But would you have schools and good education if it weren't for the underlying principles?
Today's mass shooting in the US
- Thread starter Rroff
- Start date
But would you have schools and good education if it weren't for the underlying principles?
Soldato
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ted-active-shooter-incident-Odessa-Texas.html
Another day another mass shooting two gunmen driving along motorway shooting at people randomly
Another day another mass shooting two gunmen driving along motorway shooting at people randomly
Soldato
At least five people dead.
RIP
RIP
A common theme on all of the early reports in these mass shootings is about multiple shooters, there's never (rarely) a second shooter.
This was something I heard/read in the news some time ago and its so true.
It depends whether you consider the right to bear arms as one of the key underlying principles that has led to the success of America as a global powerhouse.
I would say that given America shares many of its underlying principles with other successful western countries, the 2nd amendment isn't a requirement for a society to build schools and provide its citizens with a good education.
If we take the premise at face value; one could argue that, given the issues facing the American education system (especially compared to other western countries), the underlying principle of the 2nd amendment is actually having a negative effect on US schools.
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 7,125
2nd and 1st go hand in hand, otherwise your freedoms slowly get eroded, look at the UK currently with hate speech and draconian policing measures being introduced, or Venezuela as the prime example, de-armed and enslaved population within a decade. To say it can't happen is ridiculous, there are examples all throughout history.
Ok… so you shift the emphasis onto the 1st amendment, my point still stands.
Neither the 1st or 2nd amendment is a requirement for a society to build schools or provide a good education, as shown by the other western countries that outperform the USA in terms of education and don't grant their citizens explicit free speech or the right to bear arms.
You appear to be making an entirely different argument to the point that @jsmoke raised.
And it's true in this case as well.
It's a tricky one. As I'm sure you know, the original idea was for small government, small banking system, small to no police(they were seen as a standing army) and hence people needed to protect themselves against crime. Only takes one or a few crimes to dictate self protection policies.
So you have your traditionalists and so called modernists.
So you have your traditionalists and so called modernists.
Soldato
Wow, so those in power are just hoping god will sort it out for them...
Wow, so those in power are just hoping god will sort it out for them...
Are you delusional?
Do you think that "banning guns" will keep them out of the hands of the sick or the criminal?
Let me ask you this, given that there are more deaths in America as a result of drunk driving than gun violence why aren't you calling for the banning of cars?
I'll tell you why, it's because guns are no more a part of the problem in mass killings than cars are in drunk driving deaths. In case you're confused, banning cars would save more lives than banning guns. Yet you, nor anyone else, are calling for that. Why? I mean if 'lives' are so important to you I'd expect you to be an advocate for banning the thing that causes more deaths. But you're not. It's only guns that get you off the couch. The heck with facts right, you just don't like guns.
The problem is with people, and culture. Not guns.
It's every American's God given right to be able to murder people if there having a bad day , let them get on with it.
What a backward country , the most corrupt place on earth imo. Currently ran by the most corrupt evil deranged man who has no morals whatsoever. USA USA USA.
What a backward country , the most corrupt place on earth imo. Currently ran by the most corrupt evil deranged man who has no morals whatsoever. USA USA USA.
Couldn't agree more! Thanks for posting. Well thought out, well reasoned and appropriate response. You're clearly a deep thinker.
USA USA USA
Associate
- Joined
- 22 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 1,341
If people with their warped culture don't have access to guns then they can't use them. It may take a hundred years to fully enforce the ban and get guns out of people's possession (whether secreted away or otherwise), but you have to start somewhere. They're too dangerous. Simply too dangerous for the general public to be able to carry around. If law enforcement systematically have to go around every property, every day of the week, 365 days a year for an entire decade to remove possession of these weapons, then that's what must be done. Anyone caught with a gun in their possession without having declared or surrendered it first - hefty $ fine to pay for said clean-up.
If this were seriously being implemented I'm sure you can see there will be less and less of a case to be made for "home defense" in the form of firearms. "Home defense" simply contributes to the vicious cycle that is gun misuse and makes firearms companies money.
Vehicles are primarily used to transport people around. The danger they pose from misuse is secondary to their function, that's why it is nonsensical to compare death due to vehicle accidents to gun violence. I don't think you can deny that firearms such as the ones used in mass shootings are primarily intended as deadly weapons. If you want something for target practise, I'm sure BB guns can retain their status as lawful.
Last edited:
Soldato
Nope, that would be you and the guy on twitter. Your entire post is just tired old silly arguments and I can't be bothered to argue. Sadly most of America and even your politicians share your views, so I guess all you have left is praying for the victims like your politicians have resorted to.
In the former case, which is the subject of this thread, yes - of course it would!
As if the bullied, autistic kid who wants to shoot up his class is going to pop into his local 'hood and talk with some "homies" in order to get his hands on an illegal firearm... just not going to happen. The sort of mass shootings that get wide scale media coverage (i.e. not just the technical 4 people shot but someone going on a rampage/school shootings) seem to involve legally owned firearms, the bullied kid gets his father's unsecured AR15 etc...
Ergo while we do have gangs with access to guns in the UK too you'll not tend to find school kids able to carry out mass shootings.
More people use cars and do so far more frequently than they'd use guns. Drinking and driving is illegal beyond a small limit, firearms aren't limited in a sensible way.
You're just making an argument based on your own dubious assumptions/world view there - it is rather flawed. Cars are pretty practical things to have and if you hadn't noticed cars are licensed, have to meet tight safety regulations and drink driving is heavily regulated/banned beyond a certain limit.
If you want to apply the same logic to guns then you'd be advocating for licensing, strict regulations and the really dangerous stuff to be very heavily controlled... The UK has something along those lines btw... you can still buy guns here.
That is demonstrably false - you've got similar people/culture elsewhere where guns are not so readily available - guess what? No where near the number of mass shootings! Strange that...
That's not true
Notwithstanding that's a strawman since most people aren't calling for the banning of all guns, but regulation it's also flawed on many levels. A cars primary function is one of transportation and the vast vast majority of deaths caused by them are unintentional. And as terrible as car deaths are, unfortunately they are a price society pays for the overall massive benefits transportation brings. Whereas guns have one primary function which is to kill and injure living things and the only benefit they bring to society is some fun from target shooting and defence against themselves.
Also, where your argument completely falls down is when car deaths were recognised to be unacceptably high, then the Govt stepped in and brought in legislation to make them safer. Things like seat belts, air bags, shape, design etc etc Having a national license database, banning dangerous drivers. Funny that.
So even though there is no comparison in using the gun vs car deaths argument, if you want to try and go down that route it does back up the argument for more regulation to reduce gun death risk, which is what is being called for and what happened with cars.
Caporegime
How can it be a god given right when guns didn't exist in biblical times? At best it should be the right to bear slings.
Works pretty well in the UK. We had several mass shootings in the UK until they were banned after Dunblane. When was the last mass shooting in the UK? Of course, we now have a knife problem instead.