Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Oh, Shoot (Connecticut)Follow

#152 Dec 17 2012 at 10:50 PM Rating: Excellent
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts

There's something like 140,000 schools plus colleges in the U.S, with about 72 million students enrolled.
If you put guns in each of those schools, imagine how many deaths you'd see each year due to accident, suicide, theft, criminal action of the gun's owner, or unjustified use (e.g. shooting a drugged-up crazy-acting student who is unarmed or relatively harmless). You can look up the rates of incidence for how much those things increase when a gun is on the property.

The total number of deaths from school massacres in the US in the past 20 years is 113, or 5.65 per year. You'd easily surpass that number by arming school administration. Or at the very least, you'd be exacerbating the culture of fear and violence for very little-to-no gain in lives saved.


Edited, Dec 18th 2012 11:09am by trickybeck
____________________________
Na Zdrowie
#153 Dec 17 2012 at 11:05 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
Also, if we decided that everyone should carry a gun for protection, you'd have people like me with a gun. And said gun would pretty much be forced on those people.

I don't care for guns. Nothing you can say and no statistics you can show me will change that. There aren't enough gun classes in the world that will change that, either. I would hurt myself or others, I just know it. I'm old and set in my ways. I don't want to carry a gun to feel safe. I want assault rifles in the hands of the military. THAT would make me feel safer.

I don't want guns banned. I think that's silly. But it's also silly that such a deadly thing isn't regulated more. NO PRIVATE CITIZEN needs an assault rifle.
#154 Dec 17 2012 at 11:17 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,010 posts
Zymunn wrote:
Quote:
Let me present this another way: Imagine


No need to read futher. You are, as usual, going on hypotheticals. What I am seeing is could and should which mean nothing.


I'm sorry, we're debating possible courses of action to take with regard to the issue of mass shootings like the one that occurred last Friday, but we're not allowed to present hypotheticals? Er... What are we supposed to do then?

Quote:
Stronger, firmer laws against guns could and should solve these issues, but it could also increase death tolls. Make it easier to obtain and conceal carry, it could scare the bad people enough not to shoot at anyone, it could also let loose some trigger happy idiot.


Well, we could do that, but isn't it a whole lot more useful (and interesting) for people to take different sides and then make some kind of argument about why the think that doing X will result in Y and not Z? Just a wild thought...

Yodabunny wrote:
gbaji wrote:
It's a degree of restriction that can't exist in the US under the 2nd amendment.


Hmm, funny that eh?


Yup. I've not made any secret that my argument is based on the assumption that any proposed course of action must fit within the existing 2nd amendment.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#155 Dec 17 2012 at 11:30 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,010 posts
Nadenu wrote:
Also, if we decided that everyone should carry a gun for protection, you'd have people like me with a gun. And said gun would pretty much be forced on those people.


No one is remotely arguing to force people to own guns. There is a middle ground between not allowing firearms and requiring them.

Quote:
I don't care for guns. Nothing you can say and no statistics you can show me will change that. There aren't enough gun classes in the world that will change that, either. I would hurt myself or others, I just know it. I'm old and set in my ways. I don't want to carry a gun to feel safe. I want assault rifles in the hands of the military. THAT would make me feel safer.


How about knowing that there are people who are law abiding and do know how to handle guns safely who are carrying them on the street around you, so that should something happen neither you nor most of the population has to know how to or be comfortable handling guns, but will still be protected by the 5% or so who do and are. It's strange to me that you're comfortable with the military being armed, but not with your fellow law abiding citizens (most of whom btw are military or police, or former members thereof).

Quote:
I don't want guns banned. I think that's silly. But it's also silly that such a deadly thing isn't regulated more. NO PRIVATE CITIZEN needs an assault rifle.


It's currently illegal (absent ridiculous licensing requirements) for a private citizen to own an assault rifle in the US. So you're safe! Yay!

What's funny is just how often the exact sort of statement is made. It seems quite reasonable, right? Thus, it seems quite unreasonable to oppose it. But the gun control advocates play with the phrases "assault rifle" and assault weapon" in order to make their unreasonable proposals seem perfectly reasonable. They do want to ban all guns. Period. They will lie, cheat, steal, and do whatever else they need to do to accomplish that. If making you think that we haven't banned "assault rifles" helps them pass laws that ban things which aren't assault rifles, they'll do it.

Look at the actual proposals, not the language used to describe them. It's often quite eye opening.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#156 Dec 17 2012 at 11:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,938 posts
The type of gun isn't as important as how much ammunition it has available for it to continuously fire without need to stop. Listening to the radio this morning and this afternoon, a guy made a pretty convincing argument about the old AR ban, how vague and stupid the definitions were, and how much easier it would be to just say "no clips more than 5 bullets" for example.

Of course, I have a semi-automatic .22 rifle in storage with a clip that holds 12 shots...
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#157 Dec 18 2012 at 12:12 AM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,010 posts
TirithRR wrote:
The type of gun isn't as important as how much ammunition it has available for it to continuously fire without need to stop. Listening to the radio this morning and this afternoon, a guy made a pretty convincing argument about the old AR ban, how vague and stupid the definitions were, and how much easier it would be to just say "no clips more than 5 bullets" for example.


Because the folks pushing for such bans generally have this idea of banning "guns that are scary", but there isn't really a way to define that legally without a ban that hits every gun, even those that aren't scary.

Quote:
Of course, I have a semi-automatic .22 rifle in storage with a clip that holds 12 shots...


Exactly. There's no way to legally define an AR-15 such that it also doesn't include any random rifle as well. Not without resorting to arbitrary physical characteristics which can be trivially changed to comply with the law. The problem is that they can't just limit total magazine capacity because there are a **** of a lot of "non scary" weapons with fairly large magazines. The sheer volume of 12-16 round magazines for various guns which no one would remotely call "assault weapons", and which very clearly look to be normal hunting rifles and whatnot makes it nearly impossible to achieve the intended goal.

They could try to just put hard bans on magazines, but they'd likely never get them passed. Too many Democrats like to hunt for that to work. At the end of the day, you end out with silly laws designed to appease the nutty anti-gun folks who don't realize ahead of time just how useless the laws really will be. Like all the people who today lament the expiration of the Brady Act. Yeah. Why? Because they've created this myth that it was somehow powerful legislation that was helping prevent gun violence or something. It wasn't, and it didn't, but they want to feel like they're doing some good, so they convince themselves of this, and then when the law expires, they lament it like we somehow just passed back into the dark ages or something.

The Brady Act was passed, and had no impact on gun crime at all. It expired and had no impact on gun crime at all. That's the reality. I just think it's absurd that we may be ignoring the lesson of that law and heading into another round of feel-good stupidity from the anti-gun lobby.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#158 Dec 18 2012 at 12:32 AM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,938 posts
Well, I think some of those characteristics do make them easier to shoot rapidly. Like a pistol grip vs a shoulder stock.

And if you are hunting, most animals after the first shot are well on their way to escaping if you miss. Deer usually get up and run as you are firing...
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#159 Dec 18 2012 at 2:24 AM Rating: Decent
It's Just a Flesh Wound
******
22,699 posts
TirithRR wrote:
The type of gun isn't as important as how much ammunition it has available for it to continuously fire without need to stop. Listening to the radio this morning and this afternoon, a guy made a pretty convincing argument about the old AR ban, how vague and stupid the definitions were, and how much easier it would be to just say "no clips more than 5 bullets" for example.

Of course, I have a semi-automatic .22 rifle in storage with a clip that holds 12 shots...

Semi-automatic rifles are not automatically assault rifles. And for that matter neither is the AR-15.

Quote:
In countries where assault rifles aren't readily available people just don't think about shooting up schools full of children, well, I'm sure they think about it but it's quickly discarded as unfeasible because the logistics of doing so are ridiculous. There's no glory factor in stopping to reload your 12 gauge every 3 rounds while everyone hops out the windows and some big janitor tackles you.

Handguns are much more effective.

Edited, Dec 18th 2012 3:25am by Deadgye
____________________________
Dear people I don't like: 凸(●´―`●)凸
#160 Dec 18 2012 at 3:05 AM Rating: Good
****
4,158 posts
Awesome thread!

One failed attempt at blowing up a 'plane with liquid explosives 10 years ago and now the whole world is forbidden to travel with a bottle of shampoo or a drink of water and here some people are seriously having a debate as to whether having even more guns available would be an effective counter to the threat of guns being used against children in schools is just brilliant.

I missed you guys! Smiley: laugh
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#161 Dec 18 2012 at 5:03 AM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,938 posts
Deadgye wrote:
TirithRR wrote:
The type of gun isn't as important as how much ammunition it has available for it to continuously fire without need to stop. Listening to the radio this morning and this afternoon, a guy made a pretty convincing argument about the old AR ban, how vague and stupid the definitions were, and how much easier it would be to just say "no clips more than 5 bullets" for example.

Of course, I have a semi-automatic .22 rifle in storage with a clip that holds 12 shots...

Semi-automatic rifles are not automatically assault rifles. And for that matter neither is the AR-15.


I didn't say they were?
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#162 Dec 18 2012 at 5:33 AM Rating: Excellent
******
27,272 posts
I can't find an English article for it at the moment but the news here reported that since Belgium started enforcing a law that means you have to prove that you need a gun to be able to buy any sort of gun or rifle in 2006 deaths from gun shootings (murders and suicides) have halved from 134 in 2005 to 68 in 2010.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#163 Dec 18 2012 at 6:56 AM Rating: Excellent
******
21,720 posts
Belkira wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Belkira wrote:
Is gbaji seriously advocating guns in elementary schools...?


Yes. Get past your knee jerk opposition to the idea and think about it.


Yeah, thinking with my head, I can still see how that's a bad idea. Incidences of mass shootings at schools might decrease in your scenario, but I can see how other gun violence would go up.


Yeah, like the depressed, mentally unstable teacher who caught his/her spouse cheating the night before who decides life isn't worth living and the little runts in his/her class are better off not growing up to become the kind of ******** his/her spouse is.

____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#164 Dec 18 2012 at 7:32 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,245 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
None of that happened anywhere gun control was enacted, but none of those places are really very demographically similar to the US.


I've been thinking a lot over the past 15 years or so about why the US has more gun violence than other countries, correcting for gun availability. I think we're a gun culture because of our cultural heritage, for lack of a less pompous phrase, of the rugged individualist. Our fascination for solving problems with confrontation, for solving problems as individuals, for walking like a ******** MAN, for being a cowboy hero instead of a wussy negotiator, all contribute.

I don't know how you heal a culture.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#165 Dec 18 2012 at 7:47 AM Rating: Good
Stubbs wrote:

Yeah, like the depressed, mentally unstable cop on school duty who caught his/her spouse cheating the night before who decides life isn't worth living and the little runts in his/her school are better off not growing up to become the kind of @#%^s his/her spouse is.


See, everything is a hypothetical!
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#166 Dec 18 2012 at 7:49 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,595 posts
Samira wrote:

I don't know how you heal a culture.

I think it would have to start with the 2nd amendment.

____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#167 Dec 18 2012 at 7:53 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,595 posts
Omegavegeta wrote:
Stubbs wrote:

Yeah, like the depressed, mentally unstable cop on school duty who caught his/her spouse cheating the night before who decides life isn't worth living and the little runts in his/her school are better off not growing up to become the kind of @#%^s his/her spouse is.


See, everything is a hypothetical!

I have to believe that the more guns there are - regardless of their legal status, the more deaths to guns there will be. We have a LOT of guns in this country. We have a lot of gun deaths.

@gbaji, if you want to simply reduce mass shootings specifically in schools then yes, armed guards in every school will probably do that. But in the big picture adding armed guards to a community simply puts more guns on the streets.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#168 Dec 18 2012 at 8:05 AM Rating: Excellent
Quote:
I have to believe that the more guns there are - regardless of their legal status, the more deaths to guns there will be.


I don't think you read what I quoted, as its changed from his original words. I agree with you.

In light of this tragedy, I'd like to see the response be, 1) AN assault rifles ban that makes sense, 2) Limits placed on magazine capacities, 3) A gun license requirement for anyone whom wants to buy bullets 4) A mental health evaluation as a requirement for a gun license and reevaluations when renewing said licenese 5) Easier access to mental health facilities for anyone and everyone who needs it, & 5) Mental Health professionals given somewhat broader powers to deal with potentially violent patients (While I'm all for doctor-patient confidentiality, I think when it comes to potentially dangerous individuals, exceptions should be made) 6) Anyone whom owns a gun subject to one spot inspection a year to ensure said guns are stored safely 7) Finger print locks on all guns themselves as well as cases.

I expect #2 to maybe happen & am unsure if outside of James Bond, if #7 is science fiction or not.

Edited, Dec 18th 2012 9:08am by Omegavegeta
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#169 Dec 18 2012 at 8:05 AM Rating: Good
******
21,720 posts
Omegavegeta wrote:
Stubbs wrote:

Yeah, like the depressed, mentally unstable cop on school duty who caught his/her spouse cheating the night before who decides life isn't worth living and the little runts in his/her school are better off not growing up to become the kind of @#%^s his/her spouse is.


See, everything is a hypothetical!


I'm not sure what your point here is. You can plug in any scenario and the effect is the same. The more guns we have, the more opportunity there exists to abuse them. Whether the intent is to arm only the "safe" individuals for the "protection" of others, the fact remains that an armed teacher or an armed police officer or an armed mall security guard can still fly off the hook and start shooting. The point stands, then, that arming staff members to protect the children is a bad idea.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#170 Dec 18 2012 at 8:09 AM Rating: Good
Stubbs wrote:
The point stands, then, that arming staff members to protect the children is a bad idea.


I thought your point was to arm teachers. My mistake if it wasn't.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#171 Dec 18 2012 at 8:10 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,595 posts
BrownDuck wrote:

... the fact remains that an armed teacher or an armed police officer or an armed mall security guard can still fly off the hook and start shooting.

Or their gun can get stolen. I don't care how 'secure' something is, if a kid/teen wants it, they'll find a way to get it - kids are sneaky bastards.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#172 Dec 18 2012 at 8:15 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,383 posts
Elinda wrote:
But in the big picture adding armed guards to a community simply puts more guns on the streets.
If this is supposed to be a deterrent, you need to consider who you're talking to. gbaji doesn't believe more guns in the community is a bad thing at all.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#173 Dec 18 2012 at 8:18 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Omegavegeta wrote:
See, everything is a hypothetical!

If you have lots of guns, someone will always stop shooters.

If you don't have guns, shooters will always rampage with bomb-firing crossbows or something.

Easy-peasy.
Uglysasquatch wrote:
gbaji doesn't believe more guns in the community is a bad thing at all.

Only if it's civilian jamokes running around packing. He didn't seem interested in saving us by militarizing the schools and patrolling the malls with soldiers. I'm starting to think he cares more about the guns than he does our safety Smiley: frown

Edited, Dec 18th 2012 8:20am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#174 Dec 18 2012 at 8:20 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,595 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Elinda wrote:
But in the big picture adding armed guards to a community simply puts more guns on the streets.
If this is supposed to be a deterrent, you need to consider who you're talking to. gbaji doesn't believe more guns in the community is a bad thing at all.

He will when they start pointing at him.

Replace the word gun with the word cockroach. Maybe people will be more motivated to get them out of their schools and communities.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#175 Dec 18 2012 at 8:23 AM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts
I've been thinking a lot over the past 15 years or so about why the US has more gun violence than other countries, correcting for gun availability. I think we're a gun culture because of our cultural heritage, for lack of a less pompous phrase, of the rugged individualist. Our fascination for solving problems with confrontation, for solving problems as individuals, for walking like a ******** MAN, for being a cowboy hero instead of a wussy negotiator, all contribute.

I don't know how you heal a culture.


You don't. It's integral to the big lie of the myth of American capitalism. If you remove the "America is magic and her people are fully self realized ubermenches" fantasy you get a brutal thuggish country who committed multiple instances of genocide, and lucked into a near perfect treasure trove of resources through an accident of geography. That's a much tougher sell as an explanation of why the US is the wealthiest nation on Earth than "American Exceptionalism".
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#176 Dec 18 2012 at 8:42 AM Rating: Good
******
49,907 posts
Omegavegeta wrote:
I expect #2 to maybe happen & am unsure if outside of James Bond, if #7 is science fiction or not.
Or Judge Dredd.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 59 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (59)