15 Dec 12
The post that was quoted here has been removedThere are some problems that are insoluble. Perfecting security is one. An old joke is "I carry a gun, because cops are too heavy." It is obviously impractical to expect a personal police bodyguard for everyone, or even a cop for every school. Cops will tell you their job isn't protecting citizens. They respond to criminal complaints.
No societal, legal, governmental, or social action can make like risk-free, entirely safe. May I remind you that as bad as the killings of the school children in Connecticut are, that pales in comparison to the flaming scene at Mt. Carmel, near Waco, TX where near 80 innocents died at the hand of armed agents of our government. Not that long ago, 11 people died when our government fire bombed row houses in Philadelphia, PA belonging to MOVE activists.
These things happened in times when we enjoyed a relative freedom to own firearms, but with government attempting to demonize certain groups and take arms away from them. Dare we allow that to happen?
15 Dec 12
Originally posted by kevcvs57What is "sensible gun control"?
Is it time for people who advocate sensible gun control in the US to accept that the pro gun lobby is made up of retards and psycho's.
How much time do they waste trying to engage with these people that could be spent lobbying within the Democratic Party and or state institutions in order to obtain gun control when and where they can.
Three responses ...[text shortened]... ople to death, school your kids at home, and (yeah you guessed it) get more guns on the street.
I see lots of gun control already, but not much of it effective.
15 Dec 12
Originally posted by SoothfastInteresting to see moron lefties like you making judgements and creating strawmen. Nobody is suggesting the ideas you are planting, and you have no practical suggestion of your own. The only thing in your childish, inexperienced world is name calling.
You're pathetic to see.
What exactly were little kids at school supposed to do to "take responsibility for protecting themselves"? Or is it your idea that the teachers are all supposed to train to become crack shots and keep a rifle under every podium?
You're living in an NRA fantasy land.
15 Dec 12
2 edits
Originally posted by normbenignGreater gun controls is the practical suggestion. Kind of obvious, though, so I didn't think it needed explicit mention.
Interesting to see moron lefties like you making judgements and creating strawmen. Nobody is suggesting the ideas you are planting, and you have no practical suggestion of your own. The only thing in your childish, inexperienced world is name calling.
EDIT: Imbecile. 😉
2nd EDIT: No straw men here. Eladar did suggest putting guns into schools (i.e. into the hands of the teachers) as a solution.
15 Dec 12
Originally posted by SoothfastHow do you propose to enact this strict gun control? What will it consist of in Soothfast's America?
It doesn't matter, because they know they're throwing their life away and planning to do something that very likely will get them killed.
So how do you explain away the vast majority of democracies that have no death penalty and strict gun control? Mass shootings are extremely rare in those countries. Let's see your rhetorical gymnastics about all that.
15 Dec 12
Originally posted by InlandRevenueUKThe trouble with you rationale is that guns are relatively difficult to purchase in some areas, and nearly impossible in others. For a legal product, nothing is harder to buy than a hand gun.
I have just re-read what I posted and I agree, I generalise a bit too much. Looking at the situation (And general asumption) obviously 99.9% of gun owners are not homicidal maniacs intent on slaughtering innocent boys and girls. I can also understand a situation where, if the state and its organs have failed in its primary duty to protect its citizen ...[text shortened]... are not (Reference the restrictions of gun ownership in the UK after Hungerford, Dunblane, etc.)
" if the state and its organs have failed in its primary duty to protect its citizens, that gun ownership becomes a sensible proposition."
What if that is not only true, but the state has repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to kill its people?
Far more people have been murdered by their governments than by homicidal maniacs in the past century, and throughout history.
15 Dec 12
Originally posted by normbenignSo tell me, Normy, should private citizens be allowed to keep a stash of plutonium handy "just in case"?
The trouble with you rationale is that guns are relatively difficult to purchase in some areas, and nearly impossible in others. For a legal product, nothing is harder to buy than a hand gun.
" if the state and its organs have failed in its primary duty to protect its citizens, that gun ownership becomes a sensible proposition."
What if that is not ...[text shortened]... ed by their governments than by homicidal maniacs in the past century, and throughout history.
How about land mines, bazookas, or a Tomahawk missile? For or against? And if against, where do you draw the line?