Another shooting - 20 children killed

What I like in discussions is when one party blames the other party for failure, and with this kind of "proving" that the other party is always wrong, so the one *never* needs to give in.
 
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Messages
21,908
Location
Old Europe
... do not trust government and do not particularly like it. That radically alters one's views on what "free society" really means.
Agreed. Sorry I can't be of more help in this thread, I articulate badly and just flat out can't argue with folks for the most part.

Regarding our rights as US citizens, I hope you have read Justice Scalia's dissertation from the DC vs. Heller case. It's a great read even though it is *very* long.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html
 
Joined
Jan 1, 2010
Messages
168
Location
Saint Louis, MO, USA
Actually arming kids is pretty much in line or not far off from the general chorus of the gun zealots we have heard. More guns, more people with guns, more guns everywhere - that was their FIRST response. Meet the potential of armed threat with a greater armed preparedness. Responsibility and moderation were second at best. Certainly this is an extreme response, but are you debating that it is only slightly off what they were saying on Fox News even as they were carting out bodies?

As the resident "gun zealot" who hangs out with a lot of other "gun zealots" I can assure you that arming children has no support anywhere whatsoever. The most popular idea right now is the stationing of a minimum of one armed police officer at all schools. There is also support for a measure that would allow for teachers who have a desire to be armed and are otherwise legally able to do so to be granted that ability. I would prefer the teachers be required to undergo some sort of training before that. But on the flip side, no one seems to care if the police are armed everywhere and most of them have a laughable amount of training.
 
Joined
May 3, 2008
Messages
615
Possible opportunity for a gun to be taken from a teacher's desk by a student and wreaking havok. This has to be done with extreme caution. But it's still crazy talk.
 
Joined
Aug 18, 2008
Messages
15,679
Location
Studio City, CA
Armed teachers? Seriously? I can already picture in my eyes how Mrs Woods or Mr Clerck quickly at the first sign of trouble ducks behind the teacher's desk grabbing his personal service weapon and rapidly returns fire from perfect kneeling position emptying the whole clip in the perp's (likely his/her former student) chest. Before heading out the hallway he or she radios to Coach Tayolor who has already armed himself with mp5 and is already securing the building with Bob, the janitor and Mr Garibaldi, the math teacher.

Why not just hire cops as teachers?
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
2,468
It's really fairly simple, DArt. You Euros feel that government is a good thing. It provides for you and gives each and every citizen a kiss goodnight at bedtime and there is much rejoicing. We (or at least the targets of your derision, for whom I'm speaking) do not trust government and do not particularly like it. That radically alters one's views on what "free society" really means.

Oh, so you don't like your government? Do you know what the absence of government is called? That's anarchy. I'm not surprised that's what you'd prefer. I'm sure you don't appreciate your laws or your police force. I'm sure you don't enjoy walking down the street in the relative safety you've made possible through government, despite the gun fetish.

Nah, so typical that you'd enjoy the benefits of what you've been given while pretending you're still living in the wild west like some lonewolf cowboy who hates all the privileges.

Just another load of bullshit that has nothing to do with reality. Of course you like government in some form or another.

As for what we "Euros" like, I'm pretty sure it's very much the same thing. Nobody fully trusts the government - because you'd have to be a fool to trust people in power. But we need government to make civilization work until we're ready to do without it - which is very, very far into the future.

But you're right. I do like that people without means are taken care of, and I do like that we've managed to dispell the obscene myth of equal opportunity and realised that there can never be equal opportunity when you're dealing with human beings and systems created and enforced by human beings. We're quite ahead of you there.

Y'all are also using sloppy logic by painting all gun owners as the loose cannons you need them to be to justify your indignation. There are millions of gun owners out there that acquired their weapons legally, are trained in their use, maintain them properly, and properly respect their lethality. There's absolutely no justification to take weapons from those people. You're blindly casting an overly broad net, and treating anyone that doesn't agree like some sort of mouthbreather while completely ignoring all attempts to point out your flawed logic.

What are you talking about? What fantasy scenario is this where I'm painting all gun owners as loose cannons. Could you stick to something I've actually said - and let's dispense with your deranged tirades.

I've specifically said that those people need to make a sacrifice to get guns off the streets. It has nothing to do with justice - it has to do with saving lives, which is a lot more interesting than justice to me. I believe most people WOULD willingly give up the right to bear arms if they really believed it would help. Naturally, not everyone would do it - as there are always very selfish people around. But most would.

Allow me to demonstrate what you're really doing. Criminals use their penis to rape. There are plenty of impressive textbooks that claim that not only is that the tool, but also the justification in and of itself. Your response is that we should remove all penises from everyone.

That's pretty stupid, even coming from you. The difference between my penis and my gun, is that you can't take my penis and rape someone with it. That's on me.

Can you follow this distinction?

Yes, your proposal really is that stupid. Walk thru the logic—it's the exact same nonsense y'all are using to "prove" that guns should be taken away.

If your logic is what you're proposing as a smarter alternative, then I'd rather remain really, really stupid - thank you.
 
It's really fairly simple, DArt. You Euros feel that government is a good thing. It provides for you and gives each and every citizen a kiss goodnight at bedtime and there is much rejoicing. We (or at least the targets of your derision, for whom I'm speaking) do not trust government and do not particularly like it. That radically alters one's views on what "free society" really means.
Those who argue that "freedom" means abolishing government aims to abolish the freedom that government protects. The democratic state distribute power for rational reasons (the more people who can contribute, the faster a nation develops, the faster economy grows, the more effective is to adapt to crisis's and the less conflict).

A democratic state is the most effective solution to diminish SDO's. SDO's believe they are fit to possess and wield power without being elected and without public support. Basically the kind of character you find in The Prince. Without a state, SDO's compete with eachother at the cost of everyone else. With a state they try to abolish the state or regulations that limit their access to illegitimate power. For the common folk, SDO's are useless. They have nothing to offer society but they are effective at starting proxy battles in their irrational battle for dominion. That's why common folk gather in governments so that society can function instead.
 
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
6,027
That's pretty stupid, even coming from you. The difference between my penis and my gun, is that you can't take my penis and rape someone with it. That's on me.

Can you follow this distinction?

In addition there is also the minor difference that a penis is a body part. Removing it forcibly would infringe on human rights of reproductions and probably the right to freedom from torture. Of course in the camp where dte makes his home, the latter probably isn't very highly regarded either, and maybe your gun is as important as your dick.
This was really a remarkably dumb comparison, especially in an argument that uses the word "logic".
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
3,508
As for what we "Euros" like, I'm pretty sure it's very much the same thing. Nobody fully trusts the government - because you'd have to be a fool to trust people in power. But we need government to make civilization work until we're ready to do without it - which is very, very far into the future.

Those who argue that "freedom" means abolishing government aims to abolish the freedom that government protects.

This was really a remarkably dumb comparison, especially in an argument that uses the word "logic".

What you guys also have to remember is that the generalities he speaks of represent a group that:
- Claims to want religious freedom yet seeks to exclude any notice of non-Christian holidays in December.
- Claims to want equal rights yet seeks to discriminate based on gender, race, country of origin and sexual preference.
- Violently opposes Sharia based on not wanting religious laws ... yet seeks to have Bible based lawmaking.
- Claims to want government out of our lives ... except where it involves legislating morality.
- Complains about jobs overseas, yet seeks to abolish science education - and worse yet wants to replace it with medieval church teachings.
... and so on ...
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
14,932
JemyM said:
A democratic state is the most effective solution to diminish SDO's.
What you guys also have to remember is that the generalities he speaks of represent a group that:

This is the SDO's. SDO is a human personality that express itself differently based on culture but are fairly similar in content and how it interprets its situation. You can basically say they are the local Taliban.
 
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
6,027
Y'all are strawmanning the shit out of this now. If that's the best you've got, I guess we've gotten as far as we're going to get.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
13,535
Location
Illinois, USA
...says the man who's always so sure he knows exactly what "the Euros" and "them Liberals" want, think, or do...
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
3,508
Yep, you're an anarchist Taliban racist. I don't think you're going to accomplish anything here. Null program.
Actually, that was kinda the final death throes for the discussion. When a discussion about gun control somehow leads to unsubstantiated and baseless accusations of racism when racial implications of gun control hadn't even been so much as mentioned, it's clear the conversation has run its course.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
13,535
Location
Illinois, USA
More strict gun laws will have almost no impact on firearm violence. You can check out the CDC study published in 03. (Their findings/methodologies/etc were published in the American Journal for preventative Medicine 28.2-S1) Also the Cato Journal (Issue 26.1) printed another study done quite locally to me. Both are fairly well known peer reviewed journals. I find it odd that they are so rarely mentioned, by I imagine that is mostly because the findings do not support either popular political parties narrative on the matter.

The only form of gun "control" that would likely impact gun deaths in any meaningful way is complete state repossession. And that could actually spark off a war. Coupled with the fact that there is no conclusive data to predict how effective such measures would be, no one is likely to go there.

That's interesting. (I am not interested enough to read the journals themselves, but I'll go ahead by trusting you know what you're talking about :) )

This runs completely contrary to my "common sense". In my head, less guns in the country > less gun crime in the country. That seems quite simple to me.

Not that it would reduce gun crime to 0.0001 per 100k, but something more like from 5 per 100k to 4.6 per 100k or something …

So what do you think would be appropriate measures and why do you think the US does have so much gun crime ?

EDIT:

You others should stop insulting people. It's not helpful to the conversation.
 
Joined
Nov 13, 2006
Messages
9,177
Location
Manchester, United Kingdom
Actually, that was kinda the final death throes for the discussion. When a discussion about gun control somehow leads to unsubstantiated and baseless accusations of racism when racial implications of gun control hadn't even been so much as mentioned, it's clear the conversation has run its course.

Its pretty funny how foaming at the mouth libs always have to toss 'racism', which is the equivelent of Inquisition-era 'heresy' in for good measure. Racism is the new witchcraft, and being accused of witchcraft or having heretical thoughts are enough to condemn any opposition. It would be better to be accused of murder or rape, to be accused of being a heretic.

Thankfully, they can't burn people at the stake anymore. At least not in public
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
5,228
Location
San Diego, Ca
Back
Top Bottom