We are being blamed

[Dark0ne]

Gun control was brought in to stop the number of mass killings, not stop or reduce all violent crime. It was effective.

 

When children are being killed in schools and malls on a regular basis in the US, it's not "ok". The answer is not "there's nothing we can do". America's apathy on this subject is utterly baffling to every other western civilisation that wonders how people in "the best country in the world" can be so blase about the regular murder of children.

[Fkemman11]

Gun control was brought in to stop the number of mass killings, not stop or reduce all violent crime. It was effective.

 

When children are being killed in schools and malls on a regular basis in the US, it's not "ok". The answer is not "there's nothing we can do". America's apathy on this subject is utterly baffling to every other western civilisation that wonders how people in "the best country in the world" can be so blase about the regular murder of children.

I don't think it's apathy by our leaders so much as it just gets turned into another political mess. Division in this country over gun rights goes back to the days before the Second Amendment was even introduced I believe. You would think that something would be coming out of Washington to try and stop this. But, our government has become completely ineffective in dealing with a "home born" nation wide crisis where action in one direction or the other could mean political suicide. Easier to leave the problem for the next fool to try and fix. If they can't mobilize the National Guard to fire tear gas into a crowd or build temporary shelters or something then it's too complex a problem for them to handle easily- which is how they like to do things and then be the hero for the next round of elections. Not much better with foreign issues either.

 

What happens is that parents just stop sending their children to public schools and have to either educate them at home or fund them going to (hopefully) more secure private schools. What else can you do when it's clearly not easily preventable? How can you root out the "bad seeds" when they could be anyone? You can't, so we retreat back into our homes more and more into relative safety.

 

Once Columbine happened and the media got a hold of it- it would become an "example" for others to follow with no end in sight as long as there are psychos and ways to kill or maim as many people as possible. Take away the guns and they will just use something else like homemade bombs or something. I imagine the only true way to stop this madness is to subvert every American's freedoms and turn this nation into a police state....which is probably what will happen at some point anyway.

 

Where we were once a nation of problem solvers, now we cause more problems for ourselves and the world..... and then try to pin the blame on someone else.

[HeyYou]

Gun control was brought in to stop the number of mass killings, not stop or reduce all violent crime. It was effective.

 

When children are being killed in schools and malls on a regular basis in the US, it's not "ok". The answer is not "there's nothing we can do". America's apathy on this subject is utterly baffling to every other western civilisation that wonders how people in "the best country in the world" can be so blase about the regular murder of children.

The point is, violent crime has actually gone UP since the gun grab. Sure, there aren't any mass-shootings, and there is less gun crime overall, (big surprise there, eh?) But, as the crooks now know folks are unlikely to be armed, various other violent crime has increased.

 

The problem we have with 'doing something' about the mass shootings here (an no, it is most certainly NOT "ok".....) is it's a political bomb. (as the poster above me noted) The lefts plan is to ban a certain segment of firearms, which will have zero effect, as the weapons they want to ban, are not the most commonly used weapons in crime in general, or in mass-shootings in particular. The left simply wants to 'get a foot in the door' on banning weapons, with the end goal of banning ALL of them. Here in the US, that just isn't going to fly. (our culture is A LOT different that Europeans in this regard.) In all reality, it would be pretty easy to dramatically reduce the number of mass shootings. Get rid of the gun-free-zone designation. Allow teachers/staff that are properly trained/licensed to carry on campus. (that is ALLOW, not REQUIRE) The mere fact that ANY adult at a school may be armed will serve to deter 99% of the cowards that perpetrate these types of crimes. But, the left won't let that happen.

 

Another option is airport-level security at the schools..... but, who gets to pay for it? Our schools already suck, taking money away from academics to pay for it will not help..... raising taxes won't exactly fly either.

[Reneer]

It's a rather sad fact that raising taxes to explicitly protect schoolchildren from violence "won't fly".

[HeyYou]

It's a rather sad fact that raising taxes to explicitly protect schoolchildren from violence "won't fly".

The biggest problem with that is, the public schools squander money left and right already, and folks are reluctant to flush yet more money down the toilet. Schools here are VERY top heavy. LOTS of administrators, with six figure salaries.... all in the name of 'improving student performance'. Yet, year after year, we see performance go DOWN. Whatever they are doing with that money, it sure ain't workin'. Of course, that basically been the case since Bush instituted the Department of Education. So far, all I have seen them do, is screw stuff up. No child left behind was another real 'winner'......

 

Case in point: A local school district submitted a millage proposal to build a new stadium. The people said no. They didn't want to spend money on that. (the school already had a perfectly good stadium, albeit, older.) What did the admins do? They built it anyway. 5 million dollars. The funniest part? Their plans did not include even one bathroom........

 

Back when I was in school, we didn't have cops in the schools, we didn't have metal detectors, all the doors were unlocked, if you looked out in the student parking lot, more than half of the vehicles out there had gun racks, with guns on them. We didn't have any shootings at school. Not even one. (and still haven't.....) I brought a MACHINE GUN in to school for my demonstration speech. (I warned them in advance, and informed them that the weapon was non-functional. No firing pin.) I got some funny looks, but, it was approved. (I also got a A on that speech.....)

 

So what's changed since then? Society. The whole 'no one is responsible for their actions', and 'everyone wins, everyone gets a trophy' attitude has not done the world any favors. We teach these kids that everyone is always a winner, then they graduate, and discover the world is NOTHING like what they have been taught all their lives. Is it any surprise that society as a whole then suffers for it?

 

That is a VERY simplified view of it...... but, it hits the basics of what is going wrong. We are doing this to ourselves, and, instead of treating the actual problem, we poke at the symptoms. But then, government isn't in the business of SOLVING problems. There is no money in that.

[Reneer]

Congratulations, you went on a tirade about nothing and failed to consider even one potential solution about fixing the problem (and, yes, school shootings have been happening since before you or I were born). Instead, you dismiss real solutions like metal detectors and also managed to put a price tag on the lives of children. And to top it off, you gave some useless anecdotal "evidence" to support your viewpoint. Here's some more useless anecdotal evidence: my school didn't have locked doors, metal detectors, or a school shooting. And yet I grew up in the "participation trophy" society you are so ready to blame for the problem while you completely ignore how easy it is to obtain a firearm.

 

And what's your rationale for letting people have guns? The second amendment? Which, when ratified, the shiny new guns were single-shot flintlocks and revolvers didn't show up until about 40 years later.

Edited August 29, 2018 by Reneer

[Fkemman11]

Also people here are incredibly short sighted and self absorbed. They see and hear about these tragedies and think "Oh, that is horrible! I'm sure glad nothing like that will ever happen here!" So when the vote comes to spend whatever money is necessary to try and prevent this, they vote it down because they feel that the chances of something like that happening to their children in a sleepy little town or in a "good" neighborhood is extremely remote. They only ever call for action and will pull out all the stops when someone they know or care about is affected. Problems like this have to reach epidemic proportions before enough people take a stance and push for solutions. I agree that the fact that these are children should warrant swift and immediate action on a nation wide scale, but, everything still gets bogged down somewhere in the system. Convincing our leaders that a problem of this nature should NOT be politicized at all and have both parties working together to find a solution is almost impossible unless many more people are helping to pressure them- for they seem to have no conscience on their own.

 

Ultimately, though, parents need to take more responsibility for their children and teach them the values that will foster a more peaceful and productive society. Too many parents in this country don't seem to know (or maybe even care) what their children are doing and are feeling until it's much too late to turn things around.

 

Beyond that, you must start to think in the extreme- like tearing it all down and rebuilding it again.

[HeyYou]

Congratulations, you went on a tirade about nothing and failed to consider even one potential solution about fixing the problem (and, yes, school shootings have been happening since before you or I were born). Instead, you dismiss real solutions like metal detectors and also managed to put a price tag on the lives of children. And to top it off, you gave some useless anecdotal "evidence" to support your viewpoint. Here's some more useless anecdotal evidence: my school didn't have locked doors, metal detectors, or a school shooting. And yet I grew up in the "participation trophy" society you are so ready to blame for the problem while you completely ignore how easy it is to obtain a firearm.

 

And what's your rationale for letting people have guns? The second amendment? Which, when ratified, the shiny new guns were single-shot flintlocks and revolvers didn't show up until about 40 years later.

Ah, I see we disagree here.

 

Putting a price on childrens lives? No, not really. I provided one example of the mismanagement of funds in the local school system. There are many more, all across the country. This isn't a problem you are going to solve by throwing money at it, or turning our schools into what essentially amounts to a prison. I even offered a solution that would work, and wouldn't cost the taxpayer one thin dime, which you simply dismiss out of hand. Why is that? Why do we have to spend millions of dollars to solve a simple problem?

 

I would point out also, that several of the schools that were subjected to mass shootings did indeed have metal detectors, AND armed security. (one or two officers to cover a building that sprawls over several acres..... yeah, that was certainly effective, now wasn't it?) Adam Lanza walked up to locked security doors, broke the glass, and walked right in. His rampage was so effective, simply because there was NO ONE THERE TO STOP HIM. Do you think the death toll would have been as high, if some of those six dead teachers had been able to be armed? And what ended his rampage? The cops showed up, (people with guns) and Adam killed himself.

 

Even the NY Times ran an article about the ineffectiveness of 'hardening' our schools. In that piece, INTERVENTION was touted as the better solution. There were warning signs for almost all of the mass shooters going in to schools. Authorities ignored the warnings. (Steven Paddock, though not a 'school' shooter, was right of the blue, apparently no one had any idea what he had in mind.)

 

Most of the mass shooters also passed federal background checks to purchase their weapons. (even though a couple of them should NOT have been able to...... various agencies, including the US military, dropped the ball there.) A few took weapons from their parents, and a few more had someone else purchase the weapons for them.....

 

The second amendment was passed so that not only could people protect themselves from other folks with bad intent, but, also from their GOVERNMENT. The idea was the people would be similarly armed as the military, so, should the government 'overstep' themselves, the people would have real recourse to deal with the problem. Granted, they had no idea what the future held as far as weapons development, and I am quite certain they would NOT have advocated for private ownership of ICBMs, or nuclear weapons in general.... and neither would I.......

 

Still and all, there are over 300 million legally owned firearms in the US. A little under half the households in the US have firearms. (usually just one or two.....) 99% of those weapons are never used for illegal purposes. A very tiny fraction of them are. And the response is to ban guns????? Terribly sorry, that is logic fail in a big way. Using the same logic, we should ban doctors, forks, cars, tobacco, alcohol, and a host of other leading killers of americans. So, why single out guns? Looking at it from a purely statistical viewpoint, they are only a very minor drop in the bucket when it comes to leading causes of death.

 

Tell ya what. I will give up my right to bear arms, when you give up your right to free speech.

[Reneer]

First and before anything else, I want to apologize for my tone. Obviously this is a rather heated topic but that isn't any excuse for me to have lashed out at you like that. I apologize.

 

Ah, I see we disagree here.

 

Putting a price on childrens lives? No, not really. I provided one example of the mismanagement of funds in the local school system. There are many more, all across the country. This isn't a problem you are going to solve by throwing money at it, or turning our schools into what essentially amounts to a prison. I even offered a solution that would work, and wouldn't cost the taxpayer one thin dime, which you simply dismiss out of hand. Why is that? Why do we have to spend millions of dollars to solve a simple problem?

You accuse me of trying to turn schools into prisons, yet your solution involves allowing teachers to bring guns into the classroom. Yeah, there aren't any foreseeable problems with that scenario - except the teacher has to have somewhere to put their gun. Unless you expect them to keep it holstered all day long, which provides for its own set of challenges. So either they need to keep gun and ammo in a gun safe in their classroom or they need to keep the gun holstered, both of which provide opportunities for an attacker to subdue the teacher and then obtain a gun or now have a 2nd gun.

 

I would point out also, that several of the schools that were subjected to mass shootings did indeed have metal detectors, AND armed security. (one or two officers to cover a building that sprawls over several acres..... yeah, that was certainly effective, now wasn't it?) Adam Lanza walked up to locked security doors, broke the glass, and walked right in. His rampage was so effective, simply because there was NO ONE THERE TO STOP HIM. Do you think the death toll would have been as high, if some of those six dead teachers had been able to be armed? And what ended his rampage? The cops showed up, (people with guns) and Adam killed himself.

 

Even the NY Times ran an article about the ineffectiveness of 'hardening' our schools. In that piece, INTERVENTION was touted as the better solution. There were warning signs for almost all of the mass shooters going in to schools. Authorities ignored the warnings. (Steven Paddock, though not a 'school' shooter, was right of the blue, apparently no one had any idea what he had in mind.)

 

Most of the mass shooters also passed federal background checks to purchase their weapons. (even though a couple of them should NOT have been able to...... various agencies, including the US military, dropped the ball there.) A few took weapons from their parents, and a few more had someone else purchase the weapons for them.....

Since you brought it up, let's talk about warning signs and what happens: Nothing, generally, because it is practically impossible under current law to take someone's guns away from them unless they pose an immediate threat. The fact of the matter is that there are some people who are not mentally capable of owning firearms safely and yet there is no real way to keep them from obtaining firearms or having authorities take the firearms away.

 

The second amendment was passed so that not only could people protect themselves from other folks with bad intent, but, also from their GOVERNMENT. The idea was the people would be similarly armed as the military, so, should the government 'overstep' themselves, the people would have real recourse to deal with the problem. Granted, they had no idea what the future held as far as weapons development, and I am quite certain they would NOT have advocated for private ownership of ICBMs, or nuclear weapons in general.... and neither would I.......

Yeah, the second half of your argument went out the window with the invention of the Gatling gun. The first half (self-defense) doesn't mandate that people have anything like an AR-15 rifle or other long gun.

 

Still and all, there are over 300 million legally owned firearms in the US. A little under half the households in the US have firearms. (usually just one or two.....) 99% of those weapons are never used for illegal purposes. A very tiny fraction of them are. And the response is to ban guns????? Terribly sorry, that is logic fail in a big way. Using the same logic, we should ban doctors, forks, cars, tobacco, alcohol, and a host of other leading killers of americans. So, why single out guns? Looking at it from a purely statistical viewpoint, they are only a very minor drop in the bucket when it comes to leading causes of death.

See, you miss the point entirely. Guns are designed to kill people. That is literally the reason they exist. The issue isn't that X thing kills Y people. It's that X thing kills Y people AND has no real utilitarian benefit. Cars, when used properly, don't kill people. Guns, when used properly, do.

[Fkemman11]

I realize no one cares what I think, but, I live in Texas. The government would have one hell of a (bloody?) fight trying to take away all the guns in this state OR Texas would secede from the Union along with some other states. This country is already deeply divided on other hot issues. I personally am not sold on the idea of every citizen owning a gun for whatever reason. I also am not comfortable with the government having all the guns either. Then we've got all the illegal guns that are readily available through dealers on the streets that there aren't even good estimates as to the numbers- it's a lot though. Also, The Mexican Cartels are right across the border armed to the teeth, cross the border and back almost at will, and would love nothing better than to see a law passed to make the U.S. overturn it's citizen gun rights for several reasons. Some things to think about.

 

I can understand why people think that if we just get rid of all the guns then these tragedies can be prevented/avoided. It's too bad that simply is not a option for more reasons than anyone can list.