Massive School Shooting at an Elementary School

[DGFone]

Yeah- they don't work.

I live in California, where they placed a lot of these measures - and more. We are only allowed single-shot rifles with 10 round magazines tops, and to reload, we need to use a reloading tool.

It's better than no guns at all, but when a maniac in LA is toting around a 30- round mag, fully automatic AK-47, you really start thinking...

[Regulus]

It only takes one bullet to kill, and I trust that someone as proficient with guns as yourself would be able to use what little ammo you have effectively.

[Kopalover]

I know this is what Chris Rock said.
But wouldn't it make sense to sell guns, sure its a gun, but what's a gun without ammo. If the ammo was like .. $10,000 a pack or per bullet. Wouldn't that kind of be a waste of money just to kill people in a school, mall or movie theatre?
I don't know, its kind of stupid but it's a useful argument?

[Regulus]

A tax on bullets?

I like your thinking. I'm not sure how well it would work, but it's an interesting proposition nevertheless.

[DGFone]

You guts are still missing the point about the very core of gun support:

It's not neighbors we're worried about, it's tyrants. And as I told Az, take a look around the world and see how wrong the "it will never happen to us" argument is. Even in some developed nations, there are political parties that are gaining power fast, and are, for the lack of a better word, extremely racist and tyrannical.

Fighting against the government is not only a third world problem, and banning guns will only make it easier for people in charge who wish ill on a populace to carry out whatever they please to.

There's a reason why the first thing dictators do is ban all guns. You would think most revolutionaries will arm the population to keep a revolution going strong, instead they disarm everyone as soon as they can so that they will have an unchallenged iron grip.

Guys, come on. If, as you say, fewer than 90% of crimes are committed using guns, what will banning guns actually do? Absolutely nothing.

[Regulus]

Only M-16s are going to save us from Yuri's Revenge.

I don't know what country you live in, but in America we have this thing called the first amendment, which is an effective countermeasure to the rise of a dictatorship, as long as it is upheld.

Claiming that a ban on guns will give rise to tyranny is a slippery slope fallacy. You are making the incorrect assumption that no middle ground exists, and as such, your argument is invalid.

[DGFone]

[quote="Regulus"]
I don't know what country you live in, but in America we have this thing called the first amendment, which is an effective countermeasure to the rise of a dictatorship, as long as it is upheld.

Claiming that a ban on guns will give rise to tyranny is a slippery slope fallacy. You are making the incorrect assumption that no middle ground exists, and as such, your argument is invalid.[/quote]

You think a dictatorship will care about the constitution? And don't even try to guess how many people will go along with it, because I've seen on this very topic: "maybe it's outdated and should be removed".

Don't assume a piece of paper will stop everything. You need real power at worst case. To assume that because we have a constitution, everything will be fine, that is a slippery slope argument. Not only has it been proven wrong several times in history, as well as a few times quite recently, but the very fact that it's in the constitution, written by some of the best minds in the world, should tell you something.

[Regulus]

That is not the meaning of the slippery slope fallacy.

And, I believe my logic holds true for the following reasons:

[quote="DGFone"]Taking away guns won't be the solution, as all you're doing is preventing regular citizens from defending themselves. Remember, if you are planning to commit a crime [such as assassinate a dictator], you will be able to get a gun, no matter how banned they are.[/quote]

[quote="DGFone"]Guns are not the problem. They are the scapegoat.[/quote]

You said it yourself, guns aren't the problem. People are. A dictator can still take over if the population has guns, if the dictator wins the hearts and minds of the population.

If I understand correctly, you're trying to claim, not only that guns protect democracy, but that they are the only thing that protects democracy as well.

Let's suppose gun ownership was unregulated in Nazi Germany, because it's obvious that's what you're referring to. We have no way of knowing what would have happened, but we do know a few things:

Hitler gained power because the majority of the Germans supported his ideas. The average citizen wouldn't have pointed a gun at his head to begin with.

If the Jewish population resisted with firearms, there would have been violence. Either way, people would die so that does not help the situation.

Even if the Jewish population had guns and attempted to overthrow Hitler, that does not necessarily mean that they would have succeeded.

Also, it is incorrect to assume that the founding fathers would support gun ownership today. Remember, back then, many citizens were farmers. There were native Americans to worry about. Many citizens owned slaves as well. Society was totally different. Remember, those "geniuses" thought only rich white men were capable of running a government.

[DGFone]

I never said that without guns, democracy will fail. I only said that it's much likelier for it to fail. Because a slippery slop argument is definite, what I said doesn't qualify as one.

Guns are not the only line of defense, but the last.

And you know what would have happened if the Jews fought against the Nazis? Sure, they would have lost and been crushed. But the violence would have grabbed international news, making the world realize that the Nazis were evil significantly before they invaded Poland, and easily shortening the length and death toll of WWII.

Also, about those who wrote the constitution: There's a reason why it was written vague, and that was because even among these 'rich white men', they were extremely divided upon slaves and women's rights. The only reason why Jefferson got to keep his farm (and slaves) was because he gave his wife complete autonomy in running it while he was away.

[TheLionPrince]

I'd like to point out that we aren't looking for a magic bullet (pun intended), we are just looking to reduce gun crime over a period of years.

[quote="DGFone"]It's better than no guns at all, but when a maniac in LA is toting around a 30- round mag, fully automatic AK-47, you really start thinking...[/quote]
But how often does that happen? You are inventing bizarre scenarios where you would need them. I can think of a scenario where you would need a surface to air missile, that does not mean civilians need them. Hand guns are perfectly fine for self defense.

[quote="DGFone"]It's not neighbors we're worried about, it's tyrants.[/quote]
I understand distrusting the government (I don't trust Obama and Bush that much) but to assume they want to kill you is beyond paranoid.

[quote="DGFone"]And as I told Az, take a look around the world and see how wrong the "it will never happen to us" argument is.[/quote]
England and Australia got rid of assault weapons in 1996. How many tyrants have come so far?

[quote="Regulus"]
Even if the Jewish population had guns and attempted to overthrow Hitler, that does not necessarily mean that they would have succeeded.[/quote]
Dude, France couldn't even stop Hitler and I'm pretty certain they had guns.

[quote="DGFone"]
I never said that without guns, democracy will fail. I only said that it's much likelier for it to fail. Because a slippery slop argument is definite, what I said doesn't qualify as one.[/quote]
So we can't address our present today 30,000 gun deaths because of the potential future rise of Hitler 2.0?