"Society should be gun free!"

"26 children were murdered by a guy with a gun."

"What? We need more guns then!"

wilogic.

Sandy Hook conspiracy theorists are terrible human beings.

The logic isn't hard to follow. We have gun-free areas in the United States. Some of the worst gun crimes have happened in those areas. We are a country where banning guns is essentially impossible.

Show me something that will support your argument.

Let's try it a different way : if your child was at a day-care center, would you prefer armed guards or unarmed guards on the campus? Why?

This is a different argument.

If we had a gun free society, then Adam Lanza would not have shot 26 children in the face. Claiming "it's impossible to change" is irrelevant to that fact.

Irrelevant.

I'd prefer unarmed guards, though. Security guards are too often irresponsible and poorly trained.

This is why you are an idiot. If we had a gun free society no one would ever get shot! We do not live in a gun free society, therefore your argument has no merit.

Lol @ preferring unarmed guards. You are a ****ing idiot.

And you are blind, in denial and a judgemental pos sheep who feels moraly and intellectually superior to others....bad look brah

Just look up those two names I edit lined (if u aint skeered of course )..its all ya really need for reasonable doubt...glgl

Such a nice person.

I repeat: Sandy Hook truthers are terrible human beings.

We're too deep in to ever get out. There are 90-110 million gun owners in this country with 325-350 million guns, many of which are untracked and tucked away in people's homes. There's never going to be a 2A repeal nor any gun confiscation.

It'd be nice if we could pass more common sense gun regulations in hopes of cutting down on the carnage - we have 9,000 gun homicides a year while Japan has about 10 and the UK about 60 - but the right fights against it at every turn.

The worst gun crimes happen where they happen because of the high concentration of people in a small area; workplaces, schools, nightclubs, military bases. The shooters care about the best method of achieving the high score, not whether or not some place is a gun-free zone.

http://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/deat...hest-rates/21/

Lot of deep-red, gun heavy states at the top; few areas with large cities.

There's nothing worse than a Sandy Hook truther. Disgusting, terrible, slimy people. Paraphrasing John Malkovich: they're between a cockroach and the white stuff that forms at the corner of your mouth when you're really thirsty.

LOL, racist and whatev the new phobic you SJWs come up with this week as well amirite?

It makes even less sense if you remember that a major catalyst for the banning of handguns in the UK was a school shooting.

Australia

Not when the peace of mind is because other people have guns.

I think it's clear that if you ensure that guns are widely available then eventually the good guy with a gun to bad guy with a gun ratio will tip far enough that the problem just takes care of itself.

Any day now.

Tell us more about how Sandy Hook never happened, that may be enough to get you banned again.

What argument do you think was being made?

Sage advice. And I usually don't, but my good friend Chez needs me to be about for awhile to add luster to his new forum. By the way, thank you for the links.

Interesting links. Oda is a wonderful character and it would have been much fun to hang about with him.

On a similar note, from a seemly unrelated source, a book about the artist Caravaggio (by Andrew Graham-Dixon) has some information about the banning of swords in Rome, time period 1570-1580's. Caravaggio was a bit of a ruffian, he eventually had to flee Rome because of a duel. Anyway, he was called into court about some fun incident involving some physical violence. He defended himself by saying that he had permission to carry a sword (from his patron Bishop) and told the court to piss off about their draconian charges. He walked.

During this timeframe violence being on the upswing about then (or more noticed or the do-gooders sobbing more to the authorities), the authorities were used to dragging the Tiber after fun weekends and counting up the bodies. Stabbings being the prominent manner of death, but strangulation was also common I think. Rome has always been a great place. Never a dull moment.

I'd say the same about you.

Lol, you proved my point perfectly. Just keep your mouth shut.

Grunching: The thing that I find interesting about the gun control debate is that it seems mostly fruitless because strong supporters of gun control and strong opponents of gun control base their positions in entirely different premises.

If you support gun control, you cite data on the correlations between ownership rates of guns and gun-related deaths (i.e by country, by state), and you cite successful cases where countries removed guns and reduced the prevalence of violence like Japan or Australia, and you make some kind of cost-benefit analysis of American gun laws and conclude we should have stronger gun control, because the benefits of seem to outweigh the costs, and it's hard to make a strong argument that people really need or benefit from having so many guns.

On the other hand, pro-gun advocates seem to mostly rely on purely normative arguments: gun ownership as a right. There are arguments about "good guys with guns", the value of self-defense, or the importance of an armed population to resist tyranny, but there isn't really much analysis or data to support any of those arguments, and at least in my experience those arguments are offered somewhat post-hoc. What really seems to matter is that gun ownership as a right is symbolic of American cultural identity. The second amendment isn't seen merely as some historically contingent and modifiable code, but as a self-evident justification for opposing gun control. I've lived in rural areas my entire adult life and this seems obvious just from a content analysis of pro-gun bumper stickers, but it also shows up in arguments.

It seems clear that the fundamental disconnect in the underlying assumptions makes it hard to find middle ground.

But, mostly I think it's an interesting question how guns came to have such a strong symbolic appeal and association to American (especially rural, conservative) identity. It's a question which could be explored in a lot of different ways, all of which are politically interesting, for example the role of cultural construction of identity in political discourse and the conscious use of that sort of construction as a means to achieve more material (economic) ends by gun manufacturers and their lobbying groups like the NRA.

No Sandy Truth denial.

and remember it's not a thread

Australia got rid of their guns and stopped having mass shootings. Seems pretty clearly to support the idea if you have fewer guns you'll have fewer mass shootings.

This is a stunning example of your deep understanding of the issue. Thank you so much, we never would have figured this out on our own. Jesus Christ, you're telling us if we could just get rid of the 350 million guns in the united States we would have less gun deaths? Who knew?

Dickhead.

Yes, there are ways we can get rid of the guns. No, there isn't a way we can get rid of them quickly, or completely. Neither of those are reasons not to try unless you're a pro-gun person who thinks everything has to be 100% effective or it can't be tried at all.