Massive School Shooting at an Elementary School

[WildSimba]

I don't believe getting rid of guns or even reducing the amount already out there will help much. I think what we need are stricter laws towards actually obtaining a gun. As it is, if your criminal history is clean and you're over 18 you're likely to be allowed to get a gun. But they should also be giving you mental evaluations, drug tests and all that before giving you a deadly weapon. I mean, they'd give you all those evaluations for receiving a license, so why should if be any different for guns?

[Woeler]

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.

Please name one western developed country with a racist tyrranical political party ruling the whole country. Most of them have parliamentary representative democracies, this means such a thing can not happen.

This governmentphobia is ridiculous and typically American.
The government should be normal people like you and me, and that is what most developed countries have. Destroy this 2 party dominant system of yours, only then this phobia nonsense will stop.

There is no fighting against governments here in Europe, there are no tyrants, there is no resistance. We have managed to reach a level of civilization that doesnt need those things.

Just stop this communismphobia. For one, correct communism is not bad at all, and two, the US is a gazillion miles away from communism. It is a nonsensical, culturally developed fear.

If you fear a dictatorship in the US, you might as well go live inderground in the fear of a meteorite hitting you. And I'm sure the second thing has a bigger chance of ever happening.

This slope is more slippery than ice... And that applies to the nazi-jew-gun thing too.
This will lead to this, will lead to this, will lead to this, will lead to this, will lead to this. Is in fact a slippery slope.

Still completely agree on the crime thing and the immigrant thing though.

[DGFone]

Not exactly ruling yet, but I would for one be looking out for I don't know...

Your own "freedom party". It rose from near non-existence to the third most powerful in only a few elections, and its goals are highly... questionable.

You tell me to stop with this governmentphobia, then I will tell you to open your eyes and act for yourself.

[Azdgari]

DG, can you respond to TLP's post?

[TheLionPrince]

But they should also be giving you mental evaluations, drug tests and all that before giving you a deadly weapon. I mean, they'd give you all those evaluations for receiving a license, so why should if be any different for guns?

You mean, driver's licenses? You don't have to take a drug test or get mentally evaluated to get one of those.

DG, can you respond to TLP's post?

I would like this very much

[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?

[Woeler]

Not exactly ruling yet, but I would for one be looking out for I don't know...

Your own "freedom party". It rose from near non-existence to the third most powerful in only a few elections, and its goals are highly... questionable.

You tell me to stop with this governmentphobia, then I will tell you to open your eyes and act for yourself.

For the last time: you don't know sh*t about that party. You hear me say they want non-working foreigners out and the next thing I see is a pm calling them nazi's, fascists, racists blahblah.

One party can not rise to power here. How hard is it to get that? IT IS IMPOSSIBLE! The system prevents it. We do not fear the government because we ARE the government. Just because your government consists out of moneyhungry wackos doesn't mean everyone's government does.

I live in the most free country in the world. I can start my own party tomorrow if I want. We have a culture of unification and respect, tolerance and happiness. So besides that it is constitutionally impossible, it is also physically impossible. And we have referendums for new laws.

From the people, for the people, by te people. We value our society more than our money, and THAT is why google's most searched term about the Dutch is "why are the Dutch so happy?".

[Regulus]

Actually...