Mass stabbing at Texas school results in... zero deaths

[Fau Teixeira]

OH i'm well aware that repealing the 2nd amendment is a fringe position .. i don't deny it. Even bleeding heart Dave isn't on board with it and that should tell you something.

It is the right thing to do however in my mind. We don't need to be killing other people .. we don't need tools to make that easier. We especially don't need tools to make it so easy that a mentally unstable kid can kill dozens of children at an elementary school.

[Spider-Dan]

It's funny how gun advocates claim that banning more guns won't make an impact on gun crime because criminals can just get guns anyway.  The ban on fully automatic weapons seems to have been pretty effective at stopping these kinds of massacres from being committed with fully automatic weapons!

Why are these mass murderers not bringing M16s or Tommy guns with them to shoot up a school?  Why do they always seem to use weapons that can be purchased and owned legally?

[Dave Gray]

Your focus is singularly on guns (and this ties in a bit with Spider's original post). While I think we can say they are deadly, so is a katana and it has a singular purpose as well if you want to think of this so simplisticaly.

I concede that I'm singling out guns.  But, this is exactly the slippery slope I was talking about trying to avoid.  The problem is guns.  It is not kitanas.  If we put a ban on guns and then the number of kitana deaths on school-children skyrockets, then we can look at kitanas.  But you can't devolve any gun discussion into a discussion about other weapons, because then, you've solved nothing and you're talking about kitanas, which is not related to your original issue.

Now you can argue guns may be more deadly, I'm not here for a dispute on that. But sweeping repeal of guns #1 is not going to happen and #2 is a dangerous position if you want to start dialogue.

I agree with this, but not for the reasons Fau thinks.  If I were king of a new country, I wouldn't allow private gun ownership for recreation.  Also, I think it's archaic to think that the average man can or should be allowed to match arms with the military, in a world where we have nukes and missles and tanks.  Maybe it made sense in 1776, but it doesn't anymore.  That said, repealing the 2nd amendment, at this point in time, is not a position that has any possibility of doing anything but promoting the status quo.  It shuts down the discussion.  If you could wave a magic wand and make it happen, though, I'd personally be fine with it.

[Spider-Dan]

Mental health options is what society needs to focus on. Finding the people who need help and then making sure they get it. More times than not these people have shown signs before cracking.

I would find this line of argument more compelling if the people who advocate "mental health" as the solution were not largely the same people who insist that we must cut government spending and get the government out of healthcare.  Mental health services cost money.

[CF DolFan]

You can take the same argument for those that want to legalize drugs for freedom but take away guns because they decide it should  no longer be a right.

Could one of you please explain how taking guns from all law abiding citizens is going to be any more effective than taking marijuana from law abiding citizens. I mean, last time I checked everyone who wants dope can get it. Fortunately criminals do not typically use pot against law abiding citizens because outlawing it hasn't stopped the criminals and somewhat law abiding one bit.

[Spider-Dan]

You can take the same argument for those that want to legalize drugs for freedom but take away guns because they decide it should  no longer be a right.

Huh?  Conservatives argue for mental health as a substitute for increased gun regulation, yet they simultaneously work feverishly to de-fund government mental health programs.  The only analog to drug legalization I could see would be if liberals wanted to legalize drugs at the same time they wanted to drastically de-fund the FDA (or whoever was tasked with regulating these new legal drugs).  This is obviously not the case.

Such a position (arguing for a solution that you actively legislate against) is a rather transparent smokescreen.

Could one of you please explain how taking guns from all law abiding citizens is going to be any more effective than taking marijuana from law abiding citizens. I mean, last time I checked everyone who wants dope can get it.

Well, as I already said, taking away fully automatic machine guns from "all law-abiding citizens" seems to have effectively curtailed the use of such weapons in crimes.  I think guns are a better comparison to guns than drugs are to guns.

[Sunstroke]

You can take the same argument for those that want to legalize drugs for freedom but take away guns because they decide it should  no longer be a right.  

You could only take it as the same argument if people were attacking and killing other people with their bongs.

Two men with guns:  Disagreement leads to argument --> leads to one of them shooting the other.
Two men with bongs: Disagreement leads to a couple of bonghits --> leads to mellow conversation and perhaps some ice cream.

[CF DolFan]

You could only take it as the same argument if people were attacking and killing other people with their bongs.

Two men with guns:  Disagreement leads to argument --> leads to one of them shooting the other.
Two men with bongs: Disagreement leads to a couple of bonghits --> leads to mellow conversation and perhaps some ice cream.

yea I don't think I have trouble understanding the concept although you and Spider might. How do we keep them out of the hands of people who want them when it's been proven you can't even keep drugs away? If my neighbor doesn't have a gun to steal I go to the hood and get them. So what's to stop it from happening?

[Fau Teixeira]

growing a pot plant is way easier than growing an ak-47 tree

[Sunstroke]

I now want a bazooka bush in my yard...thanks, Fau!

[Phishfan]

Two men with guns:  Disagreement leads to argument --> leads to one of them shooting the other.

Completely false in most instances. Maybe if you add other factors such as two drunk men, two gangsters, etc.

[Spider-Dan]

yea I don't think I have trouble understanding the concept although you and Spider might. How do we keep them out of the hands of people who want them when it's been proven you can't even keep drugs away? If my neighbor doesn't have a gun to steal I go to the hood and get them. So what's to stop it from happening?

Maybe the third time is the charm:

Existing anti-automatic-weapon bans are remarkably effective at keeping them out of the hands of criminals.  So why are you comparing new gun regulation to drugs when a more relevant comparison (the effectiveness of existing gun bans) would seem to be more relevant?

It's like you're asking, "If we can't prevent people from speeding or cheating on their taxes or downloading music, why should we have new gun regulations?"

P.S. The incredibly ironic and enormous elephant in the room is, you appear to be making the argument that unenforceable laws should not exist.  How you square this with both drugs and guns is beyond me.

[Sunstroke]

Completely false in most instances. Maybe if you add other factors such as two drunk men, two gangsters, etc. 

I can understand and appreciate your point, but feel neither of us is qualified to use the "in most instances" term, as neither of us has access to most instances.  If I replace "in most instances" with "in most instances involving respectable and responsible gun owners that I know" in your statement, I have no argument. I can only counter with the "respectable and responsible gun owners you know" doesn't totally match up with many of the private gun owners that I've been exposed to in my life.

[CF DolFan]

Maybe the third time is the charm:

Existing anti-automatic-weapon bans are remarkably effective at keeping them out of the hands of criminals.  So why are you comparing new gun regulation to drugs when a more relevant comparison (the effectiveness of existing gun bans) would seem to be more relevant?

It's like you're asking, "If we can't prevent people from speeding or cheating on their taxes or downloading music, why should we have new gun regulations?"

P.S. The incredibly ironic and enormous elephant in the room is, you appear to be making the argument that unenforceable laws should not exist.  How you square this with both drugs and guns is beyond me.

People aren't using Tommy guns because they don't need them. That's like saying no one is using a 1934 Ford Model 730 Sedan to rob banks any longer. There are better alternatives. 

If we just want to reference drugs then we can. Why aren't people using opium and peyote any longer? I guess the war on drugs is working because no one I know has been arrested for using them nor have I ever known anyone to use them.

[Sunstroke]

If we just want to reference drugs then we can. Why aren't people using opium and peyote any longer? I guess the war on drugs is working because no one I know has been arrested for using them nor have I ever known anyone to use them. 

Questionable examples: Peyote has always been an extremely rare drug (even for those of us who grew up near Indian land), and lots of people use variations of opium, as opiate addiction is at an all-time high in this country.