About the Texas massacre and easy access to guns.

[SyphenFreht]

Are scoolers forced to go to airports and government offices each day? Try to see this from the viewpoint of a scooler, please.

I have three schoolers of my own and they view school as a prison regardless. Adding metal detectors won't add to that stigma in the slightest and even if it did, who cares? I'd rather have my kids, and all kids, slightly inconvenienced if it means their lives are saved.

So your argument is "they steal our jobs"? That's not a good argument for keeping guns and threatening scoolers like prisioners so they'll get mental illnes more easily. Also where was this applicable knowledge at the texas massacre?

Please help me understand how you came to that conclusion, because I'm literally baffled at how you arrived at that. Nothing I said can even be remotely construed as "stealing our jobs", and if you think metal detectors and security guards are threatening, you must not get out much.

As far as the Texas massacre goes, how many security guards were there that were also veterans?

 

[Foxi4]

Sorry for bringing this argument now but: How exactly did the possibilty of armed flight agents stopped the 11. of september exactly?
As others said: When you have a gun the bad guys will get bigger guns... Or Bombs... Or even worse things. So you want every citisen to have his own nuclear army? THIS is what terror really is! Don't be that afraid. Trust just a tiny bit in humanity. Sure there will always be bad guys doing bad things but more and more armory won't stop them at all.

I am 100% of the opinion that citizens should have access to the exact same arms as the military, and I won’t budge on it. The government cannot have the monopoly on violence - that’s a recipe for tyranny. I don’t trust in humanity - I was born a short drive away from a death camp. As for September 11th, bad example - one of the hijacked planes was retaken from the hijackers and crashed during the struggle, as opposed to reaching its intended destination, which was most likely the Capitol. You’re comparing a highly organised terrorist attack to everyday self-defense, which I consider a human right. In order for that right to be truly relevant, one must have means of self-defense, and that contemporarily means firearms. Anything short of that is an imposition on liberty that should be met with protest. Should, which doesn’t mean it does - many European nations became complacent in the wake of being disarmed, which is why we see so much government overreach, particularly throughout the last few years.

 

[Creamu]

I have three schoolers of my own and they view school as a prison regardless. Adding metal detectors won't add to that stigma in the slightest and even if it did, who cares? I'd rather have my kids, and all kids, slightly inconvenienced if it means their lives are saved.




Please help me understand how you came to that conclusion, because I'm literally baffled at how you arrived at that. Nothing I said can even be remotely construed as "stealing our jobs", and if you think metal detectors and security guards are threatening, you must not get out much.

As far as the Texas massacre goes, how many security guards were there that were also veterans?

They had security guards at the Texas massacre?

 

[SyphenFreht]

You have to balance security measures based on effectiveness. The TSA is a prime example of this - besides stealing a bunch of money and luggage the results of implementing the agency are questionable. There’s no evidence that they’ve ever prevented a single terrorist attack, but they’ve been inconveniencing the population for two decades now. In fact, their own self-assessments show that they fail to stop 95% of contraband from coming through, so what are they for, besides wasting tax dollars? In fact, the Government Accountability Office verified this - they planted 70 “fake terrorists” on flights, all with fake weapons and bombs. Guess how many passed through the checks without any issues? 67. The TSA is useless, and the government knows this.

https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2016/5/17/11687014/tsa-against-airport-security

The number one answer to this problem is to abolish gun-free zones entirely - schools are full of sitting geese, perfect targets that cannot fight back. Just the *possibility* of someone there being armed is a deterrent for a potential shooter.

Well with any luck we wouldn't be hiring any TSA agents to protect schools.

The problem with that argument comes in many forms, but the most glaring is the idea of putting said effectiveness into action. We don't know how effective it will be until it happens, and the effectiveness of such also falls on the shoulders of the people enacting such a situation. If you have a great idea and have a moron implement it, it probably won't be effective, but that falls on he who implements, not the idea itself. You could also have a crappy idea that becomes effective under the right conditions.

TSA agents are notorious for being terrible because the training is crap and they're basically glorified security guards who get paid crap. While it's not a bad comparison per say, if you put a veteran in a school as an armed guard (eliminating gun free zones, obviously) and pay them decently, there's a good chance they'll do the job competently. Obviously this isn't something that needs to be implemented nationwide right off the bat; use isolated incidents and record the data, seeing what's effective and what isn't. If it doesn't work, what's the fallout? Some people getting paid and kids thinking school sucks anyway?

You and I seem to be in agreement on this issue to some form. I don't understand the idea of a gun free zone, nor do I see the point in it, but I don't believe the answer should be to field every able person with a firearm either. Especially not teachers.

 

[V10lator]

I have three schoolers of my own and they view school as a prison regardless.

I just have to quote this now:

slightly inconvenienced if it means their lives are saved.

So you apply your mental illnes to your kids. Great parenting... That's all I say to this... For real: WOW!

Please help me understand how you came to that conclusion

Maybe cause of that:

giving jobs

As far as the Texas massacre goes, how many security guards were there that were also veterans?

Oh, so now you need to be a veteran to stop a child? According to that logic we need more wars to have more veterans, else we can't protect anyone. Also why do none-veterans need weapons for self defense when one needs to be a veteran to even stop a child?

which is why we see so much government overreach, particularly throughout the last few years.

You guys are so out of reality... I'll really stop arguing with you (all of you) after this post. But to answer to that: And the right to have guns is why we see the exact same overreach in the US?!?

 

[AleronIves]

The clip I posted above might be interesting to you as well.

Yes, he did predict a lot of the trouble on the left when it comes to wokeness and equity. The trouble is, the right has problems that are just as bad, and possibly even worse. A significant slice of Republicans don't even believe in democracy anymore and have decided that the only two possible outcomes of an election are that they either win, or the vote was rigged and they therefore also win. Preventing the rise of Soviet-style oppression in the US is important, but if you destroy the foundations of US democracy in the process, you've merely traded one form of tyranny for another.

 

[Foxi4]

You guys are so out of reality... I'll really stop arguing with you (all of you) after this post. But to answer to that: And the right to have guns is why we see the exact same overreach in the US?!?

Wouldn’t call it “exactly the same”. I will say that every citizen of the Czech Republic is legally allowed to file for a firearms license and carry two concealed firearms - no mass shootings. In Switzerland every able-bodied man between 20-34 is considered a candidate for militia conscription and is allowed to store fully-automatic weapons at home - no mass shootings. You know who else is allowed to open carry as of February 2022? The Ukrainians. You know why? Because they have bad neighbours. There are circumstances in which the line between citizen and combatant is blurred - should such times come, I’d rather have a piece than a metal detector.

Edit: Out of plain curiosity I checked how many civilian firearms per 100 citizens do Germans own. I think you’ll be rather surprised to know that it’s 19.6, since you mentioned Germany. That’s 1 in 5, in case you were under the impression that your compatriots weren’t armed. They are, just to a lesser extent. I’m quite surprised - I expected ownership to be lower. Good for Germans - buy more.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_guns_per_capita_by_country

 

[SyphenFreht]

They had security guards at the Texas massacre?

If I'm understanding the point V10lator is trying to make, apparently so.

I just have to quote this now:


So you apply your mental illnes to your kids. Great parenting... That's all I say to this... For real: WOW!

Maybe cause of that:



Oh, so now you need to be a veteran to stop a child? According to that logic we need more wars to have more veterans, else we can't protect anyone. Also why do none-veterans need weapons for self defense when one needs to be a veteran to even stop a child?


You guys are so out of reality... I'll really stop arguing with you (all of you) after this post. But to answer to that: And the right to have guns is why we see the exact same overreach in the US?!?

I'm getting the feeling English isn't your first language.

Thanks for the video. Not sure how it's relevant, but to each their own.

What mental illness am I suffering from? Care? Empathy? Common sense?

I said giving, not stealing. My point was, if you give veterans a job as a school security guard, you can effectively battle two problems with one solution. You don't have to be a veteran to save a child, but if you can save a child and give a veteran a job, why not?

Are you pro gun? Anti gun? Conservative? Republican? Libertarian? Maybe I'm just tired, but you seem to be wildly swinging at arguments like a blind boxer. Calm down, take a breath, and try to be a little more eloquent.

 

[V10lator]

What mental illness am I suffering from? Care? Empathy? Common sense?

Really my last answer in this thread: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anxiety_disorder

//EDIT: I'm a anti-gun slightly left-winged guy with his own mind.

 

[Creamu]

Yes, he did predict a lot of the trouble on the left when it comes to wokeness and equity. The trouble is, the right has problems that are just as bad, and possibly even worse.

In his view they are the same. Right and left are there to occupy your mind.

A significant slice of Republicans don't even believe in democracy anymore and have decided that the only two possible outcomes of an election are that they either win, or the vote was rigged and they therefore also win.

Yes, I do believe that the government looses its patients/ability to keep the fasade of democracy, at least in the way it was celebrated in the past. There will be a paradym change coming.

Preventing the rise of Soviet-style oppression in the US is important, but if you destroy the foundations of US democracy in the process, you've merely traded one form of tyranny for another.

They are one (if we are talking left/right dialectic here)

 

[Creamu]

If I'm understanding the point V10lator is trying to make, apparently so.

As far as I am informed there was no security.

 

[SyphenFreht]

Really my last answer in this thread: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anxiety_disorder

So. You're saying I have anxiety because of... why again? Let's assume I'm retarded. Please explain it like I'm 5.

As far as I am informed there was no security.

I didn't think there was. This person is an onion and I feel like every layer of their argument is going to cause me to cry.

 

[V10lator]

So. You're saying I have anxiety because of... why again? Let's assume I'm retarded. Please explain it like I'm 5.

You want me to keep in this thread? I won't. So really, really last answer: Why again? Cause you fear your kids die when you loose your weapons (so much that you risk them getting mentally ill - after all it's just for their own safety, right?). You (all of you) fear that the world will end when you don't have a big gun protecting yourself and your family. You fear the change. You fear the government. You just fear anything...
The only thing you trust into is a weapon in your hand. Anything other is creepy and you would love to shot it on sight.

 

[Creamu]

I didn't think there was. This person is an onion and I feel like every layer of their argument is going to cause me to cry.

Theres a little bit of a language barrier, and this user projects positions onto others in my experience.

 

[Foxi4]

So. You're saying I have anxiety because of... why again? Let's assume I'm retarded. Please explain it like I'm 5.

I didn't think there was. This person is an onion and I feel like every layer of their argument is going to cause me to cry.

The whole argument is disingenuous anyway. The question everyone is asking is “how many dead children does it take before you relinquish liberty”, and it’s designed to make the correct answer sound cold and unfeeling. Everyone feels for the victims, but none of it is an argument for relinquishing the constitutional right to bear arms. Infringing upon enumerated rights for “the greater good” is not acceptable - the second amendment is the only one that specifies it shall not be infringed. The reason is very simple - it’s the ultimate means the population has to defend all the other rights.

 

[SyphenFreht]

You want me to keep in this thread? I won't. So really, really last answer: Why again? Cause you fear your kids die when you loose your weapons. You (all of you) fear that the world will end when you don't have a big gun protecting yourself and your family. You fear the change. You fear the government. You just fear anything...

I think you misunderstand my position. I don't feel that anyone's guns should be taken away, but I also feel more needs to be done with the current, half broken gun control model America is currently adopting. To believe that no one should have a gun is absurd, because those who want one will get one, but the other extremity of giving everyone a gun is not ideal either, because that only promises that further casualties will happen.

I also believe that our perspective on mental health in the states is atrocious. Not enough is being done at the right time for the right people because no one wants to distribute responsibility evenly. They always want someone else to do it, and that's even if they identify that there's a problem in the first place. More needs to be done to identify these issues as much as possible before these tragedies happen, and ample punishment and rehab needs to be applied to the perpetrators afterward.

I don't fear the government, or anyone, but that doesn't mean I'm willing to go toe to toe with the militia either. You can defect and rebel and rise up without licking boots.

Theres a little bit of a language barrier, and this user projects positions onto others in my experience.

That seems apparent. I'm trying not to come across as too harsh because of the language barrier, but we'll see how that goes I guess.

 

[Creamu]

That seems apparent. I'm trying not to come across as too harsh because of the language barrier, but we'll see how that goes I guess.

Harshness is okay as long as you think you can achieve other steps along the way.

My question is: How are people supposed to fight for their liberty to return to roman greatness, when you take their guns away?

 

[SyphenFreht]

The whole argument is disingenuous anyway. The question everyone is asking is “how many dead children does it take before you relinquish liberty”, and it’s designed to make the correct answer sound cold and unfeeling. Everyone feels for the victims, but none of it is an argument for relinquishing the constitutional right to bear arms. Infringing upon enumerated rights for “the greater good” is not acceptable - the second amendment is the only one that specifies it shall not be infringed. The reason is very simple - it’s the ultimate means the population has to defend all the other rights.

A big problem is the extremists on either side of the argument. A society should have the means to fight back a tyrannical government, but at what point does the line between freely shooting your neighbor and "fighting the good fight" become blurred? How can we arm ourselves in the event of a revolt without also giving way to people mowing each other down in the streets? We can't have one dystopia without eventually succumbing to the other, but it seems like cooperation and solidarity are lost upon the greater majority, regardless of political or moral affiliation.

 

[Foxi4]

Well with any luck we wouldn't be hiring any TSA agents to protect schools.

The problem with that argument comes in many forms, but the most glaring is the idea of putting said effectiveness into action. We don't know how effective it will be until it happens, and the effectiveness of such also falls on the shoulders of the people enacting such a situation. If you have a great idea and have a moron implement it, it probably won't be effective, but that falls on he who implements, not the idea itself. You could also have a crappy idea that becomes effective under the right conditions.

TSA agents are notorious for being terrible because the training is crap and they're basically glorified security guards who get paid crap. While it's not a bad comparison per say, if you put a veteran in a school as an armed guard (eliminating gun free zones, obviously) and pay them decently, there's a good chance they'll do the job competently. Obviously this isn't something that needs to be implemented nationwide right off the bat; use isolated incidents and record the data, seeing what's effective and what isn't. If it doesn't work, what's the fallout? Some people getting paid and kids thinking school sucks anyway?

You and I seem to be in agreement on this issue to some form. I don't understand the idea of a gun free zone, nor do I see the point in it, but I don't believe the answer should be to field every able person with a firearm either. Especially not teachers.

Certainly not everyone, no. My general approach to life, one that is tried and true, is that the government sucks at everything and anything it touches immediately turns to shit due to inherent inefficiency in large systems composed of human cogs. As such, it should do the bare minimum and leave the rest to the people - people have a vested interest in their own safety. Given the option to carry, I’m certain many school employees would (and should). Would they act? Perhaps. They would certainly be there with means to defend themselves should the need arise.

A big problem is the extremists on either side of the argument. A society should have the means to fight back a tyrannical government, but at what point does the line between freely shooting your neighbor and "fighting the good fight" become blurred? How can we arm ourselves in the event of a revolt without also giving way to people mowing each other down in the streets? We can't have one dystopia without eventually succumbing to the other, but it seems like cooperation and solidarity are lost upon the greater majority, regardless of political or moral affiliation.

You don’t have the right to shoot your neighbour, period. There’s a very simple contract of non-aggression between all of us - if my life is threatened, you better believe I will use any means necessary to protect myself and my family *or* remove myself from harm’s way. Liberty isn’t free - if you introduce guns to the equation, some people will use them in ways they should not. That’s not an argument to disarm law-abiding citizens. Gun ownership in America is the highest in all of the civilised world - 120 per 100 citizens. The fact that you *don’t* have massive massacres every single day speaks volumes about each and every law abiding gun owner. The shootings you do have are exceptions, not the rule. Defensive gun use *far* surpasses offensive gun use, and prevents victimisation.

 

[Creamu]

The whole argument is disingenuous anyway. [...]

In a way that's a effective stategy. Set the framing in a way so your opponent is on the defensive. Don't let him advance.