Shooting at Reynolds High School

[Natebishop3]

Nate, those arguments are more valid and don't bother me to hear. I don't totally agree with them in totality, but they do make some sense. I read the article you posted off facebook and here is the issue I saw. There are many different school shootings with different causes, and to lay some blanket statement about motivations without understanding those motivations may only play a role in certain events seems like a misguided tactic to win an argument instead of discuss what is a very valid point. Some kids may certainly be doing these killings to intimidate as a terrorist would, but others do snap after being bullied. Some may be schizophrenic or have another mental disorder where they disassociate and are killing cause they think it's the right thing to do. Some may be doing it not to cause fear, but because they think it's something special that others will respect and admire. There are many possibilities, and I don't think it's possible to know what the thoughts were in most unless there were manifestos. I certainly think some are doing it as a means to fame, not to cause terror.

I do however like the idea that some papers do where they don't say the name or show a picture of the killers, but I have to admit I would go on line and just search out an article that shows what the perp looked like.

I agree that it's not a blanket statement that can be applied to all shootings. It seems like it applies to that kid down in California, but I'm not even entirely sure if it applies to the guy at Reynolds. I still don't really know his motive.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

The constitution is a pesky thing. It doesn't talk about cars, but it does about guns (arms).

The constitution doesn't say anything about criminals not being allowed to own guns.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

I think it all boils down to people not trusting the government.

Can you blame them? The whole NSA thing really pissed people off. The constant officer-involved shootings that we hear about every day. It seems like faith in the government is at an all-time low. People are clinging to the second amendment tighter than ever before because I think people are genuinely concerned about the motives of our government. They don't seem to give a rats ass about the people. They only care about the fat checks the huge corporations are writing for them.

The second amendment was written to protect the people from the government. That's why people are so unwilling to budge. Registering your weapons gives the government a roadmap for confiscations.

Swap meet and private sales with no background checks are bullshit. Guns are already regulated. Regulation does not violate the constitution. Seizing guns from private citizens would.

 

[Further]

Swap meet and private sales with no background checks are bullshit. Guns are already regulated. Regulation does not violate the constitution. Seizing guns from private citizens would.

This I agree with. I also think ammo shouldn't be sold without ID. There should be a national database that has every felon, under age person and other people restricted, and you buy ammo or a gun, they type in the name, and if you pass, they sell it. I don't even care if the items are registered and a name kept for posterity, I just want to work at making sure only people who can legally own, should be able to buy guns and ammo.

 

[MarAzul]

Cars are tracked more carefully than guns. Auto dealers have to tell the state who they sell a car to. Private parties have to register their cars with the state when they buy and sell them. The same needs to be done with guns.

Geez, I hate to see a smart man say such silly things.

 

[Denny Crane]

The constitution doesn't say anything about criminals not being allowed to own guns.

Actually it does.

A person may be deprived of Life, Liberty, or Property if given due process. So a convicted criminal can be denied the right to own guns, if given due process. Gun ownership is not the only right denies felons.

Non convicted criminals? They're not obeying the law anyway, so they're going to have guns if they want them.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-R-0617.htm

 

[jlprk]

The Constitution, if one looks closely, restricts gun barrel length to 4/5 of penis size.

 

[MarAzul]

To bear is an action.

In any case, I'm not at all comfortable with people using guns to harm other people. But I'm also not interested in disarming NB3 or blue3 or any of hundreds of millions of law abiding people because a tiny minority of people abuse weapons.

I'm not aligned with the idea of trying to identify psychos before they take action, because it is sure to be imperfect and trample on the liberty of everyone.

It seems to me there are always some small % of the people who are psychos who take action. That we have a growing population (it was maybe 100M in the '20s, over 310M today) means you should see more abuses of guns. Yet we see fewer.

These are murders per 100,000 population:

I don't know if I'd be against amending the 2nd through proper means, but I'm pretty sure there'd be armed conflict as a result.

That's a fair position Denny. I don't know where I would stand if an amendment to the 2nd were purposed, but I would respect the effort far more than new laws being purposed that ignore the 2nd.

 

[jlprk]

God, all day yesterday you misspelled proposed and everyone was polite. If you're going to start again today, this is war!

You sure had time for a dictionary when you faked it about subduction.

 

[BLAZINGGIANTS]

The Constitution, if one looks closely, restricts gun barrel length to 4/5 of penis size.

So, you're saying Mags would definitely have the smallest gun on this forum (even including women)?

 

[Sedatedfork]

The constitution is a pesky thing. It doesn't talk about cars, but it does about guns (arms).

I am going to see if my congressman can propose a constitutional amendment about cars that mirrors the 2nd amendment.

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

It's a hell of a lot more difficult to sneak a Mazda past the school metal detectors than a firearm.

Yes, there are other ways of killing then with guns, but they are much less convenient then guns. That's why our troops carry M4's rather than a Chrysler Town & Country's into war zones.





I'm not for getting rid of firearms, but this bullshit idea that getting rid of all guns (it can't happen) wouldn't make these school massacres less frequent and less successful is foolish.

This is exactly my point. You aren't getting rid of guns. It would be easier and cheaper to build bulletproof hallways with metal detectors and scanners at every school in the country. That will stop school shootings.

The problem is the lack of logic of those who want to get rid of guns somehow and expect people to all get along and no more killings to occur. Not happening.

The only thing I can think of is that some kids are infatuated with guns and maybe they wouldn't knife a kid who picked on them. Who knows though?

 

[Further]

There are two logic breakdowns, one on both sides of the argument.

From the anti-gun crowd, it's not logical to think that guns have any chance at being banned and people with guns giving up those guns. Not going to happen. However, most people on the anti-gun side realize this and are actually trying to come up with other ways to curb the violence and reduce the firearm proliferation. Some want to reduce certain models from being produced, while others just want to be able to make sure legal owners are the only people getting guns by closing loopholes.

From the pro-gun crowd, it isn't logical to think that fewer and better controlled guns would mean a reduction in these massacres. There is a reason why people want guns, because they are a very powerful tool. It doesn't make sense that taking away that tool would not affect the outcome of those murdered. Of course it would not halt it, but it would curb the situation. But most gun owners do realize that there are limitations already in place, and a few more carefully chosen ones might actually help us create a better society with fewer killings.



I have had conversations with several gun owners in person over the past few days, and most have agreed that something needs to change. The question comes from what that change needs to be. Most likely there will need to be many small changes that will all work together to help reduce this problem. For example, a couple years ago there was an emphasis placed on teaching children that they have to report signs of danger, and there have been quite a few of tragedies averted because the youth are getting better at reporting problems instead of trusting that nothing will happen. Of course, the problem itself is worsening at a quicker rate than this one positive can help. But if we implement some common sense gun laws (not too far) along with reducing class sizes, improved school mental healthcare, and a few other fixes, we can get this problem under control. Remember back in the 80's, the gang explosions that were happening, more and more gangs and gang violence was going on, well, we got that much more under control. It still exists, but to a greatly diminished amount.

 

[barfo]

The second amendment was written to protect the people from the government.

Seems like a great reason to repeal it, then. Because it doesn't work anymore. Your guns are not going to protect you from the government. If the government comes for you, they've got way more firepower than you do. Way, way more.

And that's just the local sheriff.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Seems like a great reason to repeal it, then. Because it doesn't work anymore. Your guns are not going to protect you from the government. If the government comes for you, they've got way more firepower than you do. Way, way more.

And that's just the local sheriff.

barfo

Government went after the insurgents in Iraq, the Taliban in Afghanistan. How'd that work out?

Unless the government is going to nuke the masses, the masses armed with pistols and improvised land mines are more than a match for the cops and military.

 

[barfo]

Government went after the insurgents in Iraq, the Taliban in Afghanistan. How'd that work out?

You think the US government is comparable to the Iraq or Afghan government? No wonder you hate America.

Unless the government is going to nuke the masses, the masses armed with pistols and improvised land mines are more than a match for the cops and military.

Yeah, sure, if say, 200 million of us revolted, that's true. But if 200 million of us revolted, we wouldn't even need guns.

If a few hundred Libertarians revolt, you'll be shot down like dogs. So good luck with that.

barfo

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

Seems like a great reason to repeal it, then. Because it doesn't work anymore. Your guns are not going to protect you from the government. If the government comes for you, they've got way more firepower than you do. Way, way more.

And that's just the local sheriff.

barfo

In this thread we have learned that guns are all the military needs, not cars or bombs. No guns, no killing. That big truck doesn't look like a gun.

 

[barfo]

In this thread we have learned that guns are all the military needs, not cars or bombs. No guns, no killing. That big truck doesn't look like a gun.

Haven't you ever heard of Transformers?

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

You think the US government is comparable to the Iraq or Afghan government? No wonder you hate America.



Yeah, sure, if say, 200 million of us revolted, that's true. But if 200 million of us revolted, we wouldn't even need guns.

If a few hundred Libertarians revolt, you'll be shot down like dogs. So good luck with that.

barfo

You claimed "Your guns are not going to protect you from the government. If the government comes for you, they've got way more firepower than you do. Way, way more."

You are simply wrong.

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

That big truck is also like the schools with metal detectors. You might be safe in it, but you have to come out sometime.

 

[Denny Crane]

That big truck is also like the schools with metal detectors. You might be safe in it, but you have to come out sometime.

If enough people rush the thing, it wouldn't stand a chance.

Tip it over, set it on fire.

 

[barfo]

You are simply wrong.

Oh. Good argument.

barfo

 

[barfo]

That big truck is also like the schools with metal detectors. You might be safe in it, but you have to come out sometime.

Some of y'all are taking the picture of the truck a wee bit too seriously. It was meant as comedic illustration of my point, not as the point itself.

barfo

 

[Natebishop3]

Seems like a great reason to repeal it, then. Because it doesn't work anymore. Your guns are not going to protect you from the government. If the government comes for you, they've got way more firepower than you do. Way, way more.

And that's just the local sheriff.

barfo

Oh, you mean like the Americans against the British?

In a conventional war, our military is unmatched. Against insurgents, we run into problems. The Army is a big ass sword. An insurgency requires a scalpel. You're also assuming that our soldiers are okay with fighting against their own people.

There's 313 million people in the United States. We have a little over 1.4 million in active personnel. That's not all soldiers. Just active personnel. There's another 780,000 police in the United States.

So 2.2 million are supposed to suppress 313 million?

 

[Denny Crane]

Oh. Good argument.

barfo

I made the winning argument. The government couldn't keep the peace in Iraq, Afghanistan, or a tiny country named Vietnam. All those countries smaller than the US and with a far less literate populace. If they can't take away the bad guys' guns in a country smaller than California (Iraq), how are they going to do it here?

 

[barfo]

Oh, you mean like the Americans against the British?

In a conventional war, our military is unmatched. Against insurgents, we run into problems. The Army is a big ass sword. An insurgency requires a scalpel. You're also assuming that our soldiers are okay with fighting against their own people.

There's 313 million people in the United States. We have a little over 1.4 million in active personnel. That's not all soldiers. Just active personnel. There's another 780,000 police in the United States.

So 2.2 million are supposed to suppress 313 million?

No. But guess what? Not all of the 313 million want an armed insurrection, or will be on your side if you try one.
In fact our guns might very well more than cancel out your guns.

barfo

 

[barfo]

I made the winning argument. The government couldn't keep the peace in Iraq, Afghanistan, or a tiny country named Vietnam. All those countries smaller than the US and with a far less literate populace. If they can't take away the bad guys' guns in a country smaller than California (Iraq), how are they going to do it here?

Who said anything about taking away your guns? That's not necessary.

barfo

 

[Natebishop3]

No. But guess what? Not all of the 313 million want an armed insurrection, or will be on your side if you try one.
In fact our guns might very well more than cancel out your guns.

barfo

You have guns?

 

[Denny Crane]

Who said anything about taking away your guns? That's not necessary.

barfo

Of course it's necessary. You and your guys with guns will get shot at.

 

[barfo]

Of course it's necessary. You and your guys with guns will get shot at.

Yes. But you and your guys with guns will get shot.

barfo