[Discussion] The one and only big fat thread about GUNS.

[Arlo]

Originally Posted by Went

Do you even know how the US political system works? Have you ever heard about heir constitutional framework? Because for a single person/group to remove or change anything from there without the support of anybody else, you need a majority control in the House, the Congress, the White House, and the Congress, the Senate and the Governorship of at least 39 States. And there are elections going on every two years, meaning that, for all of these circunstances to meet, you either need
a) a fantastic landslide which would effectively give you enough legitimacy to change anything (because that's the point of democracy, after all, making sure most people agree with your ideas before being allowed to enact them),
b) an extraordinarily suicidal electorate who would be ready to vote for the people supporting the removal of (insert clause here) despite being clearly negative for them, and do it in massively majorities all over the country, going back to a), or
c) a general agreement between different parties to support a decision believing is actually positive for them, and a population which would agree to the idea and support it with majorities (example: most of the existing amendments).

In fact, the purpose of having a constitutional framework is precisely preventing one ruler to go all power hungry and change everything on his own, that's why most dictatorships come after a war, or in countries with paper-strong institutions that can be blown up just by breathing too hard around them. If you think the US would allow someone to just randomly supress the Senate or outlaw elections out of the blue, you have a ridiculously unrealisticly low faith on them.

And, despite all this, if somehow an evil President took over the US, I'm pretty sure guns would help stop the largest army in the world- all those tanks and drones and missiles and internet control over the water supplies have nothing to do against a good old rifle, right? Right? In fact, they probably would not be necessary if there are massively gigantic demonstrations.

Um... yes. I know how the US political system works, and I have to say I have no idea what might've led you to believe that I don't.

As (I would have thought unnecessary) clarification - my response was to those on this thread who are demanding that the US government be granted the power to ban guns. I didn't even address whether such a thing is possible, since that's a secondary issue - the primary issue is merely that it's desired, and further that that desire is treated as legitimate, and the destruction of rights necessary to enact it justified.

First - the mere fact that people demand that it be done is problematic, not to mention depressing, simply because it's evidence of the complete failure of so many to even begin to grasp the notion of rights. Second - and to your point - such a thing IS possible, and explicitly possible with sufficient public support (or maybe more accurately, the lack of sufficient public opposition).

"Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them." - Frederick Douglass

We already have a government of politicians who explicitly work for their own benefit and for the benefit of their cronies and patrons and against the interests of the common people and who demonstrably lie about it. What on Earth makes you think that they would not, much less could not, take advantage of the simpletons who don't grasp the concept of rights and work to destroy them? Politicians are professionals, and the most powerful of them are necessarily extremely skilled and necessarily extremely power-hungry. They are only waiting for the moment when they can cobble together enough of an appearance of support for shifting power from us to them, at which point they can be counted upon to do so, and to attempt to placate the opposition with the illusion of that power shift being a necessary outcome of the "democratic" process. And for that, they don't need your support or my support - they don't even need "the public's" support. All they need is the colorable illusion of such. If they can only make the claim that they have that support - only point to enough particularly vocal examples of such - they can muster the rest of the sheep around it. Their desired outcome becomes THE outcome as soon as they can claim that it's our desired outcome, which doesn't require the support of the majority - it only requires a lack of sufficiently forceful opposition. If we don't tell them loudly enough and often enough that we do NOT want this, then they can, and will, and do, point to the few who say that they do and claim that it's a "mandate," and enough of the rest will just reflexively fall in line that it becomes one.

So those few who demand that the government be empowered to deny the rights of all - those dolts who can't even grasp the simple concept that a government that's empowered to deny the rights of others will also deny their rights, and once empowered CANNOT BE STOPPED - must be kicked squarely in the teeth with their dangerous stupidity. Because even with the constraints nominally imposed on government by the Constitution (most of which restraints are already ignored anyway, as a matter of fact), their stupidity can and will and does provide the power-hungry few who most keenly seek out office and most predictably come to attain it with all the excuse they need to keep expanding their own power at the cost of our liberty.

Guns aren't even the point, really. Rights are the point. Liberty is the point. Gun ownership is simply an exercise of a right, just as free speech is, or freedom to assemble is, or liberty is, or life is. It's not that government must not be empowered to deny gun ownership - it's that government must not be empowered to deny RIGHTS. That's the point that all too many people can't or won't grasp, and that failure is the thing upon which tyrannies grow.

[Unforgettable]

Guns by themselves don't kill people. people kill people and if they want to kill someone badly enough they will with or without gun laws. owning a gun is my right as an American citizen and my right. shouldn't be taken away. What brought all this on was sad and broke my heart but guns aren't the.issue here. People are the issue.

[Livewire]

Originally Posted by Arlo

Um... yes. I know how the US political system works, and I have to say I have no idea what might've led you to believe that I don't.

As (I would have thought unnecessary) clarification - my response was to those on this thread who are demanding that the US government be granted the power to ban guns. I didn't even address whether such a thing is possible, since that's a secondary issue - the primary issue is merely that it's desired, and further that that desire is treated as legitimate, and the destruction of rights necessary to enact it justified.

First - the mere fact that people demand that it be done is problematic, not to mention depressing, simply because it's evidence of the complete failure of so many to even begin to grasp the notion of rights. Second - and to your point - such a thing IS possible, and explicitly possible with sufficient public support (or maybe more accurately, the lack of sufficient public opposition).

"Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them." - Frederick Douglass

We already have a government of politicians who explicitly work for their own benefit and for the benefit of their cronies and patrons and against the interests of the common people and who demonstrably lie about it. What on Earth makes you think that they would not, much less could not, take advantage of the simpletons who don't grasp the concept of rights and work to destroy them? Politicians are professionals, and the most powerful of them are necessarily extremely skilled and necessarily extremely power-hungry. They are only waiting for the moment when they can cobble together enough of an appearance of support for shifting power from us to them, at which point they can be counted upon to do so, and to attempt to placate the opposition with the illusion of that power shift being a necessary outcome of the "democratic" process. And for that, they don't need your support or my support - they don't even need "the public's" support. All they need is the colorable illusion of such. If they can only make the claim that they have that support - only point to enough particularly vocal examples of such - they can muster the rest of the sheep around it. Their desired outcome becomes THE outcome as soon as they can claim that it's our desired outcome, which doesn't require the support of the majority - it only requires a lack of sufficiently forceful opposition. If we don't tell them loudly enough and often enough that we do NOT want this, then they can, and will, and do, point to the few who say that they do and claim that it's a "mandate," and enough of the rest will just reflexively fall in line that it becomes one.

So those few who demand that the government be empowered to deny the rights of all - those dolts who can't even grasp the simple concept that a government that's empowered to deny the rights of others will also deny their rights, and once empowered CANNOT BE STOPPED - must be kicked squarely in the teeth with their dangerous stupidity. Because even with the constraints nominally imposed on government by the Constitution (most of which restraints are already ignored anyway, as a matter of fact), their stupidity can and will and does provide the power-hungry few who most keenly seek out office and most predictably come to attain it with all the excuse they need to keep expanding their own power at the cost of our liberty.

Guns aren't even the point, really. Rights are the point. Liberty is the point. Gun ownership is simply an exercise of a right, just as free speech is, or freedom to assemble is, or liberty is, or life is. It's not that government must not be empowered to deny gun ownership - it's that government must not be empowered to deny RIGHTS. That's the point that all too many people can't or won't grasp, and that failure is the thing upon which tyrannies grow.

I get what you're trying to argue, but owning a firearm cannot be compared to the Right to free speech or the right to peacefully assemble or freedom of religion. Those are far more important and are sacred values. Owning a gun is not that important when being compared to those, despite what Wayne La Pierre and the NRA think.

[Scarf]

Originally Posted by Unforgettable

Guns by themselves don't kill people. people kill people and if they want to kill someone badly enough they will with or without gun laws.

So you're kinda of saying that gun laws will stop those people who don't want to kill badly enough, like the people who only want to kill on a whim, or who only kinda want to kill. Isn't that a good idea? It'll stop some of the people who would maybe kill someone.

[Moogles]

Originally Posted by Unforgettable

Guns by themselves don't kill people. people kill people and if they want to kill someone badly enough they will with or without gun laws. owning a gun is my right as an American citizen and my right. shouldn't be taken away. What brought all this on was sad and broke my heart but guns aren't the.issue here. People are the issue.

I hate this line of logic. It should be changed to this: "Guns don't kill people, but they make it easier to kill people". I mean what other use does a semiautomatic weapon with extended clips/magazines/whatever have? Those are meant to give you the highest ratio of killing something. It should be a requirement for anyone that uses this tired expression to explain how guns don't make it easier to kill people (Without relating it to how cars and knives can kill people because those serve a valid everyday purpose for most people.)

Hell I'm not even anti-gun (I think hunting rifles and like a pistol for personal protection is fine) it just gets frustrating when people refuse to address an issue.

[Rococo]

*sigh*
I'm not going to waste my time trying to argue that we as american citizans should by constitutional rights be allowed to own firearms, because I know that whatever I say somebody on here is going to retort that "Guns just make it easier for criminals to kill people" and doubtlessly half of you wouldn't even bother to think about what I said. (you know who you are)

So.
All i'm going to ask of you is that both sides of the arguement stop,think everything over, (and I mean actually think, not just rearrange your opinions.) and try to see this from more then one perspective.

And to everybody who is thinking poorly of those with drasticly different veiw points...

Spoiler:

[CarcharOdin]

Well said Rococo.

I'm also going to repost this because I'm under the impression people didn't watch it the last time I did:



Here are the FBI charts he used:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...tables/table-1
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...tables/table-2

Also here's some state data:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...tables/table-5

Looks like it varies highly from state to state despite gun laws. California's gun laws are pretty strict, yet it has a higher murder rate than Utah and Texas, which from what I understand have laxer gun laws. Though, I will admit, Texas ain't far behind California. And District of Columbia have some of the (if not THE) most strict gun laws, but sweet Christmas, look at that murder rate! However, some states with lax gun laws also have pretty damn high murder rates as well. Keep in mind, this is RATE PER 100,000, not amount. Also keep in mind these also include murders with other weapons, not just guns, but firearms are the main tool of use.

I know it's data from 2011, but that's the most recent they have. I don't know how long it'll take the FBI to round up data for 2012.

Yet, despite all of this, the data is showing that the overall national violent crime and murder rate in the United States has declined significantly over the past 20 years, despite the increased population, the expiration of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban in 2004, and other things. Yes, we do have higher firearm crime rate than quite a few other countries, especially European countries, but it seems people are failing to realize (or at least acknowledge) that the overall murder and violent crime rate in the US is dropping.

I'm not entirely convinced that availability of guns causes crime, nor do I agree with outright banning them (some increased control, perhaps), but I won't deny that they make it easier to kill more people. But the sad and honest truth is that, increased difficulty or not, violent individuals will find a way if they are desperate enough, even with means other than guns. Humanity has always been like that, as much as that sucks.

And with that, I might possibly be done with this thread. I had an entire rant written and saved, but I'm just going to withhold it because I feel like I'd just be preaching to a brick wall at this point.

[Livewire]

A suburban Washington, D.C. family has retained legal counsel after their six-year-old son was suspended from school for making a gun gesture with his thumb and forefinger, pointing at another student and saying “pow.”

The boy, a student at Roscoe R. Nix Elementary School in Silver Spring, Maryland, made the universal kid sign for a gun a week after 20-year-old Adam Lanza massacred 20 young children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.

The boy’s parents received a letter explaining that his punishment would be a one-day suspension, to be served January 2, the first day students return from winter break, reports WRC-TV.

Robin Ficker, an attorney representing the family, maintains that school officials overreacted to the pretend gesture. The boy is too young to comprehend in any meaningful way the significance of his actions, Ficker argued.

“He doesn’t understand,” Ficker told the NBC affiliate. “The law says he is not old enough to form intent.”

“What they’re doing is looking at the worst possible interpretation of a young, naive six-year-old,” Ficker added, according to the Washington Examiner.

Ficker also said school officials were wrong not to discuss the situation with the boy’s mother and not to consider the long-term repercussions of a suspension.

“They could have called the mother in. They didn’t do that,” Ficker told the Examiner. “They just said, ‘You’re suspended.’ Five years from now, when someone in to Montgomery County looks at his permanent record, they’re going to see that he threatened to shoot another student.”

In the letter the boy’s parents received, Assistant Principal Renee Garraway alluded to the boy’s previous involvement in a comparable event.

“He was spoken to earlier today about a similar incident,” the letter read.

Ficker alleges that school officials never notified the boy’s parents of any prior issues. “They won’t say what the similar incident is,” he told the Examiner.

Garraway declined comment, says the Examiner.

“Generally, in an incident involving the behavior of our younger students, we will make sure that the student and his family are well-informed of any behavior that needs to change and understand the consequences if the behavior does not change,” a spokesperson for the school district told WRC-TV.

The policy of the Montgomery County Public Schools provides a 10-day window to appeal student suspensions.

http://news.yahoo.com/maryland-schoo...120614885.html

Thoughts? Kinda ridiculous tbh.

[PokéZoom]

LOLWAT
It's not like it's uncommon for kids to do this... If this happened when I was 6, almost everyone in the school would be on death row by now.

Honestly, there are some really stupid people working at that school.

[CarcharOdin]

It is ridiculous and they did overreact.

I remember kids that age when I was in grade school used to make gestures like that while playing cops and robbers. Nobody gave a damn.

[Pinkie-Dawn]

People tend to be way too sensitive after recent tragic events, whether it was intended or not.

[Aquanova]

He's a kid, kids do that stuff. I understand people are terrified about the shooting that happened but this is over reacting. Are they gonna start suspending every little kid that plays cops and robbers now?

[Gideon Jeremiah]

While recent tragic events may have worried people, this is still an over-reaction.
Though it is hampered by said events.

[Sydian]

Definitely an overreaction. I know some of us are still a bit sensitive about the Sandy Hook shooting, but I don't think a suspension was warranted. It's not polite to do that sort of thing, so I would have just explained to the child why it's wrong and gotten them to pull their card (it's a small disciplinary action for those that don't know, definitely not as severe as suspension). But yeah, they definitely overreacted at this. Plus, you have to consider that not all children know about the incident. While some parents explained it to their children, some didn't want their children to know or worry about it, so I'm guessing he's in the latter group, and even if not, this was still taken too far.

[AlexTheRose]

This kind of nonsense is what makes me wonder, what has happened to humanity? Every time an overreacted-to incident goes national like this, I imagine a wealthy lady in the Victorian age going "Oh my," and waving her feathered fan in her face. That's how preposterous this is, no pun intended.

[CarcharOdin]

Originally Posted by AlexTheRose

This kind of nonsense is what makes me wonder, what has happened to humanity? Every time an overreacted-to incident goes national like this, I imagine a wealthy lady in the Victorian age going "Oh my," and waving her feathered fan in her face. That's how preposterous this is, no pun intended.

Humanity has always done stupid things like this, even stupider things.

Don't let it get you down too much.

Here, all of you have a healthy dosage of good news for a change:

http://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/

[Frostweaver]

Originally Posted by AlexTheRose

This kind of nonsense is what makes me wonder, what has happened to humanity? Every time an overreacted-to incident goes national like this, I imagine a wealthy lady in the Victorian age going "Oh my," and waving her feathered fan in her face. That's how preposterous this is, no pun intended.

Political correctness took over, pretty much. I quit at public school teaching after I got my license pretty much because we are essentially restricted from teaching properly to follow politically correct guidelines, and that the general leading trend and "full fledged new education research" is taking a sharp turn for a path that I strongly disagree with.

While the teacher should do something about the child and address when is a gesture like that just taken as fun and when is it inappropriate to do that, there's really no need to suspend the child over it =/

[⊗Slenderman⊗]

They overreacted, in my opinion. They at least could have just told his parents so they would tell him to knock it off before suspending him. Unless his parents explain it, does the kid even know what he did to be in trouble? I:

[Keiran777]

I'm sure if the student he "pow'd" was a child of color he would be celebrated as a national hero and the manliest American.

[Urugamosu]

I understand that they overreacted because of the shootings on Connecticut, and everybody is up in arms on the gun subject. But they really shouldn't have done that, especially of a child at that age. Children are now going to think of him as the bad buy, and give him a unnecessary image that he really doesn't deserve.

[Arlo~]

In the school I work at, we discourage games with guns, and discourage them making guns out of lego and the like, but we'd never suspend a child doing something as unmalicious as this...

[Kloun]

They are seriously overreacting. I don't even see how making that gesture is any way related to the Sandy Hook shooting, other than the fact that guns were involved in the shooting. Kids do that kind of thing all the time. When I was in school and kids did that, teachers didn't even bat an eye. It is quite frankly ridiculous. The most a kid should get from doing that is time out, and even that is pushing it a little. Next thing you know a kid is going to get expelled by chaining markers together and pretending it's a lightsaber.

[Razor Leaf]

So somewhere between childhood and adulthood you go from being unable to gesture a gun to being able to own and be trained in the use of a gun. Well ok, then! This seems utterly ridiculous to me. Kids just mimic what they see and a six-year-old in any country that's never seen or heard of guns is a rare find indeed. At the nursery school my mum used to work at (in England, if anyone's wondering - this was unrelated to seeing guns in real use) kids had a tendency to do stuff like build guns out of lego or whatever and all they were told is that "we don't like guns here" lol. Fair play, this kid was a bit older, but probably still didn't understand what they were doing wrong and had likely not even heard of the event which undoubtedly brought this about. All they needed was telling that the gesture was inappropriate. *shrug*

[kelario27]

Reaction to this news: This is where society's going. This is why I'm campaigning for a colony on Mars. I'm one of those kids who, relatively recently, was just chatting with my friend about what the stupidest possible place would be to put a bomb. After that was the first time my friend and I heard about how idiotic most of society is. I really should thank the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit, Amen, that I didn't get suspended or at least expelled.

Reaction to reactions: (YES! I'm NOT the last anti-socialist on the internet!)

[The Corrupt Plague]

Zero Tolerance? I think they should start calling it Zero Intelligence.