...a couple staffers had been armed?

Tags: control, gun, guns, killings, mass

Views: 8486

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

Oh, come on. You can't compare speed limits (which 99% of us disobey most of the time anyway) with gun control. Laws are enforced retroactively. We have laws against murder (and thus massacre as well), but we only enforce them too late...after the carnage. If we catch and ticket the guy going 40 mph through the 20 mph school zone, the point is that he'll learn a lesson. This guy did the killing and then killed himself. Too late to teach him a lesson.

The Constitution doesn't bequeath the right to bear arms for defending one's homestead or for hunting. It's defined as necessary for military reasons. The idea was that if many people had guns we'd be safer from both invasion and from our own government, should it go astray. In the meantime, it's simply become a Constitutional right we all (ahem) enjoy. One might get the Federal courts to agree to some limitations but not any sort of ban which would remove guns entirely. 

BTW, this fellow used a gun which wasn't automatic. He shot each bullet with a pull of the trigger. 

@Rocky John

(I'm starting a new thread because I'm tired of these narrow posts with no "Reply" link.)

@unseen-

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

really? How many Americans think evolution is a conspiracy by scientists to turn them on god? or that global warming is a scam ? what about the 911 truthers or people who think the government is hiding aliens from them. And the people who talk loudest against strict gun control seem to be the major nut cases like alex jones who are sure that the government wants to take their guns then put you all in Hitler style camps. You must admit that this is far more prevalent in America than any other first world country.

Let's stick to the subject of paranoia about safety from massacres.

"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."

To be exact these shooting are mainly middle class white people, the exact sort of person who would not have any contacts for illegal guns if they did suddenly go off the deep end. And it does not surprise me that these sort of people use guns even though a bomb would likely cause a lot more death. Guns have a certain psychological factor on their bearer that bombs and poisons do not. They also take alot more planning and work while most of these cases it is someone cracks, grabs a gun then tries to shoot as many people as possible.

You don't need underworld contacts to buy guns if you're middle class. You can buy them at gun shops where you'll have to register many kinds of guns or at gun shows (or via Craigslist and other such sites). I don't see that situation changing anytime soon. In fact, I (a middle class white) would prefer to buy my gun at a shop or show rather than from some thug selling out of the trunk of his car. If what you mean is WERE tight gun control enacted...to reiterate, not going to happen in my lifetime or yours.

"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."

But it is possible to change the constitution and you can see how public opinion on this matter has changed from as little as 10 years ago. Have another decade or two with more events like this and i am sure it will be changed.

I wouldn't bet my life savings on it. So, you don't live in the U.S.? I ask because I doubt any American would be so optimistic about changing the Constitution to put restrictions on guns.

And the way to respond now, that would be within the constitution, is by smaller things such as banning assault rifles, banning private sales of guns so that only registered stores can sell them, requiring guns be kept in a special gun safe, requiring psychological evaluations when you buy a gun and then every year or two after. And just further miring owning a gun in a mile of red tape that most people cant be bothered with. It may seem like only small changes now but small changes can quickly add up to pave the way for large ones.

As usual, your "solution" depends on compliance which comes only from compliant people. Requiring psychological evaluations? Not in the U.S.! I don't even think the ACLU could resist attacking such a law. The people who don't feel an overwhelming desire to own a gun will comply, the rest will either find another way to get a gun or a different way to kill en masse (bomb, poison). The Oklahoma City bombers killed more people with a truck bomb than this numbskull did, and they did it with materials anyone can buy over the counter without a license or a psychologist swearing on a stack of Bibles(?) that the he's normal enough to own a gun.

"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."

I find it hard to believe that you are being anything less than purposely obtuse here.

And that from someone who so facilely believes obtusehoods. (Burp...I think I may have neologized there.)

Not like an armed security would matter. By the time you hit the armory, punch in the code, get the weapon, suit up with your body armor, and run out, the shooter has already taken out most of his victims.

That's why in most shooting crime scenes, the regular police comes arrives then followed by the SWAT.

And we have already seen what happens when you have multiple people shooting in once place. This summer, like 3 months ago, a man shot his co worker in NYC and then walked away, the NYPD shot him and  9 people got wounded and all were by the cops not 1 by the actual shooter

Not like an armed security would matter. By the time you hit the armory, punch in the code, get the weapon, suit up with your body armor, and run out, the shooter is already taken out most of his victims.

Why is it that so many people continue to think that if you can't save every potential victim, just wait for the SWAT team. By that time the shooter may have run out of just enough ammo to pop himself.

I think your timeline is ridiculously long and dragged out. I don't see why arming oneself should take more than two minutes at most and at most another minute or two locating the shooter by following the reports from his gun. This shooting took place over 10 minutes. A three minute response could easily have saved 12-14 kids.

If it were me (as the respondent), I think I might forget about the body armor, figuring that someone intent on shooting kids would probably be occupied enough for me to sneak up on him. Also, I'd realize that the more steps I can eliminate from preparation (like my body armor), the more kids I could potentially save.

And gosh, it always helps, doesn't it, when you can cite some oddball exceptional case to bolster a weak argument.

So you can't counter my example, it must be a weak argument?

I think your timeline is ridiculously long and dragged out

Your statement is based on what evidence?

If it were me (as the respondent), I think I might forget about the body armor, figuring that someone intent on shooting kids would probably be occupied enough for me to sneak up on him. Also, I'd realize that the more steps I can eliminate from preparation (like my body armor), the more kids I could potentially save.

Just put away the John Wayne movies grandpa, reality isn't a movie

I think your timeline is ridiculously long and dragged out

Your statement is based on what evidence?

Myself. I can open a combination lock in about 15 seconds. Grabbing the gun and checking to make sure it has ammo, another 15 seconds (loading ammo might take perhaps 15 to 30 seconds depending upon what the weapon is and what needs to be done). Body armor, if I decide I'm going to use it, another 30 seconds. Let's say it takes me a minute to find the shooter in a school the size of the one in question. Total time, around 2 minutes and 15-30 seconds. 

I'll let some of the military folks here criticize my timeline. I don't know what makes you think yours counts. What's YOUR evidence BTW?

If it were me (as the respondent), I think I might forget about the body armor, figuring that someone intent on shooting kids would probably be occupied enough for me to sneak up on him. Also, I'd realize that the more steps I can eliminate from preparation (like my body armor), the more kids I could potentially save.

Just put away the John Wayne movies grandpa, reality isn't a movie

Hey, why not talk like an adult not some character from Grease. That's a movie, too, BTW.

I would do whatever it took to save lives. If you think risking my life to save others is ridiculous, well that's you.

I agree with you about speaking in terms of absolutes, saving all of them vs. none of them.

The observation that I have is that we are speaking in absolutes when the world is not. It is quantifiable. And the differences in the available methods in killing people is also quantifiable.

Guns are certainly the most efficient and effective way of killing available to most people. Also shooting a gun at someone is quite impersonal and detached relative to other methods. You can be 10, 20, 50, 100 feet away from someone and kill them with a gun.

If you were to kill them with a knife, or a blunt object, these are very up close and personal methods of killing. Your physical attributes now factor into the scenario more your stamina, your aim.

Killing someone with their bare hands is more personal still requiring more strength endurance and factoring in body size to the likely success rate. Again these differences are quantifiable in terms of the relative success you will have in killing large numbers of people, and now you are required to be in intimate contact with a person to kill them.

Guns are more effective, than knives and blunt objects which are more effective, than your bare hands. These differences are quantifiable. Unfortunately, the quantification in this case means human life.

All of these mass killing have been very impersonal and symbolic. The details have yet to come out but it appears that this guy did not go to into that school to kill Ana Marquez-Greene for example, he was angry and the school was the target of his anger. The guy in Colorado did not go into the theatre to kill a specific audience member, he attacked a symbol. Of the methods of killing available to these nut jobs the most detached and least personal method, guns line up quite well with the mindset of the perpetrator.

Again these differences are quantifiable. If I was a parent in Newtown and that quantifiable difference in method meant 10 dead instead of 20, and one of those 10 to survive was my kid or your kid, the statement that guns don't kill people, people kill people, would seem awfully shrill to my ears.

So I agree, lets lock doors, arm guards, police patrols, improve mental health treatment and availability, but I think we owe it to the families in Newtown, that we don't take any options off the table as we have this discussion on how to address this problem.

Guns are certainly the most efficient and effective way of killing available to most people. Also shooting a gun at someone is quite impersonal and detached relative to other methods. You can be 10, 20, 50, 100 feet away from someone and kill them with a gun.

I don't know. If I could drive what seems like a delivery truck into a crowded area, park it, and detonate a truck bomb from around the corner with a cell phone, that could kill many more people and it could be made from materials available from grocery and hardware stores.

If you were to kill them with a knife, or a blunt object, these are very up close and personal methods of killing. Your physical attributes now factor into the scenario more your stamina, your aim.

A knife can make it easier not to miss the way a bullet can. But of course you need to get up close and personal. Not hard when you're killing small children.

Killing someone with their bare hands is more personal still requiring more strength endurance and factoring in body size to the likely success rate. Again these differences are quantifiable in terms of the relative success you will have in killing large numbers of people, and now you are required to be in intimate contact with a person to kill them.

Strangulation has never been popular with mass murderers. Serial killers, yes, not mass murderers.

All of these mass killing have been very impersonal and symbolic. The details have yet to come out but it appears that this guy did not go to into that school to kill Ana Marquez-Greene for example, he was angry and the school was the target of his anger. The guy in Colorado did not go into the theatre to kill a specific audience member, he attacked a symbol. Of the methods of killing available to these nut jobs the most detached and least personal method, guns line up quite well with the mindset of the perpetrator.

But if Plan A isn't available, I'm sure he'll go to a Plan B method. The theater shooter could have taken a backpack full of explosives into a theater and detonated it from the lobby and enjoyed the mayhem that followed.

So I agree, lets lock doors, arm guards, police patrols, improve mental health treatment and availability, but I think we owe it to the families in Newtown, that we don't take any options off the table as we have this discussion on how to address this problem.

Sadly, simply banning guns isn't an option due to the 2nd Amendment, and I doubt if psychological barriers will pass Constitutional muster. I also doubt if they'd even be effective. Most nut jobs are rational enough to know how to tell their evaluator what they want to hear. Not perhaps the ones who are so mentally disorganized that they can't dress themselves, but most of these shooters seemed to live ordinary lives other than perhaps seeming a little odd to their associates.

Obviously, we don't want to start oppressing people who don't quite fit the perceived "norm" (goths, punkers, bikers, atheists). In fact, that might simply feed their paranoia and CAUSE a massacre by the ones who were on the edge!

That was a carefully worded sentence Unseen. We do not have a huge number of deaths attributed to running trucks into a crowd of people and then detononating. People are using what is easily available, efficient and effective. I don't see 20 year old suburban kids building bombs to get back at the 3rd grade teacher they don't like at the corner grammar school.

If it is a competing option, it is not proving itself statistically.

I am not sure that if Plan A is not available he will go through with Plan B and I wonder what makes you so sure. I will grant you that the Aroura guy demonstrated the ablity since he rigged his apparment up. There is nothing to point that the typical person would. It is similarly likely that he could not see it worth his effort, be uncomfortable with the technology, or get needed help along the way before he takes it that far.

Not every pissed off kid is an Internet bomb builder, but when Mom's gun is handy and available in the hall closet and the requirement is simply to curl your index finger back to your palm to result in death, the requirements to vent anger are pretty minimal.

I did not for one second suggest an out right ban, but I will had at the Constitution is not infalible has a history of being changed and the only reason that make it off the table is our insistence on taking off the table.

I think that we have a responsibility to make a reasonable attempt to protect the lives of our citizens, I don't see how a conversation violate anyone's rights. Perhaps the conversation will catch some real mentally deranged folks, I'll accept that.

Perhaps it may instigate an incident but we have a significant enough series of meaningless death now it would be hard to tell the difference as to what triggered a given nut job to go off at a given time.

Myself. I can open a combination lock in about 15 seconds. Grabbing the gun and checking to make sure it has ammo, another 15 seconds (loading ammo might take perhaps 15 to 30 seconds depending upon what the weapon is and what needs to be done). Body armor, if I decide I'm going to use it, another 30 seconds. Let's say it takes me a minute to find the shooter in a school the size of the one in question. Total time, around 2 minutes and 15-30 seconds

Yea right.......

The only thing you would do is get yourself in the way of getting 2 to the chest and 1 right  in your head.

I feel like Im talking some kid who has been playing too much video games.

I'm 66, don't play almost any games, and have a lot more life under my belt than you do. You talk like a very aggressive person who pushes people around or bullies them in everyday life. It won't work here. It'll just mark you as another one of the kids who sign up here and haven't learned how mature adults talk yet.

He should be better at not talking back to his elders and betters then, since all they get trained in is killing effectively and following orders. Godspeed Private Sheee-e-e-eeple.

RSS

Events

Services we love!

© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service