College & High School Shootings: What Now

[mkemse]

My contention is that, to prevent future college massacres, the first step should be to ban all guns. "All guns on the planet" was just an extension of that suggestion - a good one to my mind.

The only proble with that is that in the United State our Federal Consitution gurantee us theright obeararms, assualtrifle didnot exist in 1776 so that is what they debatehere is no, our contistution doesnot prohibit assualt rifefrombeing owed but since they didnot exist then one one would have had any way to knowthey would have
if you ban guns entriely what do plice do for protection, or the miltary use for war??

[ThisYouWillDo]

if you ban guns entriely what do plice do for protection, or the miltary use for war??

Do guns protect policemen, or just enable them to shoot?

[TomOfSweden]

Do guns protect policemen, or just enable them to shoot?

I'm for the states monopoly of violence. I want policemen and soldiers to have weapons and the people not to. It is not only a method to prevent popular revolt. It is also a guarantee that the state has the capacity to put down revolts if necessary. I understand this is an offensive notion to US citizens. But I can't see any problems with it.

I think that the democratic tradition in Sweden is too strong to break by just a military coup. If the army would try here, I'm sure it would fail for a million reasons. A dictator can only rule if people will obey and I can't see that happening. Democratic ideals are once they've gained root, extremely hard to expel from popular consciousness.

Fascists tried to seize power in Spain in 1981, only 6 years after democratic reforms. It failed. 6 short years of democracy was all it took for the idea to spread like a virus in the Spanish consciousness. The reason why Germany fell back into totalitarianism and the reason why every democratic government that has reverted back is always down to economic factors. People have to be very well educated in order to take part of the general debate. Getting an education costs money, which poor people don't have. Uneducated people are always taken advantage on, and dictatorship I guess is the most extreme example of taking advantage on those who lack information.

Democracy in Sweden is not under threat. We don't need guns to protect it. Neither is it in USA. I think it is childish to say that US citizens need it to protect their freedoms and rights. It's of course the other way around. The more equally the power is between the state and the people, the less of a mandate the state has to protect it's citizens.

There are many hollow arguments and platitudes constantly flying around each of these gun debates. I find them quite tiring, and these discussions tend to get boring because of it.

[ThisYouWillDo]

I'm for the states monopoly of violence. I want policemen and soldiers to have weapons and the people not to. It is not only a method to prevent popular revolt. It is also a guarantee that the state has the capacity to put down revolts if necessary. I understand this is an offensive notion to US citizens. But I can't see any problems with it.

I think that the democratic tradition in Sweden is too strong to break by just a military coup. If the army would try here, I'm sure it would fail for a million reasons. A dictator can only rule if people will obey and I can't see that happening. Democratic ideals are once they've gained root, extremely hard to expel from popular consciousness.

Fascists tried to seize power in Spain in 1981, only 6 years after democratic reforms. It failed. 6 short years of democracy was all it took for the idea to spread like a virus in the Spanish consciousness. The reason why Germany fell back into totalitarianism and the reason why every democratic government that has reverted back is always down to economic factors. People have to be very well educated in order to take part of the general debate. Getting an education costs money, which poor people don't have. Uneducated people are always taken advantage on, and dictatorship I guess is the most extreme example of taking advantage on those who lack information.

Democracy in Sweden is not under threat. We don't need guns to protect it. Neither is it in USA. I think it is childish to say that US citizens need it to protect their freedoms and rights. It's of course the other way around. The more equally the power is between the state and the people, the less of a mandate the state has to protect it's citizens.

There are many hollow arguments and platitudes constantly flying around each of these gun debates. I find them quite tiring, and these discussions tend to get boring because of it.

I'm in virtually complete agreement with that. However, I prefer my policemen routinely to be unarmed: I even find truncheons and pepper sprays to be a little bit objectionable, but as they cause only temporary hurt, I can live with that. I also expect the police to arm themselves in situations where they need to.

That the military should be armed is a no-brainer.

As to the state's monopoly of violence, better the state than anyone else, but that, too must be restricted; to enforce law and order alone, and not to use it for punishment, for example.

I don't think you can accuse me of chucking platitudes around, and I certainly don't find the discussion boring. I don't think I have taken part in any serious discussion on gun-control in decades before joining this site, so I have not been over-exposed to too many hollow arguments either (or put forward too many of my own, I hope).

[TomOfSweden]

I don't think you can accuse me of chucking platitudes around, and I certainly don't find the discussion boring. I don't think I have taken part in any serious discussion on gun-control in decades before joining this site, so I have not been over-exposed to too many hollow arguments either (or put forward too many of my own, I hope).

It wasn't aimed at you even if it was your post I was replying to.

And obviously the use of violence by the state has to be extremely tightly regulated. There must be specific, measurable and verifiable rules regarding the states use of violence. I think we can be sure that they'll use exactly the amount of violence that we let them. If they can, they'll do it. Violence is a very quick and effective way to solve conflicts. It's just that it's usually only a very short term solution to the conflict. So it should only be used as a last resort.