NRA Press Conference: Guns in Schools

[bellabulldog]

So using your logic since guns are no longer inanimate objects, then spoons made Rosie O'Donnel fat and pencils mis-spel words huh? Are you stupid? Since you can't seem to control your actions does that make you incontinent too? No free will I guess. Does that make you take your car and run it into a group of pedestrians?

I'll resist the urge to report you.

Guns scare me because of their potential for harm. They are weapons. They are not inanimate objects. If I choose the wrong action with that object, someone dies. That's it purpose. A weapon. And I'm the moron?

Ah, nevermind, you deserve being reported. Go attack the real anti-gun people, not this guy that chooses not to use guns, which is my right, and will never advocate that all guns be banned.

[bellabulldog]

You deserve a ban for your staggering ignorance. I bet you think the world is all blue skies and butterflies don't you? No one ever wants to harm anyone and everyone is created equal, both in strength and intellect.

Cupcake.

I'll play your game until you're infracted.

Let me know when a spoon can take out 27 people in 5 minutes. Or a pencil for that matter. Or are classified as weapons being their primary purpose.

[Delekii]

Yes yes, bring your indignation to bear, and the truth IS if you gave a damn about those kids you'd have given a damn about the BEFORE this tragedy, you'd have been out front supporting the need for a mental health system that would have given this shooter the treatment he needed, instead, you willfully blame the tools he used instead of addressing why he actually committed the acts. Why is that? Are the lives of those children not important enough to you to actually address the issue?

There is no stock-standard answer, there is no reason to limit the response to one action. Neither plan of action would completely stamp out these events. Both together would reduce more than either alone. Better mental health and better gun control are not mutually exclusive, and even with both in place, people will still slip through the cracks. There is nothing to say that the mental health of the kid in this recent thing was in question before the event occured, and if there is no indication of an issue, how can it help to have better mental health care available?

On the other hand, he did use his mother's legally acquired automatic weapons, meaning that if they were not legally available for purchase, he would have at least had to go to the point of breaking in and stealing a weapon from someone else before doing what he did (increasing the chances that his intentions were discovered before the event). Furthermore, if nobody had assault weapons, he simply wouldn't have been able to get one.

[bellabulldog]

There is no stock-standard answer, there is no reason to limit the response to one action. Neither plan of action would completely stamp out these events. Both together would reduce more than either alone. Better mental health and better gun control are not mutually exclusive, and even with both in place, people will still slip through the cracks. There is nothing to say that the mental health of the kid in this recent thing was in question before the event occured, and if there is no indication of an issue, how can it help to have better mental health care available?

On the other hand, he did use his mother's legally acquired automatic weapons, meaning that if they were not legally available for purchase, he would have at least had to go to the point of breaking in and stealing a weapon from someone else before doing what he did (increasing the chances that his intentions were discovered before the event). Furthermore, if nobody had assault weapons, he simply wouldn't have been able to get one.

Do you believe you can remove 300+ million guns from Americans? I think an act like that might start watering the Tree of Liberty.

[rootfifth]

For everyone who thinks a determined group of people who only rifles and a few improvised explosives can't resist the most technologically advanced force on the planet has another thing coming to them.

Ever heard of Afghanistan? AND THEY HAVE DONE IT TWICE.

KEEP FORGETTING HISTORY.

Furthermore Chonogo why you are afraid of the inanimate objects? Fucking moron.

---------- Post added 2012-12-22 at 08:45 AM ----------




EVER HEAR OF THE NDAA AND ANWAR AL-ALIKI? INDEFINITE DETENTION OF AMERICAN CITIZENS? EXECUTIVE ORDERED ASSASSINATION OF AN AMERICAN CITIZEN? Are you stupid?

While I agree that NDAA gives undue power to the president, Anwar Al-Aliki was a terrorist and that defined him as a traitor. Do you think Americans who defected to Germany in WW2 got a trial? A terrorist/traitor shouldn't be immune to being a casualty in a war just because he was born in America. Suspected criminals die all the time at the hands police without a trial beforehand but you don't see anyone crying about that. What is needed is for it to be reviewed after the fact and if it can't be justified then those responsible should be held accountable but nothing has proven that to be true.

[bellabulldog]

What are you hoping to achieve here?

I'm offended by your intolerable ignorance. Claiming a firearm has a will of it's own and claiming you have no control over your actions. Pathetic and disgusting. I see America's public education system has taught you well.

Infracted: Please refrain from insults

[Xarkan]

What are you hoping to achieve here?

I will guess because i can..

He is trying to get the thread locked because that way it can go away?

[Deleted]

For everyone who thinks a determined group of people who only rifles and a few improvised explosives can't resist the most technologically advanced force on the planet has another thing coming to them.

Ever heard of Afghanistan? AND THEY HAVE DONE IT TWICE.

KEEP FORGETTING HISTORY.

Twice ? That's the number of times Afghanistan has gotten invaded, by Alexander the Great and by the Mongols. But the Great Plains are not exactly the afghan mountains are they ?
Here, I'll give you a better example : Syria, right this instant. The rebels needed external support from experienced foreign paramilitary group, as well as equipment supply by some arab and european countries. That didn't keep them from complaining for months about their lack of anti-vehicle weaponry. The fact this civil war has lasted for two years now, and threatens to degenerate into an ethnical conflict (if it hasn't already) with absolutely no guarantee that a democratic government will emerge. Other revolutions throughout history were successful despite the (initial) lack of weapons.
In fact, if a tyrannical government were to emerge from a democracy, it would probably be largely destabilized by its perceived illegitimacy that would cause defections in the administrations and the military - problematic when you have a possible civil war on your hands.

EVER HEAR OF THE NDAA AND ANWAR AL-ALIKI? INDEFINITE DETENTION OF AMERICAN CITIZENS? EXECUTIVE ORDERED ASSASSINATION OF AN AMERICAN CITIZEN? Are you stupid?

What do you think you pay your secret services for ?
Your freedom entirely depends on the good will of the powers that be, not on whether you have a gun or not.

[bellabulldog]

While I agree that NDAA gives undue power to the president, Anwar Al-Aliki was a terrorist and that defined him as a traitor. Do you think Americans who defected to Germany in WW2 got a trial? A terrorist/traitor shouldn't be immune to being a casualty in a war just because he was born in America. Suspected criminals die all the time at the hands police without a trial beforehand but you don't see anyone crying about that. What is needed is for it to be reviewed after the fact and if it can't be justified then those responsible should be held accountable but nothing has proven that to be true.

Now anyone can be labelled a terrorist and they can conveniently be assassinated without a trial or due process. This is no longer a foreigner but an American citizen. The potential for abuse is staggering and have you ever known our government not to abuse powers?

---------- Post added 2012-12-22 at 09:09 AM ----------

WRONG.

Soviets from '79-'89. Afghanistan threw them as they are about to do America. Pay attention to history.

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews and others were rounded up and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political Dissidents were rounded up and exterminated.
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians were rounded up and exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians were rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million ‘educated’ people were rounded up and exterminated.”
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.

It wasn't too long ago that France had some 'friendly' Germans over there too. Or did you forget that too?

Twice ? That's the number of times Afghanistan has gotten invaded, by Alexander the Great and by the Mongols. But the Great Plains are not exactly the afghan mountains are they ?
Here, I'll give you a better example : Syria, right this instant. The rebels needed external support from experienced foreign paramilitary group, as well as equipment supply by some arab and european countries. That didn't keep them from complaining for months about their lack of anti-vehicle weaponry. The fact this civil war has lasted for two years now, and threatens to degenerate into an ethnical conflict (if it hasn't already) with absolutely no guarantee that a democratic government will emerge. Other revolutions throughout history were successful despite the (initial) lack of weapons.
In fact, if a tyrannical government were to emerge from a democracy, it would probably be largely destabilized by its perceived illegitimacy that would cause defections in the administrations and the military - problematic when you have a possible civil war on your hands.

What do you think you pay your secret services for ?
Your freedom entirely depends on the good will of the powers that be, not on whether you have a gun or not.

[Seranthor]

What do you and I disagree on? I figured you and I were on the same page on this issue. Mental health issues, limitations on some military-grade weaponry. Pretty simple and precise solutions.

We're not trying to solve world peace here. We're trying to find solutions that keep mentally screwed up people from easily gaining access to weapons that can kill 27 people in a matter of minutes.

I agree with bellabulldog about the NDAA issue, I dont agree with them insulting you or namecalling you. When someone resorts to insults or namecalling it weakens their position, period.

[Deleted]

Think it through, if a cop is shot outside of the school and teachers have guns what happens to the crazy guy about to bust in?

"How about sorting the root of the problem?"

How about telling us what you think the root of the problem is.

Easy acess to any guns, either legal or illegal. Once you have strict gun regulation cope with good ilegal gun control the ammount of guns will decrease. This will mean that if you want to get a hold on a gun it will be hard, expensive. This will make 9/10 cases impossible for a mentaly ill or just temporary insane person to get a gun and go on a shooting sprie, but it can't stop 100% of the crimes.

You will always have shootings as you can't remove all the guns, but you will have lesser gun shootings. Im from a very strict gun regulation EU country and we here didn't had any mass shootings in the last years, untill one day when one cop (he has a gun as requested by law, noting to do about him just that his psychiatric exam should have shown it) opened fire in a hair salon where his wife was and about 2-3 other people. (as a revenge on his wife for cheating or something)

So like I said before you can't stop 100% of the mass shootings but you can make it in such a way that you "give" the right to have guns to people worthy and trained and even if you save 1 life because of the new/better law you have made it was still worth it.

[Seranthor]

I'll play your game until you're infracted.

Let me know when a spoon can take out 27 people in 5 minutes. Or a pencil for that matter. Or are classified as weapons being their primary purpose.



More flawless logic?
Control my actions? What are you talking about?
My car's purpose is to get me from point A to B. What's a weapon's purpose?



Please find where I stated that guns should be removed from people. I never said it.

I challenge you to tell me why you need an AR-15 besides "because I can".

One might ask you why you need a Ferrari when a Yugo will do.

[bellabulldog]

By myself, my freedom depends on the powers that be. But collectively it does not. Again, have a look at Afghanistan if you refuse to believe me.

[Dillon]

If you modify your car to be super fast and all that stuff, you have that right. However, society has deemed that if you make it so it's not street legal, you definitely are a danger to society. That's why there's a law against it. It's not about the intent, it's about what's good for society.

Essentially, it's not about what you plan to do with an AR-15(or similar weapons), it's about what could potentially happen if it's unleashed on public property. See what I mean?

I think most people that know even the slightest about guns can tell the difference between a handgun, a hunting rifle, and a weapon that looked like a soldier just dropped it on the ground. The latter is the "assault weapon" that people refer to. I'm not trying to sound condescending, but one of these is not like the other. It's not about semi-auto, it's about the ability to generate a lot of shots in a short amount of time, with a minimal amount of effort from the shooter(if trained). There's a massive difference between shooting a semi-automatic handgun, with both arms outstretched, and a semi-automatic "assault weapon" that you can cradle without nearly the same amount of recoil.

These kinds of weapons are great to shoot for the gun enthusiasts. Probably a huge thrill I'm sure. But is it necessary to own one? What's wrong with limiting the use of them to registered gun shops with firing ranges? It doesn't need to sit in your house waiting for something really bad to happen. You're not going to pick it up and mow down the one intruder coming into your house. Handguns and standard rifles handle that task very effectively.

Basically, for rabid gun owners, the question is - when is the firepower you can obtain "too much"? I say the limit is when the line crosses from home protection/hunting to "this is cool to fire and act like I'm a soldier". I have no problems with handguns and rifles. It's the military-grade stuff that's used for military purposes that crosses the line for me.

I didn't see at as that. It's a spirited discussion. At least you didn't call me a super liberal that wants all your guns.

I just think "assault weapons" are a bridge too far and simply excessive for people to buy. I don't even want to limit their exposure to them. Just the ownership of them. Keep them secure in gun shops/firing ranges, where you can go rent a session with them and go to town. That way someone doesn't flip their lid and go shoot up a theater or a school because life sucks for them. Sure, they could have a 10-round handgun that they have to reload, but the carnage would be smaller. Even that Loughner guy with his handgun and 30-round clip was subdued. Not to minimize their deaths, but he inflicted 14 casualties(6 deaths). Imagine if he had an AR-15.

On your first point (intention and potential), I think personal responsibility takes precedence here. Many people have the capability to inflict harm with any number of things at their disposal, whether it be a car, or a gun, or garden tools, anything at all, people have to be given the benefit of the doubt most of the time. Of course, abusing your right to own a gun by causing harm without just cause is very possible, but the sheer number of gun owners that haven't been committing crimes would suggest that almost always, trusting someone with gun ownership is very reasonable indeed.

While greatly tragic the rare occurrences sometimes turn out to be, I don't feel that preemption in the form of a ban can be acceptable.

On your second point (distinguishing different weapons to crossing the line) you didn't sound condescending and I didn't intend to oversimplify, if that's what it looked like. To clarify, my biggest issue when it comes to classifying "assault weapons" is it really does seem as if most people pass judgment by form alone, and not often enough by function, as evidenced by banning weapons that had two or more of things like bayonet mounts, foregrips, pistol grips, barrel shrouds, etc. Simply because an AR-15 looks almost exactly the same as the M4 and M16 variants, it's immediately deemed as somehow more dangerous than other semi-automatic weapons, even chambered in the same cartridge, and is labeled a "weapon of war". The look of the weapon does not determine lethality, the user does, and this is where ignorance of firearms shows through the worst I think.

On necessity of ownership, I think it should be left to the owner's choice, within reason. Fully automatic weapons are obviously beyond lethal at close ranges, but are much more difficult to control; heavily regulating these doesn't even make that much sense to me, but as it stands, I think the federal process for obtaining these legally is sufficient, especially since you have to buy weapons produced before the late 1980s, from someone who likely already owns it and the price will fetch for well above $10,000.

As for when is it too much, well that's where "within reason" comes in. Most people do not have the training required to safely handle and things like missiles, bombs, chemical weapons, nukes, etc., and even if they did, owner negligence would result in MUCH worse things than just going to a mall and mowing down 20+ people. Thousands upon thousands could be injured or killed, and because of this, like nuclear power plants, they fall present clear and present danger, subject to whatever regulation the government thinks appropriate. Not in direct comparison of, but in light of this, I don't think a semi-automatic rifle is too much. A long rifle in the hands of a skilled marksman can always be a weapon of war, therefore it doesn't make much sense to prohibit these small arms.

On the short point of home defense, it's always more suited to easily controllable weapons like pistols and short shotguns.

Spirited discussion... I don't even consider myself right-wing. Of course I love muh guns, but I'm an atheist, I like healthcare, and I hate the NRA, but I didn't vote for either of the two jokers this year. I believe in judging people by their own individual merits, and anyone willing to host civil discussion is cool with me.

On your last point, I sort of agree with the general idea. I don't mind limiting ownership; as long as someone can demonstrate strength of knowledge of gun safety, sound mind, and clear record, I think they should be able to own just about anything that won't blow up and kill people if they go full retard. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but in a way you've conceded that at least to a degree, because the firearms dealer is being trusted with access. Not intended as a gotcha, but I think if a gun dealer can be trusted with that weapons cache that someone who isn't insane and clears the 'check should be able to own a rifle like that.

Because having an AR-15, and rounds for it in the same house aren't clear and present danger?
Don't tell me you go hunting with an automatic rifle because that's utter bullshit.
If I was looking to murder someone, and I couldn't find a weapon, I would absolutely break into somebodies house if I knew they had an automatic weapon with ammo for it in their house. As a matter of fact, a disproportionate amount of guns used in murder situations are stolen.

Lets get something straight because it has always been confusing to me.
Why do people want to have guns in the fist place?

I don't hunt at all, an AR-15 isn't an automatic weapon, and hell no I wouldn't hunt with one if I did. I would prefer precision: the good old bolt action long rifle.

A semi-automatic rifle is hardly clear and present danger. It doesn't blow up if tipped over, it doesn't emit mustard gas, and it doesn't level cities. The only thing it does is fire at whatever the user points it at, making the user directly responsible for anything it does.

If I owned automatic weapons, as a matter of responsibility it would either be disassembled and hidden or locked up real tight, in a heavy ass safe bolted to concrete. Not only would it be dangerous in the hands of someone who stole it, but the fucking things cost more than a car.

People own guns for a multitude of reasons. Family heirlooms, hunting, self-defense, collecting, selling, gifts, fun, etc. And lastly, astronomically unlikely, and something no one ever, ever hopes to have to act on, protection from tyranny. The last resort against an entity that won't listen to appeals or redress of grievances and is completely out of control. I don't ever think it's going to happen, and I don't want it to, and it's almost never on my mind. But I won't be tossing out my insurance policy because I never got in an accident. Better to have and not need, then need and not have.

And to the inevitable comment from someone saying "lol u dumb america u cant beat government it has tanks". I put it to you, who drives those tanks? Who flies those helicopters? Mans missile silos? They're my fellow Americans.

I have no fear of my government going insane, because they wouldn't make it very far even if they tried.

[Xarkan]

Hitler disarmed the people before exterminating the Jews or have you forgotten? Much easier to oppress people when all they have is harsh language.

Hitler build roads, the soviets build rail roads. Much easier to move troops and equipment with good infrastructure. Sweden is improving their infrastructure constantly. Should i as a Danish citizen prepare for the inevitable coming of the Swedish forces, death and mayhem?

You know what protects you from the oppression of your government more than anything in an informed and somewhat democratic society.. like say a republic? More than any amount of guns you can muster? The fact that soldiers are humans, they are people just like you. Possibly better trained and better equipped and more used to obey rules.. but people. And as people they know people. They may not be as inclined as you suspect to join in oppressing people left and right. The more your soldiers are forced to think before obeying the better it works but it is your protection

If you think your gun will save you from a well armed army then .. good luck with that.

[bellabulldog]

One might ask you why you need a Ferrari when a Yugo will do.

The sporting uses of an AR-15. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cg6CzExZAVk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9fLCoxBZ0M

[Beavis]

People may criticize the NRA for this, but those people are wrong. School shootings might be a shock to suburban White America, but they're old hat for the innercity and the poor. In the 80s and 90s, kids were bringing guns to school and shooting each other all the time. Of course, these were black and brown kids in gangs with parents who don't vote, so nobody really cared that much. But, I digress. Innercity schools installed metal detectors, used random gun sweeps (ask me how fun those were,) and brought police on campus. As if by magic, people stopped bringing guns and shooting each other.

I'm all for better enforcement of our current gun control laws, legislation for better in home weapon storage, and stronger mental health checks. But, at some point, we need to stop pretending that the gun genie can go back in the bottle. We live in an armed society and that isn't going to change. There are millions upon millions of semiautomatic rifles and hundreds of millions of high capacity magazines floating around this country and there isn't a thing that can be done about that at this point. The horse is out of the barn. Plan accordingly.

[Deleted]

Pay attention to history.

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews and others were rounded up and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political Dissidents were rounded up and exterminated.
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians were rounded up and exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians were rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million ‘educated’ people were rounded up and exterminated.”
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.

You mean nearly every country but the USA has gun control ? you don't say. I love how you don't appear to know that there was no Turkey in 1911. Or how you ignore that every single country you mentionned went through a civil war in that same interval.

It wasn't too long ago that France had some 'friendly' Germans over there too. Or did you forget that too?

And the Americans were late to the party as usual. The French don't forget, we have 2000 years of history behind us and every single part is important.

[bellabulldog]

Hitler build roads, the soviets build rail roads. Much easier to move troops and equipment with good infrastructure. Sweden is improving their infrastructure constantly. Should i as a Danish citizen prepare for the inevitable coming of the Swedish forces, death and mayhem?

You know what protects you from the oppression of your government more than anything in an informed and somewhat democratic society.. like say a republic? More than any amount of guns you can muster? The fact that soldiers are humans, they are people just like you. Possibly better trained and better equipped and more used to obey rules.. but people. And as people they know people. They may not be as inclined as you suspect to join in oppressing people left and right. The more your soldiers are forced to think before obeying the better it works but it is your protection

If you think your gun will save you from a well armed army then .. good luck with that.

That sure worked out well for those German soldiers during WWII. The goverment should be fearful of the people, not the other way around. But you've conviently forgotten history.

[Xarkan]

That sure worked out well for those German soldiers during WWII. The goverment should be fearful of the people, not the other way around. But you've conviently forgotten history.

The absence of a quality often fails to work to produce results that depend on that quality

Except in programming where failed code can give the right results at times until you fix it at which time it all falls apart

Edit:

No the government should not be fearful of the people. The government should be of by and for the people.