College & High School Shootings: What Now

[J-Go]

Well you both have, I think, made my point. You have proven you could do quite well on the Harvard or Cambridge debate club; you have a solid grasp on WWII history and the constitution and at least one language. ThisYouWillDo you and I share a suspicion of FDR’s motives…probably for different reasons. Our history teachers tell us here in the States, he was trying to bail our country out of economic collapse and, of course the Great Depression was a nasty time for us here in the states…(FYI we do refer to ourselves as Americans but that’s not my point). Personally, all his good intensions aside, FDR ended up being the father of American social ism, of which the cost to this country makes the Great Depression look like a bargain. But hey there is a whole new thread!
My point is this, it’s a nice debate and everyone has gotten delightfully indignant and all but THEY ARE ALL STILL DEAD. And tomorrow more people will die somewhere else…so it goes. We can ban every gun on the planet and it won’t change a thing.

[mkemse]

Well you both have, I think, made my point. You have proven you could do quite well on the Harvard or Cambridge debate club; you have a solid grasp on WWII history and the constitution and at least one language. ThisYouWillDo you and I share a suspicion of FDR’s motives…probably for different reasons. Our history teachers tell us here in the States he was trying to bail our country out of economic collapse and, of course the Great Depression was a nasty time for us here in the states…(FYI we do refer to ourselves as Americans but that’s not my point). Personally, all his good intensions aside, FDR ended up being the father of American social ism, of which the cost to this country makes the Great Depression look like a bargain. But hey there is a whole new thread!
My point is this, it’s a nice debate and everyone has gotten delightfully indignant and all but THEY ARE ALL STILL DEAD. And tomorrow more people will die somewhere else…so it goes. We can ban every gun on the planet and it won’t change a thing.

The point is missed entirely, I never intended this post to be about bannnig guns, my point has always been JUST semi automatci and full automitic assualit rife and semi automatic and fully automatic hand guns, i would love ANYONE in this forum to show m wher it say ALL GUNDS BE BANNED it was orginaly designed to ask simply with all the recent college and high school shooting,what do people thing shoulsd be done,
Rifle ownership for hunting yes, handgun ownership for protection yes if you so choose FULL AUTOMATIC ASSAULT RIFLE AND HANDGUNS FOR GNENERAL PUBLIX USE, NO AND WHY WOULD YOU NEED THESE 2 TYPE OF GUN FOR EVERYDAY USE, YOU DO NOT NEED A FULL AUTOMATIC GUN OR RIFLE TO HUNT

thank you

[ThisYouWillDo]

Well you both have, I think, made my point. You have proven you could do quite well on the Harvard or Cambridge debate club; you have a solid grasp on WWII history and the constitution and at least one language. ThisYouWillDo you and I share a suspicion of FDR’s motives…probably for different reasons. Our history teachers tell us here in the States, he was trying to bail our country out of economic collapse and, of course the Great Depression was a nasty time for us here in the states…(FYI we do refer to ourselves as Americans but that’s not my point). Personally, all his good intensions aside, FDR ended up being the father of American social ism, of which the cost to this country makes the Great Depression look like a bargain. But hey there is a whole new thread!
My point is this, it’s a nice debate and everyone has gotten delightfully indignant and all but THEY ARE ALL STILL DEAD. And tomorrow more people will die somewhere else…so it goes. We can ban every gun on the planet and it won’t change a thing.

If he was a socia1ist, I like the guy after all!

(No guns on the planet: no-one gets shot.)

[mkemse]

If he was a socia1ist, I like the guy after all!

(No guns on the planet: no-one gets shot.)

No sure where or how the subject went from what to do about shootings at schols to banning guns on the planet??

[J-Go]

Oh shit mkemse you have never been hunting with me! I can't hit the side of a barn...I need several rounds all at once to even have a chance! *grin*

[mkemse]

Oh shit mkemse you have never been hunting with me! I can't hit the side of a barn...I need several rounds all at once to even have a chance! *grin*

And your point is??

why would you need a fully automatic assault rife to hunt??

[J-Go]

And your point is??

why would you need a fully automatic assault rife to hunt??

Sarcastic self depriving joke as to my marksman skills…no point just a laugh.

[mkemse]

Sarcastic self depriving joke as to my marksman skills…no point just a laugh.

i was NOT meantto be sacastic if was intneded to be a serious reply, i do not need a a full automaitc assault rife to hunt rabbit or deer i regular rifle should do the job just fine

outside of miitary use I still have not read or seen ant sensible arguments for private citizens to own and or use full automatic assualt rifle, and gun collecotrs sotre the as a collectable they do not use them they are"dead" non uable for displau only

[TomOfSweden]

i was NOT meantto be sacastic if was intneded to be a serious reply, i do not need a a full automaitc assault rife to hunt rabbit or deer i regular rifle should do the job just fine

outside of miitary use I still have not read or seen ant sensible arguments for private citizens to own and or use full automatic assualt rifle, and gun collecotrs sotre the as a collectable they do not use them they are"dead" non uable for displau only

How about the "it's coming right for us" excuse?

[Logic1]

And your point is??

why would you need a fully automatic assault rife to hunt??

He was making a joke mate


on a serious note. With every liberty comes a responsibility.
As an example here. If you own a gun (which is your liberty) the responsibility part is that you have to be sane and return/sell it if you become ill (and OFCOURSE not being allowed to own one if you are mentally ill) and use it with responsibility.
This shouldnt be so hard a discussion imho.
I can most definitely see owning a gun for myself and Sweden actually has quite a substantial amount of guns per capita, but gun violence is quite low compareably.
I can however not see owning an assaultrifle made "just" semi automatic cause there is really not need for one for anybody (unless you are military or police) but handguns and rifles and bows sure thing why not.

liberties and responsibilities goes hand in hand.

[Thorne]

Oh shit mkemse you have never been hunting with me! I can't hit the side of a barn...I need several rounds all at once to even have a chance! *grin*

Try a bazooka, or better yet, a 60mm mortar. Won't have much left for food or trophies, but it's hard to miss. And it makes a quite satisfying BANG to boot!

[mkemse]

Try a bazooka, or better yet, a 60mm mortar. Won't have much left for food or trophies, but it's hard to miss. And it makes a quite satisfying BANG to boot!

Thanks for you reply maybe RPG would work also LOL!!

[ThisYouWillDo]

My contention is that, to prevent future college massacres, the first step should be to ban all guns. "All guns on the planet" was just an extension of that suggestion - a good one to my mind.

[mkemse]

My contention is that, to prevent future college massacres, the first step should be to ban all guns. "All guns on the planet" was just an extension of that suggestion - a good one to my mind.

The only proble with that is that in the United State our Federal Consitution gurantee us theright obeararms, assualtrifle didnot exist in 1776 so that is what they debatehere is no, our contistution doesnot prohibit assualt rifefrombeing owed but since they didnot exist then one one would have had any way to knowthey would have
if you ban guns entriely what do plice do for protection, or the miltary use for war??

[ThisYouWillDo]

if you ban guns entriely what do plice do for protection, or the miltary use for war??

Do guns protect policemen, or just enable them to shoot?

[TomOfSweden]

Do guns protect policemen, or just enable them to shoot?

I'm for the states monopoly of violence. I want policemen and soldiers to have weapons and the people not to. It is not only a method to prevent popular revolt. It is also a guarantee that the state has the capacity to put down revolts if necessary. I understand this is an offensive notion to US citizens. But I can't see any problems with it.

I think that the democratic tradition in Sweden is too strong to break by just a military coup. If the army would try here, I'm sure it would fail for a million reasons. A dictator can only rule if people will obey and I can't see that happening. Democratic ideals are once they've gained root, extremely hard to expel from popular consciousness.

Fascists tried to seize power in Spain in 1981, only 6 years after democratic reforms. It failed. 6 short years of democracy was all it took for the idea to spread like a virus in the Spanish consciousness. The reason why Germany fell back into totalitarianism and the reason why every democratic government that has reverted back is always down to economic factors. People have to be very well educated in order to take part of the general debate. Getting an education costs money, which poor people don't have. Uneducated people are always taken advantage on, and dictatorship I guess is the most extreme example of taking advantage on those who lack information.

Democracy in Sweden is not under threat. We don't need guns to protect it. Neither is it in USA. I think it is childish to say that US citizens need it to protect their freedoms and rights. It's of course the other way around. The more equally the power is between the state and the people, the less of a mandate the state has to protect it's citizens.

There are many hollow arguments and platitudes constantly flying around each of these gun debates. I find them quite tiring, and these discussions tend to get boring because of it.

[ThisYouWillDo]

I'm for the states monopoly of violence. I want policemen and soldiers to have weapons and the people not to. It is not only a method to prevent popular revolt. It is also a guarantee that the state has the capacity to put down revolts if necessary. I understand this is an offensive notion to US citizens. But I can't see any problems with it.

I think that the democratic tradition in Sweden is too strong to break by just a military coup. If the army would try here, I'm sure it would fail for a million reasons. A dictator can only rule if people will obey and I can't see that happening. Democratic ideals are once they've gained root, extremely hard to expel from popular consciousness.

Fascists tried to seize power in Spain in 1981, only 6 years after democratic reforms. It failed. 6 short years of democracy was all it took for the idea to spread like a virus in the Spanish consciousness. The reason why Germany fell back into totalitarianism and the reason why every democratic government that has reverted back is always down to economic factors. People have to be very well educated in order to take part of the general debate. Getting an education costs money, which poor people don't have. Uneducated people are always taken advantage on, and dictatorship I guess is the most extreme example of taking advantage on those who lack information.

Democracy in Sweden is not under threat. We don't need guns to protect it. Neither is it in USA. I think it is childish to say that US citizens need it to protect their freedoms and rights. It's of course the other way around. The more equally the power is between the state and the people, the less of a mandate the state has to protect it's citizens.

There are many hollow arguments and platitudes constantly flying around each of these gun debates. I find them quite tiring, and these discussions tend to get boring because of it.

I'm in virtually complete agreement with that. However, I prefer my policemen routinely to be unarmed: I even find truncheons and pepper sprays to be a little bit objectionable, but as they cause only temporary hurt, I can live with that. I also expect the police to arm themselves in situations where they need to.

That the military should be armed is a no-brainer.

As to the state's monopoly of violence, better the state than anyone else, but that, too must be restricted; to enforce law and order alone, and not to use it for punishment, for example.

I don't think you can accuse me of chucking platitudes around, and I certainly don't find the discussion boring. I don't think I have taken part in any serious discussion on gun-control in decades before joining this site, so I have not been over-exposed to too many hollow arguments either (or put forward too many of my own, I hope).

[ThisYouWillDo]

I understood that; I was justifying my own continuing interest.