Children killed in Connecticut school shooting (likely 27 dead,including 18 children)

midnight rain · 12-14-2012, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tuna

And what exactly did loose gun laws do to HELP this situation that stricter guns would hurt? Did you hear of any reports of armed citizens returning fire on the gunman?

I wish someone would answer this.

How did the right to bears arm positively affect this situation? Can we at least look at school shootings and acknowledge that a.) the right to bear arms rarely comes into play and b.) the vast majority of school shooters get firearms not from the black market, but from relatives who own them through legal means?

tl;dr: the one touted advantage of gun ownership is moot in this scenario, and banning guns would at the very least make it much more difficult for angsty, impulsive teens to get their hands on them.

**Janszoon** · 12-14-2012, 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freebase Dali

I agree in whole that there needs to be proactive, not reactive, systems in place to ensure that guns don't end up in the hands of those that would use them maliciously. That's the thing. A lot of people just say "AAAAH BAN ALL GUNS NAO!" without even contextualizing it and actually analyzing the greater effect it would have for this country. But people should consider the situation here instead of simply comparing their own situations and saying "well it works here", and using that as personal proof that a completely different system would work just as well.

Honestly, I don't think there are many people who hold that opinion. In my experience, even the biggest gun control advocates recognize that it might be perfectly reasonable to own a gun of some kind if you live out in middle-of-nowhere Alaska or something. I think you're absolutely right with regards to context and I think it's important for both sides to realize that it cuts both ways. Just like a city guy like me needs to recognize that there may be legit reasons to have gun out in the country, people in rural areas need to understand that there's a reason a lot of urban people don't want guns in their cities.

Freebase Dali · 12-14-2012, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tuna

I wish someone would answer this.

How did the right to bears arm positively affect this situation? Can we at least look at school shootings and acknowledge that a.) the right to bear arms rarely comes into play and b.) the vast majority of school shooters get firearms not from the black market, but from relatives who own them through legal means?

tl;dr: the one touted advantage of gun ownership is moot in this scenario, and banning guns would at the very least make it much more difficult for angsty, impulsive teens to get their hands on them.

Well, the right to bear arms didn't positively affect this because A) Firearms are not allowed at school, and B) There was no armed guard at the school.

I'm not sure if you're trying to fault the right to bear arms not saving the day when weapons are not allowed at school and no armed guards were present. We aren't exactly calling for 9 year olds to be able to carry guns at school to protect themselves from would-be assassins...

Or maybe I'm totally misunderstanding what you're trying to say.

Engine · 12-14-2012, 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janszoon

Honestly, I don't think there are many people who hold that opinion. In my experience, even the biggest gun control advocates recognize that it might be perfectly reasonable to own a gun of some kind if you live out in middle-of-nowhere Alaska or something. I think you're absolutely right with regards to context and I think it's important for both sides to realize that it cuts both ways. Just like a city guy like me needs to recognize that there may be legit reasons to have gun out in the country, people in rural areas need to understand that there's a reason a lot of urban people don't want guns in their cities.

I don't think he implied that guns are okay in the middle of nowhere but not okay in big cities. It's a matter of civil liberties and personal choices. Those things apply in downtown Philly and nowhere Alaska.

**Janszoon** · 12-14-2012, 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Engine

You didn't. I apologize for saying that you asked a question

I only meant to address the 'a' and 'b' parts of your statement

Ah, in that case I'm sorry to say I don't think you really responded to my statements either. I was mostly addressing the "if guns are illegal only criminals will have guns" argument that comes up so much in gun control conversations. Point A was simply that, despite what many seem to think, it is actually a lot harder for an unhinged guy like the shooter in this case to get a hold of a street gun than a legal one. Point B was a commentary about street guns' origins as legally purchased firearms.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Engine

I don't think he implied that guns are okay in the middle of nowhere but not okay in big cities. It's a matter of civil liberties and personal choices. Those things apply in downtown Philly and nowhere Alaska.

Who is "he"? Freebase? Yeah, he didn't say either of those things. I was the one saying them.

Engine · 12-14-2012, 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janszoon

Who is "he"? Freebase? Yeah, he didn't say either of those things. I was the one saying them.

Haha, okay let's slow down and get rational. You (Janszoon) implied those things. And I understand why. My response remains the same ("he" being FD).

Give me a minute to read your last post that responded to mine for a minute. I'm kind of slow.

midnight rain · 12-14-2012, 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freebase Dali

Well, the right to bear arms didn't positively affect this because A) Firearms are not allowed at school, and B) There was no armed guard at the school.

I'm not sure if you're trying to fault the right to bear arms not saving the day when weapons are not allowed at school and no armed guards were present. We aren't exactly calling for 9 year olds to be able to carry guns at school to protect themselves from would-be assassins...

Or maybe I'm totally misunderstanding what you're trying to say.

It really goes for any kind of spree killing where 99% of the time it ends up being the cops who take down the perpetrator.

There's two ways of looking at it obviously
-stricter gun control
-less gun control

Is #2 really a path we want to take? Fighting violence with violence, basically turning the U.S. into a hostile war zone of it's own, where everyone is so on edge that they feel the need to carry a gun on themselves at all times to be safe? Doesn't sound like a very hospitable environment to me.

An armed guard would potentially work, but at the same time it takes, what, 1 minute to gun down an entire classroom of people?

Freebase Dali · 12-14-2012, 10:07 PM

I'm just going to assume that everything I type that is not replied to, is universally agreed upon in this forum.

I f*cking hate being agreed with.
I live for arguments.
Someone argue with me.

Edit:
Thanks Tuna!

**Janszoon** · 12-14-2012, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freebase Dali

Someone argue with me.

Your shoes don't match your pants.

Engine · 12-14-2012, 10:12 PM

So three nerds walk into a bar.
One says "Let's get drunk and talk about gun politics."

Nobody else said anything worth mentioning.

12-14-2012, 10:12 PM	#130 (permalink)
Engine air quote Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: pollen & mold Posts: 3,108	So three nerds walk into a bar. One says "Let's get drunk and talk about gun politics." Nobody else said anything worth mentioning. __________________ Like an arrow, I was only passing through.

12-14-2012, 10:07 PM	#128 (permalink)
Freebase Dali Partying on the inside Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,584	I'm just going to assume that everything I type that is not replied to, is universally agreed upon in this forum. I f*cking hate being agreed with. I live for arguments. Someone argue with me. Edit: Thanks Tuna!