This means, the military has the right to defend the free states IF NECESSARY. Not all people have the rights to guns just because. The "right to bear arms" is something that was implied by pro-gun groups and politicians for years. I can see how it could be taken that way, and I think guns are fine for recreational use, but I think they should be regulated just as much as automobiles. You should have a test, inspection/background check, and a title. Possibly insurance as well.
Oh, you mean a country of paranoid When the Soviets were always doing espionage on us, plotting our destruction and utter domination, why wouldn't we be paranoid?, commie-hating citizens You say it like it isn't something to hate. with a government that had a twitchy finger on the trigger of a weapon that could start a war that would probably annihilate the entire planet With good reason. The USSR had the same capabilities and the same trigger-finger, if not even more of a hair-trigger than ours. We needed something to defend ourselves.? Yeah, those were the times.
The funny thing is that your response sounds exactly like the response of an average American from that time period. Good to see we've come so far.
The factors that caused the cold war or anything similar to it are irrelevant. The idea that a person thinks that America's best days are behind us truly shows a lack of willingness to accept change for this country, and I'm sick of it seeing it over and over again, quite frankly.
I hope you were speaking towards him and not me when you spoke about willingness to accept change. I am willing to accept change (hell, I'm a liberal), but that doesn't mean I should be a gun-grabber because I'm left-leaning. I support legalizing marijuana, gay marriage, the right to choose to abort, but do not support anti-gun laws. And stating 'typical american response' doesn't sit well with me. Do you even know a communist/socialist? Because I do, and they are very extreme. It was called Red Scare because we were afraid of what we don't know about the Soviets. Fear is a strong reason to hate something. Also, I never meant to say that the Cold War was the height of America as a nation. Right now, we're in a hole imo. A shitty hole, but a hole nonetheless.
I am willing to accept change (hell, I'm a liberal), but that doesn't mean I should be a gun-grabber because I'm left-leaning. I support legalizing marijuana, gay marriage, the right to choose to abort, but do not support anti-gun laws.
Being liberal or conservative has no bearing on a person's willingness to change and accept new ideas. Being in favor of change in issues like marijuana legalization and gay marriage doesn't give you a free pass for this argument. I also never stated that I supported "gun grabbing", I just want tighter restrictions on gun distribution and sales.
And stating 'typical american response' doesn't sit well with me.
What might the "typical American response" be? Most American citizens, along with our government, were in a state of paranoia during the cold war, there's no denying that.
Do you even know a communist/socialist? Because I do, and they are very extreme.
No more extreme than some of the people I've seen from the other side of the spectrum. I suppose you're giving the "typical communist/socialist" response.
It was called Red Scare because we were afraid of what we don't know about the Soviets. Fear is a strong reason to hate something.
Yes, fear comes from a lack of understanding, and can lead to very, very dangerous outcomes. That's why it's so important to understand both sides of an argument.
Right now, we're in a hole imo. A shitty hole, but a hole nonetheless.
What kind of hole are you describing, and how does gun control relate to it? A "shitty hole" doesn't exactly tell me what you think of the situation or how to fix it, but I know we can't get out of that hole until we do something about it.
Either way, discussion is about Gun Control, and I do apologize for taking it off-topic with the elaboration of America during the cold war. Carry on.
I agree to that, we kinda let this get out of hand.
I think that the if the government wanted to solve the problem of gun violence, they should attack the causes of said violence, not the unfortunate item that wouldn't change much. Getting rid of guns isn't necessarily a bad thing I guess, it's just that do you honestly think it would impact murder rates so much? Probably, but then you have two different things to deal with: Black market and alternative weapons. The black market sells them illegally, and madmen learn how to make bombs, and the blade becomes more lethal as people realize that others will comply easier at knife than at gunpoint.
The proposed weapons ban should be thrown into a paper shredder.
Getting rid of guns isn't necessarily a bad thing I guess, it's just that do you honestly think it would impact murder rates so much? Probably, but then you have two different things to deal with: Black market and alternative weapons. The black market sells them illegally, and madmen learn how to make bombs, and the blade becomes more lethal as people realize that others will comply easier at knife than at gunpoint
The reasoning of "Well, people are going to do it anyway, even if we pass a law, so we may as well forget about it" confuses me. People still drink and drive, but we've passed laws and regulations that make punishments much more severe for those who get caught in the act, as well as running multi-million dollar ad campaigns against drunk driving. The result? A 64% decrease of alcohol-impaired driving fatalities per 100,000 people since 1982. Yes, the black market will always exist, for pretty much anything. But even if we can make it just .0001% harder for black market dealers to sell under the table, and make the punishments for said dealing much more severe, then I'd want to do anything in my power to make it happen.
And as for the knife argument: it's much tougher to commit mass stabbings than mass shootings.
Equally true. But you don't have to use a gun to be a serial killer.
I hate it the most when someone says there should be armed guards in schools. School feels like prison enough as-is, what with the groups, the crappy food, the little to no rights. Armed guards would drive me insane, which, to be honest, isn't particularly a good thing.
Equally true. But you don't have to use a gun to be a serial killer.
I hate it the most when someone says there should be armed guards in schools. School feels like prison enough as-is, what with the groups, the crappy food, the little to no rights. Armed guards would drive me insane, which, to be honest, isn't particularly a good thing.
The idea of being further protected drives you insane? The "school is a prison" argument really has no backing. It's a sad thing when the world gets so disgusting that we would have to consider this kind of thing, but it's just the way things are. There have been various school shootings even since Sandy Hooke, I think it's about time we armed our school's a little heavier.
In other news, our dear Dianne Feinstein of California is basically the gun saleswoman of the year. I Bet she didn't see that coming.
The idea of being further protected drives you insane? The "school is a prison" argument really has no backing. It's a sad thing when the world gets so disgusting that we would have to consider this kind of thing, but it's just the way things are. There have been various school shootings even since Sandy Hooke, I think it's about time we armed our school's a little heavier.
I think it's more of a psychological argument; I understand that some kids (and parents) wouldn't want 5-6 armed guards stalking the school premises during the day and during sport events. It'd be unnerving, especially for the kids who already hate school. And who would pay them? The schools? They're already penniless as it is. My High School had a single (armed) police officer who directed traffic and patrolled the halls everyday, along with an ex-Navy SEAL as a principal and 2 ROTC instructors who had served in the military, so I felt pretty safe during my time there, although I'm not sure what precautions other schools already take.
...Have you heard about Syria? The only reason they can fight back is because of illegally obtained or guns they made themselves. Anyways, the only things we have been doing is speculating, while all this and such can work on paper, we will never know unless we try it.
...Have you heard the situation in Syria is a little different than the situation in the US. The US does not have to fight a war on their own grounds. But not even a war is an excuse for the usage of guns, it just really shows how immature people can be. At least the war is good for our economy.
Haunted Water said:
Because I'm an American who knows what is right and wrong. To say te government will never do that isn't right. You don't live in the United States, and I don't exactly know what country you live in, so neither of us will have extensive knowledge about the other's gun laws.
The only ban is they can do is ban cosmetic changes. Would I go out and start shooting up anyone who is corrupt? No, because here in SE Michigan, I'd need an army, or a lot of ammunition. America isn't exactly the great nation it used to be. It's not piss-poor, but it's going down the drain. Half the states want to secede from the nation, so that goes to show, the people are pissed. It's a way of giving power to the ones who give power to the government. If the government doesn't want to hear us, we can make our voice heard.
I know my rights as an American citizen.
And the founding fathers just fought a war against a tyrannical rule from their mother country of Britain. I think they wouldn't be ashamed if American citizens did what they did, as long as it is with just reason.
The question here is; do other people know what is wrong or right? Apparantly they do not. Well, the matter of wrong or right will always remain a personal choice, but murdering your neighbours for no reason is not beneficial from any point of view. Again I am just debating in favour of the safety of the US citizens, the numbers show us a country is a lot safer without guns, that is a fact. Whether you want to keep your guns as a reminder of the good ol' days or as a toy to scare off unlikely future civil wars does not change that fact.
@ES: lol Feinderp has gun salesperson of the year. Also nominated for hypocrite of the year.
Also, in my high school, we don't have any personal rights, no matter what age (which is bs if you ask me), and if you actually knew how I am when it comes to hostilities, you may want to rethink it.
I'm not exactly the silent type, but if I have a problem with someone, I tend to not let it show, by bottling it up inside. Now place someone who generally hates confrontation with sketchy strangers and people who he doesn't know, has a very large amount of vicious tendencies, and can't even hear himself think because he has way too much on his mind, adding to the internal chaos. Put him in an enviroment where his socially positive activities are greatly shadowed by his socially negative activities.
This was the situation they put me in last semester, and I still hate the three sophomores who tormented me and made my life more of a living hell. I still have visions, dreams, if you will, depicting me just taking care of the problems my way because of the lack of authority. Now put someone like that in an enviroment that feels, in their opinion, like prison. Do you honestly think they will give two s***s about remaining civil anymore? From experience, I would say no. It'll escalate stress levels.
Sociopaths are notorious for not really caring. Armed guards will do more harm than good. It plays a strategic and large impact on people who are victims of bullying, of harassment, of discrimination.
I've actually discussed the situation with my guidance counselor numerous times, and have concluded that 7/10 fights that happen in school that turn out violent ends, usually where blood is drawn, is between a victim and their tormentor. However, the victim will always be powerless.
Point I'm getting to is that armed guards, while being logical, will do nothing. It will make non-student/staff members think twice before shooting up the school, but will promote more violence internally, thus eliminating the purpose.
@PQ: Also missing out on militias and National Guard. If some country decides to own up to their subliminal threats (lol North Korea) and invades, citizens with weaponry will help than none at all.
I think it's more of a psychological argument; I understand that some kids (and parents) wouldn't want 5-6 armed guards stalking the school premises during the day and during sport events. It'd be unnerving, especially for the kids who already hate school.
I see what you're saying, but I think if given a choice, there would be many more parents in favor of armed guards around their kids, than for them to be potentially shot by a gunman who decided to rampage the school.
Some Loser said:
And who would pay them? The schools? They're already penniless as it is. My High School had a single (armed) police officer who directed traffic and patrolled the halls everyday, along with an ex-Navy SEAL as a principal and 2 ROTC instructors who had served in the military, so I felt pretty safe during my time there, although I'm not sure what precautions other schools already take.
I've never attended public school, but from what I'm aware of, many public schools already have armed policeman around campus. Supposedly this is a rare thing though, so what I'm essentially saying is that armed guards need to be more widespread. Now that I think of it, I'm pretty sure most schools have police of some sort (even if they aren't armed) and in these cases it would just be a matter of providing them with that resource.
BTW, if more schools were like your school, the education environment would be a lot more safe. Many would love to have that kind of peace of mind.
Every school is supposed to have student constitution/ammendments. If you feel like you are being treated unfairly by the school, then you should probably bring it up with the district (or the conference if it's a private institution). It also depends on your definition of "rights". If you're talking about not being able to leave whenever you want, or something like that, then that of course isn't legit.
As a general response to your last post, I'd like to revisit for a moment what you said earlier...
Haunted Water said:
School feels like prison enough as-is, what with the groups, the crappy food, the little to no rights.
These descriptions are all extremely subjective. What may seem like hell to you at school may be the most wonderful thing somebody else has experienced. Everyone has a differing opinion on how they see the quality of a schools cafeteria food, or the social group standings. So really, I don't see this as a valid argument for why school is considered a prison. :0 (by the way this part is getting a little off topic, so lets try to re-focus here)
Haunted Water said:
Sociopaths are notorious for not really caring. Armed guards will do more harm than good.
Armed guards aren't supposed to scare the sociopaths away, rather they are there to shoot them where they stand when they do enter a school armed.
Haunted Water said:
Point I'm getting to is that armed guards, while being logical, will do nothing. It will make non-student/staff members think twice before shooting up the school, but will promote more violence internally, thus eliminating the purpose.
I'm still kind of confused as to why it would promote internal violence. What I'm getting out of your post, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that you think everyone has the same opinion on school as you do, and would therefore feel the same about the school being a prison (and consequently worse with armed guards because it would cause these kids to be sociopathic). This obviously isn't very logical, and like I said before, many kids have a neutral-positive feeling about school.
I'd be more concerned at this point about crazies outside of the schools, than students snapping from their social situation and bringing a gun to school. Although this does happen and it's a good point you bring up. (IDK if you were hinting at this, but I'm addressing it anyway.)
Haunted Water said:
This was the situation they put me in last semester, and I still hate the three sophomores who tormented me and made my life more of a living hell. I still have visions, dreams, if you will, depicting me just taking care of the problems my way because of the lack of authority. Now put someone like that in an enviroment that feels, in their opinion, like prison. Do you honestly think they will give two s***s about remaining civil anymore? From experience, I would say no. It'll escalate stress levels.
I don't mean to sound impartial, and I'm so sorry if there are people bullying you at your school. High School is a rough time in a lot of peoples lives, but it only gets better as you move up to higher education. I really can't stand bullies. I have friends that have been bullied over multiple things and they've been through a lot and done some drastic things as a result. I'm even part of a big organization at my university that combats the bullying problem in High Schools, so I completely understand how you can feel negatively in that situation. But, I still don't see how a school would be worse off just because a student (or a couple students) feel this way. Even they are better protected.
You did get what I was trying to say, but I'm angered how the school district has the audacity to sit us down for 6 hours on day one of school year and slowly tell us we are their property. I get they are responsible for our well being, but to be honest, stating that if it's in a locker, then it is property of the school doesn't really make me happy. Likewise, if it is parked out in the parking lot, it is school property. It's called property, and I will be damned if they ever look into my backpack in my locker or even order me to empty my pockets and then look through my phone, without ever so much as a warrant.
Although it is an opinion, I'll admit, there are people like me out there who would feel more or less threatened by armed guards because of tensions in their own life. But before we get off-topic again, I should point out that mass school shootings like Sandy Hooke and Virginia Tech in 2008, or Columbine in, what was it, '92, I think? Anyway, those shootings seem to come few and far between.
Now...
I don't have anything left to say. FFUUUUU--
Equally true. But you don't have to use a gun to be a serial killer.
I hate it the most when someone says there should be armed guards in schools. School feels like prison enough as-is, what with the groups, the crappy food, the little to no rights. Armed guards would drive me insane, which, to be honest, isn't particularly a good thing.
Just so you know, when i was a kid, we had cops roaming the halls protecting us.
Haunted Water said:
@ES: lol Feinderp has gun salesperson of the year. Also nominated for hypocrite of the year.
Also, in my high school, we don't have any personal rights, no matter what age (which is bs if you ask me)
You do not have personal rights because you are in school to learn. Not to hide stuff, do whatever you want. You are in a public environment with other people who want to just get through school and obtain a future. I hate people who are all "oh i cant say or do what i want. i cant have my cell phone. i cant play any games. i cant do what i want. i cant bring or wear this"
Point I'm getting to is that armed guards, while being logical, will do nothing. It will make non-student/staff members think twice before shooting up the school, but will promote more violence internally, thus eliminating the purpose.
having armed cops with their vests and all gear didnt promote violence in my schools. where is your evidence where itll promote violence?
Haunted Water said:
You did get what I was trying to say, but I'm angered how the school district has the audacity to sit us down for 6 hours on day one of school year and slowly tell us we are their property. I get they are responsible for our well being, but to be honest, stating that if it's in a locker, then it is property of the school doesn't really make me happy. Likewise, if it is parked out in the parking lot, it is school property. It's called property, and I will be damned if they ever look into my backpack in my locker or even order me to empty my pockets and then look through my phone, without ever so much as a warrant.
Although it is an opinion, I'll admit, there are people like me out there who would feel more or less threatened by armed guards because of tensions in their own life. But before we get off-topic again, I should point out that mass school shootings like Sandy Hooke and Virginia Tech in 2008, or Columbine in, what was it, '92, I think? Anyway, those shootings seem to come few and far between.
Now...
I don't have anything left to say. FFUUUUU--
You ARE the school's property once you step foot onto their premises. They are responsible. So they have to know EVERYTHING that comes onto their property. They dont need a warrant to promote safety. If its in THEIR lockers, they can look. If its in THEIR parking lot, they can look.
The question here is; do other people know what is wrong or right? Apparently they do not. Well, the matter of wrong or right will always remain a personal choice, but murdering your neighbours for no reason is not beneficial from any point of view. Again I am just debating in favour of the safety of the US citizens, the numbers show us a country is a lot safer without guns, that is a fact. Whether you want to keep your guns as a reminder of the good ol' days or as a toy to scare off unlikely future civil wars does not change that fact.
So what you are saying is that the government needs to make the decision for them? In other words, "I know what is best for you, whether you like it or not.". That is downright terrible reasoning.
Your "Facts" are flawed. Defacto the matter is that the statistics are taken from the most populated side of town where all of the hooligans live and, quite frankly, few people own guns. When you get out to the parts of the states and counties where everyone owns a gun and is not afraid to use it, lo and behold, there is practically no crime. To say "look at how high the homicide rate is around the country" is just ignorant of the fact that "around the country" is just a few densely populated cities where hooligans and thugs live.
So what you are saying is that the government needs to make the decision for them? In other words, "I know what is best for you, whether you like it or not.". That is downright terrible reasoning.
Yes. But is that not the sole thing a government is responsible for? I do not know if you are aware of this, but a government makes decisions for you. How many people like to take away other people's properties? Yet the government makes theft illegal. Every single rule or law anywhere in the world has this 'I know what is best for you, whether you like it or not' concept behind it. Even traffic has rules, whether you like them or not. These rules actually make a decent society possible. There are apparantly people who cannot function properly without them. If you get rid of all laws and rules, do not tell me it will not end in a big chaos. Ergo, no, this is not downright terrible reasoning, it is what allows for a human society.
Kecleon-X said:
Your "Facts" are flawed. Defacto the matter is that the statistics are taken from the most populated side of town where all of the hooligans live and, quite frankly, few people own guns. When you get out to the parts of the states and counties where everyone owns a gun and is not afraid to use it, lo and behold, there is practically no crime. To say "look at how high the homicide rate is around the country" is just ignorant of the fact that "around the country" is just a few densely populated cities where hooligans and thugs live.
A nationwide survey from 2010 confirmed that between 40 and 45% of the households in the US owned a gun. 83% of the people live in a city. Even if every single household in the countryside owned a gun, there would still be at least a 23% of households in a city that owned a gun. However it is not really important where there are more guns, their availability is more important, and since they are everywhere, and it is not a problem for anyone to obtain one, the death rate due to firearms will certainly not decrease in the US.
Yes, there exists things as black markets, however we know that once a restriction is put upon an act, it will decrease. If you know it is illegal and if you know the consequences, you would probably think twice about it before doing so.
Are you being serious? I have no personal rights because I'm student in school, serving one purpose, and am technically being forced to be there. That sounds like an infraction on basic human rights. So I'm property? Is that what you're saying? I'm not counted as a human being?
And, I don't know about you, but in Michigan, it doesn't make a damn difference, since you can legally carry a weapon in school with you. Armed guards will not be able to do anything until the suspect has shown intent to harm, or unless they detain him/her for trespassing. Besides, in rural areas, like the area I live, the odds of gun-related homicides are extremely low. Why? Everyone out here has a gun in possession of every household, averaging two or three per house. Plus, everyone knows everyone.
