161–170 of 336 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The weapons needed to resist a regime are not weapons we allow people to generally have in America at any rate. If we really believed in the 2nd Amendment, people would be allowed to own serious weapons of war but not be allowed to own concealable personal firearms.
Most wars are still primarily men + logistics + intelligence + rifles, the rest is just details.
Listen, there are two parts to this: 1. The horrible tragedy, and 2. The hopes to prevent this from happening again. If we are going to talk about this, we need to all fall under the assumption that we agree that this is both a very tragic act perpetrated by someone who is obviously disturbed/mentally ill, and that it is all of our desires to do what we can to make sure senseless acts of violence like this never happ…
Also, you don't have to be either for banning guns or having no regulations at all. Instead, a compromise of allowing regulated gun ownership would be better.
Listen, there are two parts to this: 1. The horrible tragedy, and 2. The hopes to prevent this from happening again. If we are going to talk about this, we need to all fall under the assumption that we agree that this is both a very tragic act perpetrated by someone who is obviously disturbed/mentally ill, and that it is all of our desires to do what we can to make sure senseless acts of violence like this never happ…
> 1. Disarm everyone, and 2. Allow everyone to carry weapons. Nice strawmen. There are obviously options in the middle, namely, increasing traceability of weapons and ammo and shutting down channels that where weapons are allowed to change hands anonymously. The proliferation of weapons is one thing, but the fact that these tragedies occur and we don't have a way to follow the chain back to the disreputable dealer wh…
If you can determine in advance who the "wrong hands" are, I'm sure the TSA would love to speak to you and dump buckets of money over your head.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Politicians talking about a topic is not the cause of political change, it's the result of one. There is currently a public consensus against your preferred policy position to the extent that it's disadvantageous for politicians to promote themselves with it. Changing that consensus won't lead to victory on its own, but it's a necessary precondition.
I think you have too much faith in the political process. The gun lobby ensures that there is no debate on gun control.
Support for gun control is extremely shallow, a lot of people are for it if asked a yes/no question but the activist population of people who would change their vote, volunteer time, or donate money is tiny.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Gun control is the easy answer. I want to know how we as a society can figure out why people get frustrated, depressed, or angry to the point that shooting up a kindergarten enters into the picture. We don't know the backstory here, but usually these events are all about someone whose life is spinning out of control for any of a dozen reasons, and either nobody has a clue that anything was wrong or everyone thought t…
Is gun control the easy answer, or the achievable answer? How can we ensure that no-one's life gets to the point where they shoot up a kindergarten? What exactly are we going to be checking for, and how will we do it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can pro-gun people please stop using Switzerland as their go to argument? Do you know why they have so many guns? Because people who have done military service are required to keep a rifle locked up in their house. These are trained people who have gone through psychology tests and military training. That is very very fucking different than the situation in the US.
Because as we all know, psychology tests and military training are foolproof for sifting out the crazies.
Listen, there are two parts to this: 1. The horrible tragedy, and 2. The hopes to prevent this from happening again. If we are going to talk about this, we need to all fall under the assumption that we agree that this is both a very tragic act perpetrated by someone who is obviously disturbed/mentally ill, and that it is all of our desires to do what we can to make sure senseless acts of violence like this never happ…
> 1. Disarm everyone, and 2. Allow everyone to carry weapons. Nice strawmen. There are obviously options in the middle, namely, increasing traceability of weapons and ammo and shutting down channels that where weapons are allowed to change hands anonymously. The proliferation of weapons is one thing, but the fact that these tragedies occur and we don't have a way to follow the chain back to the disreputable dealer wh…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Guns themselves don't kill people, but they make it highly efficient. Guns are tools, they create or enhance capabilities and as such they can be judged based on the probable outcomes of their usage.
[Spoons] themselves don't [make people fat], but they make it highly efficient. [Spoons] are tools, they create or enhance capabilities and as such they can be judged based on the outcomes of their usage.
Similarly, is taking a crazy person's gun away going to stop them trying to kill people? Probably not, but it'll be much harder for them to kill anyone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have flagged it, and I'm not so much complaining, as reminding people that this isn't a generic social site, it's intended to be specific to hackers. As such, anything that's not specifically of interest to hackers as opposed to general members of the public, does not belong here. Yes, this is of relevance to the vast majority of people in the USA, and it should be of major concern, and that's exactly why it doesn'…
Try on a little human emotion and sensitivity for size: this isn't your site to police. Even pg has pointed out the precision of the wording which you seemingly ignored.
You imply that I am trying to police the site. Policing requires some degree of authority and/or power - I have neither here. I have no control over anything here except my words. I simply quoted the guidelines to remind people of what they say, and added my opinion.
PG has said that the words "most" and "probably" are relevant, and I accept that therefore, in his opinion, this is exceptional. I have no problem with that, and I am interested to see if he chooses to expand on that.
This event is a tragedy, and it is right that it provokes debate and awareness. I can wish that it didn't do so here, but that doesn't seem to be the prevailing point of view, nor the point of view of PG. Fair enough, that's the way it is.
Previous interactions with you leave me with the impression that you really don't like me, but I believe that to be the result of significant misunderstandings. It's most likely too late to change that, but please don't accuse me of being unaffected by events like this.