Guns in Schools

[Gauthier]

We need guns to protect ourselves from bears. Obviously.

Shouldn't be too long before Betsy mandates firearms as school supply.

[Telconi]

"Everything that matters"

Quality of life, human rights, democracy, safety, etc.

Quality of life is subjective. Human rights are subjective. Governmental system is subjective. Safety can apply to any number of things, and without clarification is meaningless. Etc.

[Telconi]

We need guns to protect ourselves from bears. Obviously.

Shouldn't be too long before Betsy mandates firearms as school supply.

Betsy DeVos for President!

[McFreedomstan]

Nazi Germany had gun control and they killed 12 million people,The Soviet Union had gun control and killed 20 million people,Mao's China had gun control killed 70-40 million people.
So Yes yes it does.

Any examples from this century? No? Funny, that.

Myanmar, South Sudan, Mexico, Thailand, Kenya, Colombia, Brazil, Liberia.

[Brkelgarozed]

Nazi Germany had gun control and they killed 12 million people,The Soviet Union had gun control and killed 20 million people,Mao's China had gun control killed 70-40 million people.
So Yes yes it does.

Any examples from this century? No? Funny, that.

Yes I do https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocid ... is_by_ISIL
North Korea still is killing people http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/arti ... orth-korea’s-prison-state

[Trotskylvania]

*looks at international rankings on everything that matters*

No, no it isn't.

Nazi Germany had gun control and they killed 12 million people,The Soviet Union had gun control and killed 20 million people,Mao's China had gun control killed 70-40 million people.
So Yes yes it does.

The Nazi regime loosened restrictions on guns. The previous Weimar era gun laws had been instituted to disarm the paramilitary groups like the SA or the RFKL and prevent them from overthrowing the state. Don't try to shoehorn Nazism into your narrative.

Furthermore, Soviet gun control wasn't even that strict outside of the OGPU confiscating guns during the collectivization. Most people in rural areas hunted for pleasure or to support their livelihood, and even Komosol (communist Boy Scouts) had access to firearms and training.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

*looks at international rankings on everything that matters*

No, no it isn't.

Nazi Germany had gun control and they killed 12 million people,The Soviet Union had gun control and killed 20 million people,Mao's China had gun control killed 70-40 million people.
So Yes yes it does.

Goodwins Law fallacy right there.

And a False Cause fallacy too.

[Brkelgarozed]

Nazi Germany had gun control and they killed 12 million people,The Soviet Union had gun control and killed 20 million people,Mao's China had gun control killed 70-40 million people.
So Yes yes it does.

The Nazi regime loosened restrictions on guns. The previous Weimar era gun laws had been instituted to disarm the paramilitary groups like the SA or the RFKL and prevent them from overthrowing the state. Don't try to shoehorn Nazism into your narrative.

Furthermore, Soviet gun control wasn't even that strict outside of the OGPU confiscating guns during the collectivization. Most people in rural areas hunted for pleasure or to support their livelihood, and even Komosol (communist Boy Scouts) had access to firearms and training.

Most people in rural areas hunted for pleasure or to support their livelihood, and even Komosol (communist Boy Scouts) had access to firearms and training. And the Soviets could of taken their guns whenever they wanted to. And of course the Communist Boy Scouts had guns
they where loyal to the state.
The previous Weimar era gun laws had been instituted to disarm the paramilitary groups like the SA or the RFKL and prevent them from overthrowing the state. Don't try to shoehorn Nazism into your narrative. Weimar Republic was a failed state with a failed economy mostly do the very unfair treaty of Versailles so it had weak government and do you see any paramilitary groups in the US today? Answer is no,no their is not.

[Ifreann]

*looks at international rankings on everything that matters*

No, no it isn't.

Nazi Germany had gun control and they killed 12 million people,The Soviet Union had gun control and killed 20 million people,Mao's China had gun control killed 70-40 million people.
So Yes yes it does.

Know which other countries have gun control?

All of them.

[Brkelgarozed]

Nazi Germany had gun control and they killed 12 million people,The Soviet Union had gun control and killed 20 million people,Mao's China had gun control killed 70-40 million people.
So Yes yes it does.

Goodwins Law fallacy right there.

And a False Cause fallacy too.

And when liberals say more guns equals more crime it is all so a false cause fallacy to because guns per person rate has increased in US and violent crime as decreased so yeah.
And if those Jews,Homosexuals,communists,etc. had guns they have could of defended themselves. And same for the Russians and the Chinese. So people have right to defend themselves from the government and anything else attacks them.

[Brkelgarozed]

Nazi Germany had gun control and they killed 12 million people,The Soviet Union had gun control and killed 20 million people,Mao's China had gun control killed 70-40 million people.
So Yes yes it does.

Know which other countries have gun control?

All of them.

Gun control like the government takeing your guns and disarming the population.

[Trotskylvania]

The Nazi regime loosened restrictions on guns. The previous Weimar era gun laws had been instituted to disarm the paramilitary groups like the SA or the RFKL and prevent them from overthrowing the state. Don't try to shoehorn Nazism into your narrative.

Furthermore, Soviet gun control wasn't even that strict outside of the OGPU confiscating guns during the collectivization. Most people in rural areas hunted for pleasure or to support their livelihood, and even Komosol (communist Boy Scouts) had access to firearms and training.

Most people in rural areas hunted for pleasure or to support their livelihood, and even Komosol (communist Boy Scouts) had access to firearms and training. And the Soviets could of taken their guns whenever they wanted to. And of course the Communist Boy Scouts had guns
they where loyal to the state.
The previous Weimar era gun laws had been instituted to disarm the paramilitary groups like the SA or the RFKL and prevent them from overthrowing the state. Don't try to shoehorn Nazism into your narrative. Weimar Republic was a failed state with a failed economy mostly do the very unfair treaty of Versailles so it had weak government and do you see any paramilitary groups in the US today? Answer is no,no their is not.

And yet they didn't. The Soviet Union had a sizeable population of armed civilians. It did absolutely nothing to prevent the state from exercising control. The idea that gun owning civilians are any sort of protection against tyranny is a fanciful one, and the idea that tyrannies always begin by disarming the population is also clearly false.

Your attempts to use the tragedy of the Great Purge and the Holocaust to fit your agenda are both transparently opportunistic and contradicted by the factual reality. Nazi Germany had a very high degree of civilian gun ownership. The only people who were disarmed were those whose status had already been criminalized by the state, and even their organized paramilitary arms such as the Reichsbanner Schwarz-Rot-Gold were powerless against the Reichswehr.

The Weimar Republic had a growing economy and vibrant cultural life in the 20s. It was far from a failed state, nor was the Treaty of Versailles in anyway unfair. Nazis and other reactionaries seized power and instituted a totalitarian regime by subverting the institutions of the Weimar republic in an illegal conspiracy.

[Gauthier]

Japan has gun laws, yet it has neither school shootings nor school grizzly bear attacks. Strange.

[Telconi]

Japan has gun laws, yet it has neither school shootings nor school grizzly bear attacks. Strange.

Not strange, but coincidental

[New Axiom]

Japan has gun laws, yet it has neither school shootings nor school grizzly bear attacks. Strange.

But yet they don't shoot ARs, AKs and SKS carbines at paper targets for fun.

[Gauthier]

Japan has gun laws, yet it has neither school shootings nor school grizzly bear attacks. Strange.

But yet they don't shoot ARs, AKs and SKS carbines at paper targets for fun.

They don't have paper grizzly bears shooting up schools either.

[New Axiom]

But yet they don't shoot ARs, AKs and SKS carbines at paper targets for fun.

They don't have paper grizzly bears shooting up schools either.

In Soviet Russia, School shoots Paper Grizzly Bear!!

[Ifreann]

Know which other countries have gun control?

All of them.

Gun control like the government takeing your guns and disarming the population.

I expect every government can take guns away from at least some people in some circumstances, so I guess that's still every country.

[Luna Amore]

Nazi Germany had gun control and they killed 12 million people,The Soviet Union had gun control and killed 20 million people,Mao's China had gun control killed 70-40 million people.
So Yes yes it does.

Goodwins Law fallacy right there.

[Ifreann]

Japan has gun laws, yet it has neither school shootings nor school grizzly bear attacks. Strange.

But yet they don't shoot ARs, AKs and SKS carbines at paper targets for fun.

Oh yeah, Japan DOES actually have guns. People hunt here. Shotguns and rifles, just not handguns. But, well, you see, to get a licence, you do have to pass a mental health check...

Just saying.

[Brkelgarozed]

Most people in rural areas hunted for pleasure or to support their livelihood, and even Komosol (communist Boy Scouts) had access to firearms and training. And the Soviets could of taken their guns whenever they wanted to. And of course the Communist Boy Scouts had guns
they where loyal to the state.
The previous Weimar era gun laws had been instituted to disarm the paramilitary groups like the SA or the RFKL and prevent them from overthrowing the state. Don't try to shoehorn Nazism into your narrative. Weimar Republic was a failed state with a failed economy mostly do the very unfair treaty of Versailles so it had weak government and do you see any paramilitary groups in the US today? Answer is no,no their is not.

And yet they didn't. The Soviet Union had a sizeable population of armed civilians. It did absolutely nothing to prevent the state from exercising control. The idea that gun owning civilians are any sort of protection against tyranny is a fanciful one, and the idea that tyrannies always begin by disarming the population is also clearly false.

Your attempts to use the tragedy of the Great Purge and the Holocaust to fit your agenda are both transparently opportunistic and contradicted by the factual reality. Nazi Germany had a very high degree of civilian gun ownership. The only people who were disarmed were those whose status had already been criminalized by the state, and even their organized paramilitary arms such as the Reichsbanner Schwarz-Rot-Gold were powerless against the Reichswehr.

The Weimar Republic had a growing economy and vibrant cultural life in the 20s. It was far from a failed state, nor was the Treaty of Versailles in anyway unfair. Nazis and other reactionaries seized power and instituted a totalitarian regime by subverting the institutions of the Weimar republic in an illegal conspiracy.

The Weimar Republic had a growing economy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperin ... r_Republic
nor was the Treaty of Versailles in anyway unfair. Hell yes it was it placed most war repatriations on Germany like they started the war.

The idea that gun owning civilians are any sort of protection against tyranny is a fanciful one, and the idea that tyrannies always begin by disarming the population is also clearly false.
You do what a rebellion is right? And tyrannies start by taking away rights for the people (Like the second Amendment) and most citizens in those countries did not revolt because they where scared,fear is very powerful.

[Telconi]

The idea that gun owning civilians are any sort of protection against tyranny is a fanciful one

So clearly we need more and better guns.

This argument basically translates to "Its OK to take your rights, because you don't currently have the rights you deserve"

Imagine if I said to the LGBTQ community "Well, you guys don't have the rights you should have, so we need to ban you all from holding elected office"

[Trotskylvania]

And yet they didn't. The Soviet Union had a sizeable population of armed civilians. It did absolutely nothing to prevent the state from exercising control. The idea that gun owning civilians are any sort of protection against tyranny is a fanciful one, and the idea that tyrannies always begin by disarming the population is also clearly false.

Your attempts to use the tragedy of the Great Purge and the Holocaust to fit your agenda are both transparently opportunistic and contradicted by the factual reality. Nazi Germany had a very high degree of civilian gun ownership. The only people who were disarmed were those whose status had already been criminalized by the state, and even their organized paramilitary arms such as the Reichsbanner Schwarz-Rot-Gold were powerless against the Reichswehr.

The Weimar Republic had a growing economy and vibrant cultural life in the 20s. It was far from a failed state, nor was the Treaty of Versailles in anyway unfair. Nazis and other reactionaries seized power and instituted a totalitarian regime by subverting the institutions of the Weimar republic in an illegal conspiracy.

The Weimar Republic had a growing economy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperin ... r_Republic
nor was the Treaty of Versailles in anyway unfair. Hell yes it was it placed most war repatriations on Germany like they started the war.

The idea that gun owning civilians are any sort of protection against tyranny is a fanciful one, and the idea that tyrannies always begin by disarming the population is also clearly false.
You do what a rebellion is right? And tyrannies start by taking away rights for the people (Like the second Amendment) and most citizens in those countries did not revolt because they where scared,fear is very powerful.

You do realize that Hyperinflation ended in January 1924? It's like in the first line of your link.

Germany did start the war. It was the German government that issued a blank cheque to the Austro-Hungarian Empire, promising to back them 100 percent in getting revenge on Serbia. They did this knowing full well that if Austria invades Serbia, by the terms of Russia's mutual defense treaty, they must mobilize for war against Austria.

They refused all diplomatic efforts to contain the crisis, and chose at every instance to escalate. They mobilized for war and demanded that France not, as though they could go to war against France's ally and not expect a French response. And they decided to force an end to diplomatic efforts by invading Belgium, a neutral country to use as a conduit for their invasion of France. In Belgium, they committed numerous atrocities, including the murder of entire male populations of many villages based on the fear of partisan action. They confiscated food, raw materials, and anything else of use to their war effort, and brutally suppressed any resistance. And by invading Belgium they ensured that Britain would have to enter the war as well.

They occupied the core of French industry, and despoiled much of the French and Belgian countryside over the course of the war. By comparison, the compensation demanded by the Versailles Treaty was paltry. It was the worst of both worlds; it wounded German pride but did nothing to actually substantively hinder Germany's status as a continental economic power.

[Trotskylvania]

The idea that gun owning civilians are any sort of protection against tyranny is a fanciful one

So clearly we need more and better guns.

This argument basically translates to "Its OK to take your rights, because you don't currently have the rights you deserve"

Imagine if I said to the LGBTQ community "Well, you guys don't have the rights you should have, so we need to ban you all from holding elected office"

I'm getting involved here because people can't seem to miss an opportunity to cynically exploit historical tragedy to serve their ends. I've not yet made any statement about my views on gun ownership . You assumed that without the barest shred of evidence.

I'm far from opposed to guns. I'm probably more radical than you about it. I think the basis for any genuinely free society is universal militia training. Because without the training to use them as part of military operation, and instilling discipline in people, the guns are useless. Without coordination, discipline and exprit de corps, you'd just be a bunch of yahoos with guns.

It's rather telling that the primary weapon of partisan resistance anymore is the improvised explosive device. It's not the romantic image of the old-fashioned franc-tireur, but any idiot with a rudimentary knowledge of explosives can plant a trap for someone to stumble over.

[Brkelgarozed]

The Weimar Republic had a growing economy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperin ... r_Republic
nor was the Treaty of Versailles in anyway unfair. Hell yes it was it placed most war repatriations on Germany like they started the war.

The idea that gun owning civilians are any sort of protection against tyranny is a fanciful one, and the idea that tyrannies always begin by disarming the population is also clearly false.
You do what a rebellion is right? And tyrannies start by taking away rights for the people (Like the second Amendment) and most citizens in those countries did not revolt because they where scared,fear is very powerful.

You do realize that Hyperinflation ended in January 1924? It's like in the first line of your link.

Germany did start the war. It was the German government that issued a blank cheque to the Austro-Hungarian Empire, promising to back them 100 percent in getting revenge on Serbia. They did this knowing full well that if Austria invades Serbia, by the terms of Russia's mutual defense treaty, they must mobilize for war against Austria.

They refused all diplomatic efforts to contain the crisis, and chose at every instance to escalate. They mobilized for war and demanded that France not, as though they could go to war against France's ally and not expect a French response. And they decided to force an end to diplomatic efforts by invading Belgium, a neutral country to use as a conduit for their invasion of France. In Belgium, they committed numerous atrocities, including the murder of entire male populations of many villages based on the fear of partisan action. They confiscated food, raw materials, and anything else of use to their war effort, and brutally suppressed any resistance. And by invading Belgium they ensured that Britain would have to enter the war as well.

They occupied the core of French industry, and despoiled much of the French and Belgian countryside over the course of the war. By comparison, the compensation demanded by the Versailles Treaty was paltry. It was the worst of both worlds; it wounded German pride but did nothing to actually substantively hinder Germany's status as a continental economic power.

Yeah both sides did horrible things and let's get off track here this thread about guns in school not WWI so let's keep the thread on topic please.