Connecticut School Shooting

[attackbomb]

Today was a horrible day for those families who lost their child in today's shooting. 27 were killed and 8 were kindergartners. That man was messed up. He came to his mother's school (24 years old) and just opened fire. His mother was a teacher. That is messed up. Just messed up. Innocent children were massacred and some teachers. I swear if a guy comes to my school and opens fire, he will pay the consequences. I have a friend that keeps guns (real) and landmines.

Just heartbreaking.
If you want to know more, go to the news channel.


-AttackBomb

[Ozserf]

EFFACÉ

[techgump]

I am worried people will take this out on Guns, not People and Culture.

[Joshua]

I am worried people will take this out on Guns, not People and Culture.

To be honest, I think it's about time the US clamped down on their gun security laws. It's a big country; things like this are bound to happen.

I'm just hoping this is that little line that has been crossed, and they do something about it.

[techgump]

To be honest, I think it's about time the US clamped down on their gun security laws. It's a big country; things like this are bound to happen.

Such as how?

[Joshua]

To be honest, I think it's about time the US clamped down on their gun security laws. It's a big country; things like this are bound to happen.

Such as how?

Maybe a ban?

[necrocat219]

I think that the only good reason from looking from outside America for not banning guns is how many people already own guns, it would be pretty much impossible to confiscate them all. And with everyone having bought them with a licence there would have to be large-scale compensation. And then there are businesses that sell the guns in the first place. It would definitely help in the long term, but thinking of how many would object to it and how much money would be lost due to it I as the government would probably avoid that.

[Joshua]

I think that the only good reason from looking from outside America for not banning guns is how many people already own guns, it would be pretty much impossible to confiscate them all. And with everyone having bought them with a licence there would have to be large-scale compensation. And then there are businesses that sell the guns in the first place. It would definitely help in the long term, but thinking of how many would object to it and how much money would be lost due to it I as the government would probably avoid that.

Well if they have sense, they'll put the safety of their people before their economy.

[necrocat219]

Is it just me or has your avatar's punching order changed?

[techgump]

So, you want the People to disarm themselves, while Gov'ts of the world maintain arms?

Democide: The murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide, and mass murder.
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/MURDER.HTM
It's estimated around 260 Million innocent people just in the last century, died by their own or another's Gov't. This does not include deaths from war. What this means, is as an individual on this planet in the last century, you are 16x-17x more likely to die as an innocent person by a Gov't "Authority", than you are to die in a War; 200x more than gun violence. IE: Your greatest odds of dying by the Gun was from a Gov't when you were Not even at war.

Fast forward today, the American Gov't has killed 110+ Thousand Civilians in Iraq alone. (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/) This does not account for the innocent lives in Afghanistan, Libya, Pakistan, or now Syria. If this were your People, that would be 11,000+ innocent deaths a Year, 30.1+ innocent deaths a day (a massacre like this one, DAILY).

Someone smart might ask themselves, do I Trust MY (for me American) Gov't? Do I trust any Gov't? Has history shown I should trust Gov't? Is Gov't held accountable for it's crimes like people? Do I trust Gov't with your life, let alone My Life?
I answered to that, No, No, No, No, No, I don't.

I think disarming the People while powerful Gov'ts remain armed, is the worst thing Humanity could do for itself. I'd say if you REALLY care about gun crime, you'll target the Least Liable, Most Tyrannical, Oppressive, Murderous entity today and historically, GOVERNMENT; not some Individual with Rights looking to Protect himself in the world. In America, our Founders spoke against Standing Armies, in part for the reasons we see today. Most don't know this now, but it's why the Second Amendment says "ARMS". The People of America were to be her Defense; a Militia. The People were to have equal or Greater military force than Gov't. After all, it was intended of, by, and for the People. Thinking men have asked and stated ....

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" (Patrick Henry)

"Those, who have the command of the arms in a country are masters of the state, and have it in their power to make what revolutions they please. [Thus,] there is no end to observations on the difference between the measures likely to be pursued by a minister backed by a standing army, and those of a court awed by the fear of an armed people." (Aristotle, as quoted by John Trenchard and Water Moyle, An Argument Showing, That a Standing Army Is Inconsistent with a Free Government, and Absolutely Destructive to the Constitution of the English Monarchy [London, 1697])

"No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion." (James Burgh, Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses [London, 1774-1775])

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [ I Annals of Congress at 750 {August 17, 1789}])

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States" (Noah Webster in `An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution', 1787)

"...if raised, whether they could subdue a Nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty, and who have arms in their hands?" (Delegate Sedgwick, during the Massachusetts Convention, rhetorically asking if an oppressive standing army could prevail)

"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people" (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788)

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426)

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Right)

"The tank, the B-52, the fighter-bomber, the state-controlled police and military are the weapons of dictatorship. The rifle is the weapon of democracy. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military. The hired servants of our rulers. Only the government-and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws." (Edward Abbey, "The Right to Arms," Abbey's Road [New York, 1979])