Again....But it's never the guns!

[kılıç_mehmet]

Weapons and firearms should be issued by the state to patriotic families of good reputation.
Not to individuals of dubious associations.

The Second Amendment is written in direct opposition to your idea.

Well, maybe its time you should re-write it. It's not as though it was Godsend, eh?
Guns should not be available to everyone, though I'm not opposed to allowing guns to people who wish to wield it for a purpose other than mass-murder/assault, or thievery.

[Chas]

The Second Amendment is written in direct opposition to your idea.

Well, maybe its time you should re-write it. It's not as though it was Godsend, eh?
Guns should not be available to everyone, though I'm not opposed to allowing guns to people who wish to wield it for a purpose other than mass-murder/assault, or thievery.

How does one measure someone's patriotism? And why is that important?

[Edwardo Piet]

Patriotism is favouritism, m'kay, and don't play favourites, because playing favourites is bad... mmm'kay.

[kılıç_mehmet]

Well, maybe its time you should re-write it. It's not as though it was Godsend, eh?
Guns should not be available to everyone, though I'm not opposed to allowing guns to people who wish to wield it for a purpose other than mass-murder/assault, or thievery.

How does one measure someone's patriotism? And why is that important?

Well you can, obviously. The smallest form of governmental representation usually knows the people in a community and can actually determine whom they should allow to bear arms.
That is important due to the fact that a patriotic person will not use a weapon in order to commit acts of violence with malign purpose or unlawful monetary gain. You can count on these people to form a militia in times of dire need, whereas you can count on criminals, psychos and people of dubious reputation to use these guns against the people and the state in times of war and disaster.

[Chas]

How does one measure someone's patriotism? And why is that important?

Well you can, obviously. The smallest form of governmental representation usually knows the people in a community and can actually determine whom they should allow to bear arms.
That is important due to the fact that a patriotic person will not use a weapon in order to commit acts of violence with malign purpose or unlawful monetary gain. You can count on these people to form a militia in times of dire need, whereas you can count on criminals, psychos and people of dubious reputation to use these guns against the people and the state in times of war and disaster.

That is awfully simplistic. There are certainly patriotic criminals.

[kılıç_mehmet]

Well you can, obviously. The smallest form of governmental representation usually knows the people in a community and can actually determine whom they should allow to bear arms.
That is important due to the fact that a patriotic person will not use a weapon in order to commit acts of violence with malign purpose or unlawful monetary gain. You can count on these people to form a militia in times of dire need, whereas you can count on criminals, psychos and people of dubious reputation to use these guns against the people and the state in times of war and disaster.

That is awfully simplistic. There are certainly patriotic criminals.

There are no patriotic criminals. A patriot knows and obeys the law.

[Captain Colostomy]

That is awfully simplistic. There are certainly patriotic criminals.

There are no patriotic criminals. A patriot knows and obeys the law.

King George III disagreed.

[David Sims]

Who wants to take bets on how long it's gonna be before we hear some gun-nut tell us how this never would have happened if the victims were armed, too?

Predicting the inevitable counter-argument, in a way that suggests you've heard it all before and have disproved it already, is the sort of thing the religious people do to atheists. It's a pejorative tactic intended to intimidate those who disagree with you with the prospect of ridicule. In other words, it isn't an argument at all and does not deserve even the status of fallacy.

How, exactly, are you going to prohibit murderers from getting guns? Will you pass a law against gun ownership? If murderers already intend to break a law, the penalty for which is lifetime imprisonment or execution, then what penalty will you attach to unlawful gun possession that will convince a murderer that he had better not touch a gun?

Do you know how long civilizations have been trying to control markets through laws, only to be frustrated by black markets to which criminals have privileged access?

It is a fact that legal jurisdictions having strong gun control usually have higher per capita rates for serious crimes than do jurisdictions having little or no gun control.

The vulnerability of schools to murder-minded predators exists mostly because schools are zones in which the lawful possession of guns is restricted, meaning that the on-site logical defenders of school children are themselves unarmed.

Arming the teachers would provide schools with a depth-of-defense greater than that which can be found by assigning a single police officer to permanent duty on school grounds. And for less cost to the taxpayer. And without the difficulties that might arise because some cops are over-zealous, ego-maniacal, spiteful, paranoid, or corrupt. And this sarcastic talk about "arming the children" is merely so much dishonest distraction.

[Minimalist]

Predicting the inevitable counter-argument, in a way that suggests you've heard it all before and have disproved it already, is the sort of thing the religious people do to atheists.

We have heard it all before from the gun nuts. The NRA is a one-note song on this issue and the dolts who follow them will happily whistle the chorus.