Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 01 Oct '15 20:00
    According to initial news reports, ten (or more) persons have been killed today
    by gunfire at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon, USA.

    Would there have been fewer fatalities if every student had been required
    to bring a gun to the school (sarcasm intended)?
  2. Standard member Agerg
    The 'edit'or
    01 Oct '15 21:52 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    According to initial news reports, ten (or more) persons have been killed today
    by gunfire at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon, USA.

    Would there have been fewer fatalities if every student had been required
    to bring a gun to the school (sarcasm intended)?
    I actually think that *all* Americans have a right to bear whatever arms they feel is most appropriate to ensure their safety. No person should be prejudiced based on their age or mental capacity, or the extent to which they need to defend themselves. If toddler Tim wants an uzi then Uncle Sam should jolly well provide. If loopy Larry wants a minigun then who are we to deprive him of his God-given right to bear a minigun?

    Remember, guns, like biological weapons, don't kill people ... people kill people with guns (and biological weapons); and last time I checked, little toddlers don't, in general, want to go round killing people so what's the worry!?

    But also, America's pets need to better defend themselves and their owners against people that want to do them harm too. As such I propose that America set to arming dogs, cats, and any other capable pet too (though they should probably start with custom made doggy-small-arms before moving up to machine guns and what not).

    When the whole f***ing continent is personally equipped to take on a small army, it is then, and only then, I would consider the USA a safe place to be.
  3. 01 Oct '15 21:54
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    According to initial news reports, ten (or more) persons have been killed today
    by gunfire at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon, USA.

    Would there have been fewer fatalities if every student had been required
    to bring a gun to the school (sarcasm intended)?
    Reportedly, the gunman is dead. 13 persons (so far) have been reported as killed.
    It's unknown if all of the many wounded persons will survive.

    It's been quite a celebration of American 'gun freedom'. Do I hear a 'USA! USA!' chant?
  4. 01 Oct '15 22:03
    Originally posted by Agerg
    I actually think that *all* Americans have a right to bear whatever arms they feel is most appropriate to ensure their safety. No person should be prejudiced based on their age or mental capacity, or the extent to which they need to defend themselves. If toddler Tim wants an uzi then Uncle Sam should jolly well provide. If loopy Larry wants a minigun then who ...[text shortened]... on a small army, it is then, and [b]only then, I would consider the USA a safe place to be.[/b]
    Isn't it true that nuclear weapons don't kill people; only people kill people?
    Woudn't the world be much safer if every nation had its own nuclear arsenal?
    The USA should consider distributing its surplus nuclear weapons to every nation!
  5. Standard member Agerg
    The 'edit'or
    01 Oct '15 22:13 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    Isn't it true that nuclear weapons don't kill people; only people kill people?
    Woudn't the world be much safer if every nation had its own nuclear arsenal?
    The USA should consider distributing its surplus nuclear weapons to every nation!
    I would agree with you that nuclear weapons don't kill people; only people kill people, but I fear that the USA will only have a surplus once every person has at least two nuclear bombs of their own (one serving as a back up in case the other malfunctions).

    As such, it is with regret I that I concede the rest of the world will have to wait (though we would definitely be safer if everyone on the entire planet had nukes).
  6. Standard member bill718
    Enigma
    02 Oct '15 00:41
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    According to initial news reports, ten (or more) persons have been killed today
    by gunfire at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon, USA.

    Would there have been fewer fatalities if every student had been required
    to bring a gun to the school (sarcasm intended)?
    The NRA will be so proud of this. Just another All American guy exercising his rights under the 2nd amendment.
  7. 02 Oct '15 03:03
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    According to initial news reports, ten (or more) persons have been killed today
    by gunfire at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon, USA.

    Would there have been fewer fatalities if every student had been required
    to bring a gun to the school (sarcasm intended)?
    But fake bombs get you a trip to the White House to visit Obama.

    Yay! It's a fake!
  8. 02 Oct '15 07:40
    Originally posted by whodey
    But fake bombs get you a trip to the White House to visit Obama.

    Yay! It's a fake!
    being unfairly detained and having one's rights trampled might get you to the white house.
  9. Subscriber Wajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    02 Oct '15 07:54
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    being unfairly detained and having one's rights trampled might get you to the white house.
    Oh, is that so, before you were claiming he got an invite to the whitehouse because he did something technical, haw haw.
  10. Standard member KellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    02 Oct '15 07:56
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    According to initial news reports, ten (or more) persons have been killed today
    by gunfire at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon, USA.

    Would there have been fewer fatalities if every student had been required
    to bring a gun to the school (sarcasm intended)?
    It isn't the lawful use of guns that kill people. You can look at Chicago and see a city with
    some of the harshest guns laws on the books and people are getting killed all the time
    there, lawless don't care about laws. Disarming the lawful isn't going to end this type of
    behavior, the end of most gun violence is typically a good guy with a gun ending the bad
    guys life.
  11. 02 Oct '15 08:07 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    It isn't the lawful use of guns that kill people. You can look at Chicago and see a city with
    some of the harshest guns laws on the books and people are getting killed all the time
    there, lawless don't care about laws. Disarming the lawful isn't going to end this type of
    behavior, the end of most gun violence is typically a good guy with a gun ending the bad
    guys life.
    "It isn't the lawful use of guns that kill people."
    there are mass shootings where the gun was legally procured

    "lawless don't care about laws."
    especially when they are badly written and seldom enforced.

    "Disarming the lawful "
    it's 2015 and still nobody is suggesting that.

    " the end of most gun violence is typically a good guy with a gun ending the bad
    guys life"
    or some novel ideas like education, gun control, better trained police. this isn't a john wayne western
  12. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    02 Oct '15 09:05 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    It isn't the lawful use of guns that kill people. You can look at Chicago and see a city with
    some of the harshest guns laws on the books and people are getting killed all the time
    there, lawless don't care about laws. Disarming the lawful isn't going to end this type of
    behavior, the end of most gun violence is typically a good guy with a gun ending the bad
    guys life.
    America's gun fetish is lawful and enshrined in its constitution, allegedly. It is lawful to harbour violent thoughts and fantasies. It is lawful to promote violent ideas and fantasies. It is lawful to purchase guns. It is lawful for a total nutcase to possess and carry around an arsenal of weapons having no relation whatever to his personal safety; it is lawful right up to the point where he opens fire (even that might arguably be lawful) and commences a massacre, which is finally unlawful.

    Only in retrospect does the chain of causation emerge. In retrospect, one might argue that some steps in that chain required intervention and some might have entered the territory of unlawful conspiracy. In that case, an act which is lawful for most people might arguably have become unlawful in retrospect for some, such as for this mass murderer, but it can only become unlawful in retrospect - as though there is a chain of causation working backwards in time, from the massacre to the firing of the gun (now unlawful, not of itself, but because people were killed as a result) to the possession of the weapons arsenal (arguably this ought to be unlawful) to the purchase of guns (arguably this ought to be unlawful or, if not, regulated effectively), to the dissemination of violent ideas and fantasies (pretty certainly not unlawful and yet clearly part of the chain of causation and open to discussion about the acceptability of verbal violence and promoting violent attitudes) to America's gun culture (which needs removing from the constitution to permit better safeguards).

    What comes from this? It is empty to say that the lawful use of guns is not the problem, because there is no difference between a lawful act leading to neutral outcomes and a lawful act leading to a massacre. In other words, lawfulness is not a useful criterion, because if it can only be determined in retrospect, then it serves no useful function whatever. The problem is not the lawfulness of guns - the problem is their prevalence - their existence in the population is the problem.

    Here is a thought experiment. At the gates of a large school, place a glass cabinet with a set of fully loaded, ready to use guns. Put a sign over the cabinet - in case of need, break the glass: only for use in self defence, not to be used unlawfully. Possibly, as an afterthought, add a note: if you massacre people then you may be shot and will otherwise probably be executed by the state in an incompetent and ethically troubling manner. Leave the cabinet unsupervised, secure in the knowledge that the use of such weapons would usually be unlawful, except for self defence. If used lawfully, the guns might help prevent or bring to an end an illegal massacre in this school.

    Why is that idea not ok? Would you send your kids to this school? Would you teach there?
  13. Standard member KellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    02 Oct '15 10:20
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    "It isn't the lawful use of guns that kill people."
    there are mass shootings where the gun was legally procured

    "lawless don't care about laws."
    especially when they are badly written and seldom enforced.

    "Disarming the lawful "
    it's 2015 and still nobody is suggesting that.

    " the end of most gun violence is typically a good guy with a gun end ...[text shortened]... novel ideas like education, gun control, better trained police. this isn't a john wayne western
    "It isn't the lawful use of guns that kill people."
    there are mass shootings where the gun was legally procured

    I bet you a whole dime that none of those mass shootings were lawful! I said the lawful
    use of guns not the means by which they were procured.

    "lawless don't care about laws."
    especially when they are badly written and seldom enforced.

    I completely agree!

    "Disarming the lawful "
    it's 2015 and still nobody is suggesting that.

    Feature creep, a little here and there it will come to those that hate lawful gun rights.

    " the end of most gun violence is typically a good guy with a gun ending the bad
    guys life"

    or some novel ideas like education, gun control, better trained police. this isn't a john wayne western

    I consider a policeman a good guy with a gun too, but they are under as much bad press
    as lawful gun ownership these days
  14. Standard member KellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    02 Oct '15 10:20
    Originally posted by finnegan
    America's gun fetish is lawful and enshrined in its constitution, allegedly. It is lawful to harbour violent thoughts and fantasies. It is lawful to promote violent ideas and fantasies. It is lawful to purchase guns. It is lawful for a total nutcase to possess and carry around an arsenal of weapons having no relation whatever to his personal safety; it is ...[text shortened]... l.

    Why is that idea not ok? Would you send your kids to this school? Would you teach there?
    zzzzz
  15. 02 Oct '15 11:08
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    [b]"It isn't the lawful use of guns that kill people."
    there are mass shootings where the gun was legally procured

    I bet you a whole dime that none of those mass shootings were lawful! I said the lawful
    use of guns not the means by which they were procured.

    "lawless don't care about laws."
    [i]especially when they are badly written ...[text shortened]... ood guy with a gun too, but they are under as much bad press
    as lawful gun ownership these days[/b]
    "I bet you a whole dime that none of those mass shootings were lawful! I said the lawful
    use of guns not the means by which they were procured."
    yes, i suspected that was what you meant. it was stupid though so i choose to give you the benefit of doubt.
    ok, let's use your argument: lawful use of cars doesn't hurt anyone (it does), let's not regulate cars. lawful use of explosives doesn't hurt anyone (it does but let's not dwell on that), let's not regulate that.


    "I consider a policeman a good guy with a gun too, but they are under as much bad press as lawful gun ownership these days"
    so rather than try hard to keep guns out of maniacs and criminals hands, you aim to arm as many people as possible, so that when the maniac starts killing, there would be as many people as possible shooting back at him (and hitting bystanders).

    how long do you think it would take a reasonable person to realize there is a mass shooting? how long until he gets his gun out? how many shots do you think an average shooter would need in that confusion to successfully hit the attacker, taking into consideration that gun training is not a requirement for gun permits, that even professionals miss, and that the situation is anything but a controlled shooting range?