Another school shooting in rural America

Author: IwantRooseveltagain

Posts

Total: 256
#61
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,663
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@Double_R
Maybe it's something to do with all those guns you guys have lying around. I definitely think something like that would foster a general anxiety.
You mean a country that is inundated with guns will have more gun violence? Nah, couldn't be.
That's not how it works, the solution to gun violence is more guns.
#62
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,905
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Sidewalker
That's not how it works, the solution to gun violence is more government.
Fixd.
#63
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
We have had guns for the majority of the history of the United States as a legal right. 
Now more than ever we have the strictest gun laws ever in American history.

So why is it that we have more gun violence now than before? 

Maybe it's not a gun problem. Maybe it's a societal problem. 


Topic's author
#64
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@Mharman
Donald Trump has more money than you do. Therefore, he is a winner and you are a loser.
Trump inherited 800 million (adjusted for inflation) and today he has a net worth less than that.

Now, of course you are way, way, way behind both of us.

#65
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,905
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
darn.
#66
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,239
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Sidewalker
That's not how it works, the solution to gun violence is more guns.
Ah yes I see it now, more guns = less gun violence. Brilliant!
#67
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,239
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Now more than ever we have the strictest gun laws ever in American history.
That is not true at all. Up until recent decades assault weapons were banned nationally and many areas of the country restricted guns in ways the SC blew up when they decided the term malitia in the constitution meant 'every individual American'.

Also, guns are far more advanced today than they were for the majority of the nation's history and the quantities in which they flood our communities is relatively new as well.

Maybe it's not a gun problem. Maybe it's a societal problem. 
This really isn't complicated. No other developed nation on earth has as many guns as we do, and no other developed nation on earth suffers from gun violence at the rate we do. How 2A advocates leap over those two facts to search for some other root cause never ceases to amaze me.

Moreover, even if it is a societal problem that doesn't mean we have no obligation to respond. There is a reason prisons take their inmates shoelaces. No one in their right mind would just say "we have an inmate problem" and leave it there. It's common sense that we apply in every area of our life - if a tool or product is being used in a way that is causing harm, we regulate or even ban the use of that tool or product to minimize it's harm. Why logic itself suddenly changes once we're talking about guns is beyond me.
#68
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@Double_R
That is not true at all. Up until recent decades assault weapons were banned nationally and many areas of the country restricted guns in ways the SC blew up when they decided the term malitia in the constitution meant 'every individual American'.
Correct me if I am wrong, but the only ban on assault weapons that I see was the 1994 assault weapon ban that expired 10 years later in 2004.

Other than that I can’t find a national ban on assault weapons in America. 

So unless I am missing something, my point still stands. School shootings weren’t even a concept like they are today back then when all types of guns were legal. They didn’t need to be assault weapons to be lethal. 

Also, guns are far more advanced today than they were for the majority of the nation's history and the quantities in which they flood our communities is relatively new as well.
That doesn’t change the fact that we have more advanced protective measures now that match the danger just like back then, and even so, assault weapons aren’t the only weapon that is lethal. 

Guns is actually not the only issue in this area of school safety. More knife attacks are happening today in schools by students than ever in American history. 

This doesn’t seem like a problem of weapons. It seems like a problem of motivation or mental health. 

This really isn't complicated. No other developed nation on earth has as many guns as we do, and no other developed nation on earth suffers from gun violence at the rate we do.
Is the problem gun violence, or death. Which is the mark? 

Also if you’re taking about gun violence specifically then Brazil actually takes the crown. 

Moreover, even if it is a societal problem that doesn't mean we have no obligation to respond.
You’re absolutely correct. We 100% should do something about it. We can’t just let it happen. I propose more school security. 

There is a reason prisons take their inmates shoelaces. No one in their right mind would just say "we have an inmate problem" and leave it there. It's common sense that we apply in every area of our life - if a tool or product is being used in a way that is causing harm, we regulate or even ban the use of that tool or product to minimize it's harm.
What is the extent of that though? 
Like I pointed out, knife attacks in schools are also up. Should we take those away?

Also the inmate scenario doesn’t help your case. The reason we take away their shoelaces is because they don’t have the same amount of rights because they are in prison. American people do have rights. It’s never a good idea to subject the rights of the free American people in the name of safety. 

It is for prisons, because the prisoners have chosen to limit their own rights by committing crimes. They have less, therefore we treat them with less. That means it makes sense to take away the shoelaces. 


#69
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,905
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
Moreover, even if it is a societal problem that doesn't mean we have no obligation to respond. There is a reason prisons take their inmates shoelaces. No one in their right mind would just say "we have an inmate problem" and leave it there. It's common sense that we apply in every area of our life - if a tool or product is being used in a way that is causing harm, we regulate or even ban the use of that tool or product to minimize it's harm. Why logic itself suddenly changes once we're talking about guns is beyond me.

So by this analogy, you would confiscate the shoelaces of the guards and visitors because the criminals might get access? Not an ideal policy.
#70
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 354
Posts: 10,559
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Greyparrot
So by this analogy, you would confiscate the shoelaces of the guards and visitors because the criminals might get access? Not an ideal policy.
Its liberty vs safety debate. We dont let regular citizens buy nukes, mass chemical or high destructive weapons.

There is a proper balance between liberty and safety which achieves high quality life, and guns arent great improvement.
#71
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,905
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Best.Korea
Actually, USA lets you own a tank.

#72
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,663
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@Double_R
That's not how it works, the solution to gun violence is more guns.
Ah yes I see it now, more guns = less gun violence. Brilliant!
Yes, those guys at the NRA think tank are geniuses.
#73
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,905
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Sidewalker
Having an overly repressive society is surely worth it for eradicating violence. Surely all that repression will suppress the diversity of diminishing shared interests.
#74
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,905
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
In a bold and visionary move to rid our society of violence and distrust, our leaders have embarked on a groundbreaking experiment: the nationwide ban on all guns. After all, if there's one thing history has taught us, it's that simply eradicating the tools of violence will magically dissolve the underlying causes of human conflict. Why not take a cue from the timeless wisdom of Disney, where waving a wand can cure all ills? By stripping away the means to defend oneself, we’re sure to usher in an era of unparalleled peace and mutual affection. Imagine, if you will, a utopia where every neighbor is an ally, and every dispute is settled over a friendly game of charades.

Of course, this radical overhaul of our social fabric is bound to come with its own unique set of benefits. In our newly weapon-free society, citizens will relish the sheer joy of living in constant surveillance—a price we’re willing to pay for a hint of serenity. With the complete eradication of firearms, we anticipate that community trust will flourish as everyone is now equipped with an obligatory, state-issued "Trust Me, I’m Not Dangerous" badge. The unassailable logic of this strategy assumes that fear and violence are purely products of having guns in the house, rather than deep-seated issues of inequality, disenfranchisement, cultural disagreements, or just plain ole basic human nature. It’s almost poetic how the absence of guns will, by pure alchemy, transform our diverse urban societies into havens of harmony.

As we cheer for this unprecedented social experiment, let’s also take a moment to appreciate the profound irony that such a sweeping measure to foster trust and unity comes at the cost of individual freedoms and critical thinking. Surely, this one-size-fits-all solution will not only eradicate violence but also heal the rifts between us all. After all, what better way to create a trusting society than by imposing a uniform, repressive regime? With the melodious hum of government surveillance and the comforting clank of community conformity, it’s clear that our brave new world will be the epitome of peace and collective goodwill enforced by the guns of those who know best. 
#75
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,663
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
Having an overly repressive society is surely worth it for eradicating violence.
Yes, it is overly oppressive to oppose more guns, more guns, more guns.  

Surely all that repression will suppress the diversity of diminishing shared interests
Good point, the best way to ensure diversity is more guns, more guns, more guns.
#76
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,663
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
That's not how it works, the solution to gun violence is more government.
Fixd.
If everyone has a gun then we can self-govern, that will ensure a peaceful world.

If every teacher, and every kid in that Winder school carried a gun, somebody would have stopped the shooter before so many were killed.

More guns in school will make schools safe.

More guns, more guns, more guns.




#77
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,905
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Sidewalker
it’s clear that our brave new world will be the epitome of peace and collective goodwill enforced by the guns of those who know best. 
#78
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,663
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
In a bold and visionary move to rid our society of violenceand distrust, our leaders have embarked on a groundbreaking experiment: requireall people to carry guns. After all, if there's one thing history has taughtus, it's that simply arming citizens will magically dissolve the underlyingcauses of human conflict, if everyone has the ability to kill, everyone willget along better. Why not take a cue from the timeless wisdom of the far right,where more guns can cure all ills? By giving every man woman and child the ability to kill, we’re sure to usher in anera of unparalleled peace and mutual affection. Imagine, if you will, a utopiawhere every neighbor can kill every other neighbor, and every dispute is heldin check by the threat of death. 

Of course, this radical overhaul of our social fabric isbound to come with its own unique set of benefits. In our newly weapon-richsociety, citizens will relish the sheer joy of knowing they can kill others—aprice we are all willing to pay for the serenity inherent in mutual destruction.With the complete distribution of firearms, we anticipate that community trustwill flourish as everyone is now equipped with an obligatory, state-issued assaultrifle. The unassailable logic of this strategy assumes that fear and violenceare purely products of not having enough guns in the house, giving everyone theability to resolve inequality, disenfranchisement, cultural disagreements, orjust plain ole basic bloodlust. It’s almost poetic how the proliferation ofguns will, by pure threat of bloodshed, transform our diverse urban societiesinto havens of harmony. 

As we cheer for this Constitutionally guaranteed socialexperiment, let’s also take a moment to appreciate the profound irony that sucha sweeping measure to foster trust and unity comes with the additional benefitsof individual freedoms and critical thinking. Obviously, the freedom to killindividuals enhances critical thinking, more guns will not only make the countrysafer, but more logical and rational.  Surely,this one-size-fits-all solution will not only eradicate violence but also healthe rifts between us all. After all, what better way to create a trustingsociety than by imposing a uniform ability to kill? With the melodious hum of universalgun ownership and the comforting clank of armed conformity, it’s clear that ourbrave new world will be the epitome of peace and collective goodwill enforcedby the guns.

More guns, more guns, more guns. 
#79
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,905
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
It is clear that our brave new world will be the epitome of peace and collective goodwill enforced by the guns of those who know best. 
#80
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,663
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
It is clear that our brave new world will be the epitome of peace and collective goodwill enforced by the guns of those who know best. 
Yep, and the more guns the more peace and goodwill.

More guns, more guns, more guns.
#81
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,905
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Sidewalker
Now you get it. More government guns.
#82
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,239
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
That doesn’t change the fact that we have more advanced protective measures now that match the danger just like back then, and even so, assault weapons aren’t the only weapon that is lethal. 
What advanced protective measures do we have to ensure that someone with a gun can't kill other people? I've never heard of such a thing.

And no one is arguing that only assault weapons are lethal. You're engaging in a black or white fallacy. The issue with assault weapons is how much more lethal they are compared to say handguns or hunting rifles. The more lethal they are the more likely the shooter is to be successful in killing someone else or killing multiple people. 

Guns is actually not the only issue in this area of school safety. More knife attacks are happening today in schools by students than ever in American history. 

This doesn’t seem like a problem of weapons. It seems like a problem of motivation or mental health. 
It's not an either/or. Dealing with mental health does not exclude us from dealing with guns. And as a side note, the mental health argument has shown itself time and time again to be nothing more than an excuse and a distraction. I've never heard of a single lawmaker who's against gun safety laws come out with a mental health bill aimed at curbing gun violence, in fact the same people who rail against the left for trying to increase gun regulations are almost always the same people who argue against laws that increase access to healthcare (which includes mental health).

But all that aside, you still ignored every point I made about the idea that harm caused by any tool or product should be regulated. If the problem is that people are more mentally ill than ever, then it's common sense that this gives us more of a reason to limit the access that people have to weapons which a mentally ill population can use to destroy itself.

There is a reason we don't let toddlers play with knives, and the more toddlers you have running around the more careful you have to be with how many knives you have and what you need to do to secure them. It is once again, common sense logic that we apply to literally everything else in our lives, except guns.
#83
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,663
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
Now you get it. More government guns.
More guns = Less gun violence

It's in the Constitution and everything.
#84
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,127
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
Guns is actually not the only issue in this area of school safety. More knife attacks are happening today in schools by students than ever in American history. 

This doesn’t seem like a problem of weapons. It seems like a problem of motivation or mental health. 
It's not an either/or. Dealing with mental health does not exclude us from dealing with guns
No, it's the bill of rights that excludes you from "Dealing with guns" but don't let a little thing like "law and order" bother you, you certainly haven't for any other issue of controversy.


I've never heard of a single lawmaker who's against gun safety laws come out with a mental health bill aimed at curbing gun violence
They aren't obligated to. Left tribers in several instances point at a problem and assert a false dichotomy of: You agree with our solution or you come up with one yourself.

However reasonable that might sound to the naive it ignores a wide class of problems: Those where any "solution" makes the problem worse or creates other problems that are worse.

For example: Suspend the right to due process for blacks or find some other way to stop the epidemic of black crime

That ultimatum ignores the fact that the suspension of liberty is itself a greater problem than crime, crime is bad because it violates liberty. In other words the 'solutions' are just another problem and therefore some problems simply need to be tolerated until such time as true solutions become.


How many school shootings will it take? There will never be enough, just like there will never be enough black crime to warrant the presumption of guilt for blacks. This is not a negotiation, find other solutions or find yourself a civil war.

Here is a suggestion: How come it's always bullied nihilistic kids, half of them with a history of psychoactive drugs? How about we let the kids who are being bullied not attend school and stop using drugs that cause depression when you stop taking them. Maybe if they weren't forced by the state into daily torture they wouldn't strike back (which if you read some of their manifestos is what most of them are doing).
#85
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@Double_R
What advanced protective measures do we have to ensure that someone with a gun can't kill other people? I've never heard of such a thing.
Two words.
 Law Enforcement.

And no one is arguing that only assault weapons are lethal. You're engaging in a black or white fallacy. The issue with assault weapons is how much more lethal they are compared to say handguns or hunting rifles.
But that depends on the skill level of the shooter. I could have a Glock-17 and still smoke a dude with an assault weapon if I had better skill. 

But all that aside, you still ignored every point I made about the idea that harm caused by any tool or product should be regulated. If the problem is that people are more mentally ill than ever, then it's common sense that this gives us more of a reason to limit the access that people have to weapons which a mentally ill population can use to destroy itself.
But then you're taking away the rights for those who aren't mentally ill to defend themselves with weapons of their choice. 
Of course, I would totally trust the government if they came to me and said," You might hurt people. Therefore, we are taking away your rights just in case" 

Never seen that in any other society (sarcasm). 

There is a reason we don't let toddlers play with knives, 
So, government is our parent, and we are the toddlers? 
Yeah, I fundamentally disagree. 

The government is to be a servant to the people. 


#86
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 395
Posts: 1,784
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@Greyparrot
@Mharman
@FLRW
@badger
So what do you do?

Eliminate and take away all guns. No doubt many of you believe bloodshed will stop with the absence of guns.

#87
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 395
Posts: 1,784
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@Double_R
@ADreamOfLiberty
@Owen_T
So what do you do?

Eliminate and take away all guns. No doubt many of you believe bloodshed will stop with the absence of guns.

#88
Mharman
Mharman's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 5,219
3
6
10
Mharman's avatar
Mharman
3
6
10
@Roosevelt (BANNED LOL- Only for a month though? He’s a repeat offender!) 

Trump inherited 800 million (adjusted for inflation) and today he has a net worth less than that.
Womp womp



The funny thing about my argument is that I chose Donald Trump because I know how much you hate him. I could’ve chosen any Republican or well-known conservative who makes a lot more than you.

The point I was making is simple:  You have established a level of wealth that believe is the difference between being a loser and being a winner. What’s to stop someone even wealthier than you saying you are a loser, based on that metric? At some point you have to admit that money isn’t everything.

You are not a winner or a loser based on what money you make, but rather, if you have good morals and are happy in life. You don’t have good morals, and based on your DART posts, I’m not convinced you’re a happy person. Hence why I called you sad and miserable, along with “loser.” I stand by what I said.
#89
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,663
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
"School shootings are a fact of life" - JD Vance

The actual fact of the matter is that we value our guns more than we value our children.   Dead children are a small price to pay for our right to own guns.

There are good people on both sides of a school shooting.

For instance, in Winder Georgia, on one side you had good children and teachers dying, and on the other side we have a good patriotic kid exercising his second amendment freedoms. 

That's America.
#90
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,127
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Sidewalker
Dead children are a small price to pay for our right to own guns.
Dead children are a small price to pay for the presumption of innocence.