27 dead in elementary school shooting

[morton]

I think that if there was a higher threshold to gun ownership it would have a positive effect. That is why I am arguing for it.

 

Perhaps if owning a gun carried more liability and training it would have some benefit? Is it your assertion that the only answer is more guns? Some cops 3 year old kid here in Washington just blasted his brains out and there is no law holding the owner responsible for it.

 

They don't have guns in prison because the people bringing in the drugs do not have to worry about being shot with them. These absolutist arguments are childish. Tons of people are deterred from graffiti because of the legal ramifications.

 

There is also of course a real difference between violent death and accidental death. Like the swimming pool argument, we do have life guards for a reason. By that line of thought should we have gun control or should we get rid of the lifeguards and just let things work themselves out?

[morton]

Would you be shocked to hear that a guy from the range took his own life? Would it really be the most hysterical thing you have heard?

 

How about a hunting accident, which I consider to be much more along the lines of a car accident but certainly not beyond the realm of possibility for a trained gun owner.

[Realism]

These absolutist arguments are childish.

 

aod is physically incapable of making anything other than ridiculously contrived absolutist arguments (I believe he once told me I was in favor of owning and beating slaves because I don't consider our current government an abject tyranny and don't mind paying taxes)

 

He's also an expert at flaunting how he demolished his opponent's argument when they throw up their hands and realize there's no reasoning with him.

[morton]

At any rate angelofdeath, I think we both know that neither of us are going to win the other over on this one. I have other affairs to attend to so I am going to give it a rest for a while.

 

I do think that there is a big difference between law enforcement being armed as opposed to joe public being armed.

 

I never said that the public does not act, I said that they do not do so with guns.

 

I do not take the example of Giffords case to be all that strong, no weapon was used, the courage pill line I think does not hold up either, should we all carry guns to make us have courage?

 

Have a good day maynard.

[tango 24]

reason for ownership restricted, no high powered semi auto rifles, minimum barrel length on handguns to make concealment harder, training courses in handling of firearms before being issued gun license and/or firearm. that's just off the top of my head

[angelofdeath]

I think that if there was a higher threshold to gun ownership it would have a positive effect. That is why I am arguing for it.

 

Perhaps if owning a gun carried more liability and training it would have some benefit? Is it your assertion that the only answer is more guns? Some cops 3 year old kid here in Washington just blasted his brains out and there is no law holding the owner responsible for it.

 

what is this higher threshold. i want specifics.

i have a feeling that you probably do not have the first clue as to what the gun laws in the country are. but i might be wrong.

 

training?

i've personally been to govt sponsored firearms training. it was more or less the biggest joke i've ever seen. what if the wacko's just started going to this government training and learned how to more effectively kill people? that is largely what you suggested about the 'idiots' at the shooting range.

 

you guys talk out of both sides of your mouth.

you ridicule people who train with firearms as being serial killers, then you say we should mandate training.

makes perfect sense!

 

i believe that is called negligence.

interesting, it was a COP's kid....supposedly, under your view, the only people 'qualified' to own and possess firearms.

 

this indicates that even the most well trained in the view of the public are not so infallible.

 

They don't have guns in prison because the people bringing in the drugs do not have to worry about being shot with them. These absolutist arguments are childish. Tons of people are deterred from graffiti because of the legal ramifications.

 

you are refusing to acknowledge the analogy on drugs.

you are talking about passing a law, prohibitions, and that this will keep said objects out of peoples hands when in fact they wont.

 

you have the perfect case. it doesnt matter what laws you pass, what the consequences are, people are still going to get what they want. and if you did magically zap away 200 million guns out of america, i'd suspect the pyscho's would resort to much more easier to access methods of destruction that are totally legal and do not carry the connotations people get from guns.

 

if the most controlled environment in the world, a prison, cannot keep something that people want out of it, how are you going to keep guns out of peoples hands in the real world?

 

 

There is also of course a real difference between violent death and accidental death. Like the swimming pool argument, we do have life guards for a reason. By that line of thought should we have gun control or should we get rid of the lifeguards and just let things work themselves out?

 

are you suggesting all the kids that drown in back yard pools would of been prevented if you passed a law requiring all pools in america to have a life guard, 24/7 instead of just promoting good parenting and actually watching kids?

 

you operate on one false assumption. that if a law is passed, the results will be what are intended in the law.

this is a very bad assumption to make.

[angelofdeath]

reason for ownership restricted, no high powered semi auto rifles, minimum barrel length on handguns to make concealment harder, training courses in handling of firearms before being issued gun license and/or firearm. that's just off the top of my head

 

you should need to establish a 'reason' to possess a tool that is used to defend yourself?

they have this in NYC. i believe they have eliminated murder in this jurisdiction.

phewww. thank good ness.

 

a few other states have 'carry permits' that require 'good and substantial' reasons for possessing and carrying said firearms. these states generally house the murder capitals of the country.

 

high power semi auto rifles are currently illegal in parts of the US. Handguns are also illegal in parts of the US or restricted to the point of any person who isnt politically connected not being able to own one. Some states already require training and licenses before being able to possess a firearm. carry permits in most states require training.

 

there is one common thread. in ALL locations where those conditions exist in the US, gun crime is THROUGH THE FUCKING ROOF. in all places where you can carry without a license and engage in private sale firearms transfers, hardly anything happens. for decades.

 

do you think that just MAYBE, it has something to do with people and not with inanimate objects being the main problem? if it is simply presence of guns and easy access, why dont mass murder shooting sprees happen in states where 29 guns per house hold exist or where carrying without a license is legal?

if 'easy access' is the problem, what about back when full auto firearms could be ordered through mail or brought home as war trophy's? or when you could order 20mm cannons through the mail? mass shootings back then?

if you want to simply look at correlation and point to causation, we can play that game as well.

[tango 24]

yes, you should. i don't believe your defense tool is going to stop someone intent on doing you harm from carrying it out. it's not a deterrent til after the fact. you think that because criminals know that people are armed it stops them carrying out crime? that's what I'm getting when you say that places with gun control laws have gun crime THROUGH THE FUCKING ROOF

 

and it's nice that some places restrict things that have no place in the hands of a civilian (in my opinion) but if it's not national ban then it's about effective as pissing in to the wind.

 

so in your eyes the ease of access is not at all a problem that contributes to the levels of violence in your country? that's, quite frankly, retarded

[allfreetime]

Can't stop stupid from doing stupid things. Can't stop crazy from doing crazy things.

 

Terrible this kid was missing some part of his conscience that tells humans: mass murder is bad. It doesn't have to be a gun. It could be a home made bomb. Or poison. Or simply driving over people at random.

 

Weapons will always be around no matter how much you control them. So will crazy people.

 

It's interesting though this person advocating for 2nd amendment gun rights is called 'angelofdeath'. You may want to think about that one.

[Doodle]

Please tell me why ANYONE would need an AK or any automatic weapon "big gun" etc?

Do you need 29 guns in your house to "protect yourself"? As someone mentioned if you are trying to protect yourself from the big bad government by owning some guns it won't help you.

Sure you should be able to have a handgun in your house in case someone comes to kill you so you can protect yourself but why would you need an M4 in your closet AND a handgun on your night table and w.e else. I'm pretty certain all the people with 30 guns don't have armies chasing them down.

 

There is no reasoning with people like you though.

[angelofdeath]

yes, you should. i don't believe your defense tool is going to stop someone intent on doing you harm from carrying it out. it's not a deterrent til after the fact. you think that because criminals know that people are armed it stops them carrying out crime? that's what I'm getting when you say that places with gun control laws have gun crime THROUGH THE FUCKING ROOF

 

so you think if you tell a government agency that the gun is for 'collecting' or 'hunting' that this will somehow keep guns out of wacko's hands? hmmm sounds like something that will really work.

 

really? guns aren't a deterrent? how come all these people dont do crazy stuff in front of uniformed police officers?

 

i dont know what stops people from carrying out crime, but i do know that by looking at common sense and empirical evidence the largest majority if not well over 85% of these massacres occur in legally sanctioned no gun zones.

 

i do not care to conjecture as to why this is anymore than just telling you that the areas where no guns are allowed, are where these active shooter events happen and where they are most likely to continue happening.

 

i am also saying that the places where all your gun control measures are in place, and there is no 'easy access to guns' are where the largest portion of crime takes place.

 

 

and it's nice that some places restrict things that have no place in the hands of a civilian (in my opinion) but if it's not national ban then it's about effective as pissing in to the wind.

 

really?

hmmmm.

how do you propose to remove these guns from peoples possession?

i think you guys like to say stuff that makes you feel good, but dont really think everything through.

 

if your logic extends to national areas, why not international areas? why are your bans supposedly working in one country, but not in others? why not a need for a global ban, cause anything else is pissing in the wind.

 

so in your eyes the ease of access is not at all a problem that contributes to the levels of violence in your country? that's, quite frankly, retarded

 

not really.

people have easy access to lots of things much more dangerous than guns. besides, guns arent really 'easy' to access. and in places where they are used the most for bad things, they are VERY hard to get, unless of course you mean on the black market, which wait, that stuff is illegal, but i digress.

 

how do you explain that before the advent of NFA when you could order full auto machine guns through the mail with no back ground check, no wait times, no nothing, that everyone wasnt killed by them in the entire country?

 

the places with the easiest access to guns are in fact, well, hate to be blunt, but the safest. the places with the hardest access to them, these are the places you dont want to be because people are getting killed left and right.

[angelofdeath]

Please tell me why ANYONE would need an AK or any automatic weapon "big gun" etc?

Do you need 29 guns in your house to "protect yourself"? As someone mentioned if you are trying to protect yourself from the big bad government by owning some guns it won't help you.

Sure you should be able to have a handgun in your house in case someone comes to kill you so you can protect yourself but why would you need an M4 in your closet AND a handgun on your night table and w.e else. I'm pretty certain all the people with 30 guns don't have armies chasing them down.

 

There is no reasoning with people like you though.

 

im not here to tell anyone what they 'need'

i dont think people need more than a 1500 sq ft house, but some people want 6,000 sq ft houses. i dont think people should do drugs, but im not one to tell them not to. hell, some people think they NEED 10 bongs and 5 lbs of weed. hey, whatever.

 

if you look at actual incidents, there are many instances where there are multiple assailants.

 

lets face it, handguns suck. they dont really do anything good at all, except allow you to carry them with you when you go about your daily business. any thing a hand gun can do, you can do better with a rifle. if you have multiple assailants in your house, wouldnt you rather have a tool that does the job instead of one that is bad at the job? what you are suggesting is:

 

you only need a 5 oz hammer. really, do you really need that 28 oz framing hammer? its absolutely ridiculous. you can bang in a 20 penny spike with a 5 oz hammer. it might take you 8 times as long but, being the all knowing being that i am, i know that you done NEED nor should you possess a 28 oz hammer.

 

whereas myself if i have to bang in a 20 penny nail into hardwood, i'll grab my framing hammer and leave the tack hammer in the drawer.

 

point being, why use a tack hammer when a framing hammer does the job better, faster and more efficiently?

the point of defending yourself is to WIN. not perish.

 

who in the world elected you the person that dictates what people can and cannot own?

 

by the way, i realize you arent a 'gun' person and your posts show you have little knowledge on the subject, but for the most part, m4's are non existent in the US unless you are military or LE. they are select fire weapons under mcclure volkmer '86.

[Fist 666]

there isn't a simple solution

 

we can throw rhetoric back and forth all day. mass bans and new laws will not stop the psychos or criminals, and likely won't protect the innocent.

 

america's dissipated sense of community, fading family structure, culture of celebrating violence, and embraced complacency fuel these shootings as much as the weapons themselves. without restructuring our society we will continue to face atrocity.

 

hows that for speaking in vague generics?

[angelofdeath]

there isn't a simple solution

 

we can throw rhetoric back and forth all day. mass bans and new laws will not stop the psychos or criminals, and likely won't protect the innocent.

 

america's dissipated sense of community, fading family structure, culture of celebrating violence, and embraced complacency fuel these shootings as much as the weapons themselves. without restructuring our society we will continue to face atrocity.

 

hows that for speaking in vague generics?

 

these vague generics are ok because they do not call for solutions based in law and cannot be solved by legislation.

 

and they get to the heart of the matter. its not the tool, its the person.

 

some people will never understand this.

 

 

 

 

 

ever.

 

i think we should stop prosecuting the people committing murder and start prosecuting firearms, ammunition and magazines as murderers. makes perfect sense.

[Fist 666]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/16/opinion/sunday/kristof-do-we-have-the-courage-to-stop-this.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0

 

a decent editorial that i mostly agree with.

[angelofdeath]

that guy is an idiot.

 

not only is he talking about 2 entirely different things...namely, most people possess guns only on their own property and people use cars to go on public property and other peoples private property, but he is assuming that cars are currently more regulated than guns. hell, if your car stays on your property, it doesnt even need plates. you dont even have to put it in your name if you dont really want to. you dont need a license to purchase a car either. or a back ground check. yet cars kill 40K people a year, which is more than guns last time i looked at the 'official' numbers.

 

anyone can go out and buy a car, have it towed to their house, and do whatever they want with it.

if he wants to extend this logic to guns, then anyone who wants to just keep it on their own property should have basically no infringements at all.

 

currently all manner of transporting, carrying, buying, selling, shooting and transferring of guns is highly regulated, requiring licensing, paper work, background checks, wait times, permits, FOID cards, registration schemes, bullet printing schemes, taxes, fees, classes, training, etc. current number of gun laws that exist in the US is around 20,000. this was approximately 10 years ago. who knows what the number is now.

 

from the article

So what can we do? A starting point would be to limit gun purchases to one a month, to curb gun traffickers.

 

a number of states already have this.

 

Likewise, we should restrict the sale of high-capacity magazines so that a shooter can’t kill as many people without reloading.

 

clinton did this.

mags were still around.

 

anyone trained by a few hours of dry practice can speed reload a 10 round mag faster than a normal person could empty a 30rd mag.

 

We should impose a universal background check for gun buyers, even with private sales. Let’s make serial numbers more difficult to erase, and back California in its effort to require that new handguns imprint a microstamp on each shell so that it can be traced back to a particular gun.

 

maryland implemented handgun registration and ballistics fingerprinting with all handguns.

its largest city and the DC metro area have usually the highest numbers of murders in the country per year or within the top 5. these schemes have yet to be used to solve one shooting.

 

many states have no private sales unless its through an FFL.

 

a person without a felony conviction, documented mental illness or habitual drunkard or narcotics abuser can pass a back ground check. i believe the shooter at sandy hook would pass wonderfully.

 

sounds like a lot of hub bub that accomplishes nothing, has been in place or was in place that doesnt solve the problem, and acts as a means to slow down, and make it harder for the good guys to get guns. you know, the people who want to defend themselves and other innocents

[injury]

america's dissipated sense of community, fading family structure, culture of celebrating violence, and embraced complacency fuel these shootings as much as the weapons themselves. without restructuring our society we will continue to face atrocity.

 

Thank you.

 

i hesitate to buy the argument that banning guns is the solution, and instead believe that there are bigger cultural themes that manifest themselves as gun violence.

 

That example of montana, 29 guns per household, is relevant only to look at the differences between there and somewhere like chicago's south side, which was covered in blood this summer. for the uninformed, there were several weekends where people were shot (and killed) in the double digits.

 

chicago police, after this summer, are starting to take aim at the people responsible for it, not necessarily the geographic locations where that happens. it's a smart tactic. as the pro-gun people in this thread have pointed out many times, the majority of legal gun owners are decent people, who like to shoot things on the weekend. i fully believe in this and know a few responsible gun owners myself. they're good people. do i want to personally own an AR platform or an AK? no, that doesnt appeal to me. but these dudes that i know, do. it's their hobby, they enjoy it.

 

i think you can surmise that someone who might be inclined to kill and/or shoot at someone else is likely going to violence them somehow even if they cant get access to a gun. they have a hatred, a rational or irrational drive to act upon it, and will find a way to do that. how do these people come into existence? they're born. they are born into mental insanity or raised into it. they can mentally rationalize something like killing someone, and might be able to rationalize shooting a few witnesses too, hell, the gun's warm. these people are empowered by guns, and a weapon gives them the ability to do infinitely more damage than they could with fists or a blade.

 

here's the thing: fist is exactly right. i dont think taking guns away will help this situation. i think the legal, cultural shift to eliminate guns entirely would be more drastic and more dangerous in the long term than the simple shift to ... care more about people. that's the difference between montana and the south side, people care more. in the south side, like many other places (that some of you have experienced), you are generally born into poverty. you have shitty schools. a shitty pre-existing culture of people who generally feel like they are worth nothing. the neighborhood and the poverty breed this, the recession makes it worse. you breed hatred and violence in people in places like this, which is why so many shootings and other things happen in shitty neighborhoods. montana is a state where people have to care about each other

 

this is relevant because this dude wasn't from a shitty place himself, but somehow got hate in his heart, a lot of it.

 

dude went through a nasty divorce? might have had aspergers or another social disorder?

 

you can say that he's a pussy for not being able to deal with this and then shooting a bunch of people, but the fact is, that shit likely contributed to his motive to kill his mother and many others. say what you want, but he acted on it. no, it didn't help that his mother was a big gun owner, and that's what made him able to kill as many as he did.

 

would he have still killed his mother regardless? i argue yes.

 

that, oontzers, is where we need to start. several interviews with neighbors have had the effect of a collective shrug. noone knew much about the family, noone cared enough to see what was wrong. people admit "yeah i think there were issues, i just didn't wanna find out about them/i never asked." that's the beginning of shootings like this. the columbine shooters? bullied, noone cared. the VT shooter? mental case, noone got involved. seemingly every weekend on the south side? "gangbangers doing their thing, that sucks" and a nation didn't care. the batman shooter? still getting resolved, but he clearly had something going on too that noone took action on.

 

the answer, i argue, is not succumbing to apathy. american apathy is unique in how stifling and overpowering it is. apathy extends to hundreds of other issues totally unrelated to gun violence. voting? politics? world and national affairs? all affected by worthless people who don't give a fuck. you can start to change this yourself. ask questions. see what's going on with those around you. try to help if you can. dont be so selfish, america. THATS

 

banning guns will limit the ability of people to act on hatred like this, but i think it'll create more problems than it solves.

 

 

full disclosure:

i've lost someone i loved to gun violence, she was killed in a random incident when someone stepped to her and shot her in the forehead, twice. point blank. later in the day he took his own life. he, too, struggled with mental illness that no one cared enough to get involved in. he acquired a weapon and killed someone. i dont think its the gun's fault that this girl died. it's the shooters fault.

 

on the other hand, i want to be a gun owner someday. i've shot targets before and enjoy it, it's fun to me. i'd like to own a mossy and a handgun. i think that's an american right, it's something i would like to be a part of, and i plan to enjoy it while i can.

 

TLDR: give fucks, america.

[injury]

i'm OK with high capacity mag bans and one-a-month programs though.

[angelofdeath]

i'm OK with high capacity mag bans and one-a-month programs though.

 

i think this is the thing i take issue with.

 

most people support something because it sounds good and they think that it will achieve what it sets out to. they tend to never think it through.

 

what is a 1 gun a month program going to do to combat the guy on the corner with a trunk full of .380's? all that stuff is already illegal and they were most likely obtained by stealing, which last time i checked theft was illegal.

 

what a 1 gun a month program will do is not only limit peoples freedom of choice and trample their natural rights, but it will limit their ability to be armed to protect against the person who will obtain weapons no matter what. one gun a month means, you can buy a .22 to learn how to shoot, but you cant buy a carry gun till 30 days later or a shotgun till 30 days later to defend your house properly. what about if this persons home is invaded by a violent criminal on uppers and all he has is a .22 he is learning to shoot with? and he shot the guy but since a .22 lacks sufficient stopping power, the guy still managed to slay 2 of this family members while he was bleeding out because he wasnt incapacitated effectively? what about the people who might lose their life because they are not able to obtain the firearms needed to defend themselves? what about limiting the single father who has a 17 year old daughter who cant legally purchase a firearm but is trained in its use and he wants her to be armed when in the house and he has his only gun on him or in his car? an extremist might say the government is responsible for the 17 year olds lack of self defense if someone maniac broke into her house while her dad was on night shift.

 

 

clinton enacted a magazine ban. a handful of states have them currently.

i fail to see how making a magazine more expensive will make them disappear. i also fail to see how making a 20 round or a 10 round mag illegal by decree will save someone's life. anyone with an hour to spare can reload a 10 rd mag in an AR faster than the average joe can even shoot through a 30 rd mag.

 

not to mention, the irony...

the batman shooter used a 100 rd mag. they are prone to malfunctions. thank goodness there wasnt a high cap mag ban in place that was actually effective (impossible, but taht is another subject)and the guy used reliable 10 round mags and got an hours worth of practice in reloading before he started shooting. the casualty count would of been much higher.

 

things are not often how they seem.

[Mr. Incognito]

CT has the 4th strictest gun laws in the US, and maybe this point doesn't matter, but the shooter's guns definitely weren't acquired legally. He stole his Mother's. not to mention he wasn't even 21. as AOD said a bunch of times, you'll notice the areas where crazy shit like this happens tend to have stricter gun laws.

 

meanwhile in Virginia, while gun sales soar, violent gun crime is down 27%

http://home.nra.org/classic.aspx/blog/342

[Walid Jumblat]

Gun control cannot work in a country already awash with firearms, such as the USA. Maybe in about 5 generations positive returns would be felt but for a long time, you guys are already fucked.

 

The argument of 'people kill, not guns' is simplistic - we know people are killers, so why give them tools to be much more efficient at it?

 

if your logic extends to national areas, why not international areas? why are your bans supposedly working in one country, but not in others? why not a need for a global ban, cause anything else is pissing in the wind.

His point is that saying 'states with high gun control have high offense rates showing control does not work' is a weak argument because guns travel across interstate lines very, very easily - like having one half of your restaurant as non-smoking, the smoke blows with the wind. IF you then conflate that same logic to differential gun laws in different countries as being just as unworkable that means you are ignorant of a number of differences. Countries have border protections that states don't have, making the cross-flow of weapons more difficult. Countries are separated by oceans, mountains and rivers, making trafficking physically harder and more expensive. Just these two points alone make the international argument fundamentally different than the national argument. I thought the differences would have been obvious.

 

Also, the world is different. Gun control will work less in Africa as there are shared borders on a continent with a history of war and high levels of poverty and corruption. somewhere like Australia is surrounded by water with a cohesive society, same with Japan and other countries. This means less guns already exist and gun control is easier to implement and will have a greater effect.

 

 

And the whole govt tyranny argument? Oh please. In the US you have far more to fear from your fellow citizen than you do your govt. I've travelled and lived in some pretty poor and oppressed nations as well has lots of normal developed places. The country where I fear for my safety the most during day to day life is most easily in the US. Racial, economic and drug problems mixed with a high prevalence of firearms - yeah, you guys are fucked for a looooooong time yet.

[angelofdeath]

And the whole govt tyranny argument? Oh please. In the US you have far more to fear from your fellow citizen than you do your govt. I've travelled and lived in some pretty poor and oppressed nations as well has lots of normal developed places. The country where I fear for my safety the most during day to day life is most easily in the US. Racial, economic and drug problems mixed with a high prevalence of firearms - yeah, you guys are fucked for a looooooong time yet.

 

i think if you look at history, and the numbers, you'd see that governments have stacked up 280 million people like cordwood, outside of warfare. 'private' killings, amounted to a few million.

 

maybe i have a distorted view of 'the threat.'

 

i dont think the argument is valid that guns keep people free. this is not really the case. but they CAN be used to keep people free. after all, the US was created by private gun owners resisting their own government. a couple thousand cave dwellers in the hindu kush with home made khyber pass AK's and lee enfield rifles have held the worlds largest and strongest military at bay for what, 10 years now?

 

but i do know one thing.

for instance.

arming the jews in the warsaw ghetto in winter 1942 and spring of 1943 might of been futile. but at least they had a chance. at least they died a hero's death

 

is a gun a talisman? nope, but it does offer people a fighting chance. if someone is shooting at me with an AK, i sure would like to have an AK to shoot back at them. instead of....i dont know. throwing pens at them?

[Walid Jumblat]

i think if you look at history, and the numbers, you'd see that governments have stacked up 280 million people like cordwood, outside of warfare. 'private' killings, amounted to a few million.

 

maybe i have a distorted view of 'the threat.'

I won't argue that govts have good histories but I would suggest that there are deep complexities in the situation and just being armed is a pretty superficial response.

i dont think the argument is valid that guns keep people free. this is not really the case. but they CAN be used to keep people free. after all, the US was created by private gun owners resisting their own government. a couple thousand cave dwellers in the hindu kush with home made khyber pass AK's and lee enfield rifles have held the worlds largest and strongest military at bay for what, 10 years now?

No, sorry, that is not what has happened in Afghanistan at all. They are armed with much more than Lee Enfields (c'mon dude, you've heard of the IED/VBIEDs, right??) and they are sponsored by other govts external to Afghanistan that provide weapons, training, sanctuary, intelligence, logistics, etc. etc. I'm pretty sure you don't believe the situation in Afghanistan is as simple as you put it. Even when the Afghans were fighting the Red Army they were getting massacred until an external power provided them with strategic level weapons, training, funding, intelligence, etc.

 

but i do know one thing.

for instance.

arming the jews in the warsaw ghetto in winter 1942 and spring of 1943 might of been futile. but at least they had a chance. at least they died a hero's death

Yes, we can all agree that there are many times in history that masses of oppressed people would have benefited from the means to defend themselves. But you're being very self serving if you think small arms can do anything to protect 'a people' from an organised and well funded govt force intent on enacting a policy. Here, have an M16 and go run in to that tank on the other side of that mine field that is covered by 38 machine gun pits and air cover.

 

 

is a gun a talisman? nope, but it does offer people a fighting chance. if someone is shooting at me with an AK, i sure would like to have an AK to shoot back at them. instead of....i dont know. throwing pens at them?

 

If that other person didn't have an AK then you'd be even better off, right? I don't fear being shot on the street in Australia and I fear my govts policy of cutting the defence budget more than I fear their tyranny. Do we have gun crime? Yeah, sure. Not enough to make me want to arm myself though.

[angelofdeath]

 

No, sorry, that is not what has happened in Afghanistan at all. They are armed with much more than Lee Enfields (c'mon dude, you've heard of the IED/VBIEDs, right??) and they are sponsored by other govts external to Afghanistan that provide weapons, training, sanctuary, intelligence, logistics, etc. etc. I'm pretty sure you don't believe the situation in Afghanistan is as simple as you put it. Even when the Afghans were fighting the Red Army they were getting massacred until an external power provided them with strategic level weapons, training, funding, intelligence, etc.

 

are you suggesting that the dudes kicking it in waziristan have NOD's, drones, air support, .50 cal's and HITR's w/ kestrels, vectronix vectors and S+B scopes?

 

I think you get my point.

a rifle culture in mountainous terrain is very tough to defeat. in fact you could almost say that it is a law, a rifle culture in mountainous terrain is rarely crushed.

 

I'll make another one. the IRA in the UK. after the easter rising the IRA, had no more than 500 trigger pullers, ever. largely because of the leadership of one guy, michael collins, they attained a free state and later held the british empire at a stand still for the better part of a century.

 

scotland yard, the RIC and the rest amounted to well approximately 50,000K during late teens/1920's. i believe its safe to say, a small determined force can safely maintain their freedom. its not a matter of if its possible, its a matter of can they do it.

even if you extrapolate the IRA's per capita numbers to the US...their numbers amount to less than .3% of the gun owners in america. even if the government was 99% successful at door to door confiscation and destruction of weapons which is entirely impossible, that leaves almost 1 million people with about 3 million guns. this outnumbers the active duty US fighting force by leaps and bounds. and doesnt take into account the guys who wouldnt follow orders or would just go home.

i think its safe to say, there is no way guns will disappear in the US.

 

perhaps you can write a letter to the UK and tell them you could of simply stopped all the shooting, skirmishes, bombings and such by simply passing some more gun laws and outlawing bombing. wait....

 

 

Yes, we can all agree that there are many times in history that masses of oppressed people would have benefited from the means to defend themselves. But you're being very self serving if you think small arms can do anything to protect 'a people' from an organised and well funded govt force intent on enacting a policy. Here, have an M16 and go run in to that tank on the other side of that mine field that is covered by 38 machine gun pits and air cover.

 

im not suggesting a .223 can match a tank, but a couple thought out bottles of ingredients made from machine shop scraps can.

 

i dont think it is ever morally justified to take away a means of someone to defend themselves. in the game of self defense, the use of any tool is justified if your life is in danger.

 

 

 

If that other person didn't have an AK then you'd be even better off, right?

 

maybe.

but that is like saying we can un-invent something that exists in the hundreds of millions.

akin to saying...'we could stop the 40k highway deaths per year if cars werent invented.' you cant un-invent them and it is physically, logistically, morally and legislatively impossible to remove them. so i'll take the position that they will exist, will always exist in my life time and arent going anywhere because its impossible.

 

 

I fear my govts policy of cutting the defence budget more than I fear their tyranny. Do we have gun crime? Yeah, sure. Not enough to make me want to arm myself though.

 

that is beautiful freedom.

your choice not to want to defend yourself, and the other side, ones right to choose to have the means to defend themselves.

 

in areas like where i frequent, response time for LE is upwards of 20-40 min. the armed citizen is the front line.

 

 

 

 

i've probably been looking at this all wrong.

im missing the boat.

since prohibition is so ineffective, it would probably be easier to obtain firearms if they were banned than if they were legal. sort of like drugs. its much easier for a school kid to get weed at 15 than to get alcohol which is legal. anyone can get illegal liquor or 'moonshine' in any college town in the south at the drop of a hat.

 

yup, i have changed my position completely.

[pedoe]

Fucking irate about the fact that the news keeps dropping that "oh, but he was a smart kid." Do not give a fuck--tell me how his stupid ass parents raised the little shit.

[100%juice]

some very succinct points being made.

 

I agree about the media. the media circus created by this sort of thing is far more dangerous than any amount of small arms weapons in the hands of non militarized individual citizens.

 

we are talking about a generalization..

but a somewhat proven one.

 

which is; a majority of the perpetrators were not very social people.

 

the media is giving them a sure shot at instant fame.. and giving anyone else with the slightest proclivity to repeat such a performance a 100% likelihood of also being famous when previously they'd been largely ignored/belittled/socially outcast

 

i guess my point is that this sort of event is completely self fulfilling. a nation thriving off of instant media driven gratification. like a sick and starving child feeding off its own puke.

[NightmareOnElmStreet]

definitely going to see more of these shootings....only difference popping up is wether or not

these crazies know how to use the fucking gun or not. today in that hospital in alabama.

 

THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH THIS PLACE!?

[Walid Jumblat]

are you suggesting that the dudes kicking it in waziristan have NOD's, drones, air support, .50 cal's and HITR's w/ kestrels, vectronix vectors and S+B scopes?

 

I think you get my point.

a rifle culture in mountainous terrain is very tough to defeat. in fact you could almost say that it is a law, a rifle culture in mountainous terrain is rarely crushed.

 

Nowhere near as simple as you make out. The guys in Waziristan are not the only people the US is competing with in Afghanistan, so your assertion is fundamentally inaccurate straight off the bat. The guys in Waziristan are the Haqqani group and yes, you are very wrong to say they are only operating with rifles. They are operating with the funding, logistics, intelligence and political backing of the Pakistani state - they are a proxy force, mate and that is worlds away from what you are trying to make out. Secondly, they are not holding the US at bay, it is the border of Pakistan and the US need for cooperation from Islamabad in Afghanistan that is complicating things. The US only goes in to Waziristan with drones and very minimal small forces (if at all) because they have to respect Pak sovereignty. The Haqqani group do NOT have to defend their base territory and that's what makes the difference for them. And once again, they are only one element of the forces that the US are up against, there's also the Quetta Shura, warlord interests and tribal interests. To say that the Waziri forces are holding the US at bay is as about as inaccurate as it gets, mate.

 

But yes, fighting an insurgency in mountains is very difficult due to terrain and the fact that mountain cultures are usually very insular due to their long history of being remote from the rest of the world. They know the ground, they don't care for external influence and they have strong regional identity - the point is that it's hardly having weapons that is the dominant factor of mountain folk being hard to conquer. If they were easily split or the terrain was more accessible to large forces they'd be fucked regardless of their rifles - I'd even say that it's the terrain that is the dominant factor.

 

And that means that comparing armed mountain folk to well developed urban environments is completely useless. The terrain is different, the culture is not homogenous and the law of the land is the same in Chicago as it is in Houston. There is zero use in comparing the environment of the AfPak mountains to the United States or any other developed country.

 

I'll make another one. the IRA in the UK. after the easter rising the IRA, had no more than 500 trigger pullers, ever. largely because of the leadership of one guy, michael collins, they attained a free state and later held the british empire at a stand still for the better part of a century.

 

I'm sorry mate, but to say that this was the only reason for that outcome (which is horribly overstated anyway) is completely ludicrous. I'm not going to type out an essay why.

 

scotland yard, the RIC and the rest amounted to well approximately 50,000K during late teens/1920's. i believe its safe to say, a small determined force can safely maintain their freedom. its not a matter of if its possible, its a matter of can they do it.

even if you extrapolate the IRA's per capita numbers to the US...their numbers amount to less than .3% of the gun owners in america. even if the government was 99% successful at door to door confiscation and destruction of weapons which is entirely impossible, that leaves almost 1 million people with about 3 million guns. this outnumbers the active duty US fighting force by leaps and bounds. and doesnt take into account the guys who wouldnt follow orders or would just go home.

i think its safe to say, there is no way guns will disappear in the US.

 

If you'll notice, I've already agreed to this. The US is already way too far gone given the amount of firearms in your society now. And the US is living this reality in its schools, shopping centers, churches, movie cinemas, etc. etc.

 

 

im not suggesting a .223 can match a tank, but a couple thought out bottles of ingredients made from machine shop scraps can.

 

i dont think it is ever morally justified to take away a means of someone to defend themselves. in the game of self defense, the use of any tool is justified if your life is in danger.

 

Making IEDs from machine shops can serve a purpose as can other tactics but you're not going to hold back an average military force backed by a govt unless you have external support. Look at the vast majority of insurgencies that have succeeded, they've all had external support. You need a state to defeat a state - not all the time, depending on how weak your enemy state is. But 99% of history will tell you that you won't defeat a state without foreign backing of another state.

 

 

 

 

 

maybe.

but that is like saying we can un-invent something that exists in the hundreds of millions.

akin to saying...'we could stop the 40k highway deaths per year if cars werent invented.' you cant un-invent them and it is physically, logistically, morally and legislatively impossible to remove them. so i'll take the position that they will exist, will always exist in my life time and arent going anywhere because its impossible.

 

Again, I've already agreed to this. The US is already fucked and I cannot offer any solution to the problem. My main problem with your position is that you think that guns are not part of the problem. As other people have said, it's not just the firearms, its people's reasons to use them. Deep economic division, racial tensions, drug culture, gang culture, etc. etc. all add to the mix, it's not just firearms.

 

But the point is, the US has all these social problems, the last thing you want to add to that is guns. But, it's too late now, the horse has already bolted. Secondly, I disagree with your unrelenting fundamental belief that gun control is a bad thing for everyone in every country. I can walk down any street in this country without feeling I need a firearm to defend myself. Simple as that mate, my country isn't awash with shooters and I'd much prefer it that way.

 

 

 

 

that is beautiful freedom.

your choice not to want to defend yourself, and the other side, ones right to choose to have the means to defend themselves.

 

in areas like where i frequent, response time for LE is upwards of 20-40 min. the armed citizen is the front line.

 

Sure, I understand that and your security environment is vastly different than mine. People here have very little NEED to defend themselves. But if you allow people to arm themselves you enter a security dilemma. My neighbour may arm himself with the means to defend himself but that firearm also has the potential to be used as an offensive weapon. How can I trust that the good intentions he has today will be the same intentions he has tomorrow? How can I trust that he will be able to proficciently use that weapon against an attacker and not lose his weapon to another person that can then use it against me? I cannot just trust in hope that my neighbour's weapon will not be used against my family, I have no choice but to am myself. And of course the dilemma expands from there with the people around me.

 

99.9% of the people in my country and most that I've been to have no reason to arm themselves. Gun control can be a good thing.

 

 

 

 

i've probably been looking at this all wrong.

im missing the boat.

since prohibition is so ineffective, it would probably be easier to obtain firearms if they were banned than if they were legal. sort of like drugs. its much easier for a school kid to get weed at 15 than to get alcohol which is legal. anyone can get illegal liquor or 'moonshine' in any college town in the south at the drop of a hat.

 

yup, i have changed my position completely.

 

I have no idea what you're saying here and your sarcasm leads me not to care too much anyway.

[massgraff]

toasters don't toast toast, toast toasts toast.

[El Mamerro]

It appears to me the proper way to fight government tyranny is by using doctors and cars against them. Cause clearly they're far more effective.