Quote:
Originally Posted by AENeuman
Opps, I took your comment on the need for armed people in schools as an attack on civil liberties. You are saying, why should there be armed people when just getting rid of guns is the solution?
If so, what I think is truly a false equivalence is saying what works in a nation of 53 million or 24 million in Australia is somehow directly related to a nation of 325 million. For example, the US has 737 people per 100,00 incarcerated, England: 148, Australia 125. So maybe there are a lot more things that need to be addressed before we can ever get to "just take the guns away and all will be good"
|
You’re putting words into my mouth.
What I was responding to was the matter of factness of the statement that the most sensible solution was putting multiple armed guards in schools to protect children, and that this even being an option in other developed countries would be seen as a crazy idea.
It’s a sign that guns are a problem (not the only problem, but a problem) and form of gun control must be considered (control, not removal of all guns) as part of the solution (not the only part, but a part)
And I never brought UK/Australia into the argument, you did when you highlighted five terrorist attacks in the UK. UK isn’t that similar, I agree. Australia is more so having had gun control issues and measures in a frontier society, but I agree the scale is very different. However, even if you only had a percentage of the reduction in gun crime that Australia managed, that’s surely a good thing?
Some of the issues seem to be that while on defense (and I can see why a defensive position is being taken - the thread is in danger of becoming of what at primary school I would have called a pile-on), “gun control” seems to be being read as “remove all guns”, and that distorts a lot of the points that follow.
Hopefully my qualifiers will avoid any misunderstandings
