We are being blamed

[HeyYou]

 

There is no perfect solution. Staff at schools aren't really meant to attempt to deal with the situation. (although, there are some teachers I had, that I REALLY wouldn't want to mess with, especially if they are armed.) They are meant as a deterrent. The typical mass-shoot is, after all, a coward. (they take their own life, rather than deal with the consequences of their actions.) So, staff simply have the POSSIBILITY of being armed, would serve to dramatically reduce the number of incidents.

The problem is you're thinking like a rational person - school shooters (or pretty much any mass murderers) are not thinking rationally. Sure there may be teachers with guns in our hypothetical scenario, but that doesn't really enter as a factor in the mind of a school shooter. The "reason" they go to their school and shoot people is because that is where they see all their pain coming from. All the people that bullied them, etc, are in one location.

 

And yeah, I had a Vietnam vet as a teacher in high school. One of the nicest people I know. Also wouldn't want to mess with him.

 

Were you aware, that most of the field artillery, and gating guns, used in the civil war, were privately owned? Armies couldn't afford them......

Actually, I was. I helped with running Dexter's Civil War days for the sesquicentennial a few years ago.

 

Should the government decide they are going to attempt to confiscate everyones guns, there would be a LOT of dead folks on both sides. You may see the military as the 'long arm of the government', and sure, SOME of them would actually obey orders to disarm citizens, and relish the thought of a firefight. The bulk of them though, would not. Not to mention, that in order to even use the military on US soil for such a purpose, a host of laws would have to be changed. THAT would MOST CERTAINLY draw attention, before even the first attempt at a gun grab was made. I don't think even the military leaders would be real excited about THAT particular prospect. After all, most of them are republicans after all. :smile:

I mean, this scenario is entirely hypothetical - I was speaking more in terms of the lopsided firepower dynamic, not whether your average GI would follow the order or not.

 

Yep, currently, it is law that folks with mental instabilities are not legally able to purchase firearms. That law is already on the books. The problem? Doctor/patient privilege. Doctors CAN'T tell ANY authority that their patient *might* be a threat. Not and keep their license at any rate. They would be sued out of the medical field in a short second. The other problem? Folks with no history of mental health issues. Stephen Paddock for instance. No criminal record, no mental health issues on record, yet he still killed 59, and injured hundreds. So, even that wouldn't be a 'complete' solution. (though I agree, it would be a VERY good start.)

Actually, that's not the (federal) law at all.

 

There are two conditions that bar someone from purchasing a firearm: if the person is involuntarily committed (by a court, past the normal 72-hour hold) to a mental hospital, or if a court or government body declares them mentally incompetent. That's it. And courts are very tepid about involuntarily committing people or declaring people mentally incompetent.

 

Guns are designed to provide a method of self defense. Yes, it is potentially lethal force, but, that is what MAKES it a 'good defense'. Remember Heinlein? An armed society is a polite society. If you don't know if the person is armed, or, even if you know for a fact that they ARE, you are going to be a LOT less likely to want to take them on. THAT is the whole idea. That aside, what something was 'designed for' really isn't relevant. Alcohol kills 10 times as many as guns, is a LUXURY ITEM, yet is perfectly legal. EVERY OTHER form of alcohol is a deadly poison, (as is this one, in sufficient quantities....) So, it's ok for someone to poison themself, but not ok to shoot themself? Where is the logic in that? I would argue, that if you are using a gun to MURDER people, an inherently illegal act, you are NOT using it 'properly'. Guns have a great many utilitarian uses, chief of which, is self defense. The left never seems to want to hear about how many crimes are PREVENTED by gun owners. (CDC estimates somewhere in the neighborhood a couple million 'defensive uses' of guns in the 90's.....)

The difference is that process of drinking alcohol doesn't kill other people. And all the other things you listed have a primary use: alcohol is for imbibing, cars are for transportation, knives are for cutting things, and guns are for killing peo... self-defense. :tongue:

 

A gun is just a tool. Just like a car, truck, hammer, knife, etc. ANY tool can be misused. That's why there were 80 some dead in France, killed by a person driving a truck. Couple dozen dead in Baltimore, from pressure cookers. The world is NOT a safe place, nor will it ever be. (not so long as humans are around....) My 2nd amendment rights give me at least some small chance of being able to defend myself. Do not think I will sit back and just let it happen. I will use my second amendment right, to defend my second amendment rights. Sure, I might get dead from it, but, everyone has to die from something. At least it would be while standing up for something I believe in.

Yeah, any tool can be misused. Except the entire purpose of a gun is to kill.

 

Also, ya gotta remember, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. Out where I live, its more like an hour. I don't relish the thought of being at the mercy of persons with ill intent for an hour, before the police finally show up. Everyone here would quite likely be dead by the time they got here. Police do NOT prevent crime, they react to it. Not to mention, your average CCW holder is actually a better shot than the average cop. :smile:

Not my fault you decided to live in the sticks. :tongue: But I understand your point.

 

While not every school shooter is going to take into account the possibility of armed resistance, some will. Adam Lanza didn't go to HIS school, he just picked a location to go and shoot folks. There was NO ONE there that had any real ability to fight back. Hanging a 'gun free zone' sign does NOT make people safer. If anything, it makes them LESS safe. Still and all, armed security in the schools hasn't been real effective either.... At Columbine, the armed guard waited for police to show up before actually doing anything. (which was policy at the time. That changed immediately afterward.....) Trouble is, a fair few schools are BIG. Expecting a couple guys to secure that much territory, just isn't practical. Putting an army into schools isn't really practical either. Locked doors, and metal detectors only keep the honest people honest. Another consideration is, sure, armed cops in schools might help, if they are in the right place, at the right time. Teachers/staff will almost ALWAYS be in the right place..... CCW holders also tend to be better shots the the police, and a fair few of them actually spend more time training than the police..... They also tend to train for specific scenarios, one of which is, hunting bad guys in occupied buildings... Once could argue that they would actually be BETTER at defending the students, than the police.

 

Civil war days, sorry I missed that. :)

 

Yes, the military has MUCH better weapons than the average civilian. But, before you get to the point where that becomes an issue, quite a bit needs to happen. Folks still remember Kent State, and are rather reluctant to give the government permission to use military force on home soil. I suppose martial law could be declared, but, that has problems all its own. Basically, banning guns, and then trying to collect them, would be incredibly impractical, and the government knows that. (though the dems my try to fool themselves into think that they could simply pass a law, and the sheep would turn in their guns. Realistically, it wouldn't happen that way. There WOULD be resistance, and lots of folks would get dead. Both military, and civilians.) There isn't any other agency that would have the manpower to even attempt a gun grab. Do you think folks would simply sit back and watch, as soldiers went house to house, searching for weapons? (as that IS what it would take. The government has no real clue how many long guns are out there, or who owns them.) And then we have fun areas like south side of chicago, Los Angeles, etc..... where damn near EVERYONE is armed, and VERY willing to use them. How long do you think it would be before the gang-bangers had a nice collection of those military weapons? Nope, a gun grab won't work, for the very same reasons an invasion by a foreign power wouldn't.

 

I will concede the point on mental health issues. Something that obviously needs addressed. Trouble is, how do you walk that fine line between doctor-patient privilege, and protecting society?

 

I have quite a few friends that would beg to differ that consuming alcohol doesn't kill other people. I went to six funerals in one summer because of folks drinking, and driving, and killing other folks. And no, it wasn't my friends that were doing the drinking, it was the folks that killed them that were drunk. Here in the US, 28 people are killed EVERY DAY by drinking and driving. That is far more than folks killed in mass shootings. (in fact, its equivalent to a mass shooting EVERY DAY.) Yet alcohol is perfectly legal, and no one is up in arms about all the dead folks, or calling for a ban on alcohol.

 

Yes, guns can kill, they can also defend, they can also provide food for the family, among a host of other jobs that do not include the killing of innocents. Folks kill folks in a variety of different ways. Guns are certainly the most popular.... closely followed by knives, and fists..... (what I found intriguing was 'defenestration' actually had a place in the statistics..... yes, tossing someone out a window in order to kill them made the list. How weird is that?) Blaming the tool for what the human does with it though..... Do I blame the hammer for crushing my thumb?

 

Of course its your fault, you were holding a gun to my head, forcing me to sign the papers to buy this place. Admit it. IT'S YOUR FAULT!!! :D

 

A pretty significant portion of our population lives 'out in the sticks'....... Just recently, not too far from me, three guys broke into a home, beat dad half to death, raped mom, and the 11 year old daughter, stole their truck, and drove away. So far as I know, the perpetrators were never caught. That was just a few miles from MY house. They did not have any guns in the house, by the time the cops got there, the bad guys were long gone. Here is a family that will bear permanent scars from the experience. Dad now keeps a gun in the house, and has most certainly learned to use it. The police are not a deterrent to crime, they are not proactive, they do not prevent anything, they REACT to crime. By the time they get there, the damage is already done. Now, the left wants to deprive americans of the ability to defend themselves? Sorry, I cannot support that position.

[Lagruej]

 

 

 

Yea, the NRA doesn't ever admit it was the GUN that killed people, instead NTA.tv is blaming the Noise Cancelling Headphones for being the cause of death in Florida.

Huh? Seriously?

 

 

NTA.tv host blaming the headphones.

Dana Loesch another NRA harridan that used to promote SUPERBEETS!!!! already said that so many died because of "Gun Free Zones" and that if everybody was armed, this wouldn't have happened.

With the NRA, it's always the victims fault, never the gun or the gun owner.

Apparently we're supposed to live in fear 24/7 and have "situational Awareness" at ALL TIMES.

 

https://www.mediamatters.org/embed/static/clips/2018/08/27/61314/nratv-stinchfield-20180827-headphones

 

I would point out that the gun won't do anything at all by itself. Left to its own devices, the only thing it will do is collect dust. Its the person HOLDING the gun that is responsible for what happens. Not the gun, not the headphones, not the idiots upbringing, and not society in general. I don't care about their mental issues, or if their daddy beat them every day. If you go out and shoot someone, then YOU are responsible, and should pay for your crime. No one else.

 

The NRA promotes GUN SAFETY. They always have. They are well aware that "Gun Free Zones" are actually mislabeled. The should really be called "Target Rich Environments in which no one will be shooting back." Or, haven't you noticed that almost EVERY SINGLE "mass shooting" has occurred in a.... wait for it........ Gun Free Zone? And what is the immediate response to any such event? Ban Guns. Right. So far, NOTHING the left has proposed to 'discourage' these incidents would make any difference whatsoever. At least the NRA has proposed reasonable ideas. After all, an ARMED society, is a POLITE society. (Robert Heinlein.)

 

Dear old Robert here is sorely mistaken. We in Canada boast being one of, if not the most polite societies on the planet and we aren't very heavily armed... not sure blanket quotes are the best way to discuss this... especially when America is ironically considered the 7th rudest national population on Earth as per polling....

 

We have legal guns just like the US, even in my household 3/5 people are registered gun owners. I would hardly consider our population "armed" though and to be quite frank you could consider all of Canada a gun free zone. Yet the criminals who do have guns aren't out here mass murdering people.

 

I do agree to most of your statement - however there is seemingly a huge disparity between the US and other gun toting nations in this regard... most of Canada could be seen as "gun free" but we don't have mass murders happening on a monthly, or even yearly basis... our criminals have guns too (mostly coming from the US through our porous border) - but our criminals weren't raised in the US and so their willingness to commit gun violence is leagues different. This kind of stuff just isn't common in here, we're unfortunate enough to see these events maybe once or twice every 2 decade.

 

Americans have a socially and culturally rooted problem with guns that goes beyond simple thoughts like an "armed society being a polite society." Americans are taught from birth to glorify war and violence, so it's no wonder their society churns out violent people at an alarming rate. It's no surprise either that the country with the highest prison population in the world also happens to have the most dangerous criminals. Yes it's still the person's responsibility - but I think you miss a key point when you say it's not at all to do with society or culture - because it is, as evidenced by all the other nations on the planet with guns who aren't shooting eachother in the dozens every month.

 

No other country is mass producing violent animals like the US is and that's the cultural and societal fault of the entire population of the US, something every American is responsible for. The poor education standards and the weak mental health system are probably the two greatest agitators. A population with a high density of stupid and mentally ill people with easy access to firearms is far more likely to commit violent crimes than an educated population with access to adequate mental health services and you'd have to be quite literally insane to think otherwise.

 

The problem isn't guns. The problem is the American People, their culture, and their lack of investment in social systems which would improve quality of life all around. Those are huge differences (in fact some of the biggest differences) to my country, Canada, who has one of the best education standards in the world, and socialized healthcare (which sucks for serious stuff like surgeries, but is great for "less serious" stuff like counselling services which is what the US needs needs more of).

 

Regardless this a tragedy and I hope the families can make it through these tough times, I hope one day the American people can untie in improving quality of living because arguing back and forth about whether they should ban guns is not and will never be a solution. Neither will banning guns nor arming everybody in the population be a solution. These are silly arguments from a country so polarized that its people can ONLY think and take positions in utter extremities.

Edited August 30, 2018 by Lagruej

[Fkemman11]

 

Americans have a socially and culturally rooted problem with guns that goes beyond simple thoughts like an "armed society being a polite society." Americans are taught from birth to glorify war and violence, so it's no wonder their society churns out violent people at an alarming rate. It's no surprise either that the country with the highest prison population in the world also happens to have the most dangerous criminals. Yes it's still the person's responsibility - but I think you miss a key point when you say it's not at all to do with society or culture - because it is, as evidenced by all the other nations on the planet with guns who aren't shooting each other in the dozens every month.

 

 

That's hitting pretty close to the heart of the matter. The illusion is that America is a somewhat peaceful place where law and order reign almost supreme and the occasional criminal is running scared. It's almost the complete opposite. People living here choose not to see any of it or acknowledge there is a deep cancer in our nation until it kicks in their door and ravages everyone and everything inside. Most of the larger inner cities are controlled by gangs and violence. The more honest, hard working people move further and further out into the suburbs to try and escape it. Also you must consider that most Americans are "doped up" most of the time to help deal with their reality- or as another means of escape.

[kthompsen]

lol.. it was a Madden tournament. Hardly represents anything about "violent games" anyways. The people blaming gamers just show how dense they are for going there.

[HeyYou]

 

 

Americans have a socially and culturally rooted problem with guns that goes beyond simple thoughts like an "armed society being a polite society." Americans are taught from birth to glorify war and violence, so it's no wonder their society churns out violent people at an alarming rate. It's no surprise either that the country with the highest prison population in the world also happens to have the most dangerous criminals. Yes it's still the person's responsibility - but I think you miss a key point when you say it's not at all to do with society or culture - because it is, as evidenced by all the other nations on the planet with guns who aren't shooting each other in the dozens every month.

 

 

That's hitting pretty close to the heart of the matter. The illusion is that America is a somewhat peaceful place where law and order reign almost supreme and the occasional criminal is running scared. It's almost the complete opposite. People living here choose not to see any of it or acknowledge there is a deep cancer in our nation until it kicks in their door and ravages everyone and everything inside. Most of the larger inner cities are controlled by gangs and violence. The more honest, hard working people move further and further out into the suburbs to try and escape it. Also you must consider that most Americans are "doped up" most of the time to help deal with their reality- or as another means of escape.

 

Hhhhmmm.. "Glorify war and violence."??? Odd, I was never taught that. Our government certainly gives that appearance though, doesn't it......

 

There are segments of our population that glorify violence, and 'the thug life' though. Unfortunately, that is not something the american people as a whole, can address. That particular segment of the population needs to address it, as any outside interference is seen as bigotry, racism, etc.

 

Our education system does indeed suck. The whole 'everyone is a winner, everyone gets a trophy' thing is one my biggest problems with the attitudes of today. That is a relatively recent advent, that is only turning out kids that are woefully unprepared for the real world. They simply do not know how to handle rejection, failure, or someone else being better at something than they are. The result? What we see today in mass shootings, and suicide by cop. (or, see how many folks you can kill, before it becomes apparent that you are cornered......) We USED to have a really good education system. It started going downhill with the federal department of education being formed, and then deciding how kids should be educated. Mostly by folks that didn't have kids......

 

Is banning guns the answer though? Nope. We tried that once with alcohol. All we managed to do was create an underground market, that gave rise to organized crime. Where there is a demand, there will be folks willing to meet the supply. The criminals will still have guns, and the law-abiding populace will be disarmed. If things then follow the usual trend, certain types of crimes will then INCREASE, as the law-abiding will no longer have the means to defend themselves, nor the deterrent value of potentially being armed. Not to mention the logistical issues with first, getting said legislation passed, and even more complicated, enforcing said legislation. That would be really messy, in a big hurry.

 

Mental Health? Yeah, that's another problem. Reagan dismantled most of the mental health infrastructure we had at one time. All those folks were subsequently put out on the street, to fend for themselves. Not a good scene. We are also a rather pill-happy society. If you have a 'problem', it's quite likely the doc will have a pill for it. Whether it actually does more good than harm though, that's an entirely different proposition. Quite frequently, the side-effects are far worse than the symptoms the drug was designed to treat. Not to mention parents/doctors feeling a need to medicate kids, simply for being kids. According to theory, 5% of elementary aged children suffer from ADD, or ADHD, yet in one of the schools here, THIRTY PERCENT of the kids were on some form of treatment for it. If THAT doesn't indicate a problem, I don't know what does......

 

So, what's the fix? As I see it, there isn't one. At least, not anything that would make a difference any time soon. This is simply an attitude that is going to have to run its course, and hope society survives it. I have already made my views quite plain on the topic of mass-shootings, I don't see a real need to rehash that again here.

[Borgut1337]

 

Is banning guns the answer though? Nope. We tried that once with alcohol. All we managed to do was create an underground market, that gave rise to organized crime. Where there is a demand, there will be folks willing to meet the supply. The criminals will still have guns, and the law-abiding populace will be disarmed. If things then follow the usual trend, certain types of crimes will then INCREASE, as the law-abiding will no longer have the means to defend themselves, nor the deterrent value of potentially being armed. Not to mention the logistical issues with first, getting said legislation passed, and even more complicated, enforcing said legislation. That would be really messy, in a big hurry.

 

That that's what would happen is just speculation, and as I see it this speculation doesn't match the evidence that we have. If we look at western Europe (and probably all of the western world really other than the US), this is not what will happen. Yes, there will still be guns, in particular criminals in organized crime will find ways to get access to guns. Guns are a LOT less common though, and that's valuable. Unstable teenager gets bullied, gets angry, and in an impulse wants to act on it? In Europe, what happens is that they can't, because they don't happen to have a gun lying around and can't easily get one either. They can with planning, they can if they remain determined for long enough, but it's not easy, it's impossible to just get a gun in an impulse and immediately act on that impulse. That's where a lot of s#*! can get prevented. Same teenager gets bullied in US? There's a high chance (ridiculously, embarassingly high from a European point of view) that they just happen to have a gun lying around already, and can immediately use it. That's the real problem.

 

In Europe, yeah, there is organized crime, there are criminals with guns. It's incredibly rare those get used against civilians though. Even if criminals decide to bring them, it's much more likely just to threaten than to actually use, they're gonna be much less trigger-happy because they really don't have to worry about e.g. a shopkeeper also having a gun and using it in response. I'd personally much prefer the outcome of getting some of my stuff stolen by an armed criminal but coming out of the situation unharmed myself, over a 50% chance of me being the first to pull the trigger but also having a 50% chance that I'm too late and get shot. And that's assuming organized crime suddenly becomes interested in burglary in a common house or shop. Regular burglars aren't really likely to have a gun either.

 

I don't actually think it'd be a workable solution to ban guns at this point in the US though. Hypothetically, if all the guns could suddenly be made to disappear in the US, I definitely think the US would be better off than it is now. But it's too late, I don't think it'll ever be possible in practice anymore to take people's guns away. There's just too many of them around already, people have grown up with them and think it's "normal", etc. It's a lost cause.

[HeyYou]

 

 

Is banning guns the answer though? Nope. We tried that once with alcohol. All we managed to do was create an underground market, that gave rise to organized crime. Where there is a demand, there will be folks willing to meet the supply. The criminals will still have guns, and the law-abiding populace will be disarmed. If things then follow the usual trend, certain types of crimes will then INCREASE, as the law-abiding will no longer have the means to defend themselves, nor the deterrent value of potentially being armed. Not to mention the logistical issues with first, getting said legislation passed, and even more complicated, enforcing said legislation. That would be really messy, in a big hurry.

 

That that's what would happen is just speculation, and as I see it this speculation doesn't match the evidence that we have. If we look at western Europe (and probably all of the western world really other than the US), this is not what will happen. Yes, there will still be guns, in particular criminals in organized crime will find ways to get access to guns. Guns are a LOT less common though, and that's valuable. Unstable teenager gets bullied, gets angry, and in an impulse wants to act on it? In Europe, what happens is that they can't, because they don't happen to have a gun lying around and can't easily get one either. They can with planning, they can if they remain determined for long enough, but it's not easy, it's impossible to just get a gun in an impulse and immediately act on that impulse. That's where a lot of s*** can get prevented. Same teenager gets bullied in US? There's a high chance (ridiculously, embarassingly high from a European point of view) that they just happen to have a gun lying around already, and can immediately use it. That's the real problem.

 

In Europe, yeah, there is organized crime, there are criminals with guns. It's incredibly rare those get used against civilians though. Even if criminals decide to bring them, it's much more likely just to threaten than to actually use, they're gonna be much less trigger-happy because they really don't have to worry about e.g. a shopkeeper also having a gun and using it in response. I'd personally much prefer the outcome of getting some of my stuff stolen by an armed criminal but coming out of the situation unharmed myself, over a 50% chance of me being the first to pull the trigger but also having a 50% chance that I'm too late and get shot. And that's assuming organized crime suddenly becomes interested in burglary in a common house or shop. Regular burglars aren't really likely to have a gun either.

 

I don't actually think it'd be a workable solution to ban guns at this point in the US though. Hypothetically, if all the guns could suddenly be made to disappear in the US, I definitely think the US would be better off than it is now. But it's too late, I don't think it'll ever be possible in practice anymore to take people's guns away. There's just too many of them around already, people have grown up with them and think it's "normal", etc. It's a lost cause.

 

Not familiar with the gun culture here in the US? The US is not comparable to Europe in any way, shape, form, or manner. Europeans have been deprived of weapons since the feudal era, when the various leaders didn't want the peons having weapons with which to rise up, and overthrow them. They are used to it. Here in the US, we have ALWAYS been able to bear arms.

[Deleted54170User]

The mission to stop people from owning guns is impossible anywhere. If they want one bad enough they will get one.

 

In the U. S. of A. those who would only use them, if they were going to pay a large amount of money so they could go hunt down an animal with a trophy head filled with the coveted number of points in the horns or for similar reasons are fewer.

 

The old gun happy people around where I lived are frightened by the News of the violence everywhere else and are prepared, if they can afford it, to defend them self.

 

We don't need guns!

 

We need the old farm ways! Born on the farm, die on the farm. Or the old grazing ways. Born in the wild, die in the wild.

 

On the farms and ranches the gray grand mother and gray grand father are the teachers and always pass their wisdom down to their children. Or like, in the movies, just before the the elder dies of old age they realize they forgot something that they needed to tell their daughter or son who would be in charge.

 

OH! I just had an epiphany! So, That's why the young invented weapons of mass destruction! Grand ma ma or Grand pa pa left them in a dark place intellectually and they just started romping around creating more children to fill the mental area that their Grand parent didn't fill in.

 

They created more children to defend them from, "THE DARK".