-31 Out of concern for the presidents safety it's time we turn the White House into a gun free zone, amirite?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

It's sarcastic, for anyone who doesn't pick up on it. Like ya know, that's somehow going to work for civilians but not the president becaaaause why? Oh yeah criminals will find ways to get guns and who wants to be left without protection hmm?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

And because the president is ideally supposed to be a citizen who represents our country. There's no reason any president should have special privileges above citizens.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

um, yeah there is. The president is our executive leader, people will try to assassinate him. We need the president to keep Congress in check, to preside over regulatory affairs and the bureaucracy, and for just about all foreign affairs. So not only is he vulnerable to assassination, but he's incredibly important to the country. Plus, there are qualifications you need to meet to be president, no random citizen can become president.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

This totally dodges the point entirely. The point being, there will always be a threat of criminals with guns, to everyone. it's only realistic to have protection. The president deserves protection but we don't? hmm.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I really hope you're not trying to say the President is vulnerable despite the fact that the White House is a gun free zone... Of 43 presidencies, only two presidents have been assassinated. Plus just because criminals will find ways to get guns doesn't make it a bad idea to implement gun control. Other countries laugh at America for our gun laws. For every one gun related death in Britain, there are FORTY in America. That says something.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Uh no. The White House is NOT a gun free zone...it's sarcasm. It says something that you literally had no idea the WH wasn't gun free haha.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

According to wiki, the US has 315 mega people where as the UK has 63 mega people. Already, we outnumber them 5 to 1. Re-scaling your death ratio, from where you go it I do not know, it becomes an 8 to 1. Not only that, but your definition of gun related death isn't specified. An alcohol related car accident in the US (not sure which states in particular) is defined as an accident involving a car during which alcohol was present. It doesn't matter in what way, as long as the alcohol was present. As emotionally stirring as your argument may be, that alone does not a credulous argument make.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I have no idea what you are talking about. What death ratio? What definition of gun related death? I think you're reading the wrong post.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

No, you are. My post was in response to plankton.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Yeah. Sure. Because everyone has an equal chance of facing assassination.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Obviously not as assassinations cannot happen to everyone as the very definition of the word assassination is the murder of an important person. However, everyone does have a pretty equal chance for something becoming a threat to their safety.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

The probability of everyone's life being endangered by random violence is equal. But people involved in gangs, politics, etc. run an additional risk of being targeted. The probabilities of these two instances where their life may be in danger is added to find the net probability of someone needing protection. So statistically speaking, the president does run a higher risk of being killed by a violent attacker and thus needs more protection. This is similar to how in time of epidemics, health care workers run a higher risk of contracting illnesses.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Sure, no denying that. That speaks nothing of the very real threat to everyday people, whether it's less than a president or politician seems pretty moot. There will always be a threat as long as guns and criminals exist, and I don't see either disappearing anytime soon. It's just realistic to have protection.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

The president has a higher chance than ONE person, but there are MANY people and ONE president. People who don't work in health care get the same health care as people who do.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

actually, they don't. in time of epidemics, when a cure is a discovered, it is given to health care workers on a priority basis since they are at a higher risk of being infected. Edit: I said it as if it were universally true but it's not. Priority treatment doesn't occur in every country but does in a lot of them and discussions of priority treatment have been on the table ever since SARS in pretty much every single country because of numerous instances where healthcare workers contracted the virus and then passed it on to everyone who visited them in the following week.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Basically yeah. Somehow gun free zones work for us, but not the president? Yeah cause there will always be a threat.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

To each their own eh? The two countries I have lived in have pretty strict gun laws and civilians can't own weaponry of the same caliber as in the USA if an y. They both also have significantly lower rates of random gun violence. So, to me, the best way to reduce gun violence is to reduce the number of guns that are out on the streets rather than increasing them in the name of protection.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

The way to stop the random killings is not only to pay attention to our mentally ill, but to also address the media attention. They are treated as celebrities and others copy. Taking away civil liberties that avoid tyranny is not the answer.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

To you, gun ownership is a right but to me, it's a privilege. Therefore, from my perspective, gun laws don't really take away civil liberties. I only need my fellow citizen's support to avoid tyrannical governments, not an assault weapon. That may sound too idealistic to you but hey, so does the right to bear arms.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Freedom is too idealistic? That's ridiculous. We were based on freedom as a country, it's what we stand for, it's what we wanted and came here for originally. I'm not giving up my freedoms so easily. Besides, what are a bunch of people going to do against a Government who is slowly taking away their rights? It's a slippery slope. Wise words of Jefferson, those willing to give up liberty for security deserve neither and will lose both.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

things that are considered basic freedoms are not universal. where I live, carrying a gun is not a right. it does not constitute our definition of freedom. this is true for most of the civilized world. (and just for the record, to me, we are a lot more free than americans because we can't be randomly held in secret locations just for being suspected terrorists or whatever.)

by Anonymous 11 years ago

That's completely moot. Main point, criminals will get guns and they know that. If criminals will still get guns, what does that mean for us? That there will be criminals with guns and innocent civilians without protection.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

And yes, criminals will still get weapons but the less weapons there are on the streets, the lower are the chances that they will get their hands on one. Additionally, there are more instances of ramdom shootings in the US than there are of positive gun violence by civilians. When it comes to protection, civilians are just as dependant on the police with or without guns. Guns are more of a means for assurances, that's all.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

That only takes them away from law abiding citizens who wouldn't go buy one illegally. Lets just give gangs more incentive to smuggle in guns bc they are illegal or hard to get. That's pure logic. The drug problem here is absurd, drugs are super easy to get. Why? Because they are illegal and smuggled into the country in mass amounts. Logically, if that happened with guns, we've got criminals with easy access to guns, and law abiding citizens with no protection. Doesn't make sense. It makes us vulnerable for no good reason.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

There really is no point in continuing this discussion because you seem to consider carrying guns as a basic human right whereas I do not.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

The freedom to protect oneself is every humans right. Putting up a sign that says "no guns" is something a five year would come up with. It's nonsensical and I'm beyond surprised so many adults don't see the major flaw.

by Anonymous 11 years ago