5 Major U.S. Shootings This Week

[Tentacruel]

I was thinking. The whole taking away the guns thing. If there are people who would use their guns on other people to keep them if the government tried to take them away, aren't those just the kind of people we don't want owning guns?

That's still discriminating based on political positions.  

 

Also, that kind of attitude would just make said people more paranoid and frankly prove their point.  You generally don't see rednecks and hunters from the bible belt shooting up schools.   Just saying. 

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

That's still discriminating based on political positions.  

 

Also, that kind of attitude would just make said people more paranoid and frankly prove their point.  You generally don't see rednecks and hunters from the bible belt shooting up schools.   Just saying. 

But if someone literally would open fire on another human being because they disagree with a law that means they can't have their guns, doesn't that sound like a bit of a dangerous person?

 

Edit: I don't just mean someone who wants to own guns. I mean a person who would actively harm others to keep the guns.

[Agro]

You generally don't see rednecks and hunters from the bible belt shooting up schools.   Just saying. 

I don't actually think that's true. Some shooters could very well be, we just don't focus on that sort of thing because the focus ends up on mental illness and violent media influence, rather than the general environment they're raised in.

[Tentacruel]

But if someone literally would open fire on another human being because they disagree with a law that means they can't have their guns, doesn't that sound like a bit of a dangerous person?

 

Edit: I don't just mean someone who wants to own guns. I mean a person who would actively harm others to keep the guns.

"would"

 

That's still a very dangerous level of witch hunting.  

 

I don't actually think that's true. Some shooters could very well be, we just don't focus on that sort of thing because the focus ends up on mental illness and violent media influence, rather than the general environment they're raised in.

Case in point.  It'd be like restricting guns from African Americans who live in poor urban areas because of crime rates and "they might grow up to be criminals." 

[Agro]

"would"

 

That's still a very dangerous level of witch hunting.  

 

Case in point.  It'd be like restricting guns from African Americans who live in poor urban areas because of crime rates and "they might grow up to be criminals." 

I wasn't saying that they were. I was saying that to say you don't see them becoming shooters was a baseless statement.

 

In either case, you're not restricting one group of people from guns for one reason. You're looking at the pros and cons of having a community where everyone owns guns and deciding whether and how far, their access should be restricted.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

"would"

 

That's still a very dangerous level of witch hunting.  

Well I was referring to the people who WOULD do that. As was stated earlier. I'm not saying take away guns because people would do that. I'm saying that the idea that "Some people would use their guns if the government tried to take them away" shouldn't be used as an argument. Because the people who would do that sort of thing are just the kinds of people that we don't want owning guns I think.

[Tentacruel]

Absolutely, all I'm saying is that I don't agree with what Cow said.  "The kind of people we don't want owning guns," is not a helpful mindset.  

 

The law has to be on a per individual basis.

 

Mentally unstable with a history of violence?  Sorry, you've lost your right to own a gun.

 

"The governments gonna take our guns away," is not grounds to take someone's gun away. 

[Agro]

Well I was referring to the people who WOULD do that. As was stated earlier. I'm not saying take away guns because people would do that. I'm saying that the idea that "Some people would use their guns if the government tried to take them away" shouldn't be used as an argument. Because the people who would do that sort of thing are just the kinds of people that we don't want owning guns I think.

 

That's a bad argument. Those people see having guns as a right, and would use them to defend their rights.

 

The big argument about guns is whether the second ammendment is actually supposed to allow every person a gun, or whether it's just about being able to set up a militia (the latter of which I interpret it as)

[Tentacruel]

How would you define militia?  

[Agro]

How would you define militia?  

Like the second amendment itself, it's a... little convoluted...

 

I see it as community-run: Township, city, state, etc. puts together a militia. The governing body provides and controls how the arms are used. Not each individual of the militia... of course, bureaucracy makes each individual of the militia have some control of how the arm is used, but the governing body, however large or small, controls who gets it.

 

This not only makes smaller communities, like those who worry about guns being taken away, be able to defend their other rights if they feel they are being tread upon, but I feel it would allow that at the same time that it more closely regulates who gets guns.

 

That's the basic idea. I haven't thought it through as well as others, clearly, but that's what I feel the point of the second amendment is: to allow communities to defend themselves if they feel their rights are being tread upon. I just feel its safer than letting everyone have guns.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

I can understand what you're saying both of you but I don't think we should decide not to limit guns because there may be some people who would actively fight back to keep their guns.

We shouldn't use the thought that "There are people who would defy it and fight back" as a reason not to enforce better gun control.

I don't think we should take away every persons guns who already have them if there's no reason to.

However I would say that it seems a bit excessive to use force in order to keep a gun.

[Tentacruel]

We might have to agree to disagree.  I feel like letting local communities and groups decide who gets guns is just letting majority rule decide who can own deadly weapons.  

 

It wouldn't necessarily keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them. 

[Agro]

We might have to agree to disagree.  I feel like letting local communities and groups decide who gets guns is just letting majority rule decide who can own deadly weapons.  
 
It wouldn't necessarily keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them.

It's letting majority rule, yes. But this goes down to small communities as well. One of the biggest problems with the US for me, right now, is our focus on the individual above the group. It's caused a whole bunch of issues for us over the years, with the current state of the economy being the biggest issue to come of it.

But my point wasn't that this is what we should do, but that I think this is what the 2nd amendment was calling for. The rights of communities of citizens to form a militia rather than the right of every citizen to own a gun.

[Nathanael D. Striker]

No one invited YCM's resident Oregonian? Well, I actually used to live in Troutdale near Reynolds High School. Also, people down here in McMinnville were talking about the shooting and the lockdown that resulted. It's sad that a 15 year old could do something like this, but that's what happens when the NRA and their lobbying is still prevalent.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

And regarding why have these threads? Probably for the reason that your response is justified. We are fairly desensitised to this now that it's happening so constantly but that's pretty much why it should change.

 

It's not a very pragmatic investment of sensitivity. There are over seven billion people in the world. A day in our lives will not pass without someone somewhere shooting someone else with a firearm. 

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

It's not a very pragmatic investment of sensitivity. There are over seven billion people in the world. A day in our lives will not pass without someone somewhere shooting someone else with a firearm. 

How does "It happens a lot" mean we shouldn't talk about it?

If that's the case. No more religious, sexism, racism, or many many other discussions should be had.

Also "pragmatic" and "sensitivity" usually don't mix well.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

I'm not saying we shouldn't talk about it, I just don't think it makes sense to constantly perform our sensitivity over matters that have nothing to do with us and that we have no control over. I do think sensitivity should be channeled in a constructive way rather than performed for its own sake. 

[Βyakuya]

Eventually this issue would have to reach a critical turning point sooner or later. Moreover, the possession of guns gives you  the right to risking killing someone under the pretext of "self-defense".

 

But since the major catalyst of this is the school shootings, its definitely a big deal that these innocent students get threatened and killed everytime a sadistic brute decides to use the gun in his image. And this is how children get suspended for possessing paper clips shaped like daggers or pencils sharpened enough to stab someone. Especially among the elementary school line.