The insanity continues...

I was being hyperbolic to make a point. The logic used by those who believe more guns leads to more security is the same logic that realist IR scholars used in applying the security dilemma to the Cold War. Unlike the latter, the former cannot substantiate their arguments with statistics or facts.

 

Of course it isn't. But when I said Americans would rampage successfully even without guns, and gave an example, your response was to give examples using guns, thus completely missing the point.

 

I was reading a Clint Eastwood biography the other day, and it was interesting to note that when Eastwood was a rising star,
he once asked a movie producer how long they were going to continue to produce violent movies....
The answer came back with a smirk..."whilst the public continues to pay at the box office..."

The point I am making is this....

America feeds off violence, and it is encouraged and promoted by Hollywood....

Therefore the gun culture is promoted by Hollywood and you suckers fall for it...and I havnt
started talking about the influence of the NRA and your "constitutional right to bare arms"
I can hear people saying...now he's blaming Hollywood for the gun proliferation......

Well, no Im not...but this is an industry which feasts on the gullibility of the public.....
And guess what...your gullibility becomes paranoia...lets buy a gun to protect ourselves.....
Gimme a break....teachers with guns....God help America...

 

Neither can the opposite substantiate their arguments with statistics or facts. Why? Because they all have to use proxies for gun ownership so both are fraught with error. Unscientifically, during the last 20 year that States have been passing conceal carry, gun violence has actually gone down.

 

Funny how everybody who's got something to say against guns are Australian or a D.C. globalist- nobody with any respect for the principles of the US.

 

Murder is a felony, a felon does not have a right to a firearm. Of course, that doesn't stop them. They could care less about your liberal, do-goody-good 'gun ban'....

 

Well....you see...when I see little kids slaughtered like this I have a feeling of compassion and sadness that compels
me to comment on the problem...if other Australians also have the same feelings then so be it....maybe we all feel
the same about gun violence....but I have often wondered why other nationalities have no representation on this subject....maybe they just dont give a stuff about America.....maybe they think youre not worth worrying about....if thats the case...then thats a blight on America...because the rest of the world couldnt give a fig about you.....

 

Yes, concealed carry is an effective regulatory measure. The states that have had the most success with it are those which have shall-issue or, better yet, may-issue provisions in their respective laws. No-issue laws create too many negative externalities, often leading to greater crime and gun related deaths. This leads to abysmal failures at gun control in Illinois and Washington DC. Gun ownership, illicit and licit, has increased in these areas, as has gun related deaths. However, this does not eliminate the fact that there is correlation between gun ownership and gun death rates, and in those states where there is a lower percentage of gun ownership, there are less gun related deaths.

Of course, we are not taking into account any other factors besides those related to guns, crime, and deaths. There are other quantitative factors such as population, population density, ethnic diversity, and qualitative factors such as culture which need to be addressed. Only then can a truly comprehensive national gun control regime be put into place, one that protects as many of the rights and freedoms to own and use a gun as possible, while ensuring the greatest amount of security for our communities and country as possible.

 

Yet lot mustard indicates quite the opposite. In fact statistics indicate that more guns correlates quite well with lower crime rates over all. Montana has almost no crime massachusetts has buckets. They may have fewer gun crimes but they have a lot more of every other sort of crime.

What the statistics show is that compared to other crimes gun crimes are relatively rare and gun crimes in which some one is killed are even rarer.

 

I'm an American. I thought one of our principles was "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Guess that doesn't apply to the children of Newtown.

 

I am reminded of the words of Archie Bunker, who said, "Would you feel better, little girl, if they was pushed out of windows?"

Spoken like a true enemy of America.

 

I am an American. I completely agree with you. However, I guess being in the ivory towers of DC makes my opinion foreign and unimportant to the commoners.

 

I am not a proponent of having police break into people's homes to confiscate guns. I also disagree with the overzealous gun control policies of Illinois and Washington DC. I firmly believe in the right to keep and bear arms. This is something I cannot say of my friends and family members. However, to deny facts, statistics, and reason in sustenance of tainted morality is unacceptable. We as a country must realize that our national gun control regime will have to change if incidences such as the one in Newton, among other travesties, are to decrease.

 

Oh, gimme a break. Really? So your response is to give up liberty? Yeah that makes alot of sense. It wasn't the government who denied anyone life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness. It was an individual. But you would have it be the government instead. Your thinking is ass-backward.

 

What, then, does the right to keep and bear arms mean to you? And how can you believe in that right while wishing for a change in our "gun control regime", unless that wish is that it change to truly respect the right?

 

Keep your guns but legislated GUN SAFETY - lock and track the beggars!

 

That worked out so well with 'fast and furious' didn't it?

And had one of their teachers been able to exercise his or her right to bear arms maybe a few more of them would still be alive. You can't preserve liberty by taking things away from people.

 

It was the government's cowardice in the face of the NRA, and refusal to put virtuallly any limit on guns. But that's about to change. America is enraged about this now.

And BTW "Liberty" should include the right of a 6-year-old to survive a Friday at school.

 

The right to keep and bear arms means exactly what the Second Amendment says: that in the presence of a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of the free state, the right to own and proliferate firearms shall not be infringed. In this regard, it is that well-regulated militia from which a national gun control regime should form. On the state and local level, it should be greater standards on the acquisition, ownership, and use of firearms that needs to be imposed. Lastly, on the international level, a global arms trade treaty should be established.

 

...SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!! Not cowardice to the NRA, but respect for THE LAW.

Actually, that would be the "life" part, but I'll let you slide since you're still learning about freedom. And, exercising Liberty, Texas has chosen to take steps to protect Life. So the change that everyone is clamoring for IS happening, and you're still biching.

 

There are plenty of limits on guns and have been since Rooevelt. And more of them might have survived if some of their teachers had been at liberty to exercise their constitutional right to bear arms.

They died not because some one inveted the AR-15. They died because we do a (*)(*)(*)(*) poor job of dealing with mental illness. They died because all that no guns allowed sign means to crazed nutbars is free fire zone. many of them may well have died because no one on the premises had the ability to shoot back.

 

Interesting. I, too, would like to see the militia of 2nd Amendment fame actually materialize. Of course I know that the Supreme Court has already upheld the individual right to bear arms, but a large group of armed people is certainly going to preserve freedom better than one, or a small number, would. I wonder, though, who is going to do the regulating? Certainly not those who the militia is set up to defend against, so who? Self-regulation, maybe?

 

How was the shooter's mother, who owned the guns, a "well regulated militia"?

 

For a truly effective militia to be set up, it must come from the National Guard. In doing so, all adult citizens up to a certain age must know how to properly use a firearm, and those that would like to own one for private purposes must meet military standards of functionality and competency. This should include correct storage methods, a key issue in this recent shooting. Firearms training associations such as NRA should establish partnerships with the federal government and state governments to do their part.

 

First, the SCOTUS has ruled that it's an individual right. Second, let's say that she did belong to a militia (doubtful, but for the sake of argument). How is a militia supposed to be armed if it's members aren't? And another thing that this issue brings up is: the shooter STOLE the guns! If he didn't steal them from his mother, no doubt he would have stolen them elsewhere. So, we have laws against shooting people, and we have laws against stealing. Obviously, when you are going on a murder/suicide spree, those laws don't mean (*)(*)(*)(*) to you. But you think more laws are going to fix it?