ingle entrances in schools — Maw
This has also been studied. The evidence is clear: it's guns. This is why the US is an outlier compared to other developed countries. Your gut feelings about "suspecting" a mental health crisis notwithstanding. — Xtrix
This one is new - at least to me - and particulalrly horrifying. Like, imagine the saftey issues with this. A fire? Hell, say a shooter did get in? Like, these people would rather pick a fight against... doors, rather than address mass gun murder. — Streetlight
“Have one door into and out of the school and have that one door, armed police officers at that door,” Cruz argued. “If that had happened, if those federal grants had gone to this school, when that psychopath arrived, the armed police officers could have taken him out and we would have 19 children and two teachers still alive.”
Unsurprised that Ted Cruz would forget a key incident in American labor history that shows how that's a god awful idea. — Maw
America has long been a country of guns. It has not long been a country of school shootings. — Moses
History is full of lots of things that aren't coming back. You know, theoretically, we could all go back to riding horses and buggies everywhere instead of using cars, but being concerned about that happening to the point where you feel the need to build a stable in your backyard because IT HAPPENED BEFORE SO IT COULD HAPPEN AGAIN would be stupid. Similarly, if you know anything about how modern governments work, their relationships with business and the creation and directing of wealth, the idea that they would randomly decide to throw all that away so they could kill the consumers that keep laying golden eggs for them is if anything batshit crazier than us all going Amish. — Baden
History is full of lots of things that aren't coming back. — Baden
... and cling to the fantasy that we'd heroically fend off the military. — Xtrix
You will never be an "insurgent"... — Streetlight
We can talk about how likely it is for a government to misbehave to where a large part of the citizenry is willing to take up arms against it — Tzeentch
Perhaps provide some good reasons why you put all your faith in the United States government. — Tzeentch
You will never be an "insurgent" kindly go back to playing a video game with your mountain dew instead of enabling the regular murder of children. Comic-con is a far better place to play out your fantasies than the blood-stained walls of classrooms. — Streetlight
Yep. As long as nothing changes and kids continue to die, these LARPers will simply say anything from one end to the other. — Streetlight
At some point, when your whole identity is nothing but the fantasy of playing rebel freedom-fighter from your TV couch, you will literally let classrooms of children be shot to death so that one can still maintain that fantasy in their head. These people want to role-play victims so hard, they will let any number of real life victims drop dead so they LARP about being some Hollywood 'insurgent'. May they all commit suicide. — Streetlight
Just say you want more dead children already. — Streetlight
It is settled on the side of being totally OK with murdering children, regularly. The rest is performance. — Streetlight
Stricter gun control makes sense because we have a lot to gain by enforcing minor inconveniences. People who oppose gun control will always point out that it doesn't solve the root problem; but it doesn't have to address the entire root issue. For example, we could enact stricter gun control and revamp the mental health system at the same time. Overall gun deaths would be reduced by both. — Bird-Up
The Argument
This plan is based upon a belief in universal, rational gun control by the state. The main aim of state-based gun control is the raising of gun literacy throughout society. Success entails the general public, en masse, taking a giant leap forward in their knowledge and skill with respect to the proper use, maintenance and storage of guns.
The motivation for this plan is, firstly, the knowledge that guns are established in America as an essential protector of liberty at both the individual and collective levels. Secondly, it is motivated by the belief that a gun is a special instrument because of its power to kill. Given the fact of this power, a gun is a useful instrument that cannot be counted as a general purpose, household appliance suitable for classification along with the microwave, the big-screen tv and the lawn mower.
In order to maintain a civil society of responsible individuals pursuing happiness individually and collectively, two exercises of power are essential: the power of the individual to choose to own a gun; the power of the state to regulate gun ownership.
The special status of guns therefore demands strictly rational control by a neutral party sanctioned by the polity. Logically, such rational control will be maintained primarily for the sake of public safety. Best candidate for this job is the duly elected state power.
State regulation of gun ownership need not be a devilish political controversy if civil society understands that such regulation must have as its main goal maintaining gun literacy at the highest possible levels.
A civil society informed about guns, both in theory and in practice, possesses the greatest capability for successful pursuit of happiness under the rubric of respect for liberty and its essential protector, individual gun rights.
The Plan
The design of this plan is based upon configuring gun control in a parallel with state control of motor vehicles.
Just as now we have the Department of Motor Vehicles, operated at the state level, this plan will establish the Department of Firearms, also operated at the state level.
Just as now we have a two-part course of instruction for motor vehicles i.e., a classroom part (theory) and a roadside part (practice), this plan will establish a two-part course of instruction for guns i.e., a classroom part (theory) and a shooting range part (practice).
Classroom instruction will introduce students to the handgun, its operating parts; breakdown and re-assemblage; pertinent gun laws
Firing range instruction will introduce students to handling and operation of the handgun; handling of ammunition; techniques of marksmanship; storage
A state might maintain firing range facilities if its legislature so ordains. Of course private firing range facilities will also be available according to preference.
Just as now we have a state-based licensing system for motor vehicle operators, this plan will establish a state-based licensing system for gun operators.
The gun operator will be issued a DFA photo ID. It will hold, as with the DMV photo ID, essential status as universally acceptable ID.
The DFA photo ID, like the DMV photo ID, will create a database of verified owners accessible to state and national law enforcement.
Just as now we have high-performance vehicle licenses for operators of larger, more complex vehicles (tractor-trailers), this plan will establish high-performance licenses for more complex and powerful guns (semi-automatic weapons).
High-performance DFA licenses will require additional training and practice qualifications.
Just as now the DMV license operates on a four-year renewal cycle, the DFA license will operate on a four-year renewal cycle.
Note – One important difference between the two systems is that gun operators must re-qualify for every license renewal. Regular, mandatory re-qualification will help insure gun operators stay current on gun laws and gun technology. This higher standard of qualification rigor is tied to the special status of guns.
While, of course, operation of a gun is determined by personal choice, for those who choose to become operators, qualification for such status under this plan will require a DFA license. In this way, state power shall fulfill its duty to protect public safety, to bind gun rights to education and to champion liberty.
Social Impact
A civil society operating under the foundational principle of individual and collective liberty must be an informed society.
Since the essential status of gun rights in America is a given, maintenance of maximal gun literacy, like maximal verbal literacy, becomes an essential function and duty of state power.
Best argument for public safety amidst the steady proliferation of guns in America is universal gun education.
Establishment of the DFA answers the crying need for universal gun literacy in America.
When a disturbed individual seeks to become a one-person killing machine in a public venue, thus threatening the lives of multitudes with high-speed destruction, a universally gun literate public, with right-to-carry gun laws supporting it, will best be able to quickly respond to such threats with an effective plan of nullification.
This is best answer to America’s pressing need for DIY peace officers who can step to the plate under duress of in-progress gun calamities.
Likewise, best answer to gun-fueled domestic violence calamities is universal gun skills possessed by members of the nation’s households.
Best answer also extends to gun literacy forestalling calamities stemming from improper storage of guns and ammunition.
Conclusion
Liberty does not mean anything goes. Just as the liberty afforded by motor vehicles does not mean anything goes regarding operation of said vehicles, the liberty afforded by gun rights should not mean anything goes regarding operation of guns.
Good parents know their children are happiest – and most free – when they’re guided by the strong hand of common-sense discipline. A spoiled child, lacking self-discipline, soon makes a mess of his-her life.
A society dedicated to liberty, and committed to its protector, gun rights, dissipates its potential with anything goes gun rights that cause proliferation of gun calamities rooted in ignorance and vanity. — ucarr
What makes you so certain that law enforcement and military units would side with the citizens to a sufficient degree? — Tzeentch
During the rise of communism in Russia, they did not. During the rise of nazism in Germany, they did not. During the era of racial segregation in America, they did not. In 1989 in China, they did not, to name just a few examples. — Tzeentch
Three days into the protests, the czar’s officials ordered the military and policy to break up the proests—using any means. The ensuing violence, says Harnett, claimed the lives of nearly 100. And on the next day, soldiers joined the demonstrators.
The army had enough.
Military support was key, as in 1933-4 the army could have removed Hitler. However once the SA was tamed in the Night of the Long Knives - and SA leaders who wanted to combine themselves with the military had gone - Hitler had major military support because he rearmed them, expanded them, gave them the chance to fight and early victories. Indeed, the army had supplied the SS with key resources to allow for the Night to happen. — https://www.thoughtco.com/who-supported-hitler-and-why-1221371
The PLA's involvement in the incident has had serious and immediate results for the military, including a marked decline in public prestige and a drop in morale. Over the long term, the 1989 events in China coupled with communism's global crisis suggest that the natural evolution of the CCP-PLA relationship from symbiotic to coalitional may increase the likelihood of an eventual army-party split. — https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0095327x9201800203
To move forward we also need to agree on whether or not a large armed citizen's revolt is an effective way of toppling a government. I think history clearly shows the effectiveness of irregular warfare and the failure of large nations to combat it, despite extreme advantages in manpower and technology. — Tzeentch
In Russia... — Isaac
In Nazi Germany... — Isaac
In 1989 China... — Isaac
What makes you so certain that law enforcement and military units would side with the citizens to a sufficient degree? — Tzeentch
In 1960s America the military and police were not recruited, but the neither did the protestors use armed insurgency to get what they wanted so the example is moot. — Isaac
1. It's vastly more likely, given historical precedent, that the military would be involved in any revolt and so private weaponry would be redundant. — Isaac
2. It's extremely unlikely that the people currently armed would ever for a cohesive unit opposed to government tyranny, especially in America. — Isaac
Government's there are becoming increasingly right-leaning and most gun-enthusiasts are also right-leaning. You'd have to envisage either a left-wing tyranny or a sudden arming of left-wing militia. Neither show any signs of likelihood. — Isaac
3. Modern warfare is fought on three fronts - informational, technological and territorial. Weapons are only of any use in the third. What we'd need for a revolution are hackers and bloggers, not rednecks with guns — Isaac
Not all violent crime requires a gun to deal with if you train your police properly. We have special armed units to deal with exceptional cases. Anyhow, I never in my entire life here felt I would need a gun to protect myself and I can't ever remember it even being a topic of conversation. It's certainly not a matter of political debate. Any political party suggesting we should infuse our society with deadly weapons to make it safer would be considered morons and immediately lose power. — Baden
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.