The "Fuck my life" thread

[rumsfald]

Seabreeze, in that China story, 22 kids were stabbed, but none died. That's a bullshit comparison to 20 dead kids. I don't disagree that mentally ill people can do violent things, but those with guns are more deadly than those with knives.

Why is it ok to talk about preventing some countries from getting nuclear weapons but it's not ok to talk about preventing some people from getting guns?

[Dtrain323i]

Seabreeze, in that China story, 22 kids were stabbed, but none died. That's a bullshit comparison to 20 dead kids. I don't disagree that mentally ill people can do violent things, but those with guns are more deadly than those with knives.

Why is it ok to talk about preventing some countries from getting nuclear weapons but it's not ok to talk about preventing some people from getting guns?

Because, we gun owners learned through the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s that it doesn't stop with "some people". The ultimate goal has been and always will be full disarmament. We gun owners have learned that if we give an inch, the anti-gun crowd will take a mile. It starts with "well we just need to make sure the mentally ill can't get firearms" and it ends with Diane Feinstein saying "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in" And in the end, nothing changes. The only people you stop from getting firearms are law-abiding citizens.

Connecticut is number 5 on the Brady campaign's ranking of gun law restrictiveness, New Jersey is number 2. Federal law says elementary schools are "gun-free zones". Federal laws also say that it's illegal for someone under the age of 21 to buy a handgun. Connecticut has an "assault weapons" ban. You tell me how any gun laws saved a child yesterday.

What really needs to happen is a reform of mental health. The shooter had Autism and was in the prime age for the onset of Schizophrenia. The way the system is set up is barbaric. My wife teaches children with Autism and behavioral disorders at a school geared toward them. She's had parents of children in her classroom have to go to court and give up parental rights before any help was available to their children. How fucked up is that?

[kaese]

[quote author=rumsfald link=topic=3709.msg258495#msg258495 date=1355584387]
Seabreeze, in that China story, 22 kids were stabbed, but none died. That's a bullshit comparison to 20 dead kids. I don't disagree that mentally ill people can do violent things, but those with guns are more deadly than those with knives.

Why is it ok to talk about preventing some countries from getting nuclear weapons but it's not ok to talk about preventing some people from getting guns?

Because, we gun owners learned through the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s that it doesn't stop with "some people". The ultimate goal has been and always will be full disarmament. We gun owners have learned that if we give an inch, the anti-gun crowd will take a mile. It starts with "well we just need to make sure the mentally ill can't get firearms" and it ends with Diane Feinstein saying "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in" And in the end, nothing changes. The only people you stop from getting firearms are law-abiding citizens.

Connecticut is number 5 on the Brady campaign's ranking of gun law restrictiveness, New Jersey is number 2. Federal law says elementary schools are "gun-free zones". Federal laws also say that it's illegal for someone under the age of 21 to buy a handgun. Connecticut has an "assault weapons" ban. You tell me how any gun laws saved a child yesterday.

What really needs to happen is a reform of mental health. The shooter had Autism and was in the prime age for the onset of Schizophrenia. The way the system is set up is barbaric. My wife teaches children with Autism and behavioral disorders at a school geared toward them. She's had parents of children in her classroom have to go to court and give up parental rights before any help was available to their children. How fucked up is that?
[/quote]
China has extremely strict gun laws. One of my relatives is a police chief and nobody is allowed to have a gun, even the police officers don't carry guns regularly like you would see in the US. They only carry batons or something similar.
So if the US were to try banning certain people from buying guns, in order to be 100% effective I think they would have to ban guns for everyone, as you said, full disarmament. Of course this would not go over well with those that own guns but it is far too easy for someone say underage to steal their dad's gun or have a connection with someone who can get a gun for them.
It's true that "law-abiding citizens" will have to turn their guns in but is owning a gun really necessary if nobody else has one? Do you still need it for "protection" anymore?
There also needs to be an improvement to the mental healthcare system, and the healthcare system in general, but you can't say that gun laws won't help reduce fatality rates at all. If nobody had guns to shoot people with, would all those children have died?

[Dtrain323i]

[quote author=Dtrain323i link=topic=3709.msg258500#msg258500 date=1355588678]
[quote author=rumsfald link=topic=3709.msg258495#msg258495 date=1355584387]
Seabreeze, in that China story, 22 kids were stabbed, but none died. That's a bullshit comparison to 20 dead kids. I don't disagree that mentally ill people can do violent things, but those with guns are more deadly than those with knives.

Why is it ok to talk about preventing some countries from getting nuclear weapons but it's not ok to talk about preventing some people from getting guns?

Because, we gun owners learned through the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s that it doesn't stop with "some people". The ultimate goal has been and always will be full disarmament. We gun owners have learned that if we give an inch, the anti-gun crowd will take a mile. It starts with "well we just need to make sure the mentally ill can't get firearms" and it ends with Diane Feinstein saying "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in" And in the end, nothing changes. The only people you stop from getting firearms are law-abiding citizens.

Connecticut is number 5 on the Brady campaign's ranking of gun law restrictiveness, New Jersey is number 2. Federal law says elementary schools are "gun-free zones". Federal laws also say that it's illegal for someone under the age of 21 to buy a handgun. Connecticut has an "assault weapons" ban. You tell me how any gun laws saved a child yesterday.

What really needs to happen is a reform of mental health. The shooter had Autism and was in the prime age for the onset of Schizophrenia. The way the system is set up is barbaric. My wife teaches children with Autism and behavioral disorders at a school geared toward them. She's had parents of children in her classroom have to go to court and give up parental rights before any help was available to their children. How fucked up is that?
[/quote]
China has extremely strict gun laws. One of my relatives is a police chief and nobody is allowed to have a gun, even the police officers don't carry guns regularly like you would see in the US. They only carry batons or something similar.
So if the US were to try banning certain people from buying guns, in order to be 100% effective I think they would have to ban guns for everyone, as you said, full disarmament. Of course this would not go over well with those that own guns but it is far too easy for someone say underage to steal their dad's gun or have a connection with someone who can get a gun for them.
It's true that "law-abiding citizens" will have to turn their guns in but is owning a gun really necessary if nobody else has one? Do you still need it for "protection" anymore?
There also needs to be an improvement to the mental healthcare system, and the healthcare system in general, but you can't say that gun laws won't help reduce fatality rates at all. If nobody had guns to shoot people with, would all those children have died?

[/quote]

China's gun laws did zero to keep children safe yesterday. Just because the guns go away does not mean the violence goes away. There will still be robbers and rapists out there and the police can't protect you. Hell, the supreme court has said that they don't even has a duty to protect you. The only person who can protect you, is you. I've said it before, I've had to use a firearm to protect myself in the past. Thank God that I only had to present it and never had to fire it. But if it weren't for a gun, who knows where I would be today.

Disarmament also in the end would never be fully successful. There are something like 300 million firearms in circulation in the United States. Not every one of them are "on the books" and a lot of people aren't going to abide by a confiscation. I know I wouldn't.

[kaese]

[quote author=Käse link=topic=3709.msg258503#msg258503 date=1355590076]
[quote author=Dtrain323i link=topic=3709.msg258500#msg258500 date=1355588678]
[quote author=rumsfald link=topic=3709.msg258495#msg258495 date=1355584387]
Seabreeze, in that China story, 22 kids were stabbed, but none died. That's a bullshit comparison to 20 dead kids. I don't disagree that mentally ill people can do violent things, but those with guns are more deadly than those with knives.

Why is it ok to talk about preventing some countries from getting nuclear weapons but it's not ok to talk about preventing some people from getting guns?

Because, we gun owners learned through the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s that it doesn't stop with "some people". The ultimate goal has been and always will be full disarmament. We gun owners have learned that if we give an inch, the anti-gun crowd will take a mile. It starts with "well we just need to make sure the mentally ill can't get firearms" and it ends with Diane Feinstein saying "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in" And in the end, nothing changes. The only people you stop from getting firearms are law-abiding citizens.

Connecticut is number 5 on the Brady campaign's ranking of gun law restrictiveness, New Jersey is number 2. Federal law says elementary schools are "gun-free zones". Federal laws also say that it's illegal for someone under the age of 21 to buy a handgun. Connecticut has an "assault weapons" ban. You tell me how any gun laws saved a child yesterday.

What really needs to happen is a reform of mental health. The shooter had Autism and was in the prime age for the onset of Schizophrenia. The way the system is set up is barbaric. My wife teaches children with Autism and behavioral disorders at a school geared toward them. She's had parents of children in her classroom have to go to court and give up parental rights before any help was available to their children. How fucked up is that?
[/quote]
China has extremely strict gun laws. One of my relatives is a police chief and nobody is allowed to have a gun, even the police officers don't carry guns regularly like you would see in the US. They only carry batons or something similar.
So if the US were to try banning certain people from buying guns, in order to be 100% effective I think they would have to ban guns for everyone, as you said, full disarmament. Of course this would not go over well with those that own guns but it is far too easy for someone say underage to steal their dad's gun or have a connection with someone who can get a gun for them.
It's true that "law-abiding citizens" will have to turn their guns in but is owning a gun really necessary if nobody else has one? Do you still need it for "protection" anymore?
There also needs to be an improvement to the mental healthcare system, and the healthcare system in general, but you can't say that gun laws won't help reduce fatality rates at all. If nobody had guns to shoot people with, would all those children have died?

[/quote]

China's gun laws did zero to keep children safe yesterday. Just because the guns go away does not mean the violence goes away. There will still be robbers and rapists out there and the police can't protect you. Hell, the supreme court has said that they don't even has a duty to protect you. The only person who can protect you, is you. I've said it before, I've had to use a firearm to protect myself in the past. Thank God that I only had to present it and never had to fire it. But if it weren't for a gun, who knows where I would be today.

Disarmament also in the end would never be fully successful. There are something like 300 million firearms in circulation in the United States. Not every one of them are "on the books" and a lot of people aren't going to abide by a confiscation. I know I wouldn't.
[/quote]
And that is why it won't be successful. The general selfishness of people, or their paranoia, will prevent full disarmament.
I suppose one way of enforcing this would be to have more severe consequences for those found to have kept their gun when they were supposed to turn them in. Using China as an example again, an illegal possession or sale of firearms there may result in a minimum punishment of 3 years in prison, with the maximum being the death penalty. If the only consequence for owning a gun is a slap on the wrist and a monetary fine, then you'll have more people willing to rebel against the law.

There will always be violence in the world, to think otherwise is very naive. What I was saying is that restriction of gun possession for everyone will reduce the fatality rate from violent crimes. It's certainly more difficult to one-hit-kill a person with a knife than with a bullet.

[Dtrain323i]

[quote author=Dtrain323i link=topic=3709.msg258504#msg258504 date=1355591011]
[quote author=Käse link=topic=3709.msg258503#msg258503 date=1355590076]
[quote author=Dtrain323i link=topic=3709.msg258500#msg258500 date=1355588678]
[quote author=rumsfald link=topic=3709.msg258495#msg258495 date=1355584387]
Seabreeze, in that China story, 22 kids were stabbed, but none died. That's a bullshit comparison to 20 dead kids. I don't disagree that mentally ill people can do violent things, but those with guns are more deadly than those with knives.

Why is it ok to talk about preventing some countries from getting nuclear weapons but it's not ok to talk about preventing some people from getting guns?

Because, we gun owners learned through the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s that it doesn't stop with "some people". The ultimate goal has been and always will be full disarmament. We gun owners have learned that if we give an inch, the anti-gun crowd will take a mile. It starts with "well we just need to make sure the mentally ill can't get firearms" and it ends with Diane Feinstein saying "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in" And in the end, nothing changes. The only people you stop from getting firearms are law-abiding citizens.

Connecticut is number 5 on the Brady campaign's ranking of gun law restrictiveness, New Jersey is number 2. Federal law says elementary schools are "gun-free zones". Federal laws also say that it's illegal for someone under the age of 21 to buy a handgun. Connecticut has an "assault weapons" ban. You tell me how any gun laws saved a child yesterday.

What really needs to happen is a reform of mental health. The shooter had Autism and was in the prime age for the onset of Schizophrenia. The way the system is set up is barbaric. My wife teaches children with Autism and behavioral disorders at a school geared toward them. She's had parents of children in her classroom have to go to court and give up parental rights before any help was available to their children. How fucked up is that?
[/quote]
China has extremely strict gun laws. One of my relatives is a police chief and nobody is allowed to have a gun, even the police officers don't carry guns regularly like you would see in the US. They only carry batons or something similar.
So if the US were to try banning certain people from buying guns, in order to be 100% effective I think they would have to ban guns for everyone, as you said, full disarmament. Of course this would not go over well with those that own guns but it is far too easy for someone say underage to steal their dad's gun or have a connection with someone who can get a gun for them.
It's true that "law-abiding citizens" will have to turn their guns in but is owning a gun really necessary if nobody else has one? Do you still need it for "protection" anymore?
There also needs to be an improvement to the mental healthcare system, and the healthcare system in general, but you can't say that gun laws won't help reduce fatality rates at all. If nobody had guns to shoot people with, would all those children have died?

[/quote]

China's gun laws did zero to keep children safe yesterday. Just because the guns go away does not mean the violence goes away. There will still be robbers and rapists out there and the police can't protect you. Hell, the supreme court has said that they don't even has a duty to protect you. The only person who can protect you, is you. I've said it before, I've had to use a firearm to protect myself in the past. Thank God that I only had to present it and never had to fire it. But if it weren't for a gun, who knows where I would be today.

Disarmament also in the end would never be fully successful. There are something like 300 million firearms in circulation in the United States. Not every one of them are "on the books" and a lot of people aren't going to abide by a confiscation. I know I wouldn't.
[/quote]
And that is why it won't be successful. The general selfishness of people, or their paranoia, will prevent full disarmament.
I suppose one way of enforcing this would be to have more severe consequences for those found to have kept their gun when they were supposed to turn them in. Using China as an example again, an illegal possession or sale of firearms there may result in a minimum punishment of 3 years in prison, with the maximum being the death penalty. If the only consequence for owning a gun is a slap on the wrist and a monetary fine, then you'll have more people willing to rebel against the law.

There will always be violence in the world, to think otherwise is very naive. What I was saying is that restriction of gun possession for everyone will reduce the fatality rate from violent crimes. It's certainly more difficult to one-hit-kill a person with a knife than with a bullet.
[/quote]

What about rape? How does a 120 pound girl defend herself against a 220 pound man? Is being raped morally superior to having guns in the world? What you propose would turn me into a criminal overnight.

[cbre88x]

I don't disagree that mentally ill people can do violent things, but those with guns are more deadly than those with knives.

So take away guns? What do you have left?

A person with a psychological issue. Therefore, you have overlooked the root of the issue. There are still plenty of things the person can use to harm others. To look past the mental illness further proves my original statement. BTW, those kids in China are extremely lucky. It's not like stabbings are much less traumatic to the human body than a bullet.

So how much more would you regulate guns in the case of the incident from yesterday? The kid was twenty, the guns used were pistols...registered under his mother's name. He wouldn't even be legally allowed to purchase a pistol.

What else? Violent video games. Oh Gawd. Fox News has blown this up all morning. Calling the kid an "expert video gamer" and making drastic claims that the kid can learn shooting accuracy from a video game. Like it doesn't take legitimate practice from actual use. *Facepalm* The guy even said something about changing the games rating system...*eye roll*

[cbre88x]

Making a separate posts just to make sure this is seen.

This is about the illusion of safety. No matter what, there will be people out there who do bad things. Take away all the dangerous objects..and people will strangle one another.

This shows a little more of what my original statements were saying: http://i.imgur.com/SgBpA.jpg

[A. Crow]

As I sat in the "Armed Services Freedom Center" (seriously, where the fuck is the USO when you need something a little less... well, just Less) of the Detroit airport last night, local coverage was all over some newly passed legislation that would expand Concealed Carry to churches, some state government buildings AND schools.  The bill is currently sitting on the governors desk waiting to be signed into law, he hasn't publicly gone one way or the other on it.  I think he's being rather smart about- to sit on it for a bit for the fervor to die down, because supports on both sides have latched onto this latest episode of heinous violence to try to bolster their argument.  

Listening to interviews from supports on both sides, I'm pretty sure they're all idiots.  

Passing a law like this is not going to make it legal for some 15 year old to carry in his high school.  On the other side of the fence, from the woman who was open carrying her AR-15 in red status with it chow-slung, but muzzle up, I don't fucking care what she has to say, someone take that weapon from her.  I hate zealots.

Back to the shooting, the "we need better mental health" argument seems to be winning over the "we need tighter gun control" Which, you really can't complain about, because we really do need better mental healthcare.  I'm not really for gun control, I'm an advocate of if someone barges into your classroom, or your theater and starts shooting, the correct response is for everyone to run towards him, or shoot him.  But trust me, you do not want America to turn into the fucking wild west again.    Which I swear is what some of these activists want.  

If you REALLY REALLY want to be able to carry on school grounds, in churches, everywhere, and that's the only way you feel comfortable, then you shouldn't have a fucking weapon in the first place.  Can we get that written into law?

[kaese]

[quote author=Käse link=topic=3709.msg258505#msg258505 date=1355591795]
guns

What about rape? How does a 120 pound girl defend herself against a 220 pound man? Is being raped morally superior to having guns in the world? What you propose would turn me into a criminal overnight.
[/quote]
Are you saying that a girl about to be raped has the right to shoot and kill the rapist? There are plenty of idiot women out there who falsely claim that they were raped, do you really want to give them the power to kill you and claim it was in self-defense?
On the topic of rape, what is more important than self-defense is preventing future rapists. The priority should be put on teaching boys/men that it is not OK to rape anyone and that nobody owes you sex.

[cbre88x]

As I sat in the "Armed Services Freedom Center" (seriously, where the fuck is the USO when you need something a little less... well, just Less) of the Detroit airport last night, local coverage was all over some newly passed legislation that would expand Concealed Carry to churches, some state government buildings AND schools.  The bill is currently sitting on the governors desk waiting to be signed into law, he hasn't publicly gone one way or the other on it.  I think he's being rather smart about- to sit on it for a bit for the fervor to die down, because supports on both sides have latched onto this latest episode of heinous violence to try to bolster their argument. 

Now that is just damn stupid. A 21st century wild west we do not need.

[HeK]

On the topic of rape, what is more important than self-defense is preventing future rapists. The priority should be put on teaching boys/men people that it is not OK to rape anyone and that nobody owes you sex.

[cbre88x]

[quote author=Käse link=topic=3709.msg258510#msg258510 date=1355593520]
On the topic of rape, what is more important than self-defense is preventing future rapists. The priority should be put on teaching boys/men people that it is not OK to rape anyone and that nobody owes you sex.

[/quote]

+1

[Dtrain323i]

[quote author=Dtrain323i link=topic=3709.msg258506#msg258506 date=1355592268]
[quote author=Käse link=topic=3709.msg258505#msg258505 date=1355591795]
guns

What about rape? How does a 120 pound girl defend herself against a 220 pound man? Is being raped morally superior to having guns in the world? What you propose would turn me into a criminal overnight.
[/quote]
Are you saying that a girl about to be raped has the right to shoot and kill the rapist? There are plenty of idiot women out there who falsely claim that they were raped, do you really want to give them the power to kill you and claim it was in self-defense?
On the topic of rape, what is more important than self-defense is preventing future rapists. The priority should be put on teaching boys/men that it is not OK to rape anyone and that nobody owes you sex.

[/quote]

The guy who raped my mother-in-law broke in through the garage, forced her at knifepoint to drive to an ATM and take out money, then drive back to her house where he raped her on the kitchen floor. How exactly is that little infographic going to prevent that?

[kaese]

[quote author=Käse link=topic=3709.msg258510#msg258510 date=1355593520]
[quote author=Dtrain323i link=topic=3709.msg258506#msg258506 date=1355592268]
[quote author=Käse link=topic=3709.msg258505#msg258505 date=1355591795]
guns

What about rape? How does a 120 pound girl defend herself against a 220 pound man? Is being raped morally superior to having guns in the world? What you propose would turn me into a criminal overnight.
[/quote]
Are you saying that a girl about to be raped has the right to shoot and kill the rapist? There are plenty of idiot women out there who falsely claim that they were raped, do you really want to give them the power to kill you and claim it was in self-defense?
On the topic of rape, what is more important than self-defense is preventing future rapists. The priority should be put on teaching boys/men that it is not OK to rape anyone and that nobody owes you sex.

[/quote]

The guy who raped my mother-in-law broke in through the garage, forced her at knifepoint to drive to an ATM and take out money, then drive back to her house where he raped her on the kitchen floor. How exactly is that little infographic going to prevent that?


[/quote]
The poster is just an attention-grabber showing that the only sure way to prevent rape is to prevent rapists. No rapists = no rape victims = no rape. Hooray.

Why do people rape?
What can we do to help rapists realize that their reasons for raping someone are not valid reasons?
Why do rapists think it's OK to rape someone but not OK to do other things that are equally bad?
The permanent solution to preventing rape is not waving a weapon around, but rather rape education. Sure possessing a gun may deter the rapist but it won't decrease the number of rapists in the world (unless you kill them with the gun).

[Dtrain323i]

[quote author=Dtrain323i link=topic=3709.msg258516#msg258516 date=1355594361]
[quote author=Käse link=topic=3709.msg258510#msg258510 date=1355593520]
[quote author=Dtrain323i link=topic=3709.msg258506#msg258506 date=1355592268]
[quote author=Käse link=topic=3709.msg258505#msg258505 date=1355591795]
guns

What about rape? How does a 120 pound girl defend herself against a 220 pound man? Is being raped morally superior to having guns in the world? What you propose would turn me into a criminal overnight.
[/quote]
Are you saying that a girl about to be raped has the right to shoot and kill the rapist? There are plenty of idiot women out there who falsely claim that they were raped, do you really want to give them the power to kill you and claim it was in self-defense?
On the topic of rape, what is more important than self-defense is preventing future rapists. The priority should be put on teaching boys/men that it is not OK to rape anyone and that nobody owes you sex.

[/quote]

The guy who raped my mother-in-law broke in through the garage, forced her at knifepoint to drive to an ATM and take out money, then drive back to her house where he raped her on the kitchen floor. How exactly is that little infographic going to prevent that?


[/quote]
The poster is just an attention-grabber showing that the only sure way to prevent rape is to prevent rapists. No rapists = no rape victims = no rape. Hooray.

Why do people rape?
What can we do to help rapists realize that their reasons for raping someone are not valid reasons?
Why do rapists think it's OK to rape someone but not OK to do other things that are equally bad?
The permanent solution to preventing rape is not waving a weapon around, but rather rape education. Sure possessing a gun may deter the rapist but it won't decrease the number of rapists in the world (unless you kill them with the gun).
[/quote]

You seem to think that with the right words, bad people will magically go away. You'll never ever eliminate violent crime. There will always be a need for people to protect themselves.

Do you know where modern gun control laws originated? In the deep south as a way prevent blacks from arming themselves to fight the KKK. The entire gun control argument has it's roots in racism.

[kaese]

[quote author=Käse link=topic=3709.msg258517#msg258517 date=1355595390]
[quote author=Dtrain323i link=topic=3709.msg258516#msg258516 date=1355594361]
[quote author=Käse link=topic=3709.msg258510#msg258510 date=1355593520]
[quote author=Dtrain323i link=topic=3709.msg258506#msg258506 date=1355592268]
[quote author=Käse link=topic=3709.msg258505#msg258505 date=1355591795]
guns

What about rape? How does a 120 pound girl defend herself against a 220 pound man? Is being raped morally superior to having guns in the world? What you propose would turn me into a criminal overnight.
[/quote]
Are you saying that a girl about to be raped has the right to shoot and kill the rapist? There are plenty of idiot women out there who falsely claim that they were raped, do you really want to give them the power to kill you and claim it was in self-defense?
On the topic of rape, what is more important than self-defense is preventing future rapists. The priority should be put on teaching boys/men that it is not OK to rape anyone and that nobody owes you sex.

[/quote]

The guy who raped my mother-in-law broke in through the garage, forced her at knifepoint to drive to an ATM and take out money, then drive back to her house where he raped her on the kitchen floor. How exactly is that little infographic going to prevent that?


[/quote]
The poster is just an attention-grabber showing that the only sure way to prevent rape is to prevent rapists. No rapists = no rape victims = no rape. Hooray.

Why do people rape?
What can we do to help rapists realize that their reasons for raping someone are not valid reasons?
Why do rapists think it's OK to rape someone but not OK to do other things that are equally bad?
The permanent solution to preventing rape is not waving a weapon around, but rather rape education. Sure possessing a gun may deter the rapist but it won't decrease the number of rapists in the world (unless you kill them with the gun).
[/quote]

You seem to think that with the right words, bad people will magically go away. You'll never ever eliminate violent crime. There will always be a need for people to protect themselves.

Do you know where modern gun control laws originated? In the deep south as a way prevent blacks from arming themselves to fight the KKK. The entire gun control argument has it's roots in racism.
[/quote]

I understand where you're coming from with your opinions but you don't seem to understand my stance on these issues after several posts and you're now implying that gun control=racism. I'm not even sure how you went from gun control to rape to racism.
I'll leave it at "we will agree to disagree".

[rumsfald]

Back to the shooting, the "we need better mental health" argument seems to be winning over the "we need tighter gun control" 

Which is a predictable red herring that gets trotted out every time one of these monsters does something that incomprehensibly horrid. However, the link between mental illness causing violence is just as speculative and uninformed as the purported link between violent video games and violence. Cite and cite and cite. People who try to shift the focus onto mental health issues are either ignorant of the science or deliberately trying to avoid a discussion of sensible gun policies.

It seems most have ignored my initial question in order to fall back to familiar defense lines. I asked, "Why is it ok to talk about preventing some countries from getting nuclear weapons but it's not ok to talk about preventing some people from getting guns?"

I think Kase got the closest to responding when she said, "The general selfishness of people, or their paranoia, will prevent full disarmament." The US will never fully nuclear disarm, because we as a country always want that level of lethal defense in case some other country tries to come and "rape" America.

However, when another country, like Iran, wants nukes to defend themselves, we, as Americans oppose. Even when Iran can say, "Look America, you just came over here and "raped" my neighbor, Iraq, for 10 years, I want to be able to defend myself if you come into my castle."

So, when it comes to some arms (the biggest), we as individual American citizens are comfortable with saying that "we can trust some people with this weapon, but not others."

At this point, let's reflect on the above and see if there is any dissent. Does anyone disagree that it's OK for the US to have a nuclear deterrence but to actively work to prevent other, less trustworthy, nations to obtain the same? Some of you may feel the kneejerk impulse to object to comparing nukes to handguns. Resist that urge, as there's very little difference. They are both instruments designed to project lethal force, the only real difference is how many people get kills per second you can rack up. Knives are certainly lethal too, but most people interested in self defense chose a firearm as it enables a faster kill per second than a knife. 

Now, when it comes to small arms, it seems that we, as Americans, often take the opposite view of nuke control, and don't want to talk about preventing any group of Americans access to lethal force. While it is ok to fear that Hizbollah Terrorists will come and nuke our city, it's not ok to worry that our neighbor's kid will bring dad's gun to school and take out his classmates.

Schizophrenia means "split mind." If there is schizophrenia here, it's double standard between how we talk about international violence (war) and how we talk about violence at home (crime). And I'm honestly asking folks for their perspective on why one is ok and the other is not.

***

Because, we gun owners learned through the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s that it doesn't stop with "some people".

I must have slept through the great gun prohibition, because I have no idea what you are referring to. What are these bad regulations that you allude to and what deleterious effects did they have on society?

[Vandamguy]

for illustrative purposes i will present Dtrain's point in hyperbole:

the only way to stop gun violence is to give everyone guns

then there wont be any more rapes or racism.

[A. Crow]

A hand gun and a nuke are different.  And it's not just about casualty rate over time.  My group of people are mine, I am part of a whole, and we do things collectively as a whole.  And while it's not OK for one of my group to kill another individual because they feel like it, according to most of society, it is OK for me to go shoot that Other Motherfucker in the face, because that Other Motherfucker, and his 10,000 closest friends are really intent on killing me and my 10,000 closest friends.  But you can not just add up 10,000 murders and have a war.  That's not what war is.  War is the one group of people working to impose their will over another group, murder is just the a method.  

Back to the point, I can kill you with a gun, but I can kill your society with nukes.  It will leave a scar across your national identity that will never be forgotten, if there is any identity left.  Why is it wrong for me to kill you individually, but OK to kill your society?  Probably because my society is going to benefit from the disappearance of yours, but if I kill someone inside my group, it might harm the group.  

Also, I'm ok with having the biggest stick on the block and actively keeping other people from getting one just as big, because at some point I might have to use it and who wants to actually fight a fair fight?