New school shooting, leftist response

Safe spaces to be built everywhere?

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcpsnrxHdCc[/youtube]

@Silhouette

Not only have we presented evidence helping to prove banning guns in the USA probably wouldn’t make Americans safer, but you haven’t presented any evidence banning guns would help make any other country safer, you’re just asserting it would, in fact, I posted a graph a little earlier that suggested the contrary, that there’s a correlation between countries with fewer guns and higher homicide rates.

Firstly, Americans want guns for more reasons than to defend themselves against criminals, secondly, if America wanting guns, in part to protect themselves, when the evidence seems to suggest they wouldn’t help them to protect themselves, means Americans don’t deserve guns, then it follows that Britons, wanting to ban guns, because they think banning guns will make them safer, when the facts suggest it wouldn’t, means they don’t deserve to live in a gun free country.

Banning guns would be the first step to making society safer (from spree-shooters).

And I will repeat: any answer is greater than no answer. This is what the Conservative-Right doesn’t understand. You have to do something, even if it’s ineffective. To sit and do nothing, means your political power will be withdrawn to the opposition.

But no evidence has been presented here to suggest that banning or significantly restricting guns would reduce the overall homicide rate, the evidence presented has suggested otherwise, that it wouldn’t matter, and rationally speaking, that’s all that really matters, that the overall homicide rate is reduced, what does it matter how people are killing people, what matters is they’re killing people more or less, the way they do it is irrelevant, unless of course you’re thinking emotionally.

This sounds emotional to me.
Any answer is better than no answer?
So we don’t know what the cause of x disease is, therefore it’s better to pick a random cause out of a hat, like french-fries, and spend billions of dollars trying to ban french-fries, instead of suspending judgment for now, and researching things more thoroughly to determine what the real culprits are, so something can actually be done about it to help avert these tragedies, instead of just emoting, scapegoating and wishful thinking?
I mean our culture is so simplistic, so dumbed down, the only answer the left can come up with seems to be a dumb one: ban guns, and the right aren’t trying to come up with an answer.
Both parties are equally wrong.
What we need is some outside of the box thinking, like looking into other causes: drugs, autism, divorce, bullying, poverty, race, whatever the case may be, but our culture is so narrow, so polarized, unfortunately that is impossible right now.
This is the best the human race can come up with at this time folks, sad I know.

Give everybody guns to kill each other with or ban all guns disarming the entire population, can we just get the whole civil war started with either way? Yawns It doesn’t really matter to me, make your pick and choose one.

False black and white dichotomy. Typical nonsense.

ILP is apparently the sewer of all sewers.

Are you fucking joking me???

The way mass-murder is committed is “irrelevant”???

You say that now, give it time…

No I’m dead, fucking, serious, if 10 people are murdered, it doesn’t matter if they died by knife, or gunshot, or grenade, or being ran over with a car, all’s that matters is, they died.
What does it matter???

If 100 people are murdered in x state every year, what does it matter if they were murdered one at a time, or 10 at a time, or all at once?
What does it matter if they were murdered with x weapons, or y weapons, or z weapons?
Only if it can be demonstrated that banning x weapons will reduce the murder rate from 100 to 99 or less, does it matter, but if after banning x weapons people are just murdering an equal number of people in different ways, or the same ways because they’re getting a hold of x weapons illegally, than it does, not, matter, unless you are emotionally attached to this idea that banning x weapons will, somehow, do something, in spite of the data suggesting otherwise.

Yup, but the argument that someone can successfully fend-off the gov is moot since many have tried and no one has succeeded since the 1700s during the Revolutionary War when the people fought-off the Brits who had to cross an ocean by sail wielding only muskets and a few cannons. Now their gov is in their backyard and infinitely more weaponized. Whether or not people have ARs is irrelevant to the outcome and a “well-regulated militia” can’t exist for the implied purpose of guarding a free state.

The clause should be reworded for people to have the right to bear arms for personal and property protection from criminals and thugs rather than the state because, as it stands, there is no possibility of complying with the clause and no mention of personal protection as a right.

The pen is mightier than the sword and people suffer for lack of knowledge. The first thing that must be guarded is the freedom of speech, which is the only thing that can guarantee truth.

Yes, so it would seem, but I think there is something more fundamental at play in that the ones who choose to own guns also choose to not shoot people.

It sounds good, but if it were true, then we could arm our prisoners and expect the equalization of power to secure peace. The difference between prisoners and other people is their held philosophies, tendencies, mindsets. So, peace comes to armed people not by the addition of arms, but from a philosophy of not using those arms to kill people which, somehow, coincidences with people who choose to arm themselves.

People who feel strongly about protection of the right to bear arms also feel strongly about not using those arms. And people who do not feel strongly about protecting the right to bear arms also do not feel strongly about not shooting people. Why that is so, I can only speculate. I suspect it has something to do with dogmatism vs open-mindedness and moral-relativism vs absolutism.

Absolutists are dogmatic in their beliefs and are not open-minded in discussion. They are not morally relative. They do not hold beliefs on reason and evidence, but assert their beliefs to be absolute; therefore they have no cognitive mechanism to undermine their own beliefs. Arguing with those sorts is futile, but they can be trusted not to shoot you for the same bullheaded reason.

Moral relativists are opposite. They’re open-minded and therefore have a mechanism to change their mind. “Thou shalt not kill” is not absolute to them. If at some moment they deem you to be evil, then the ends of your extermination justifies the act of murder. Probably, because they know that about themselves, they seek to ban the means of killing.

That’s my theory to explain why guns coincide with less use of guns.

Yes, one only needs to examine the war on drugs to see that prohibition doesn’t work.

All the war on drugs accomplished was keeping pot out of scientific study while allowing pot-use to proliferate.

And it’s the same with guns because if guns are banned, then law abiding people won’t have guns and will be sitting ducks for criminals who don’t observe the law.

Coke and meth are banned, but the shit is everywhere. I could probably find meth easier than I could aspirin. For aspirin, I’d have to drive to the store, but the iceman delivers. (I don’t use meth; just saying.)

That’s a good observation. I wonder if it’s true that intelligent people are more likely to kill themselves than someone else. What are the murder rates vs suicide rates of japan? Murder rate = 6.2/100k and suicide rate = 26/100k. Japan is has the 3rd highest IQ by country (105). Switzerland is 101 and the US is 98. I bet one could correlate murder and suicide rates with iq.

If so, the murder problem could be ended with education, but then we’d have a suicide problem.

Another thing to note, drug dealers often enough also sell illegal guns. At least that is my impression living across the United States within its societal fringes over the years.

It’s because drug gangs are usually armed to the teeth where when they aren’t smuggling drugs everywhere they’re smuggling guns as well. Think of it as profit diversification on the part of organized crime at large.

Ideas floating around now is teachers being able to do their jobs with conceal and carry permits having firearms on themselves.

“Alright little Billy, if you don’t recite your ABC’s I am going to fire a round in your face!” :laughing:

I love the rotting smell of a disgusting decadent dying society breathing its last gasps of air.

It looks like the chillruns with the media corporate spotlight now are leading the charge to ban assault weapons and tougher gun regulations in the country. Will organized chillruns being used in the latest national political circus be the tipping point in disarming a majority of the United States population?

Let’s find out…

United States economically collapsing and gearing up for world conflict militarily where within the domestic front the sole focus being on disarmament under various facades of public safety.

Nope, I’m sure there is no correlation within all of that at all. It’s probably nothing…