohol.)
The fact that the founding fathers didn't look at the muzzle-loading flintlock rifles they took hunting and recognize a need for future firearm legislation is not a coffin nail in the debate. Our world has changed since 1788; the Constitution can change accordingly. If the Second Amendment won't allow for better licensing and legislation of firearms, then it's time to update the Second Amendment.
anybody who goes swimming does so because they like to swim. there is no such thing as an accidental drowning.... it's a lethal to inhale water and swimming comes with the responsibility of knowing that.
I laugh when I encounter people making that argument, because they never seem to consider the logistics involved.
When the Second Amendment was written, the American army and individual American civilians had almost exactly the same weaponry in the form of muzzleloading, single shot pistols and rifles. The army would have had some cannons and artillery, but nothing that would make rebellion impossible. All in all, an armed uprising was still entirely possible, as shown by the revolution just a decade and a half earlier.
Today, however... If the American army is *really* coming for you, they're not going to use handguns and hunting rifles. They're going to roll up your driveway with an M1 Abrams or drop laser guided munitions on you from an F18. While a populace armed with millions of semi-automatic weapons could resist for a time, if the army decides it's cool with killing American civilians, the American civilians can do exactly jack and shit about it.
As pertains to personal or home defense from similarly armed attackers, the right to bear arms is still a law that makes sense. With regards to armed revolution against the American military, the right to bear arms is a ragged 'security' blanket that people cuddle up with to better forget they have no fucking chance whatsoever of overthrowing the government in an armed conflict.
I mean I understand the reaction..but it's still silly
brb hunting with my AR
I see no problem with allowing guns but only using ones that are too slow to be used in this manner
you ever hear of someone going swimming and someone else drowning as a result of it?
I agree with that completly though I do think Handguns should be allowed.
That's more of an argument against the military-industrial complex, against keeping such a huge and powerful military, and a warning at just how bad things can get when we let the government get out of hand in the first place.
The people who would argue for gun-rights as an anti-government measure would (or at least should anyway) also argue in favor of stripping down government power, especially the military, to exactly a proportion so that an armed rebellion would be possible.
i'm ex-military. i fully grasp what it's like to own (by proxy) and shoot guns.
it would also be fun to have a M1A1 in my back yard.
also
losing someone you know to gun violence is horrible. It is not really possible to understand the gun debate in the US until you grasp that.
Archery is way more fun for me at least then pulling a trigger.
As a swede, it's pretty hard for me to grasp the gun debate. Personally I'm terrified of guns and abhorred by the need for them at all. Just seeing a swedish police officer with his sig sauer in his holster makes me tense up a bit.
If I knew that one of my neighbours kept guns I would definately feel more afraid than safe or perhaps even intimitaded enough to get a gun of my own purely out of fear for my own life myself and those I care for.
I think your average citizen is of average intelligence and will probably act as such.
As I said, I'm not too familiar with the US constition and laws so;
How exactly would the second amendment be used to "deterr a tyrannical government" (wikipedia) in a modern day society?
Why not? negligence in any environment can result in death
your argument was that there are never accidents with firearms, because they are lethal, and anyone that owns one should expect lethal consequences
I'm asserting that your acting like a silly person using that kind of logic...
yes you can buy that stuff in the US
+1. Also I'm sure the guys mother would change her stance on guns now if she could. But she was shot with her own weapon so she can't.
a gun is meant for one thing, and one thing only. death.
Missed topic, of course it as a incredible tragedy for everyone and I hope any afflicted the best, impossible to imagine such suffering from any angle.
There has been a lot great points made regarding it's cause and effect and I don't want to discredit anyone's emotional or mental response by concluding that outcome of school shooting will always result in hearts broken.
Is it not silly using the argument that since cars and water can inflict the same type of damage as a gun(death?) that would in some way make the regulation and control of guns bad, and it's critique invalid? Of course, over-consumption of any type of beverage, food or natural resource will lead to death. But the fact of the matter is that since guns are primarily constructed to kill and Cars are primarily not, the use and abuse of these items are and will always be different.
Regarding water; if the negatives for restricting water would weigh more than the positives, this argument would be good(same with cars, roller blades, bouncy castles). But both you and I see where this logic fails, and I don't think it needs more iteration.
This joke that USA is a free country is so ridiculous, why not just agree to the fact that you like guns and shooting guns are a blast.
The US will still be the same segregated, country, with the same types of criminals in the same types of jails, from the same type of backgrounds, and while the minority weeps, the majority will still be fist pumping and raising flags, it's just an American thing the rest of the Western world will never get. I think it's called freedom for constitutions or liberty bell or other generic term.
Also; the image is completely and utterly incorrect as well as the statement. The photo is a (fake and manipulated) USSR propaganda poster developed during WW2 to propagate monster-like behavior from the Nazis (which there now is enough concrete evidence of).
Since it was the Nazis expansion, and the USSR soldiers would be armed(sitting next to a machine gun, fighting on their own territory) the only thing the picture would propagate is the ruthlessness of Nazis, not at all in any way the effects of restriction of guns.
Secondly the Nazi regime came to power by being in majority, and then using that power to segregate social forms, in every way. They segregated by race and political ideology, both in living and in restriction to guns.
Conclusion: people could work with and own guns, as long as they weren't Jews, Romani and perhaps outspoken political minority.
Fact is that the Nazis came to power by having a majority backing. Do you really think 12 000 000 Germans fought a war they didn't initially believe in? Of course not! The reason Nazis dictated Germany had very little to do with restriction of guns, it will always be hard to mobilize a minority(just look at Norway during WW2).
Sorry for drunkish nerd-rage. We can now all go back to rejoicing in Germany's and US current epic political, economical and social climate.
[ame="
Actually, it was a Chinese invention by accident. When they were experimenting to create an elixir of life. Suddenly it blew up the lab and they found out that they invented a gun powder. Back then, it used to be tied to an arrow since a proper gun wasnt invented but the root of this entire gun thing was that.
But to address that notion that you need guns to maintain freedom, that is just silly, just as an FYIi am an American and aside from growing in a ton with a ton of gun violence I have also lived in places with strict gun laws like Denmark, Holland and Germany, I also visit Sweden regularly. You know what, they handle freedom just fine, their governments are not trying to oppress them and based on experience these countries actually have more freedom then the US shock! Not to mention I've felt way safer in all of these countries compared to the US.
But let's take the argument that without guns the government will take your freedoms at face value.
If the people of the US were to rise against an oppressive government, what chance do they stand versus the largest, most advanced military in the world, were are talking pea shooters versus tanks,jet fighters and drones. Then what, legalize tanks and rocket launchers, come on. This idea that people need guns to protect themselves versus their government is as silly as more guns equal more safety.
I believe people should have access to guns and rifles for hunting and self protection and it should be regulated,but who really needs semi to auto matic rifles, assault rifles,extended gun clips and military grade weaponry.? There can be a discussion about control without all of the guns rights people thinking that they are gonna take all their guns.
At the moment it's just too damn easy to buy a gun and military grade weapons just shouldn't be legal.
That's subjective. To some people, not saying I'm one of them, but when for every 10 hours you work, 6 of those are for the government, some wouldn't exactly call that freedom. A golden cage is still a cage.
And you're forgetting some of the gun-loving countries right next door to you, like Switzerland (number4 in the world) and Finland (number8 in the world) who are also quite safe. It seems that there is no correlation here.
I hear ya, but this argument defeats its own point. All you're proving is that at this point it's too late. We already gave up too much, and those above are already too powerful. By your own admission, they're too powerful to fight against.
The main argument is that such force as that the US government wields right now shouldn't exist. For evidence of this, look at the thousands that die in the middle-east each year from the US military's shenanigans. We should have stopped it long ago when it still made sense. And had people back then wanted to stop it, they would have needed their guns. Hence the clinging to the second amendment.
I'd agree that an armed revolt these days is ridiculous. But to some people, again, not counting myself among those, giving up the possibility and willfully becoming drones is not an option.
Those types of weapons are already illegal. The point is that they exist, because there are "legitimate" sources (like the US military, SWAT, IRS, DHS, KFC, etc) who absolutely need those or else we're totally not safe you guys, totally not safe (/sarcasm). So those weapons exist even though they're illegal. One set of laws for us, one set of laws for them.
The bottom line? Mass murderers who don't care about laws to begin with have access to all this equipment. It's just illegal. But then again, they weren't planning on making it past the day anyway, so what do they care about legality?
There isn't just one solution to this problem. The mental-health state of things needs to be looked at too. But on the gun-control issue, again, I'm not one of those gun nuts at all, but it seems absolutely ridiculous to me to ask the general population to disarm themselves, those that claim to want guns to defend against government tyranny, without also at the same time disarming that government.
I'm really quite anti-guns. But the argument that pro-guns people put forth, that the government is out of control and needs to be checked, while foolish, is true. Our military is doing horrible things, and it needs to be disarmed. Just disarming the citizenry while at the same time letting government madness continue seems disingenuous to me.
More worried about the fact that some people can own [ame="
You just posted about the accidental creation of gunpowder. Gir is talking about the contemporary use of guns, I don't see how that proves gir wrong.
I also agree with JO, this is discourse and not derailement. And thankfully civil, at that.
I can't watch footage of the kids being led out bawling their eyes out. I get about two seconds in before I want to punch something very very hard. Knowing he was in prison and is being tortured daily would make me feel so much better but unfortunately these scumbags (mostly) always take the easy way out.
Freaking retard.
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/12/14/1339971/huckabee-says-connecticut-school-massacre-occurred-because-we-removed-god-from-our-schools/
[ame="
Firstly, Switzerland has a nation service model where everyone is a reserve in the army, as a result they are issued with a fire arm, and trained in its use. Its a completely different model compared to the USA.
Also freedom has nothing to do with gun ownership, there have been many countries throughout history that allow you to own a gun but no rights to express yourself freely. Again I would argue we have more freedom here in UK than you do in the USA and I think our gun laws help with that. I do not fear my neighbours or members of the public may be carrying a gun.
and to top it off our rate of tax is no higher than a state like california, we have a basic level of income tax, we're not taxed on our first £10k of income, we do have a 50% take rate for the super rich but trust me we have many many mega rich corperations here in the UK, many billionaires etc. We have all the freedoms you have and more and we are only marginally more taxed.
Most countries in Western Europe follow a similar model and no one lives in a golden cage. I would argue, being an entrepreneur (the american dream of being self made)in the UK is easier due to the fact you have better access to good education, you dont need to work 2 jobs to access and pay for medical care.
Going back to guns and mass murderers, there is a direct correlation between the number of guns in circulation compared to murder rate and fire arms offences. I am statistically way more likely to be shot being a citizen in the USA than I am in the UK. Why is that?
An armed society is a safe society right? I've heard this so many times...if thats true how come the UK (an unarmed society by USA standards) has a far lower murder rate and the USA has a gun crime rate that is off the charts compared to here????
Perhaps taking a look at our failures as a society and looking into deeper cultural problems that breed such reactive and impulsive antisocial behaviors is more appropriate.
Everytime something like this happens it turns into a futile arms debate. Because its an easy target and nothing gets done in the end. It just adds fuel to political posturing rather than looking at the social problem, which I believe is at the root of this problem.
Those on either side of the arms debate are desperate to use these situations as fodder. There is a better more rational discussion that should be made by American citizens to try to solve these deseases that have been plaguing the culture.
it's not your problem as long as it doesn't happen to YOU, right?
I do wonder though, is it really impossible to take a middle ground here; allow everyone weapon, but make it less lethal...i mean, do you really HAVE to kill someone in self defense? I'm sure something could be done in this area...
When someone has a strep throat, do you treat the sore throat or do you deal with the infection that causes it? The same goes with gun violence; gun violence is a symptom of an underlying problem. Deal with the causal factors and the symptoms will go away. Gun violence is a social problem that needs a social solution, not an authoritarian one.
I don't understand why people want to slap a law on everything that goes wrong and ignore the reasons it happened in the first place. Intensifying the law isn't going to make a difference to people that live outside the law.
you think this debate is new ?
it is a pretty old debate and these are not first reactions. in most debates, there is a side that leans more towards logic, rationality and science and the other side sticks to ideology, tradition etc.
countless debates have been had about slavery, women's right to vote, etc etc. until some people in the government had the guts to make some changes for the good.
the biggest point that gun advocates make is:
GUNS DONT KILL PEOPLE, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE
well, the logic in that statement is misleading to put it lightly.
of course people kill people, but giving easy access to guns makes it super easy to do that. you dont see the military going to war empty handed do you ? they take the best of the best guns with them because that is what they are meant for, to neutralize their enemy.
there are certain things like C4, dynamites, lethal chemicals, etc. that are not easy to access unless you pay a lot of money or have went through a whole lot of back ground checks or paper work.
why do you think that is the way it is ?
because they are very dangerous to public safety and in the wrong hand can be catastrophic.
there are lot of things that would be fun to own and use, but they are not safe for society.
there are lot of crazy/stupid people every where in the world. but not every where in the world do you have crazy/stupid people with easy access to deadly weapons. it should be common sense ...
also, why do we even have the common sentiment that Iran should never have a nuclear bomb ?
because, the argument is in the wrong hand it can be catastrophic.
surely Iran has the right to bare arms ....
TLDR: those that dont read full post - we dont need to ban anything, just controll access to semi-automatics, multiple guns, thousands of ammunition etc. all of which are overkill for the purpose of self defense. you do not need a bushmaster for self defense.
QFT