I don't know if our military would function as it has in some other countries where soldiers follow orders even if it means raiding their parents' house. I doubt it. Having the ability to make that more difficult is something that's important for government officials to remember. Don't think the US government is really the Bourne movies level of sophisticated and cooperative.
Regardless, the really cool thing about a constitutionally guaranteed right is that I should not have to justify why I should be allowed to exercise it. Rather, you should have to justify--quite extensively--why I should be denied it.
But Rors, that's what I've been trying to help you understand: the shootings are only possible because there is nowhere near complete gun freedom. As incredibly rare as they are, and as few people die as they do, this kind of shooting only ever happens in places where good people have been banned from carrying a firearm. Allowing those faculty and staff who've gone through the expensive and time-consuming training, testing, and background checks for a concealed handgun license to actually prepare themselves for such a freak occurrence as we saw at Sandy Hook would mean that what we saw at Sandy Hook would've been a tiny blip--if allowed to be reported on at all--about how a gunman was killed rather than a couple dozen innocent children and adults, and we wouldn't be having this conversation. What we have is not complete gun freedom but a twisted twilight version where we leave ourselves unnecessarily exposed to the occasional madman. If you're looking to do something about the mass shootings, you don't need to limit good people's access to firearms. You need to stop preventing them from defending themselves with them. You don't need to censor idiots; you provide a better argument than them.Rorschach wrote:I was talking about the amount of mass shootings in America. I personally believe that if that's the cost of complete gun freedom then it's too high.
When was the last time your average mugger or house-breaker was walking the streets with a semi-auto rifle draped across his chest? More importantly, what makes you think it will honestly have much if any impact on any criminal's access to firearms, when it's already illegal for them to possess one? It's not only that criminalization of firearms ownership means it becomes much easier for criminals to get them than good people, it's that it turns those good people necessarily into criminals. Some people would knowingly and willfully fail to register their firearms with the government, falling afoul and becoming criminals. When the government comes to take their guns--at gunpoint, I might add--some will fight to the death. It would be interesting to see how many. But it's likely more people would die from that than from all the shootings that have been allowed to be perpetrated by legislators and administrators banning guns on campuses.Say if guns become more difficult to acquire, then they're going to become more expensive. The average mugger or house-breaker is going to have more difficulty getitng hold of one, no? Surely evidenced by their profession, these kinds of people do not have a wealth of disposable income.
Only that innocent people were killed because no one on the planes, not even the pilots, were allowed to have the tools to fight back. Not only that, but thousands of people died due to weapons no more sophisticated than a box cutter. You can't legislate away lunacy, and it is folly to try to outlaw everything that a lunatics can use as a weapon and anticipate every lunatic's next move. So stop trying to solve it by disarming innocent people. It doesn't work. Shockingly, there are still crimes in countries that ban even decorative swords. Apparently there are still shootings in Switzerland. Unfortunately the shooter couldn't be stopped until the police eventually showed up.what do guns have to do with 9/11?
On that note: do you believe it's a good idea that everyone learns CPR, even if most people know nothing more about it than what they see in TV and movies? Why? Because it may take 20 minutes for the ambulance to get there, and you'd rather not be left to die during that time? Yeah, me either. Calling emergency services should be the first step, not the last resort. If you need to be resuscitated or defended against an attacker, you're on your own for a while assuming the phone can even be dialed. Just a thought for those who say you shouldn't have a right to defend yourself (yes, it's quite a popular thought in the governments of some parts of the country) or that you shouldn't be allowed to keep and bear arms in your home.