Massive School Shooting at an Elementary School

[DGFone]

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.

Why only gun crime? You're saying that if we were somehow able to destroy the above-surface section of the iceberg, the Titanic would have survived. You want to create results? Reduce ALL crime. Like I said: guns are a scapegoat.

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...

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.

You'll be surprised how often it is. Last semester I was doing some math labs with a guy in my class. His room is filled with guns, and by now the last one should finally be California-legalized. And I felt perfectly safe surrounded by 15 or so guns.

So if it's that easy for a regular college guy to get so many guns, imagine what a criminal with a plan can do. Especially when they don't listen to laws and add those reloading switches, limit their magazines to 10 rounds, and modify the guns to semi-auto only.

By the way: it's hand guns that are used most in crime, because they are easy to conceal. A guy toting an M-16 on his back will always be viewed with suspicion.

It's not neighbors we're worried about, it's tyrants.

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.

I'm not worried about them killing me. I'm worried about them sending this country to [censored] in the name of freedom safety.

And as I told Az, take a look around the world and see how wrong the "it will never happen to us" argument is.

England and Australia got rid of assault weapons in 1996. How many tyrants have come so far?

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

Dude, France couldn't even stop Hitler and I'm pretty certain they had guns.

Remember this is France we're talknig about. The Nazis only invaded France once they were ready with their military. Plus, no one in France had guns. There's a reason why it lost so quickly, and the reason is called WW 1. Everyone in France were pacifists after that, and therefore prime for the picking for the Nazis.

I was referring to before that, when everyone still thought that Hitler was a good guy. Charile Chaplain got flamed for his "Great Dictator" movie, because he parodied the situation with Jews in Germany. But if a significant portion of the population in Germany had rebelled, people would have payed more attention, and the Allies could have started preparing for war sooner. Contrary to popular belief, Germany wasn't in any condition to fight a real war during the offset of WWII. The only reason it won was because France and Britain weren't ready for any war. Remember appeasement? France and Britain allowed themselves to be purposely blind to what Hitler was doing just so that they will get to avoid war just a little bit longer. And we all know how that turned out.

Also: Hitler invaded Poland, the world finally watched, and the Allies realized their bi mistake.

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.

So we can't address our present today 30,000 gun deaths because of the potential future rise of Hitler 2.0?

What's 30,000 compared to 60,000,000? And if happened today, it would be a higher number as there are more people today. Even purely mathematics, it's much smarter to try and do something about the 30,000 than to regret having to fight a bloody civil war because someone wanted a "peaceful" nation.

[TheLionPrince]

First, you didn't answer my question as to why people need assault weapons instead of handguns.

Second, how would you stop gun crime in America then?

I felt perfectly safe surrounded by 15 or so guns.

You shouldn't. Households with guns have a greater chance of firearm injury.

So if it's that easy for a regular college guy to get so many guns, imagine what a criminal with a plan can do. Especially when they don't listen to laws and add those reloading switches, limit their magazines to 10 rounds, and modify the guns to semi-auto only.

Exactly, which is why we should ban assault weapons. 90% of criminals get them from straw purchases (which means they got someone to legally purchase them) To be fair, it's not worth arguing because America will never realize there is no reason to own one of those particular guns.

It's not neighbors we're worried about, it's tyrants.

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.

I'm not worried about them killing me. I'm worried about them sending this country to [censored] in the name of freedom safety.

I'm more worried about this country reaching 50,000 gun deaths a year, while England has 30 and Japan has 10. But hey, that's just me.

Remember this is France we're talknig about. The Nazis only invaded France once they were ready with their military. Plus, no one in France had guns.

Making fun of France? You are missing the entire point
Fine, I'll give you another example. It took the free world 5 years of fighting to stop Hitler. The only thing Jewish people would have done is further Hitler's "Jews=Bad People" propaganda campaign by fighting back.

But if a significant portion of the population in Germany had rebelled, people would have payed more attention, and the Allies could have started preparing for war sooner.

Do you even know how dictatorships are formed? It's not like Hitler walked in with guns and said "Obey Me!". It was propaganda. You know, like when the NRA says the second amendment doesn't allow for background checks or gun registration. That kind of propaganda.

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.

So we can't address our present today 30,000 gun deaths because of the potential future rise of Hitler 2.0?

What's 30,000 compared to 60,000,000? And if happened today, it would be a higher number as there are more people today. Even purely mathematics, it's much smarter to try and do something about the 30,000 than to regret having to fight a bloody civil war because someone wanted a "peaceful" nation.

You want to lead a revolution? Do what Ghandi and Martin Luther King did. Ghandi was up against the British army (Spoiler Alert: They had guns). Peace works better. The only people who think guns are the most powerful weapon are gangster criminals and militia governmentphobes.

[DGFone]

First, you didn't answer my question as to why people need assault weapons instead of handguns.

Second, how would you stop gun crime in America then?

You stop all crime. Which means doing the hard thing and putting resources into finding out why people would commit a crime, how to prevent it, and how to spot crimes about to be committed. If you simply ban guns, some people will simply move on to the next lethal weapon, say a knife. And as you know, now Britain wants to ban those too, because the first time they banned a weapon, crime didn't drop for some reason...

I felt perfectly safe surrounded by 15 or so guns.

You shouldn't. Households with guns have a greater chance of firearm injury

You know why I felt safe? Because I know how to handle a gun safely, and the guy I was with also knows how to handle guns safely. It's not the gun, but the person. As my brother told me in Montana: You get gun crime and accidents there too. They always happen from some drunk coastal born frat boy who never held a gun in their life before. Combine that with beer, and you get a recipe for disaster. On the other hand, the native Montana residents can get drunk, but have it built into them that you never hold a gun unless you can drive.

Exactly, which is why we should ban assault weapons. 90% of criminals get them from straw purchases (which means they got someone to legally purchase them) To be fair, it's not worth arguing because America will never realize there is no reason to own one of those particular guns.

See below.

You want to lead a revolution? Do what Ghandi and Martin Luther King did. Ghandi was up against the British army (Spoiler Alert: They had guns). Peace works better. The only people who think guns are the most powerful weapon are gangster criminals and militia governmentphobes.

Seriously, you ban everything but handguns, and gun crime will drop not bit. In fact, I am certain it will rise up. Gun crime relies on concealment. Concealment. How are you going to hide an AT-4 in your back pocket? Or even an M-16 or an AK? You can't. So criminals don't use them unless they plan to go in guns blazing...

...Where you better have a good gun to fight back with. Those guys are not planning to stick around long enough for police to arrive. Or leave witnesses.

Time to spoil your politically correct school teachings: Ghandi at first chose an armed revolution. In fact, he served in the British army. The only reason he didn't go with one was that he knew that an armed revolution would get crushed. Martin Luther King went with the peaceful approach because I grantee you: no one ever told him that Gahndi wanted war first. But I admit, those peaceful revolutions worked.

Now where they didn't: East Germany, Cambodia, Vietnam, China, Iran, ... geez, can I go on. These are all where peaceful revolutions failed. Determined armies don't listen to a bunch of screaming civvies. They do listen to a bunch of screaming civvies who actually shoot back.

Where armed revolutions won: USA, France, Britain, Vietnam, Libya, Syria is making some progress... Same: geez, can I go on.

I'm more worried about this country reaching 50,000 gun deaths a year, while England has 30 and Japan has 10. But hey, that's just me.

Obviously you don't have relatives from a Communist nation. There's a reason why ex-commies are all Republicans: The know what "safety" means. Also, no one there had any guns either. Murder was an every-day occurrence everywhere.

And as for gevernmentphobia: If you say that you support individual rights and is willing to fight for them, even if it's simply defensively? According to Obama, you're a terrorist.
http://thetruthwins.com/archives/patrio ... -president
http://www.franklincountyvapatriots.com ... terrorist/
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/07 ... errorists/
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/politi ... 042490.php


And another thing to add about why it's a very good idea to actively avoid creating another communist nation, directly or indirectly:

How much do you really want to wipe your behind with newspaper after you go to the bathroom?

[Regulus]

Actually...

[DGFone]

1. Last time I checked, wanting "All non-Dutch" is not the same as wanting only non-Dutch workers out. And even that, wanting 'only' non-Dutch workers out of the nation? Yeah, I call that racism.

2. just did a Google check as well. Got what Regulus found. Never did I find "The Dutch are the happiest people in the world".

You want to know what the happiest nation in the world is? Look at all those small island-nations in Oceania. They might have populations of only several hundred at best, and everyone know each other by name. They all live in complete poverty and basically all of them are fishermen.

And they are all very happy with their lives, and I doubt those nations know what the word "crime" even means.

And if you in the Netherlands always get "Why are the Dutch so happy?", I highly doubt that it's because it the actual truth, but because you and other Dutch look it up every now and then just enough for it to be the most popular "Dutch" search term. Learn how Google works - it biases your often searched terms to display what you look at most often at the top.

[DGFone]

Congratulations on being very outdated, Woeler. Do a quick search not for "Why are the Dutch so happy" but the "happiest nations in the world".

The results are not what I expected, but far from what you claim they are. In fact, out of the top ten nations, only one "western" nation even made it to the list - Israel. Everyone else were either South American or those from the Caribbean. Two sources I found conflict on where Columbia is (1st or third), but both agree that your Slavic havens... are not.

http://www.livescience.com/25713-happie ... allup.html
http://travel.cnn.com/explorations/life ... try-561826

[DGFone]

1. I don't care who you discriminate against. Muslims, Easter Europeans, non-Dutch.. I don't care. The end matter is that official stance of this party is to discriminate against others.

2. You know how I know that guns are 100.0x10^24 % overrated compared to anything else that can kill? Because for some reason, I haven't heard about, and no one mentioned, the recent fire in Brazil that killed over 10x in one go than some of the deadliest gun attacks?

[DGFone]

I don't discrminate against anybody. You in fact, are generalizing. (And on wrong grounds too)

And maybe you should have clicked the link in your source to the rankings. You're posting two completely contradictory sources.

I never said that you personally discriminate against anyone. But the political party that you tell people to vote for is discriminating against others.

As for your link, it would be good and all except for the fact that it was published in April. Plus, I looked deeper (in the same website) assuming it's still correct, and found this amusing inverse relation in happiness with Americans versus Europeans:

Europeans are very happy when they only work some 16 hours a week, and then they start to steadily decrease in happiness as the hours of work increase.

With Americans, we get happier as we spend more time working, with the peak reaching about 40 hours a week and then happiness starts to drop off again.

This makes me wonder: Are you Europeans unable to find work that you guys actually enjoy? 16 hours a week of working is... nothing.

And back to guns: Until a gun randomly jumps up and tries to shoot me on its own, I am not worried about guns themselves, but people who use them. I support complete background checks on all guns sold, so that we can be much more certain about the quality of the person holding it. By then, what kind of gun it is matters very little if at all.

As an example: WITHOUT LOOKING IT UP: All of you: what is the first and most important rule of gun safety? WITHOUT LOOKING IT UP

Feel free to either PM me or reply in this topic. I want to know just how much you guys know about guns that makes you feel qualified to consider what kind of laws to pass about guns or not.

[Regulus]

^ stop this intelligent trolling nonsense. This is an argument about gun control.

As for the first and most important rule of gun safety, I can think of a few things:

Never point a gun at any living thing, or anything explosive.

Make sure the safety lock is on when the gun is not in use.

Never pull the trigger, even when the safety lock is on, and even when the gun is unloaded. Because the gun might be loaded, and the safety might be off.

Do not store a gun in an insecure place. You know, like where children could get to it.

Basically, to be safe around guns... don't use them.

[DGFone]

^ Of all the rules you just wrote down, non of them are the proper one.

The proper one is: "The guns is always loaded." It's not telling you that there is always a bullet in it, or that if its empty that you need to put one in, but rather that you always treat it as though it's loaded.

And this is precisely what I am talking about. People's experience with guns comes from movies, games, the very rare new story about a madman. And yet very few people ever saw a gun that wasn't a 9mm that a police officers carry.

In short, all this gun nonsense comes from pure emotion, and hardly any actual experience. Just as you wouldn't trust a math teacher to teach your History class, why do you feel like you guys are all suddenly qualified to classify guns as deadly machines with auto-targeting on innocents? This is what I see this topic as: A bunch of kids trying to decide what might qualify as "good laws" on something that most of you have no clew on. How many of you even held real gun?