Politics

[BlackDragonSlayer]

Good God! We don't live in that kind of world and we shouldn't try to make one. The older folk in America were raised on things like bomb shelter drills and half of Congress would likely remember these when they grew up. But the Russians never invaded America and we had a nuclear war and everyone just lived in a state of fear. How is that better than letting people live without thinking that they could die the next day because of some lunatic?

Try to avoid getting shot and let the police handle it? Before you complain about a slow response, think about how playing the hero would likely involve more people trying to get out of a second set of bullets. What if you get hurt? The gunman's already a step ahead of you---he's planned the attack and probably prepared more than you are. The gunman will probably have armor, multiple weapons, more ammunition...this isn't a movie.

1: But the thing is, the threat is real; it isn't just some fear (which, although partially justified during the Cold War, was somewhat blown out of proportion) crawling at our feet. There is a big difference between living in

2: The gunman is a step ahead of you; unless you get OUT of the building, which isn't likely because of his "planning" (blocking off the entrance, positioning himself at a semi-central location), you are likely to get shot.
But really... most likely, not all gunmen are always so prepared; the people you'll often encounter (if you're at the wrong place at the wrong time) are just robbers (although spitllama specifically mentioned a full scale shooting).

[Ruto]

1: But the thing is, the threat is real; it isn't just some fear (which, although partially justified during the Cold War, was somewhat blown out of proportion) crawling at our feet. There is a big difference between living in

I think I'm missing something here. What's the difference between preparing for the nuclear war (which never happened) and preparing for a situation where someone would shoot you when you're eating a cheeseburger? It's a fear! How many people have been shot at restaurants, and how many people have actually eaten at a restaurant without being shot? There isn't any certainty in the world but if you let something that has a 0.0001% chance of happening get in the way of your life or cheeseburger, then it's not really normal. Like Cobraroll said...paranoia.

2: The gunman is a step ahead of you; unless you get OUT of the building, which isn't likely because of his "planning" (blocking off the entrance, positioning himself at a semi-central location), you are likely to get shot.
But really... most likely, not all gunmen are always so prepared; the people you'll often encounter (if you're at the wrong place at the wrong time) are just robbers (although spitllama specifically mentioned a full scale shooting).

Right, but you're less likely to get shot if you just get out of the way, hide and not be the hero. It isn't as black and white as you think. Not having been in an armed robbery I couldn't tell you how carefully planned they are. I think they must have planned something if they wanted their plan to be successful.

[BlackDragonSlayer]

I think I'm missing something here. What's the difference between preparing for the nuclear war (which never happened) and preparing for a situation where someone would shoot you when you're eating a cheeseburger? It's a fear! How many people have been shot at restaurants, and how many people have actually eaten at a restaurant without being shot? There isn't any certainty in the world but if you let something that has a 0.0001% chance of happening get in the way of your life or cheeseburger, then it's not really normal. Like Cobraroll said...paranoia.

Point 1 still remains relevant. There's a difference between a nuclear war, which has never even happened (ever), and a mugging/shooting/stabbing on the street, thing that happen all the time. There is a difference between paranoia and caution; an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

[Ruto]

I can argue that prevention involves stopping these guys from getting guns xD

[spitllama]

Good God! We don't live in that kind of world and we shouldn't try to make one. The older folk in America were raised on things like bomb shelter drills and half of Congress would likely remember these when they grew up. But the Russians never invaded America and we had a nuclear war and everyone just lived in a state of fear. How is that better than letting people live without thinking that they could die the next day because of some lunatic?

Actually, we DO live in that kind of world! There are those with aggressive tendencies, there are those who invade others' homes and kill for the most simple things like green paper. These cases SHOW that.

I think you just compared nuclear weapons to handguns o_o Nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, and biological weapons are completely different. It's literally impossible to use them tactically, defensively, or protectively. They are indiscriminate and any use would mean collateral murder or manslaughter. Nobody can make any credible argument that they possess nukes to defend anyone from anything, because they're solely aggressive. You can't engage in sport or protect others with its use.

Try to avoid getting shot and let the police handle it? Before you complain about a slow response, think about how playing the hero would likely involve more people trying to get out of a second set of bullets. What if you get hurt? The gunman's already a step ahead of you---he's planned the attack and probably prepared more than you are. The gunman will probably have armor, multiple weapons, more ammunition...this isn't a movie.

Check out how many news sources have published this story. This citizen reportedly caused the shooter to commit suicide. When do shooters stop? Only when they encounter resistance. In fact, this man actually considered the fact that other people may be behind the shooter when making his decision to wait and not fire.
And before you claim that "that's just one person others won't be as responsible," gun-regulation proponents are using that exact argument in claiming that enough irresponsible people have gained access to firearms to make it illegal for everyone else.

If the government could kill us all and put us in a worse state than helots, they would have done so already?

Obviously the intention of every elected official is not to make the nation worse. I would not accurately say that our state today is currently trying to overtake us. But how did Stalin and Hitler come to power? They entered their places of power legitimately, and slowly solidified a place of power as a dictator. So what is there against this? Other politicians? Both of these men used bribery to silence political opposition. The army? Owned by the state. The populus? Only if they have a method of defending themselves! If there is no resistance or incentive to do otherwise, what reason is there to be fair and just?

"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny." - Thomas Jefferson

There's not a chance in hell some guy or a bunch of guys from a town wielding sticks, rifles or handguns could deal with the US Army and their weapons.

Soooo then do nothing, right? That's pretty much what you're saying. You seem to have a very submissive response to offenses.

[BlackDragonSlayer]

I can argue that prevention involves stopping these guys from getting guns xD

It will only stop the petty "common criminals." And the general public.

[KefkaticFanatic]

I am heavily enjoying the amount of DA FEDS GONNA TAKE OUR GUNS GONNA TAKE OUR FREEDOMS that is actually occurring in this thread and is somehow not a joke, but for srs...

Plz read your own posts before you make even greater fools of yourselves.

Though to be fair I guess this really is the only retort you need

Hitler

[spitllama]

Because that's exactly how I said it. Thank you Kefka. Just as immature and ignorant as you how you said it.
And I fail to see how referencing historical individuals and events makes my argument WORSE.

But really, I appreciate your sass.

[BlackDragonSlayer]

I am heavily enjoying the amount of DA FEDS GONNA TAKE OUR GUNS GONNA TAKE OUR FREEDOMS that is actually occurring in this thread and is somehow not a joke, but for srs...

Plz read your own posts before you make even greater fools of yourselves.

Though to be fair I guess this really is the only retort you need

Because that's exactly how I said it. Thank you Kefka. Just as immature and ignorant as you how you said it.
And I fail to see how referencing historical individuals and events makes my argument WORSE.

But really, I appreciate your sass.

As I recall, none of us have actually stated that as our opinion or even suggested that that is our mindless opinion.

[vermilionvermin]

Spit, I find myself disagreeing with you.  While there are certain scenarios in which people who happen to be armed were able to stop an assailant, I think that quite a few of them could have been prevented with stricter gun control, and quite a few of them might have been solvable without using guns.  By making it more difficult to acquire a gun, it ensures that there are much fewer in distribution and decreases the likelihood that someone does something stupid.

Another issue I haven't seen discussed with regard to guns is the potential for false diagnosis of government tyranny.  What if the birthers decided Obama shouldn't be president and marched on the White House armed?  I think insane people declaring war on the government is much more likely than the government becoming so tyrannical that we need to use guns to stop it.

Regarding the Thomas Jefferson quote, it's pretty clear that government officials fear falling out of favor with us.  If they didn't fear popular opinion of them, then there wouldn't be so much partisan politics.

Personally, I'd prefer strict gun control (as in, no Second Amendment beyond like hunting rifles) but realize that quick and drastic changes aren't the best way to achieve that because there are still people currently with assault rifles and the like.

[Ruto]

I'll take some time to reply to your other points but first of all...

Hitler

I doubt that guns would have prevented this guy from being Chancellor. There were so many other reasons, such as misinformation, desperation, poverty. More guns would not have solved these problems, it had nothing at all to do with it. If the peasants didn't have guns, they'd use farm equipment and the same thing with less casualties might have happened.The people placed these guys in power, and then they abused their power. That's all. Active resistance to these groups didn't involve guns, did they? Yeah there was a war, but I recall ordinary (unarmed!) citizens smuggling prisoners from camps, college students organizing meetings and distributing information about Hitler's evil regime...no guns at all.

Soooo then do nothing, right? That's pretty much what you're saying. You seem to have a very submissive response to offenses.

I didn't say to do nothing! I said you should do whatever to save yourself, and immediate others if possible. Hide, run, play dead...and let people who are trained in these situations deal with it. Just not play the hero and cover the place with the gunman's shredded remains, and then finish off with a smartass remark. Believe me, these things don't actually happen in real life. The likely scenario is that the gunman notices your movement and shoots you before you can.

(see I didn't bring up submissiveness, that's really the wrong kind of thing to say to women)

Also you should stop it with that fear crap...I mean seriously. It doesn't sound convincing at all.

[SuperFireKirby]

Hey, ummmmm Spit? Yeahhhhhhh Hitler didn't come to power because he of gun control. Neither did Stalin. Nor is that the primary reason(or even A reason, really) they were able to stay in power(until Hitler "committed suicide" but come on, we all know the Russians probably found him in his compound alive, and wrecked his shit until their was nothing left of him). Read up on some history, getsome sense, or go join the Alex Jones brigade:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=JwRrmH39n00#t=123s

[BlackDragonSlayer]

The likely scenario is that the gunman notices your movement and shoots you before you can.

...of course, you're not just going to walk halfway across the plaza and belt out a loud battle cry...

[vermilionvermin]

@SFK, I think Spitllama's point is that Hitler didn't rise to power because of gun control but was able to more effectively oppress because of it.

[Clanker37]

I think gun lowers public safety monstrously. The weapon of choice for an Australian ruffian (e.g someone who hasn't access to a gun) is a knife, which is useless for hurting people in public. The moment they bring it out, people run in all directions and they're in the back of a paddy wagon in minutes.

And don't give me this, "It's to protect myself!" shit. You have legs. USE THEM. And if you haven't the sense to hide, then you're too stupid to live. Get security installed and move to a nicer area. Problem is solved.