General
07 Dec 15
08 Dec 15
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIf one is killed in a shooting I don't think it makes it any
And yes, I will quibble about the term "mass shooting" since it has become a loaded term meant to instill fear while a closer look at the data from this list reveals the term is applied with a complete lack of discrimination or accuracy... but plenty of intent!
better or any worse whether you call it a "mass shooting" or not.
09 Dec 15
Originally posted by FreakyKBHBe that as it may or may not be, the question I asked was: would the number of gun deaths fall ~ in your estimation ~ if every person of legal age carried firearms?
I definitely think the person intent on wide-spread damage would think more closely, were they to believe the intent will likely fall short by virtue of a heavily-armed populace.
09 Dec 15
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWhen you talk about people protecting themselves from "tyranny", you mean that you side with those who assert the right to shoot government officials or employees at a time of their choosing if they deem the government's actions to be tyrannical, is that right?
Between the two of them, I side with those whose positions allows people to protect themselves from tyranny.
09 Dec 15
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSurely the very people who go on these insane killing sprees are the most unlikely people to stop and rationally consider the consequences of their actions?
I definitely think the person intent on wide-spread damage would think more closely, were they to believe the intent will likely fall short by virtue of a heavily-armed populace.
The Daesh "inspired" folk are really not going to care - they'd probably more likely to welcome the martyrdom they think they'll get.
Right now in the US there are just as many guns as people - does that not constitute an already heavily armed populace? I don't see much of a deterrent effect going on.
09 Dec 15
Originally posted by FreakyKBH1. Rrrrright. I trust a lot when anybody tells me that they are holders of the ultimate, scientific truth.
it relates to telling the truth.
I side with those whose positions allows people to protect themselves from tyranny.
2. Which tyranny? The tyranny of consumerism and the 1%? Fine work you've done there, chaps, keep it up.
18 Dec 15
Originally posted by FreakyKBHa heavily armed populace would have everyone walking on pins and needles
I definitely think the person intent on wide-spread damage would think more closely, were they to believe the intent will likely fall short by virtue of a heavily-armed populace.
not a very comforting feeling
I dread the thought of my neighbors being armed
Originally posted by SeitseTouche on the 1%, but since I already agree with the idea they are all traitors, you can't really dock me much.
1. Rrrrright. I trust a lot when anybody tells me that they are holders of the ultimate, scientific truth.
2. Which tyranny? The tyranny of consumerism and the 1%? Fine work you've done there, chaps, keep it up.
It really comes down to gun or no gun.
The citizenry retain their guns or the state only is allowed.
No matter which way you look at it, it's a power play.
I say power to the people, man.
Originally posted by lemondropSounds pithy, but it's a superficial conclusion not based on a thorough analysis.
I think the word "fearful" would be the descriptive word
"Fearful" is what the citizenry would be in the case of the state holding all the power in the form of advanced weaponry.
Here in the States, the limited government was formed with a wary eye on the pervasive nature of historical ruling parties and the distrust was so deep-seated, the Second Amendment to the Constitution listed a well-armed citizenry as THE safeguard to keep in place.
Once the State holds all of the power, we would all be fearful--- just out of respect, of course.
18 Dec 15
Originally posted by FreakyKBHExplain how that safeguard works.
Sounds pithy, but it's a superficial conclusion not based on a thorough analysis.
.
Here in the States, the limited government was formed with a wary eye on the pervasive nature of historical ruling parties and the distrust was so deep-seated, the Second Amendment to the Constitution listed a well-armed citizenry as THE safeguard to keep in place.
.
Describe [i]any[/i[ scenario where armed civilians are
going to prevent government tyranny (or whatever it is you fear)
23 Dec 15
Originally posted by wolfgang59I'm imagining the same scenarios as were envisioned by the founders of the country and the framers of the Constitution.
Explain how that safeguard works.
Describe [i]any[/i[ scenario where armed civilians are
going to prevent government tyranny (or whatever it is you fear)
You're not planning on trotting out the 'that was from a group of barely civilized band of marauders 239 years ago' argument, are you?