• We are a multilingual website again. Read the notice about this.
  • Understand AI use at MyPTSD: all AI use is explained in our AI help page. AI use is by choice here. It exists if you want it, but does nothing unless you choose to use it.

News Us politics - read first post before comment

Status
Not open for further replies.
The first thing tyrants do is take away your right to defend yourself. Then you can forget freedom of...

I sort of agree with you. But how would you suggest solving the problem? Like, to me, if conservatives give and ban assault rifles (or whatever, I don't really understand details) and liberals give and stop talking about how to get guns and stop talking about shootings, the problem largely goes away. I don't have another suggestion of how to solve the problem, unless one side totally overpowers the other side (liberals win and ban all firearms or conservative type arguments convince the media to entirely stop talking about things)
 
@Justmehere I wasn’t address you when posting. Just wanted you to know that.

@Pokeyslow In all reality, they only way to stop this shit, is to take away all guns. But, that will not happen in the US, because we have a constitution and our forefathers said we have the right to protect ourselves.

If congress could pull their heads out of their asses, and remember that their job is to do what the people want, then they would sit down and vote in a number of things that could help stop some of the shit going on.

Gun reform laws, age limits, mental health checks, banning assault weapons, ect ect. Then we would have a better grasp on things. No, we will never stop evil/and mentally ill people from doing the things that they do, but to do NOTHING is to be complicit in the crime IMO!!!!!!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I’m guessing no one read the article I posted. It wasn’t calling for conservative or liberal med...

No, I haven't read it. I just had this idea that if the media stopped talking about problem entirely it would largely go away. I have to get things accomplished, will read article later. Want to see other ideas, but no time right now
 
I sort of agree with you. But how would you suggest solving the problem? Like, to me, if conservati...
Well, I'm for common sense vetting of the citizens purchasing weapons. How this troubled kid was able to purchase a rifle, I don't know. It should not have happened. Serious breakdown. The kid had a rap sheet as long as my shirt sleeve. Law enforcement really broke down in this case. You are right Pokey. What good are laws if they are not enforced. :tup:
 
Well, I'm for common sense vetting of the citizens purchasing weapons. How this troubled kid was able...

It just occurred to me if you took arguments of both sides to extremes, they both might work. If you trained and armed all students and faculty with ar-15s and gave advanced classes on tactics to take down shooters, shooters would be unlikely to take on an highly armed and trained force of students and faculty. Also, if you banned all firearms, knifes, chemicals that could be used to create bombs, etc it would be extremely difficult to find something to hurt multiple people with

:)

It just occurred to me if you took arguments of both sides to extremes, they both might work. If you...

I shouldn't have put :) at bottom of last post. Not right to be silly about such as serious matter. But I really think both sorts of arguments have valid points. You can sort of stop violence by having the threat of retaliatory violence be very high (like Cold War) or can stop mass violence by forcing people to use their fists (disarmament). No real point, just I like to overthink everything.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If you trained and armed all students and faculty with ar-15s and gave advanced classes on tactics to take down shooters, shooters would be unlikely to take on an highly armed and trained force of students and faculty.
I don't think that would be an effective deterrent.
At the beginning of the last century, there was a man named Hiram Maxim. He invented the machine gun, which he happily sold to the major powers in Europe, the US and Britain. At this time tensions in Europe were escalating and war was looking and more likely.

You know why he sold them to both the Entendre and the Axis powers?
Besides making him a shit tonne of money?

He believed that if all sides had an abundance of these devastating death machines, they couldn't be foolish enough to fight wars with each other. That no one could send countless thousands of men charging to their certain slaughter.
He was wrong. The first world war began in 1914. Throughout the entirety of the war, sending men over the top in mass infantry charges into the machine guns to their certain slaughter was the go to tactic for infantry commanders. This was repeated over and over.
Apparently they really were that foolish.

Hiram Maxim actually thought his machine gun would save lives. Instead more than a million men of both sides were cut down by this "peace" machine.

Also, if you banned all firearms, knifes, chemicals that could be used to create bombs, etc it would be extremely difficult to find something to hurt multiple people with
This could work, but we'd all have to give up a few creature comforts.

Without knives, we'd have to butter our toast with our fingers. Making a steak and eating it would become a real pain in the ass. Imagine trying to butcher a cow with a tablespoon.
Chemicals that can be used to make a bomb are a little more difficult to go without.
  • We'll have to switch back to horses and bicycles, as gasoline, diesel, propane, butane, uranium, hydrogen to name a few. All banned. No more fuel for cars. No more forced air heating or stable electricity. Massive spike in air pollution after coal and wood become the primary fuels again. Possibly resumption of the use of whale oil if we get desperate.
  • You'll have to clean your toilet with your bare hands. Cleaning chemicals and varsol would be banned. Elbow grease only.
  • Industrial fertiliser, banned.
  • Compressed gas cylinders of any kind, banned.
  • Radiomedicine. Exploratory surgery for diagnosing internal health problems an x-ray can't see would become frequent again. As would deaths from complications of surgery would spike, survivial rates of cancer would drop significantly. Caesium, banned.
I don't know if I could live without some of those.
Even with all that gone, there's nothing stopping someone from beating me to death with a stick.
 
I don't think that would be an effective deterrent.
At the beginning of the last century, there w...

Great post, but I was thinking about weapons as a deterrent a little differently. More like arming guards at Fort Knox versus not arming guards at Fort Knox. Like if a thief has an automatic rifle and none of the guards have guns, a thief may very well shoot guards to get gold. If a thief has an automatic rifle and 20 guards have automatic rifles, then the thief likely won't attack.

I feel like what you are describing is more like there is a huge pile of gold in the middle of a room and two sides are about to become involved in a mass fist fight over the gold. Giving both sides guns is likely not going to stop a fight over the gold, it's just going to result in a lot more deaths.

With shootings, the consistent problem is one person has guns and nobody else has guns. I feel like there are two basic ways for one person to not have the ability to kill many, many people: give everyone guns or make absolutely sure nobody has guns.

Of course it's totally absurd to argue that either all students and facility should be highly armed and trained or all potentially dangerous items be banned from society, but I think it sort of helps outline or define the problem.
 
And who decides who the good guys are? A lot of bad guys believe they are the good guys. By default we assume that police are the good guys, but there have been a lot of innocent people killed by cops, especially people whose sole crime of being black.
 
The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to have good guys with guns. A bad guy will always be ab...

I understand what you are saying. Sort of an example might be that if you want to stop criminals, you have to give police guns. Outlawing guns to take away guns from everyone won't work because then criminals will find ways to get guns anyway, but now police won't have them.

Like I think what you say is absolutely true, but it's clearly true when it comes to cops and robbers, but gets a lot more complicated in other situations.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Donation drives

2026 Donation Goal

Goal
$1,800.00
Earned
$910.00
This donation drive ends in
0 hours, 0 minutes, 0 seconds
  50.6%

Trending content

Featured content

Back
Top Bottom