The post that was quoted here has been removed

Armed forces are there to protect us from other countries.

We should be able to defend ourselves from other citizens.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

That's why you are a liberal, you are afraid. You think that people should be totally defenseless and rely totally on the government for everything.

Have confidence in yourself and expect the best, but prepare for the worst.

Originally posted by Soothfast
You're pathetic to see.

What exactly were little kids at school supposed to do to "take responsibility for protecting themselves"? Or is it your idea that the teachers are all supposed to train to become crack shots and keep a rifle under every podium?

You're living in an NRA fantasy land.

Switzerland seems to do just fine. The Swiss take responsibility for themselves.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland#section_3

Originally posted by InlandRevenueUK
You are honestly saying that the constitutional right to carry guns, essentially with few limitations, does not significantly increase the chances of an event of this horrific barbarity taking place?

The reason that terrible events of this nature continue to happen in the US is the availabilty of guns and acceptability (Both legally and socially) ...[text shortened]... a person to reasonably own a gun.

My prayers to all those touched by this unspeakable tragedy

No. I'm saying that if more people exercised their right to carry guns, psychopaths like Adam Lanza would either be met with resistance or deterred in the first place.

The problem isn't gun ownership. The problem is not enough gun ownership.

Originally posted by sasquatch672
No. I'm saying that if more people exercised their right to carry guns, psychopaths like Adam Lanza would either be met with resistance or deterred in the first place.

The problem isn't gun ownership. The problem is not enough gun ownership.

The problem isn't gun ownership. The problem is not enough gun ownership.
Crikey... People like you actually exist!?

Why stop at guns...lets give children grenades too - or anthrax! you wouldn't want to f*** with any kid holding that sort of gear would you? let alone a whole classroom of them!

Originally posted by sasquatch672
Switzerland seems to do just fine. The Swiss take responsibility for themselves.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland#section_3

Here we go. The Swiss example is always trotted out. And in fact there are few democracies in which guns are outright banned (NRA propaganda about UN black helicopters notwithstanding), so you may as well invoke any of them.

On the other hand the Swiss military only issues rifles, not Uzis, machine guns, or other high-powered weapons. And you cannot carry one everywhere you go. And when you do get a permit to carry one, no ammunition is allowed to be in the magazine. So, that is to say, if a nutter started shooting up a school in Switzerland with an AK-47, no Swiss hero in a cowboy hat is going to swoop in within seconds with a loaded pistol drawn to put a stop to the mayhem. I might also point out (for Eladar's sake) that Switzerland has no death penalty.

Invoking Switzerland to make your case is a dubious gambit.

Originally posted by Agerg
[b]The problem isn't gun ownership. The problem is not enough gun ownership.
Crikey... People like you actually exist!?

Why stop at guns...lets give children grenades too - or anthrax! you wouldn't want to f*** with any kid holding that sort of gear would you? let alone a whole classroom of them![/b]

It's like the right-wing case for laissez-faire capitalism.

"It isn't that we don't have enough market regulations, it's that we have too many of them!"

At which point the only rebuttal called for is to crack a US junior high school history book open at the chapter on the Gilded Age.

Originally posted by Eladar
That's why you are a liberal, you are afraid.

Says the guy who proposes that parents keep their kids out of school and at home all the time in order to protect them from the Great Wide World.

It's the gun nuts who seem to be the most fear driven. Yes, it *is* a scary world sometimes, but most of us manage to face it day in and day out without some gnawing need to be carrying a loaded firearm all the time.

Originally posted by InlandRevenueUK
You are honestly saying that the constitutional right to carry guns, essentially with few limitations, does not significantly increase the chances of an event of this horrific barbarity taking place?

The reason that terrible events of this nature continue to happen in the US is the availabilty of guns and acceptability (Both legally and socially) ...[text shortened]... a person to reasonably own a gun.

My prayers to all those touched by this unspeakable tragedy

Better check on gun laws and gun culture in Conn. This isn't the wild west.

I'm going to take a wild guess that this shooter violated a host of Conn. gun laws. Blaming guns for violence is like blaming short skirts and male organs for rape.

Having lost a child to violence, I empathize with the parents of the children lost, but know that knee jerk reactions don't improve a thing.