Connecticut School Tragedy

[Rork]

Also, as to the argument that we should be allowed to own muskets, because thats what the founders had in mind, keep in mind that the muskets the the founders had in mind were the premier military weapons of the time.

But the difference between personal and military weapons were much smaller then. The people of the time got by with a single shot weapon with a long reload time in an era when arguably the US was a more dangerous place. Necessity is what is at stake.

Also, I'll say that the government has the right to stop all internet news reporting on blogs of such, its neither spoken, nor pressed onto paper, so they obviously couldn't have meant for us to have the freedom

But isn't that where the 9th amendment comes in?

[Loki]

Since the 9th mentions no specific rights, you could choose to apply it to all of them. Or none of them

[Calisson]

To add a little bit of laughs to the conversation check this out.

Watched the linked video:

8:00. An old fat lady keeps an arsenal.
She seems scared to be agressed. She says she is willing to kill.
Comment: If she is scared to be raped, that's because she remembers how she was in her 20's. Risk is minimal now IMHO...

11:00 Noticed that the 2nd amendment is not about people's self-defence as individuals, but as a people.
It calls for a militia to defend the people. It does not talk about the right of the individual for self defense.
The counter argument is... that there is a comma in the middle of the sentence.
Comment: I fail to understand the grammatical logics of the comment.

12:50 A slim lady talks about concealed weapons for self-defense.
She then shows a rifle with an optic device.
Comment: I'm wondering where she will conceal that one? And how long is she willing to aim before sniping for self-defense?

13:30 There are talks about "criminals" and deterrence by "good" people with guns.
The advocated solution = .44 slot in the brain.
The problem it is supposed to solve = your purse stolen.
Comment: Broadly speaking, one may wonder if there is a death penalty for all criminals, including petty crime?
Are all ordinary citizens allowed to pronounce this death penalty?

17:25 Thomas JEfferson wrote: "if we want freedom, there must be armed rebellion every 20 years".
Comment: So... is THIS the reason for so many Americans taking arms at home, getting ready for the next rebellion?

18:55 We learn that laws are largely ineffective to keep guns away from criminals.
Comment: What? In the US, the criminals do not abide to the law? Stunning discovery.
Wait? Is THIS the argument against legal restrictions to guns? See my comment at the end.

19:25 Gun-free zone: they don't prevent mass murders. Conclusion = they are not effective.
Comment: Let's have boys playing with guns rather than marbles and see how safer it becomes.

20:30 Gun laws don't frighten gang members and criminals.
Comment: how many mass murders were committed by people who were already criminals before the mass murder?

23:00 Accidental death from people under the age of 17 is only 150 a year. When you look at the relative size, it is "very very tiny".
And that's said from one guy who is said to be "floating in the middle" (see 2:30) between gun control or no control.
Comment: Pfew! I was afraid that it was a real problem. But 15, no wait, 150 kids and teens killed each year? Nah, no big deal, let's keept it that way and send flowers to their moms.

24:53, 25:10: Would gun laws stop tragedies like Columbine? You can't stop insane people. Punish them, not me.
Comment: so let's make their access to guns easier. Once they've started shooting people, they are easier to spot.

26:26 The conclusion: "the common good in mind. We're not saying you'll be safer with guns. We're saying that the gov will be afraid of its citizens."
27:03 "Who do you call against the police?"
Comment: OK, I was afraid to be shot myself. But now that I no longer work for the gov, I am safe, am I?

-=-=-

Overall, I'm wondering:
Three categories of people shoot other people.
- Criminals (I mean, already a criminal before shooting, for other reasons).
- Police.
- Ordinary citizens.
Criminals ignore law. Police is supposed to keep weapons.
Only ordinary citizens would be affected by gun control laws.


What ordinary citizens must understand is that they are part of the problem, rather than part of the solution.
Ordinary citizens going amok. Misjudging and ambiguous attitude. Killing for a petty crime. Accidents.
And this is the part of the problem that can be solved by gun control laws.

What changes would bring extreme gun control laws (like in most of Europe)?

On a no-change side: a gun control law would not stop criminals and police to shoot at each other, nor criminals to shoot at other criminals.

On the plus side: if the mere fact to carry a gun is a crime, it makes criminals more easy to identify by police.

On the plus side: a gun control law would make the access to weapons more difficult for ordinary citizens, preventing them shooting at each other.

On the minus side: ordinary citizens will not be able to defend themselves against criminals.


One need to value the plus versus the minus.
What good was brought by ordinary citizen's weapons?
What sorrow was brought by ordinary citizen's weapons?
Conclusion?

[Rork]

And the NRA are of the opinion schools need armed guards. Sometimes satire just can't keep up with real life.

(More Dakka is apparently a genuine lobbying position...)

[Dyvim tvar]

People forget there was an armed guard years ago at Columbine. Wasn't a deterrent and wasn't able to stop what happened either.

[Saintofm]

I could have sworn the sheriff deputy at my high school was armed

[L1qw1d]

Nah, they wouldn't be able to budget armed guards.
<--LA child. We had 2 guards after they put up the bars on my old high school. This was 4 years after the last LA truant officer retired. The numbers of violence, theft, and drop outs went WAY up.