Massive School Shooting at an Elementary School

[Regulus]

Guns are also equalizers. If a woman was being attacked with a knife, could she stop her attacker with a knife? Now how about with a gun?

Yeah, I think so. Especially a woman with children.

There are some things you just don't want to mess with. Even an unarmed woman is one of them. Because of adrenaline and all that.

But that's not your decision to make. It's up to the woman to choose for themselves if they want defend themselves in this manner. I seem to recall you being pro-choice when it comes to abortion, Regulus. Doesn't you logic here seem to contradict that?

No, it's not contradictory. There are plenty of reasons to get an abortion.

I just don't see a reason to own a gun. You said it yourself, don't go to shady places and you probably won't get mugged.

In terms of home defense, I'd be a lot more concerned about my kids using the gun, than someone breaking into my house with a gun.

If I was a mother without kids... well, that really wouldn't change much, now would it?

[DGFone]

And non of you ever mentioned those people who don't live in big cities, where the nearest police help is 2 hours away.

Yes, for big cities, most people don't need guns. But for many others, guns are a necessity. Don't make laws to ban what you can live without. Make guns to ban (if you absolutely have to) things that everyone can live without.

Oh, and those guys grow most of your food. Just saying - you want to keep them happy and working.

[Regulus]

Yeah, and those are the 0.1% I was referring to.

[Carl]

And non of you ever mentioned those people who don't live in big cities, where the nearest police help is 2 hours away.

Yes, for big cities, most people don't need guns. But for many others, guns are a necessity. Don't make laws to ban what you can live without. Make guns to ban (if you absolutely have to) things that everyone can live without.

Oh, and those guys grow most of your food. Just saying - you want to keep them happy and working.

I live in a small town. I'm less likely to need a gun here than in a big city. Most everyone knows everyone here, and it's extremely rare that any sort of violent crime is attempted here. The people with guns in these parts mostly use them for deer hunting. Almost no one gets their home broken into or gets mugged or anything like that around here. I can't imagine other rural areas would be all that different.

[Regulus]

^ depends on the area, really. Nearly every city has an ugly part, but I've passed through a few small towns that I'd never want to live in.

[TheLionPrince]

A question for you: Are you for or against banning automatic weapons? They have been banned since 1934. Are you ok with this or should civilians be allowed to have those?

There's a Catch 22 here: The ban lifted in 1994, and as a consequence, the US is now flooded with new automatic rifles and all that. So if you want an honest opinion, here it is: The worst thing we can do right now is to try and re-ban assault and automatic guns.

As with all bans, you try to ban something, during the period of legislation creation, the object in question will always get flooded into circulation even more. If you are truly worried about gun crime, the last think you want to do is to introduce another wave of assault-rifle buying right after people started relaxing from the fact that they can buy these weapons in the first place.

And because there are such guns in circulation already, the worst thing you can do is to deny people the right to have them if they see fit. Background checks? Absolutely. Fix loopholes to allow buying of guns without BG checks? Yes. But don't actually ban the guns all over.

I assumed you would be the one user I wouldn't have to lecture about guns.

Anyways, you are very mistaken. Fully automatic weapons (meaning that you pull the trigger one time, and multiple bullets come out) have been banned since the 1930s, due to the National Firearms Act of 1934. I was asking because you fear future tyranny, and since the government would have automatic weapons, do you think civilians should be allowed to own and possess these kinds of weapons? or should they continue to be banned?

In terms of home defense, I'd be a lot more concerned about my kids using the gun, than someone breaking into my house with a gun.

Again, a person choice But let's agree to disagree on this particular issue.

Oh, and those guys grow most of your food. Just saying - you want to keep them happy and working.

If we take their guns, they stop doing their job?

[Regulus]

It is a personal choice, but when there's as many public shootings as there have been in the past year, I question the necessity of being able to make such a choice. As I said before, it's not like guns are the only personal defense weapon, so taking away the choice to own one seems like kind of a moot point for the most of the population.

[DGFone]

Actually, the National Firearms Act of 1934 never actually banned any of those guns, thus requiring the Assault Weapons ban that expired in 1994. The National Firearms Act of 1934 is mostly a very large tax on these guns.

For instance - why do people not commit crime with grenades? Because there's a $200 federal tax on them due to National Firearms Act of 1934. Per grenade. And most states add their own taxes on top of that.
But this act never actually banned these weapons, which is why people here on MLK are panicking so much.

It is a personal choice

If it's a personal choice, why are you so keen on eliminating this choice from the people who actually want to exercise their rights as free citizens and make a choice? To say "this is a choice" and then to advocate the removal of said choice is, for the lack of a better word, incredibly hypocritical.

[Regulus]

It's a choice to eat oatmeal over cold cereal for breakfast but at the end of the day it doesn't matter. It's a choice, but it's an incredibly insignificant choice.

When insignificant choices compromise the safety of a population as a whole, there is no reason to allow such choices to exist, and that's what it all comes down to.

[DGFone]

It's a choice to eat oatmeal over cold cereal for breakfast but at the end of the day it doesn't matter. It's a choice, but it's an incredibly insignificant choice. When insignificant choices compromise the safety of a population as a whole, there is no reason to allow such choices to exist, and that's what it all comes down to.

Gun homicide rate per 1000 people in the US - 2.97

A LOT more people are dying every day because they choose to eat their Twinkies and not getting enough exercise. 70% of people in the US are overweight. 70%

Why are we not going after that? Oh, wait... taking care of yourself requires effort on the individual's part.