Sorry didn't mean to come across as an asshat. That said, I obviously did.
Okay so my question would be what is the non-aggressive part of guns? Guns are for one thing. Shooting something. Sadly I tie any gun to aggression. I know plenty of people who hunt up here and I get that they do it for sport and more importantly food. But they use a gun so they can hide in the background, and hopefully drop the buck in one shot. They may not be aggressive people but they use the guns for aggressive purposes and because nothing else packs a killing blow like a firearm.
You may be a fucking sweet heart, but I don't see anything passive about a firearm.
- - - Updated - - -
I'm usually pretty good at understanding context in his case I know they look at Milton as a respected author, and Paradise Lost is almost like The Odyssey and The Iliad in regards to it's place in our culture. I just thought it intriguing that someone who could see that there are two sides to the coin would state I'm pro this pro that against this etc, as it occurs to be a one sided approach.
Obtuse and Obedient of Stormrage US
Stop trying to tie violence with political beliefs, they aren't really the driving factor in mass shootings.
- - - Updated - - -
Hows that working out for us?
- - - Updated - - -
1. Everyone has access to guns in America, Lanza stole the gun from his mother. So even if you banned insane people from buying guns, they could still steal them from non insane people. Not to mention the black market. Id say the black market is very small to non existent in Australia because you are an island.
2. Police have never really been responsible for a persons protection, they are there to enforce the rules of the state. If a robber breaks into your house the police response time isn't going to be fast enough to get there even in a good neighborhood.
Key thing to note there : We have a hell of a lot of rifles and shotguns. We have very few handguns and owning a gun of any kind requires licensing, with more stringent licensing for handguns. Carrying a gun around, loaded and fireable, requires further licensing and pretty much doesn't happen outside of employment needs or exceptional circumstances.
Warning : Above post may contain snark and/or sarcasm. Try reparsing with the /s argument before replying.
What the world has learned is that America is never more than one election away from losing its goddamned mindMe on Elite : Dangerous | My WoW charactersOriginally Posted by Howard Tayler
I'll try to answer as best as I can even though Ive been up since 4 am and need to sleep.
I'm definitely against the aggressive use of guns against other people (general crime, police brutality, war, etc). I'm not against self-defense or reasonable hunting (which is an entirely different debate imo). They're two different things. Aggression involves violating another person's rights in my opinion. Using a gun in self-defense isn't aggression. Even though I see nothing morally wrong with killing in self-defense, it's still not something that I generally take delight in. I don't like death but it's just the reality we live in. Sure I'm happy for the person who protected herself and may even be glad that the person who died didn't hurt anyone else, but I think it's always better to avoid unnecessary death if possible.
That's just a small part of my stance on guns. There are also practical reasons, cultural reasons, and reasons stemming from our civil liberties. I realize other countries have different beliefs on gun ownership so I respect them, even if I may wildly disagree.
Being pro-gun doesn't mean I'm anti-life (Not to be confused with the "pro-life" anti-abortion stance as I'm not talking about abortion). It's just a figure of speech and a quick way to say that you're generally in favor of something. I like the quote because as you said, it shows that there is more than violence; that it never solves all of your problems. I also like it because it's in one of my favorite books.I'm usually pretty good at understanding context in his case I know they look at Milton as a respected author, and Paradise Lost is almost like The Odyssey and The Iliad in regards to it's place in our culture. I just thought it intriguing that someone who could see that there are two sides to the coin would state I'm pro this pro that against this etc, as it occurs to be a one sided approach.
In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.
An armed response, however small and/or unorganized, has proven to immediately end mass shootings in the US. Every single one that has met with an armed response ended with wither the shooter(s) immediately surrendering or killing themselves. That should probably be a much more publicized fact.
You either die a Varian, or live long enough to see yourself become a Thrall...
One more thing. I read about The Liberal Gun Club today.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/%E2%8...sts-hates-nra/
This is what we need. I hope people support them. We need more liberals to stand up
In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.
It's hard to swallow when you see a staunch, anti-gun politician like Bloomberg hiring his own personal armed guards.
When you will walk around without the protection of a firearm, so will I.
Last edited by Cthulhu 2020; 2014-01-03 at 05:54 AM.
2014 Gamergate: "If you want games without hyper sexualized female characters and representation, then learn to code!"
2023: "What's with all these massively successful games with ugly (realistic) women? How could this have happened?!"
I think it should be a requirement, like security guards, to know how to shoot a gun if you're a teacher. You should be background checked and carry one on your side at all times. I guarantee there would never be another school shooting in the United States.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeighMcVeigh was introduced to firearms by his grandfather. He told people he wanted to be a gun shop owner and sometimes took firearms to school to impress his classmates. McVeigh became intensely interested in gun rights after he graduated from high school, as well as the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and read magazines such as Soldier of Fortune
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/law/1...hive.mcveigh2/His fascination with guns proved more lasting. McVeigh became obsessed with reading about survivalism and Second Amendment issues. He acquired several guns, and set up a generator and a store of canned food and potable water in his basement so that he would be self-sufficient in case of emergency. One of the books he read, The Turner Diaries, a racist novel popular in neo-Nazi and militia circles about an angry man who blows up the FBI building in Washington, would become a long-time favorite.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...imothy-McVeighAround this time he first read The Turner Diaries (1978), an antigovernment, neo-Nazi tract written by William Pierce. The book, which details the truck-bombing of the Washington, D.C., headquarters of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), fueled McVeigh’s paranoia about a government plot to repeal the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees the right “to keep and bear arms.”
I'd say gun rights was part of his agenda/delusion/whatever you want to call it.
- - - Updated - - -
"Gun nuts" is intended to refer specifically to those who have guns and are nuts, not to imply that all gun owners are nuts.
Which had to do with...
Here, do some reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh
- - - Updated - - -
Citation required.
Statistically speaking, a gun is more likely to be used on a loved one than someone seeking to do you harm.
2014 Gamergate: "If you want games without hyper sexualized female characters and representation, then learn to code!"
2023: "What's with all these massively successful games with ugly (realistic) women? How could this have happened?!"
I'm very late to the party, but I don't see in the article linked by the OP where the suggestion is that schools should have armed/trained security. Am I right in thinking that is a leap in logic by the poster? The article pretty clearly states that there needs to be a shift toward training patrol officers - regular cops who are first responders - in better managing the situation before SWAT arrives.
The only person who is quoted as stating that it has anything to do with a security guard was a colorado sheriff.
no.....just no... and I am a staunch advocate of the right to bear arms, but that is a ridiculous step. They are TEACHERS, not police officers...not soldiers...not trained security. Their job is to TEACH. I would support (but don't necessarily advocate for, I would want to see the cost of, and where that money would come from) an armed guard in schools, but to say the teachers should all be armed is silly