Are we making a rational argument?

[RoyGBiv]

From a federal standpoint, that's how it is in every state. The Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994 only applies to students.

Sorry if I was unclear... The point I was trying to make there was that there is not a STATE prohibition against CC in Schools. State law says CC is not allowed, unless the local school authority allows it specifically. Texas schools are "opt-in", if you will. The local ISD simply has to "allow" it.

Like this one: http://www.reporternews.com/news/200...ed-for-school/

[BaiHu]

I posted this: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...y-permit-story

here already:

http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.p...reaction/page4

but it got me thinking that we need to turn the argument around. These are not shootings, mass murders, rampage killings, etc, these are acts of terrorism. I think when we frame these atrocities in the light that they are truly under, we have both legs to stand on: the emotional and logical.

When you attack children of any age in any school, it is an act of terror, regardless of weapon, mindset or fabricated grievance. Terrorists don't try to attack our military/LEO installments (read: hard targets) in the US, b/c they're cowards. Terrorists and rampage shooters don't want a challenge, so they choose the softest target they can find.

People like Lanza are cowardly, twisted monstrosities masquerading as humans with a legitimate grievance, but they're not, they are terrorists and need to be treated as such.

[RoyGBiv]

If you've not seen it yet, here's both sides of the argument (in it's current form) played out with split-screen clarity.

While I appreciate Piers' passion, I would sack him for his lack of professionalism, not because he's an ignoramus.

[Le Français]

These are not shootings, mass murders, rampage killings, etc, these are acts of terrorism.

When you attack children of any age in any school, it is an act of terror, regardless of weapon, mindset or fabricated grievance.

People like Lanza are cowardly, twisted monstrosities masquerading as humans with a legitimate grievance, but they're not, they are terrorists and need to be treated as such.

Negative.

Terrorism, overused and misused as the term tends to be these days, actually means something. Terrorism is, at its heart, psychological warfare. It is a method whereby violence (usually against noncombatants) is used to intimidate and pressure a population or government in order to further a social or political agenda. Terrorism is calculated and aimed at changing things.

The mentally ill gunman who opens fire on a school full of kids may be a terrorist, but it seems more likely that, even though his actions are terrorizing, he is not acting with any larger agenda in mind.

[BaiHu]

Negative.

Terrorism, overused and misused as the term tends to be these days, actually means something. Terrorism is, at its heart, psychological warfare. It is a method whereby violence (usually against noncombatants) is used to intimidate and pressure a population or government in order to further a social or political agenda. Terrorism is calculated and aimed at changing things.

The mentally ill gunman who opens fire on a school full of kids may be a terrorist, but it seems more likely that, even though his actions are terrorizing, he is not acting with any larger agenda in mind.

I get what you are saying, but let me ask you this. Do we know why Lanza did this? Did the people in Newtown care at the time? Did we know why the first plane crashed into WTC? Did the people on that plane care at the time?

Would you say that they are both at least "acts of terrorism"? Perhaps I could make a clearer statement that 'we should treat these acts as acts of terrorism.' If that satisfied you, then how different would it be?

I'm not saying I'm right, but at what point are we just splitting hairs here?

[LOKNLOD]

Negative.

Terrorism, overused and misused as the term tends to be these days, actually means something. Terrorism is, at its heart, psychological warfare. It is a method whereby violence (usually against noncombatants) is used to intimidate and pressure a population or government in order to further a social or political agenda. Terrorism is calculated and aimed at changing things.

The mentally ill gunman who opens fire on a school full of kids may be a terrorist, but it seems more likely that, even though his actions are terrorizing, he is not acting with any larger agenda in mind.

I agree. Mass murder with no motive beyond being crazy is not terrorism.

Also, I do not think redefining mass murder as terrorism would do anything to help us. We're against a political opposition in this that has already made plenty of attempts to paint gun owners, veterans, conservatives/libertarians, etc. as potential "domestic terrorists". They would love to be justified in treating us all more like terrorist threats, and if you reclassify mass murder via guns as a terrorist act, it gives justification for treating anyone with that capability - i.e., gun owners - as potential terrorists. And we've allowed the gov't a lot more leeway in how they deal with terrorists than with criminals, under the auspices of keeping us safe.

[TGS]

No, it's not splitting hairs in the least bit.

Terrorism has a meaning. Labelling a psycho going on a killing spree as terrorism is as incorrect as labelling it a homicidal burglary.

Timothy McVeigh: A non-state actor making an attack on a civilian populace to use violence as a psychological motivator for his political agenda. Terrorist.

Sueng-Hoi Cho: Mentally unstable kid that loses it and decides to go out in a blaze of glory as he's learned it to be from the media. He has no purpose for killing people other than for satisfaction, he is not pushing a political or religious agenda. Not a terrorist.

The Luftwaffe, US Air Force, and British Royal Air Force: State actors intentionally and indiscriminately targeting civilians with bombing raids to demoralize the populace as part of a strategy to win World War II. Total war, not terrorism.

Taliban: 1) A Taliban group attacks a military patrol of a nation controlling and/or working with the host national government: insurgency, not terrorism. 2) A Taliban suicide bomber blows up a girls school to push their religious and political ideology, using fear as a motivator to turn the populace under their control: terrorism.

I'll add one more here:

The Italian Government circa Cold War: By posing as the Red Army Faction, elements of the Italian stay-behind army under Operation Gladio make targeted attacks on the civilian populace (such as bombing a grocery market and even assassinating political figures) to use fear as a motivator and create an artificial legitimacy of the contemporary Italian government over the apparently evil Communist party: state sponsored terrorism.

[BaiHu]

LNL,

Going with your statement, the more of us they call terrorists, the crazier they sound, no? Sometimes there is a point of no return. If they take that tact, then even the most liberal of them will start to wonder how that argument gets turned around on them.

One of my favorite arguments for the hippy, dippy, pot-smoking anti-gunner is every drug user supports the sex trade, the killing of innocent people and the use of illegal guns in acts of violence. It goes like this:

You smoke pot, right?

Definitely, dude.

You hate guns, right?

Definitely, dude.

You hate violence, right?

I'm a hippy, dude!

You love women and children and want them to be safe too, right?

I love women and I wanna have lotsa long haired hippy kids too and teach 'em how to farm, man.

Okay, well then why do you support sex slaves, gun trafficking and the murder of innocence?

What are you talking about, man? I'm a hippy, bro, I just like to get high?

Where does your pot come from?

I dunno, my dealer?

Where does your dealer get it?

I dunno, some pot farm I guess.

How do you think it gets to you? I mean if you could get it free, wouldn't you?

I guess, but I can't grow it around here.

How do you keep it from getting stolen?

I dunno.

Really? You don't know. How about guns? And since you're transporting drugs and guns, ya might as well add the sex trade too.

No way, man, I'd never support that.

Well then you'd better find a very conscientious drug dealer that shares your sentiments then, brah.

This is ridiculous, right? Or is it? This is what liberals are trying to do to gun manufacturer's and people who believe in the 2nd Amendment. However, what we engage in isn't only legal, it is constitutionally guaranteed! So why not term these acts of violence as terroist in nature?

I'm just trying to break the box and re-frame this puppy. Feel free to call my bluff, but let's make this work from every angle. Let's not let our crisis go to waste.

[NMBigfoot02]

Here's your rational argument:

http://reason.com/blog/2012/12/19/ja...ontrol-with-ro

Sullum does a good job crafting an argument against a new AWB as well as further restrictions.

It's long, but he addresses quite a few of the arguments we're hearing today, such as why RPGs and Stingers aren't relevant.

[LOKNLOD]

+1 to TGS's definitions above.

LNL,

Going with your statement, the more of us they call terrorists, the crazier they sound, no? Sometimes there is a point of no return. If they take that tact, then even the most liberal of them will start to wonder how that argument gets turned around on them.

Since "they" have almost total control of the media, and it is the primary source of information for most folks, redefining these acts as terrorism serves their desires much better than ours. Re-focusing the discussion is one thing. Playing willy-nilly with previously defined terms is their game, not ours. It's a mark of disingenuousness.