Reply With Quote
So
Just Wild West on steroids.
How about jacket protection from projectiles like the army and police have? Do they have sizes for kids 2-11?
Suggestions for Helmets?
Yeah, I regret posting such low hanging fruit, but the argument for gun control really is that dumb. Bad guys are going to do bad things until the end of time regardless of bans or regulations. Best to go out and buy yourself some protection instead of relying on State or Federal to solve your problems.
So
Just Wild West on steroids.
How about jacket protection from projectiles like the army and police have? Do they have sizes for kids 2-11?
Suggestions for Helmets?
Kevlar
.
Last edited by Blake; 02-17-2018 at 12:10 AM.
But bans and regulations can limit the severity of the bad things bad guys do. Furthermore, the State/Federal government is, nominally, supposed to represent the will of people, so voting in favor of legislation or something along those lines is doing something about it, or at least trying to do something about it (since we know government on both sides of the aisle act in the best interests of only themselves and their special interests pimps). I don't want to worry about having to potentially defend myself against a gun-toting Adam Lanza. I'd rather Adam Lanza not tote guns in the first place. I don't see what's unreasonable about applying the same standards to gun ownership/use as we do to car/boat/plane ownership use?
Right, there should be no ban on any weapons whatsoever.
It's the 2nd amendment.
You're stupid.
Credit the curing of the crack epidemic for the drop. But troublingly, the rise of mass/school shootings has risen by leaps. The thing is, it's easier for society to psychologically accept drug dealers killing other drug dealers, since there's a clear motive and purpose behind that kind of violence, so it's sociologically more understandable. We know "why" they do it. Mass shootings that target innocents are chaotically irrational, and thus more terrifying. We don't know "why?" Schools, churches, concerts, malls are places where you're supposed to feel safe, so the collective anxiety everyone feels is understandable, which can't be easily calmed by citing the decline in overall gun violence. The decline of criminal on criminal violence doesn't offset (from a concern standpoint) the uptick in gun violence of the mass shooting variety.
Yep.
Very good point.
Kevlar to school.
Sounds grand. Especially in August&September. I can see it on the school list.
Turn school into airport security. Arrive two hrs early so you are not late to 1st period. School is fun.
I'm in favor of backround checks as much as the next guy, but that theory only works if you guarantee me Adam Lanza is not going to get a gun off the streets or through a 3rd party. Criminals will always go around regulations and bans. I imagine one gun toting citizen could have could have neutralized 8 men with advanced knive skills with little to no training. Disarming the public solves nothing. "An armed society is a polity society" will stand the test of time.
Im thinking it'll be cool when well maintained militias go after each other.
Yeah citizens. When that little piece of Texas breaks away and breaks into the adjacent county igniting a conflict. We could be like tribalistic Bedouins with automatic weapons.
Good stuff.
It's always a possibly an Adam Lanza (or a Paddock, with his resources) could amass an illegal arsenal, but it's an easier pill to swallow that they committed their acts with illegally purchased weapons than with legally purchased weapons, the latter of which kind of implicates all of us, as a society, to a degree since we were collectively okay with lax gun laws that allowed troubled people easy access to firearms. It's also not fair to put that psychological burden on a gun shop owner. I remember one of the gun shop owners who sold Paddock a lot of guns feeling a significant amount of guilt. Maybe they were crocodile tears, but personally, I would probably feel the same way. If I owned a gun store, I would want to be sure I'm selling to a responsible individual.
I feel like the type of person who would want to own & operate a gun shop probably wouldn’t give a .
Yeah, personally I hate the "well, just employ a bunch of armed security at schools, churches, malls, etc." Is this a in' 3rd world country now? I really don't like the idea of schools having security measures that superficially resemble a prison, with children seeing armed guards or teachers, having to be frisked and ushered through metal detectors (which has been a feature of urban schools for like two decades, anyhow). When armed guards and such need to be positioned at schools and churches, to me, that's illustrative of a society with some deep sociological issues. It normalizes violence.
Plus it will create it’s own set of issues when the rich white areas get more armed guards per student than poor black areas.
I also like let's put the 400,000 or whatever unemployed veterans to work guarding our schools. They're unemployed for a reason (likely suffering from issues like PTSD, depression, anger issues, etc). I have family member vets with PTSD. I would not be comfortable with them in security guard positions at a school. I don't think they would necessarily be a threat to the kids, but one feature of PTSD is paranoia, so it's conceivable they would act out at perceived threats too rashly.
So we make it harder for bad guys to get guns with better backround checks and perhaps longer wait times to get guns. I think most people are in favor of that. It's when you start talking about bans, while using vague words like 'gun control', that people start pointing to the 2nd amendment.
The 'bad guys will always have guns' is a terrible argument against regulation, tbh, there's bad actors doing bad things in all walks of life, that doesn't mean we don't have effective regulations to minimize the damage they do and deter copy-cats.
From companies bilking consumers, to safety standards, they have a provable effectiveness in deterring and reducing damage, even if they don't entirely suppress it.
There's much more sound arguments to be made against gun control, tbh, but they're not soundbites.
I'm not in favor of a ban. I think it's a moral wrong to punish a responsible majority for the actions of an irresponsible minority. Prohibition was an attempt at this.
This is the salient point. Criminals breaking the law by selling or purchasing guns illegally is an area where there might not be a lot to do, outside of further deterrent and enforcement.
But when you have ways to obtain the weapons legally without a trace, plus you don't continually monitor that the law abiding citizen is sound of mind to have those guns, then we're failing. This is an area where we can improve, but we purposely don't.
The other problem is what 'improve' means. It has to be something that's not draconian, or an overreach on rights, and sometimes, in the past, it has been.
equally bad argument, good guys with guns actually stop bad guys with guns whereas good guys with drugs don’t stop bad guys with drugs etc. it’s an apples and oranges comparison. Some things need to be banned and others don’t. Guns fall under dont. Guns are a tool for good or for bad unlike some things which are just simply bad.
Do you also want to ban pain pills since some people abuse them and get addicted? That’s the logic you are following here.
Don't think Nono is arguing for a wholesale ban. That said, pain pills are regulated and can only be (legally) obtained through a prescription. Let's call a prescription a de facto license, in this case. We need licenses (and a subsequent renewal of those licenses) to: drive, boat, fly, fish, hunt, sell alcohol, food, and even start a business. Why should guns be exempt from a comprehensive licensing procedure? You can take the road with some degree of comfort knowing fellow motorists proved themselves competent to drive. Similarly, I like to engage in society knowing gun owners proved themselves as responsible "good guys."
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions