If you're seeing this topic then another mass shooting hap…

On December 20 2012 02:29 Keldrath wrote:


Yes, he is actually an authority on the subject of language. Not only that but he specializes in this very subject of language.

On December 20 2012 02:31 heliusx wrote:


Precisely as I thought. We're done here.

On December 20 2012 02:37 Keldrath wrote:


You do realize that an argument from authority is not a fallacy if the person in question actually is an authority on the subject. Whereas you are making the arguement from authority fallacy because your authority is not an authority on the subject of language and is actually interpreting it their own way to suit their own agenda, well 5 of them are anyways.

They do get the ultimate say for now, but dont pretend they are authorities on the subject we were discussing.

On December 20 2012 02:16 Zaqwe wrote:

Your wild, panicked, fearful fantasy is so detached from reality it would be funny if not for the fact that you are advocating denying people their human right to self defense.

This type of "argumentation" (to be generous) is startlingly typical of gun control advocates. They go off on completely insane rants about how gun ownership will cause some sort of chain reaction apocalypse of shootouts over absolutely nothing.

When you try to show them facts contradictory to their delusions, they are blind to them. When you ask for evidence supporting their doomsday scenario, they go mute.


Yes, please, let's try to be realistic. Let's look at reality instead of writing preposterous fiction about the horrors of people being able to defend themselves instead of being completely helpless.

Spree shootings happen places where guns are banned. By contrast, places where everyone has a gun are incredibly safe. How often do you hear about 26 people being killed by a gunman at a gun show, or an NRA meeting?

It is a disparity in power that encourages violence. What you are advocating is to create a huge disparity in power between law abiding people and criminals, and between citizens and their government.

Just try for a second to observe reality. Look what the gun ban in school zones accomplished. Do you want more of that? If you want more of that, then surely keep at it. But if you think that it was a tragedy and want to prevent them from happening again, gun bans need to be reversed.

On December 20 2012 02:51 heliusx wrote:


....the supreme court is literally the ultimate and final authority on constitutional law.

On December 20 2012 02:52 Simberto wrote:


Well, then just try for a second to observe reality. Look what the ease of availability of guns for everyone has accomplished. Do you want more of that? If you want more of it, then surely keep at it. But if you think that higher murder rates then any other first world country, more gun accidents then any other first world country and a higher lethality rate of violent crimes then in any other first world country is a tragedy, then gun bans need to be increased.

The problem is that you got half-assed laws, because working laws get prevented by your gun lobby. Those half-assed laws only do a half-assed job. If everyone has access to guns, then of course someone can take a gun into a no-gun zone. Thus, they are not really effective at preventing this specific type of tragedy. They are pretty effective at preventing others, though. The problem is the first part of the statement, not the second. The fact alone that you think it is a reasonable system to have armed teachers in schools as a means to protect the children is pretty funny to anyone who is not from the US. Strangely enough, no other country appears to need to arm its teachers to protect the children in school, or has ever felt the need to do so.

But i just remembered why i usually stay out of these debates. If you really want to, you can keep shooting each other in the US all day long, if you all agree that that is how things should be, who am i to disagree. Meanwhile i will stay here in germany, knowing that my chance to be shot is about 10 times lower then yours. And if we exclude suicide, it is 50 times lower.

On December 20 2012 03:09 Simberto wrote:
As i said, what caused the death of 26 innocent people was NOT that there were no guns in that school, it was that a lunatic could easily get an automatic rifle.

Upon seeing the result of easily available weapons cause the death of 26 innocent people, 20 of them children, what makes you want to keep that, or even expand it? Was it such a great success?

On December 20 2012 03:09 Simberto wrote:
As i said, what caused the death of 26 innocent people was NOT that there were no guns in that school, it was that a lunatic could easily get an automatic rifle.

Speculation on what he might have done without one is as futile as speculating how those supermen teachers would have protected the children, guns blazing.

Upon seeing the result of easily available weapons cause the death of 26 innocent people, 20 of them children, what makes you want to keep that, or even expand it? Was it such a great success?

On December 20 2012 03:09 Simberto wrote:
As i said, what caused the death of 26 innocent people was NOT that there were no guns in that school, it was that a lunatic could easily get an automatic rifle.

Speculation on what he might have done without one is as futile as speculating how those supermen teachers would have protected the children, guns blazing.

Upon seeing the result of easily available weapons cause the death of 26 innocent people, 20 of them children, what makes you want to keep that, or even expand it? Was it such a great success?

On December 20 2012 01:59 micronesia wrote:

Fully automatic guns are almost completely illegal in the USA fyi, including the m16, for civilians.

I like the idea of reducing bullet capacity in legal guns, but I'm not sure how to do it. If everything stays the same except a limit is placed on clip size, then well, it's really easy to make a bigger clip illegally.

On December 20 2012 03:27 Warheart wrote:


criminals do not need to manufacture bigger clips,they are already avaliable in the black market; the point is that if someone who buys legally a weapon goes nuts,he does not have in his hands a gun that can potentially kill 30 people before he even has to reload. someone who buys a gun for self defense won't need a bigger clip anyway.

On December 20 2012 03:27 Warheart wrote:


criminals do not need to manufacture bigger clips,they are already avaliable in the black market; the point is that if someone who buys legally a weapon goes nuts,he does not have in his hands a gun that can potentially kill 30 people before he even has to reload. someone who buys a gun for self defense won't need a bigger clip anyway.

On December 20 2012 03:09 Simberto wrote:
As i said, what caused the death of 26 innocent people was NOT that there were no guns in that school, it was that a lunatic could easily get an automatic rifle.

On December 20 2012 03:09 Simberto wrote:
Speculation on what he might have done without one is as futile as speculating how those supermen teachers would have protected the children, guns blazing.

On December 20 2012 03:09 Simberto wrote:
Upon seeing the result of easily available weapons cause the death of 26 innocent people, 20 of them children, what makes you want to keep that, or even expand it? Was it such a great success?

On December 20 2012 03:18 Sermokala wrote:


It was a semi automatic rifle that he stole from his mom after failing to get one himself because of gun control. Guns aren't that easily obtainable as your insinuating. Its not really a great success if your not allowed to use your guns in certain areas for no logical reason "gun free zones" are the thing that costs innocent lives the most when atrocities like this happen.

People act like there hasn't been worse massacres in schools because of bombs and that only guns are used to commit mass murder. the horrible stigma behind getting mental health and the systems complete failing to treat anyone who needs it are as much the problem as people who don't lock up their guns well enough.