. . . . . .
I disagree that the moves of government to limit gun ownership of their people can be justified. The worst school killing in America was
a bomb in 1927. Even then, so many more would have died if the rest of the bombs went off. Given how smart I heard Adam was (a techno nerd, rumor says), he could have done a truck bomb, he could have run over kids as they walked home before exploding as well. But there's also arson. . .
Besides, a government disarming its population or banning possession of firearms is an act of aggression. It invades property and forces people to comply or be killed or arrested. Whereas, my use of assault rifles to stop a bad guy entering my home (or killing others) does not invade people's property (unless I miss and hit someone unintended, then I would be in trouble).
Why do I disregard the charts, the tables of crime data by nation, the gun crime rate in each nation? Because
they mean nothing to me.
Why? Because the suburbs I live in have guns next door, the door two doors over, and spread out everywhere. I remember only one murder in my years (19 of them) in this area, a murder-suicide by some loser that killed his wife and kids. The only thing concerning me here is the formation of gangs, that might change things for the worse here, but the guns have always been here.
Then, because some shooter kills kids on the other side of the USA, people want to disarm me, my neighbors, and family? It's theft, it's banned by one of the Ten Commandments. Here is what you're supporting if you dare to call for gun bans and confiscation: theft. I mean, you wouldn't attempt to disarm your neighbor, why do it with the assistance of the police and the army?
For those living out in the country in which they have to deal with the very real threat of wild animals. Or those living in the inner city where they have to worry about some one breaking down the door and robbing or raping them. Disarming civilians is NOT smart protection.
Well yeah, gun free zones are victim disarmament areas.
So people are just not going to attack a school because there is a cop there? People don't attack the schools for no reason. They often have a connection with it. And besides, how do you people fight fire in america? With more fire? (Don't be a smart *** and say something about forest fires) Because that is what you do.
My university has its own armed police force. It works by making bad guys value an easier target higher over a hard target (making it harder to do crimes in the first place where the security is). For the schools, I do encourage them to allow teachers to conceal carry. That is, if the school board allows it. I don't like how the NRA suggested all schools use guards for security, they could have suggested schools consider both methods and use either or both.
But I don't prefer to kill bad guys more often, so I would like to know why these killings occur. Drugs? Does the help offered by these meds make people worse? I heard that already, so I'll throw another out:
Adam Lanza had talked about joining the Marines since he was seventeen. Jacob Roberts, who shot up a mall in Oregon, likewise wanted to join the Marines. Too bad for them that they never did. They would not have had to kill themselves after killing civilians. They could have done so in Iraq or Afghanistan while wearing a Marine uniform and be lauded as heroes defending our freedoms by fighting terrorists "over there" so we don't have to fight them "over here."
by Mr. Vance at
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/129109.html
It's a correlation. Perhaps it does suggest that they valued the lives of the people over there as dirt. Did they also value their community as dirt once they felt rejected or isolated? Did they then, since they felt okay to kill those valued as dirt, go shoot up places filled with dirt? I don't know for sure if that's it, but they must have felt okay for some reason to kill a lot of people. But, I can be a bother by throwing out more:
“Pao Ching-yen also engaged in a masterful study in political psychology by pointing out that the very existence of institutionalized violence by the state generates imitative violence among the people. The common idea, concluded Pao, that strong government is needed to combat disorders among the people, commits the serious error of confusing cause and effect.”
– Murray Rothbard
1.10 Taoism in Ancient China
I do wonder if this cause would be unseen in the killer's mind if I asked him what drove him to kill. Maybe if I directly asked him . . . but I suppose this cause plays its role by making him feel better about killing masses. After all, if he played games like Modern Warfare, I bet he did so because that's his thinking: Killing enemies endlessly is fine. Would he boo at the mention of using the Golden Rule with other nations? What is his thinking, why is he thinking that way?
Guns should be illegal. When the 2nd amendment was made, it was for militias and what not. Not for things like modern times. If everyone had a knidfe to have, then instead of 20 people dead at a shooting, there would be 2, and 3 people with an injury. I mean, if guns were recalled, that would be a miracle! They should only be found at military bases and... what not.
I'll go get my 3-D printer. Besides that, cops can be thugs, and so can people in the army. Now you may laugh at that, but the police are corrupt in Mexico, so you're better off going to help your wife with a bodyguard if she's being stalked by a group of men. (Plus I wouldn't be surprised if some of the upper class illegally carried guns.) Stalin was a crazy guy, killed millions with his army and police you know, same with Hitler.
Really, I'm not putting trust into the state for defense. In addition to that, you'll likely have no problem killing me if I refuse to hand over guns?
Edit: *Just wanted to add that I meant personal protection against other humans. I know there has been mention of protection against animals and as someone who lives in a rural area, I get that. However, I don't see why you couldn't just use a hunting rifle for that.
I don't see why people need those fast cars that zoom down city streets either. V-8 engines? It's a monster! And those cars costing over $30,000? Stupid! Everyone needs only a Honda Civic. But you know what? Whatever my opinion, why should I stop people from owning these dangerously fast cars? So why should I take assault rifles away from good people? I mean, there is a value the owners attach to this rifle just as is attached to a great car.
So no, I don't approve of seeing goods taken off market because they are "unneeded." That makes life less fun by doing that. I have wants, people have wants. You may not understand the desire for an assault rifle just as I don't understand the want for a fast car, but I am not going to have the government ban fast cars.
Oh, and there's talk about the NRA's police thing. To be honest, that could backfire for schools. I mean, secure it might be, but I expect drug raids and dominance to flow into the schools. They're police, and they're going to protect but do their other jobs anyway. Such a great way to make kids submit and be afraid of police (the state) though...
Some in my area do not respect the lack of crime and the amount of guns present and likely are calling for gun control. Some may feel the NRA's policy is best for all school as well. But I am bored of hearing the suggestion for top-down methods to fix things. I would prefer that the schools do what they see is best for student safety.
Though really, I would like to see the end of required schooling in America (end of public schools too), but that's another debate, another day. So have fun with my ideas, it's a start.