We are being blamed

[Reneer]

I realize no one cares what I think, but, I live in Texas. The government would have one hell of a (bloody?) fight trying to take away all the guns in this state. I personally am not sold on the idea of every citizen owning a gun for whatever reason. I also am not comfortable with the government having all the guns either. Then we've got all the illegal guns that are readily available through dealers on the streets that there aren't even good estimates as to the numbers. Also, The Mexican Cartels are right across the border armed to the teeth and would love nothing better than to see a law passed to make the U.S. overturn it's citizen gun rights. Some things to think about.

If the government actually, truly wanted to take guns away from citizens and didn't care about causalities, it would be easy enough for them to do. For all the talk about state militias, there's not a damn thing they can do about a drone strike.

 

I can understand why people reason that if we just get rid of all the guns then these tragedies can be avoided. It's too bad that simply is not a option.

It totally is an option, but just one that is rather unlikely to happen. The Second Amendment could be repealed via a constitutional amendment. As I said, it has practically zero chance of happening, but it it is an option.

[Fkemman11]

If the government actually, truly wanted to take guns away from citizens and didn't care about causalities, it would be easy enough for them to do. For all the talk about state militias, there's not a damn thing they can do about a drone strike.

 

 

 

And forsake every damn thing this country was founded for in the process. Americans will not tolerate any kind of totalitarian govt. and would more than likely fight to the bitter end. There is also the rest of the world to consider. It would effectively be the same as launching a nuclear strike and starting WW3. Like I said, it's not an option.

[Reneer]

And forsake every damn thing this country was founded for in the process. Americans will not tolerate any kind of totalitarian govt. and would more than likely fight to the bitter end. There is also the rest of the world to consider. It would effectively be the same as launching a nuclear strike and starting WW3. Like I said, it's not an option.

The rest of the world wouldn't lift a finger to stop civil unrest in the United States. And even if they wanted to pitch in there wouldn't be a thing they could reasonably do.

 

And of course it would be forsaking everything the country was founded on - but it could certainly still happen regardless.

[Fkemman11]

 

And forsake every damn thing this country was founded for in the process. Americans will not tolerate any kind of totalitarian govt. and would more than likely fight to the bitter end. There is also the rest of the world to consider. It would effectively be the same as launching a nuclear strike and starting WW3. Like I said, it's not an option.

The rest of the world wouldn't lift a finger to stop civil unrest in the United States. And even if they wanted to pitch in there wouldn't be a thing they could reasonably do.

 

And of course it would be forsaking everything the country was founded on - but it could certainly still happen regardless.

 

Agreed. But, there are clever, deceitful ways to disarm a nation maybe. Convincing people to give up their guns willingly would be ideal. For that to happen, though, the people would have to have absolute faith in the govt.- which they most certainly do not and probably never will again. Fear tactics wouldn't work because the nation is already itching for something to focus their frustration/anger/aggression at/on imho. In that respect, I think you might be underestimating people's resolve- especially in the face of a govt they already despise for it's lazy ineptitude and blatant abuse of power for individual gains. Also, how many in the military would just do their job and gun down their home nation's own citizens? Their family? No, it would be a modern civil war.

[Reneer]

Agreed. But, there are clever, deceitful ways to disarm a nation maybe. Convincing people to give up their guns willingly would be ideal. For that to happen, though, the people would have to have absolute faith in the govt.- which they most certainly do not and probably never will again. Fear tactics wouldn't work because the nation is already itching for something to focus their aggression at/on. In that respect, I think you might be underestimating people's resolve- especially in the face of a govt they already despise for it's ineptitude and blatant abuse of power for individual aims.

Ironically enough several countries have (relatively) recently done just that - Great Britain in 1996, Australia in 1996, Japan back in 1978, and probably a few others I'm missing. The point of the matter is this: when killing sprees happen in other countries, they at least try to do something, whereas in America most people shrug it off as a problem that, they claim, simply has no solution except to give more people more guns. Edited August 29, 2018 by Reneer

[Fkemman11]

 

Ironically enough several countries have (relatively) recently done just that - Great Britain in 1996, Australia in 1996, Japan back in 1978, and probably a few others I'm missing.

 

I've always been curious how the govt in those countries was able to manage that. Perhaps there are some special considerations that must be made for American citizens in order to hope to achieve the same? I mean, some of these people LOVE their guns. I own one only because everyone else here does and don't want to be caught empty handed. The notion seems to be it is better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have it. People are so irresponsible with firearms that they really should not be allowed to have them in most cases. Two friends of mine almost died in high school while they were basically playing with guns- one a 12 gauge shotgun and the other a .44 magnum. :sad:

[HeyYou]

First and before anything else, I want to apologize for my tone. Obviously this is a rather heated topic but that isn't any excuse for me to have lashed out at you like that. I apologize.

 

Ah, I see we disagree here.

 

Putting a price on childrens lives? No, not really. I provided one example of the mismanagement of funds in the local school system. There are many more, all across the country. This isn't a problem you are going to solve by throwing money at it, or turning our schools into what essentially amounts to a prison. I even offered a solution that would work, and wouldn't cost the taxpayer one thin dime, which you simply dismiss out of hand. Why is that? Why do we have to spend millions of dollars to solve a simple problem?

You accuse me of trying to turn schools into prisons, yet your solution involves allowing teachers to bring guns into the classroom. Yeah, there aren't any foreseeable problems with that scenario - except the teacher has to have somewhere to put their gun. Unless you expect them to keep it holstered all day long, which provides for its own set of challenges. So either they need to keep gun and ammo in a gun safe in their classroom or they need to keep the gun holstered, both of which provide opportunities for an attacker to subdue the teacher and then obtain a gun or now have a 2nd gun.

 

I would point out also, that several of the schools that were subjected to mass shootings did indeed have metal detectors, AND armed security. (one or two officers to cover a building that sprawls over several acres..... yeah, that was certainly effective, now wasn't it?) Adam Lanza walked up to locked security doors, broke the glass, and walked right in. His rampage was so effective, simply because there was NO ONE THERE TO STOP HIM. Do you think the death toll would have been as high, if some of those six dead teachers had been able to be armed? And what ended his rampage? The cops showed up, (people with guns) and Adam killed himself.

 

Even the NY Times ran an article about the ineffectiveness of 'hardening' our schools. In that piece, INTERVENTION was touted as the better solution. There were warning signs for almost all of the mass shooters going in to schools. Authorities ignored the warnings. (Steven Paddock, though not a 'school' shooter, was right of the blue, apparently no one had any idea what he had in mind.)

 

Most of the mass shooters also passed federal background checks to purchase their weapons. (even though a couple of them should NOT have been able to...... various agencies, including the US military, dropped the ball there.) A few took weapons from their parents, and a few more had someone else purchase the weapons for them.....

Since you brought it up, let's talk about warning signs and what happens: Nothing, generally, because it is practically impossible under current law to take someone's guns away from them unless they pose an immediate threat. The fact of the matter is that there are some people who are not mentally capable of owning firearms safely and yet there is no real way to keep them from obtaining firearms or having authorities take the firearms away.

 

The second amendment was passed so that not only could people protect themselves from other folks with bad intent, but, also from their GOVERNMENT. The idea was the people would be similarly armed as the military, so, should the government 'overstep' themselves, the people would have real recourse to deal with the problem. Granted, they had no idea what the future held as far as weapons development, and I am quite certain they would NOT have advocated for private ownership of ICBMs, or nuclear weapons in general.... and neither would I.......

Yeah, the second half of your argument went out the window with the invention of the Gatling gun. The first half (self-defense) doesn't mandate that people have anything like an AR-15 rifle or other long gun.

 

Still and all, there are over 300 million legally owned firearms in the US. A little under half the households in the US have firearms. (usually just one or two.....) 99% of those weapons are never used for illegal purposes. A very tiny fraction of them are. And the response is to ban guns????? Terribly sorry, that is logic fail in a big way. Using the same logic, we should ban doctors, forks, cars, tobacco, alcohol, and a host of other leading killers of americans. So, why single out guns? Looking at it from a purely statistical viewpoint, they are only a very minor drop in the bucket when it comes to leading causes of death.

See, you miss the point entirely. Guns are designed to kill people. That is literally the reason they exist. The issue isn't that X thing kills Y people. It's that X thing kills Y people AND has no real utilitarian benefit. Cars, when used properly, don't kill people. Guns, when used properly, do.

 

No worries. :smile:

 

There is no perfect solution. Staff at schools aren't really meant to attempt to deal with the situation. (although, there are some teachers I had, that I REALLY wouldn't want to mess with, especially if they are armed.) They are meant as a deterrent. The typical mass-shoot is, after all, a coward. (they take their own life, rather than deal with the consequences of their actions.) So, staff simply have the POSSIBILITY of being armed, would serve to dramatically reduce the number of incidents.

 

Were you aware, that most of the field artillery, and gating guns, used in the civil war, were privately owned? Armies couldn't afford them......

 

Should the government decide they are going to attempt to confiscate everyones guns, there would be a LOT of dead folks on both sides. You may see the military as the 'long arm of the government', and sure, SOME of them would actually obey orders to disarm citizens, and relish the thought of a firefight. The bulk of them though, would not. Not to mention, that in order to even use the military on US soil for such a purpose, a host of laws would have to be changed. THAT would MOST CERTAINLY draw attention, before even the first attempt at a gun grab was made. I don't think even the military leaders would be real excited about THAT particular prospect. After all, most of them are republicans after all. :smile:

 

Yep, currently, it is law that folks with mental instabilities are not legally able to purchase firearms. That law is already on the books. The problem? Doctor/patient privilege. Doctors CAN'T tell ANY authority that their patient *might* be a threat. Not and keep their license at any rate. They would be sued out of the medical field in a short second. The other problem? Folks with no history of mental health issues. Stephen Paddock for instance. No criminal record, no mental health issues on record, yet he still killed 59, and injured hundreds. So, even that wouldn't be a 'complete' solution. (though I agree, it would be a VERY good start.)

 

Guns are designed to provide a method of self defense. Yes, it is potentially lethal force, but, that is what MAKES it a 'good defense'. Remember Heinlein? An armed society is a polite society. If you don't know if the person is armed, or, even if you know for a fact that they ARE, you are going to be a LOT less likely to want to take them on. THAT is the whole idea. That aside, what something was 'designed for' really isn't relevant. Alcohol kills 10 times as many as guns, is a LUXURY ITEM, yet is perfectly legal. EVERY OTHER form of alcohol is a deadly poison, (as is this one, in sufficient quantities....) So, it's ok for someone to poison themself, but not ok to shoot themself? Where is the logic in that? I would argue, that if you are using a gun to MURDER people, an inherently illegal act, you are NOT using it 'properly'. Guns have a great many utilitarian uses, chief of which, is self defense. The left never seems to want to hear about how many crimes are PREVENTED by gun owners. (CDC estimates somewhere in the neighborhood a couple million 'defensive uses' of guns in the 90's.....)

 

A gun is just a tool. Just like a car, truck, hammer, knife, etc. ANY tool can be misused. That's why there were 80 some dead in France, killed by a person driving a truck. Couple dozen dead in Baltimore, from pressure cookers. The world is NOT a safe place, nor will it ever be. (not so long as humans are around....) My 2nd amendment rights give me at least some small chance of being able to defend myself. Do not think I will sit back and just let it happen. I will use my second amendment right, to defend my second amendment rights. Sure, I might get dead from it, but, everyone has to die from something. At least it would be while standing up for something I believe in.

 

Also, ya gotta remember, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. Out where I live, its more like an hour. I don't relish the thought of being at the mercy of persons with ill intent for an hour, before the police finally show up. Everyone here would quite likely be dead by the time they got here. Police do NOT prevent crime, they react to it. Not to mention, your average CCW holder is actually a better shot than the average cop. :)

Edited August 30, 2018 by HeyYou

[Deleted54170User]

I feel sorry for a person who used to live in Montana.

 

I remember he referred to the the place just south of my spacious home, as the place where people suffer from great falls. He's a lawyer now in a small town in near the Oregon border in Idaho. I guess that would mean I am someone who has has suffered from a great fall.

[Reneer]

There is no perfect solution. Staff at schools aren't really meant to attempt to deal with the situation. (although, there are some teachers I had, that I REALLY wouldn't want to mess with, especially if they are armed.) They are meant as a deterrent. The typical mass-shoot is, after all, a coward. (they take their own life, rather than deal with the consequences of their actions.) So, staff simply have the POSSIBILITY of being armed, would serve to dramatically reduce the number of incidents.

The problem is you're thinking like a rational person - school shooters (or pretty much any mass murderers) are not thinking rationally. Sure there may be teachers with guns in our hypothetical scenario, but that doesn't really enter as a factor in the mind of a school shooter. The "reason" they go to their school and shoot people is because that is where they see all their pain coming from. All the people that bullied them, etc, are in one location.

 

And yeah, I had a Vietnam vet as a teacher in high school. One of the nicest people I know. Also wouldn't want to mess with him.

 

Were you aware, that most of the field artillery, and gating guns, used in the civil war, were privately owned? Armies couldn't afford them......

Actually, I was. I helped with running Dexter's Civil War days for the sesquicentennial a few years ago.

 

Should the government decide they are going to attempt to confiscate everyones guns, there would be a LOT of dead folks on both sides. You may see the military as the 'long arm of the government', and sure, SOME of them would actually obey orders to disarm citizens, and relish the thought of a firefight. The bulk of them though, would not. Not to mention, that in order to even use the military on US soil for such a purpose, a host of laws would have to be changed. THAT would MOST CERTAINLY draw attention, before even the first attempt at a gun grab was made. I don't think even the military leaders would be real excited about THAT particular prospect. After all, most of them are republicans after all. :smile:

I mean, this scenario is entirely hypothetical - I was speaking more in terms of the lopsided firepower dynamic, not whether your average GI would follow the order or not.

 

Yep, currently, it is law that folks with mental instabilities are not legally able to purchase firearms. That law is already on the books. The problem? Doctor/patient privilege. Doctors CAN'T tell ANY authority that their patient *might* be a threat. Not and keep their license at any rate. They would be sued out of the medical field in a short second. The other problem? Folks with no history of mental health issues. Stephen Paddock for instance. No criminal record, no mental health issues on record, yet he still killed 59, and injured hundreds. So, even that wouldn't be a 'complete' solution. (though I agree, it would be a VERY good start.)

Actually, that's not the (federal) law at all.

 

There are two conditions that bar someone from purchasing a firearm: if the person is involuntarily committed (by a court, past the normal 72-hour hold) to a mental hospital, or if a court or government body declares them mentally incompetent. That's it. And courts are very tepid about involuntarily committing people or declaring people mentally incompetent.

 

Guns are designed to provide a method of self defense. Yes, it is potentially lethal force, but, that is what MAKES it a 'good defense'. Remember Heinlein? An armed society is a polite society. If you don't know if the person is armed, or, even if you know for a fact that they ARE, you are going to be a LOT less likely to want to take them on. THAT is the whole idea. That aside, what something was 'designed for' really isn't relevant. Alcohol kills 10 times as many as guns, is a LUXURY ITEM, yet is perfectly legal. EVERY OTHER form of alcohol is a deadly poison, (as is this one, in sufficient quantities....) So, it's ok for someone to poison themself, but not ok to shoot themself? Where is the logic in that? I would argue, that if you are using a gun to MURDER people, an inherently illegal act, you are NOT using it 'properly'. Guns have a great many utilitarian uses, chief of which, is self defense. The left never seems to want to hear about how many crimes are PREVENTED by gun owners. (CDC estimates somewhere in the neighborhood a couple million 'defensive uses' of guns in the 90's.....)

The difference is that process of drinking alcohol doesn't kill other people. And all the other things you listed have a primary use: alcohol is for imbibing, cars are for transportation, knives are for cutting things, and guns are for killing peo... self-defense. :tongue:

 

A gun is just a tool. Just like a car, truck, hammer, knife, etc. ANY tool can be misused. That's why there were 80 some dead in France, killed by a person driving a truck. Couple dozen dead in Baltimore, from pressure cookers. The world is NOT a safe place, nor will it ever be. (not so long as humans are around....) My 2nd amendment rights give me at least some small chance of being able to defend myself. Do not think I will sit back and just let it happen. I will use my second amendment right, to defend my second amendment rights. Sure, I might get dead from it, but, everyone has to die from something. At least it would be while standing up for something I believe in.

Yeah, any tool can be misused. Except the entire purpose of a gun is to kill.

 

Also, ya gotta remember, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. Out where I live, its more like an hour. I don't relish the thought of being at the mercy of persons with ill intent for an hour, before the police finally show up. Everyone here would quite likely be dead by the time they got here. Police do NOT prevent crime, they react to it. Not to mention, your average CCW holder is actually a better shot than the average cop. :smile:

Not my fault you decided to live in the sticks. :tongue: But I understand your point.

Edited August 30, 2018 by Reneer

[Deleted54170User]

Kinda sucks we gamers and video games are being blamed for a mass shooting in florida.

 

This really sucks that we are still compared to trolls living in basements when most of us are clearly not.

 

You were compared to being a Troll?!

 

Start a private website! Tell all the parents, and people worried about this stuff, to set up boxes around the schools where they can stand guard around the schools when it starts next month.

 

 

Oh! And put a sign up above your basement window that says you no longer are down there playing with your (video games) self.

 

Or hire those guys in the tall funny hats in England, who never talk or flinch while on guard outside the palaces, to stand guard in the boxes (if you can convince the schools to put boxes (make sure you find people to stand guard in them or homeless people from California might move in them) there) outside schools.

 

That will likely cause all sorts of gun happy school shooting nuts (and maniacal children who are angered by a bunch of jock jokes and school bullies some peace of mind in school) some entertainment because the gun happy nuts, jocks, and bullies might find it more fun to try and get those big hats to SMILE.