...a couple staffers had been armed?

Tags: control, gun, guns, killings, mass

Views: 8485

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

Unless the goal is to keep blood off the hands of anyone intervening instead of maximizing the saving of lives, one should worry about crossfire. It's one thing if a policeman shoots at a suspect fleeing a robbery where the suspect isn't trying to kill as many people as possible, another if the shooter is just trying to kill everyone in sight before going out in a blaze of glory.

You can "get" that distinction, can't you?

If children are taught that police or guards are there for their protection, that should make them feel safer than were they to be left unprotected.

I believe most soldiers on a base are unarmed unless engaged in some activity requiring it. In the case of Virginia tech, it had a vast campus. A totally different situation from a small elementary school building.

Absolutely it would have been lower.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_High_School_shooting

This individual (who also killed his mother before going on the rampage) was stopped relatively quickly by an assistant principal dashing out to his car and retrieving a .45.

Notice these events take place in areas where firearms are banned.  Clearly that doesn't stop the shooter, but it has lots to do with stopping the response to the shooter, and the nutjubs are just lucid enough to realize that.

I would not send my children to a school with armed guards, I'd rather teach them at home.

George Orwells 1984 is starting to become a reality in the states, you guys seriously need to consider the price you are paying for your safety and ask if it's worth your liberty.

Why wouldn't you send children to a school with armed guards? The guards needn't be standing at the door holding an AK-47. In fact, the guns could be in a locked cabinet somewhere, only to be opened if gunshots were heard.

By the time the cabinets were opened and the guards at the scene how many people will be dead? That's the problem with guns for protection, they have to be easily available and at the ready in an instant, not locked away as they should be.

If it took them 2 or 3 minutes to get the guns...remember, the attack lasted 10 minutes. Are you saying that unless they could spare every single life, then better to just let them die?

Why is it that when the subject of guns comes up, most of my liberal friends (and I count myself a liberal) abandon all logic?

Because it is better to try prevent this from happening in the first place rather than having people at the school armed who could hopefully kill this type of attacker before he killed to many children

Prevent it from happening in the first place. How? Do you think we can eradicate mental illness, lethal resentments, etc. from the human psyche?

That is not a practical solution.

Dont you see your own hypocrisy here Unseen? You will  happily argue that we should have teachers armed or guards at a school so they can try mitigate how many children die in such an attack. Your whole argument rests not on completely preventing this children being shot but hopefully cutting down on how many are killed. And yet as soon as someone argues for gun control or other changes to cut down on how often or serious such an attack will be you say it wont completely prevent this sort of thing so it does not count.

So no we will never be able to completely prevent this sort of thing but that does not mean we cant try to cut down on how often it may happen and how serious it would likely be. And it is not impractical as there are plenty of countries around the world who have had success with it that far surpasses  America's track record

Dont you see your own hypocrisy here Unseen? You will  happily argue that we should have teachers armed or guards at a school so they can try mitigate how many children die in such an attack. Your whole argument rests not on completely preventing this children being shot but hopefully cutting down on how many are killed. And yet as soon as someone argues for gun control or other changes to cut down on how often or serious such an attack will be you say it wont completely prevent this sort of thing so it does not count.

Maybe you haven't been here long enough to know that I'm a devil's advocate and often argue both sides of a position to help one and all present better arguments. I won't necessarily say what MY position is. My background is in philosophy and the arguments people use interest me. That's not hypocrisy.

I'm essentially asking, though, why some argue that we can't have guns in schools (in the hands of adults) because it wouldn't save every single child but only some. I don't understand how that argument works and I'm awaiting the missing premises. At the same time, I see the argument "Let's forget about it" because among all the problems we face, it's a rather small one (global warming, dying oceans, species going extinct, etc.). After all, what's a few dozen deaths due to mass murder? We could save more people by making cars safer.

So no we will never be able to completely prevent this sort of thing but that does not mean we cant try to cut down on how often it may happen and how serious it would likely be. And it is not impractical as there are plenty of countries around the world who have had success with it that far surpasses  America's track record

Of course the problem with your argument here is that people in other countries wouldn't fit in here in America. Americans are a people apart, a product of our history, we possess, to perhaps a dysfunctional degree, a love of freedom (especially from government) not held quite so fanatically elsewhere. These attitudes are so enshrined in the Constitution that we can't institute laws allowing us to take people off the street merely because we suppose they might commit an act of violence. not only that, most of us would make excuses to ourselves not to turn such a person in merely based on suspicions.

Just look at our resistance to a national medicine program which any rational person can see is sorely needed. We're a people who are ready to throw the poor and sick under the bus if it limits our own medical choices or is more costly to us. What makes you think there's a will to solve the mass murder problem at its cause(s)?

I'm not pessimistic about attacking this sort of thing at the rootcause, I'm just realistic.

Yes having armed and trained people in every school could maybe help in such a situation, though in the long term it would likely just feed into your national paranoia and hysteria , further  exacerbating one of the many root causes in this sort of problem.

What i am arguing is that having gun control laws like the UK would do more to prevent this sort of problem than arming more people would. Yes guns will still be available on the black market and used by gang members and hardened criminals. But in every case like this shooting , i know of , those have not been the sort of people committing this type of crime. If someone like him in the UK suffered a psychotic break tomorrow and decided he wanted to kill as many people as he could they would find it virtually impossible to get their hands on a gun, let alone a whole arsenal of them, limiting the damage they could likely cause. Yes he could still go on a rampage with a knife but in such a situation is it not preferable they are armed with a knife than half a dozen guns?

I never said we should take people off the street because we think they may commit violence. But severely limiting their access to guns will most often  minimize the violence they can do, if not prevent it all together in some cases as having guns and assault rifles on you has a profoundly different psychological effect than having a knife.

And yes America is not Europe but that does not mean it cannot change for the better. But you can already see clear indications that the attitude about gun laws is changing in America. It just takes time and hard work. I mean gay rights would have been all but unthinkable 40 years ago and yet look where they are today?

You are right that this is a not that major of an issue in the greater scheme of things but that does not mean it should just be ignored. Often the only way that really big changes come is by people making lots and lots of small ones . The evolution of a society is analogous to the evolution of a species in this aspect. I mean a pre-whales legs did not just become fins over night, it took many small changes that would have seemed largely meaningless  in the overall scheme of things to eventually bring that about. 

@Rocky John

Yes having armed and trained people in every school could maybe help in such a situation, though in the long term it would likely just feed into your national paranoia and hysteria , further exacerbating one of the many root causes in this sort of problem.

We aren't paranoid nor hysterical, we are simply morbidly obsessed.

What i am arguing is that having gun control laws like the UK would do more to prevent this sort of problem than arming more people would. Yes guns will still be available on the black market and used by gang members and hardened criminals. But in every case like this shooting , i know of , those have not been the sort of people committing this type of crime. If someone like him in the UK suffered a psychotic break tomorrow and decided he wanted to kill as many people as he could they would find it virtually impossible to get their hands on a gun, let alone a whole arsenal of them, limiting the damage they could likely cause. Yes he could still go on a rampage with a knife but in such a situation is it not preferable they are armed with a knife than half a dozen guns?

Even there, wouldn't be nice to have someone bring a gun to a knife fight?

Having more gun control laws is not very likely. It's about as likely as having everyone turn vegan. I haven't been discussing gang violence. These mass shootings are largely a white person problem for some reason. But I remind you once again, if I want to kill people en masse I can make a bomb. In fact, I can make a small bomb to go off in a trash container and a huge truck bomb to go off 30 minutes later. I'm surprised no bomber has created a flash mob and really flashed them off the planet once they started dancing to Thriller.

I never said we should take people off the street because we think they may commit violence. But severely limiting their access to guns will most often minimize the violence they can do, if not prevent it all together in some cases as having guns and assault rifles on you has a profoundly different psychological effect than having a knife.

I'm not just talking to you, I'm talking to many of the other people as well, who might be reading this and who seem to think it'll be easy to just turn in anyone we know who we feel is a little "off" or "dark" or too interested in events like this. I, for one, don't want to live in that world.

And yes America is not Europe but that does not mean it cannot change for the better. But you can already see clear indications that the attitude about gun laws is changing in America. It just takes time and hard work. I mean gay rights would have been all but unthinkable 40 years ago and yet look where they are today?

Right, well unlike the right to be gay, which is protected by the Constitution, the right to have guns largely without restriction is protected by the Constitution, and it will take a lot more than a large majority of Americans to change the Constitution because the public doesn't have right to referendum when it comes to Federal laws or Constitutional changes.

My post was about how to respond now, not hundreds of years from now when Americans have managed to change the Constitution.

You are right that this is a not that major of an issue in the greater scheme of things but that does not mean it should just be ignored. Often the only way that really big changes come is by people making lots and lots of small ones . The evolution of a society is analogous to the evolution of a species in this aspect. I mean a pre-whales legs did not just become fins over night, it took many small changes that would have seemed largely meaningless in the overall scheme of things to eventually bring that about.

Like I said, my post was about how to respond (and whether to do so) to correct this situation, and whether having armed people in the schools could have prevented this slaughter. If we're going to wait for evolution, perhaps in the future children will have wings and can just fly away at the first alarm of an intruder.

RSS

Events

Services we love!

© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service