Massive School Shooting at an Elementary School

[Azdgari]

The AR-15 is the closest to an "assault rifle", which of course is sort of an amorphous term. However, it does not have full auto or 3 round burst. (preaching to the choir I'm sure). Private ownership of M16s is illegal (and redundant--AR-15 is the legal variant of the gun anyway). I would argue that weapons that do not have full/burst capability are not assault weapons.

A) If the military won't obey the president, then our having guns is irrelevant--there is no threat.
B) So you think that it's likely in the event of a tyrannical takeover a citizen could roll up and shoot our president with an AR-15? And you condone giving this power to all civilians, so that when anybody decides it's a tyranny, they can murder our leader? That sounds like a recipe for, well, mentally ill people shooting things up. Familiar.
C) Regardless, it's paranoia.
D) I will still argue it's entirely irrelevant.

[DGFone]

I only know specifically about the AR-15 and California laws, but you can find legally owned full-auto gun videos all over the web. Again: depends on the state.

A. Not necessarily. Just because they won't fight their families, doesn't mean the army will actively help the citizens. It's also likely that they will simply stand down and not do anything.

B. I am pretty sure that if a tyrant somehow took over the US, someone would try to kill the tyrant. I'll gladly help (if it's a real tyrant).

C. Sometimes all you need is enough scared people. It's called a powder keg for a reason: alone? Harmless. One tiny spark? BOOM.

D. I know many on the internet consider this a cheap shot, but here it goes: Irrelevant? Guess what the Germans said right before they voted Hitler into power? The Russians with the communism? Just about any other nation that cheered a tyrant into power: "We're too civilized. Our great leaders will never become tyrants and commit atrocities". Those who fail their history are doomed to repeat it. Keep in mind that some of these tyrants were in power as late as the 1990s. Some are even still in power.
YOU NEED A FAIL SAFE.

[Azdgari]

[quote="DGFone"]I only know specifically about the AR-15 and California laws, but you can find legally owned full-auto gun videos all over the web. Again: depends on the state.

A. Not necessarily. Just because they won't fight their families, doesn't mean the army will actively help the citizens. It's also likely that they will simply stand down and not do anything.

B. I am pretty sure that if a tyrant somehow took over the US, someone would try to kill the tyrant. I'll gladly help (if it's a real tyrant).

C. Sometimes all you need is enough scared people. It's called a powder keg for a reason: alone? Harmless. One tiny spark? BOOM.

D. I know many on the internet consider this a cheap shot, but here it goes: Irrelevant? Guess what the Germans said right before they voted Hitler into power? The Russians with the communism? Just about any other nation that cheered a tyrant into power: "We're too civilized. Our great leaders will never become tyrants and commit atrocities". Those who fail their history are doomed to repeat it. Keep in mind that some of these tyrants were in power as late as the 1990s. Some are even still in power.
YOU NEED A FAIL SAFE.[/quote]
Shocking! I had no idea fully automatic weapons were legal at all in America, thank you for pointing that out. How ludicrous. That needs to go in the next gun legislation. At least it's so expensive and regulated that it's nigh impossible to get them. Imagine if the Sandy Hook mother had owned a legally owned full auto weapon. Unforgivable for our society.


A) So you concede they are irrelevant? If there's no military, the government does not have the power to oppress us and there is no issue.

B) You ignored every part of what I said. ???

C) You're arguing against yourself, if I understand what your saying. Aren't you saying that having armed, paranoid people is creating a recipe for disaster?

D) Noted, but because of everything we've been arguing about, yes, irrelevant. It's not that I don't believe we need checks. It's that I do not believe that guns represent a meaningful check on our government.

[DGFone]

A. The military is not the only force a tyrant can use against the people. Case in point: the Gestapo and Russia's secret police.

B. There's a difference that I forgot to say: If one nutcase simply declares the president a tyrant, they will never get through the bodyguards. (By the way, presidents in the past have been assassinated by people who believed the president was harming the nation) If someone is a tyrant, enough people will fight, that the tyrant will lose.

C. People will always be armed. Don't get them paranoid.

D. A tyrant can still play the system to remove the checks and balances. Like Biomac said: the constitution can be changed. And the first thing a tyrant will do is force a removal of the second amendment. Now let's see the same tyrant try to remove the guns and ammo from people's houses. And this is a fact: if someone will try to remove guns from America, a noticable percent will fight back.

[HasiraKali]

[quote="DGFone"]
Hasira and Az: Depending on the state, you can in fact own military style small-arms. You won't be able to get a tank or anything like that, but M-16 and AR-15/AR-10 rifles are some of the best sellers in the nation. Even in California, the state infamous for its gun laws, allows you to buy an assault rifle under these conditions: 1. 10 round mag tops. 2. Semi-fire only. No full auto. 3. You need a reloading tool. No pushing a button to reload.[/quote]

And that's the problem. They shouldn't be available to the general public, I'm sorry. Actually, I'm not.

Look where I live. Guns are everywhere here.

[DGFone]

[quote="HasiraKali"]
And that's the problem. They shouldn't be available to the general public, I'm sorry. Actually, I'm not.

Look where I live. Guns are everywhere here.[/quote]

So do everyone where I live. (Even in gun-allergic California). I find that being around guns, leaning about them, and accepting them is much better than fearing them. Yes, I was afraid of guns. Then I held one and shot it at a target.

I personally think that most people are afraid of guns because of video games and hollywood: places where you don't see how much effort it takes to maintain a gun (translation: don't get one unless you are ready for all the maintenance), the fact that gun can carry 30 rounds in a very large magazine and not 500. That shooting one is not as easy as clicking your mouse or pushing a button on your controller. Ignorance of guns leads to fear of them.

[HasiraKali]

I don't even know where to begin with that.

A gun itself isn't scary. It's the person that uses it. And there is no logical need for a gun in the hands of a private citizen that can shoot multiple rounds per second. There just isn't.

[DGFone]

[quote="HasiraKali"]I don't even know where to begin with that.

A gun itself isn't scary. It's the person that uses it. And there is no logical need for a gun in the hands of a private citizen that can shoot multiple rounds per second. There just isn't.[/quote]

People will always want guns, and many need them. Now what kind of gun are you going to get?
A civilian version of what's already being made for the military or a special-order single-shot smooth-bore musket?

The reason why people who have guns have guns that can shoot multiple rounds is simply because those are the only guns being made in the first place.

[HasiraKali]

You are clearly not reading my posts. Or, at the very least, you are misinterpreting them.

I said I don't think guns should be banned completely, but certain types and their accoutrements should not be available to private citizens.

[DGFone]

It's where I had the comparison to video game DRM: Why are you going to punish the many innocent just to try (and generally FAIL) to stop the minority?

I'll give you a good reason (and a bad reason) why I might want a gun that can shoot many bullets often: To stop someone with a similar gun, or o stop a group of people if they wish physical crime on my, my family, or anyone/thing else I care for. Remember, at the end of the day, if a criminal really wants to, no law will stop them from getting a machine gun. Let me at least the right to own a semi-auto rifle to ward off that, okay?

Plus, I think even you are curious what it will be like to blow off 250 rounds in a machine gun at a shooting range.

This is the biggest mind bender I am seeing with this kind of argument:

We all agree that guns are not the problem, but people. So why are you guys proposing solutions that are about the gun - about the part that isn't the problem.