...a couple staffers had been armed?

Tags: control, gun, guns, killings, mass

Views: 8481

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

@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.

"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.

"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.

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.

"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. 

Pointing out the impracticality of a solution like eradicating mental illness from the human psyche seems sort of lazy to me...

How so, if it's true that psychological testing is an impractical "solution" to controlling gun crimes/rampages? I'd go further and say that most of these mass shooters aren't schizophrenics who are out of touch with reality. Rather, they'd know exactly what to tell a psychologist to get a pass. Furthermore, despite the additional income such examinations might bring in, I doubt if most practicing psychologists would care to participate for fear of being victims themselves of some dangerous guy for whom they refused to give a pass. The guy might get a gun anyway and come back to blow their head off. I think I recall a story about a psychologist who was killed by a (former?) patient wielding a samurai sword.

It seems awfully defeatist to me. I don't think you can say "Well we tried that, it didn't work," in this case because "that" is very broad and needs to be explored more. To me it's a matter of trying harder.

I don't see psychological testing as an overwhelmingly substantial solution. There's something to be said about the effort, and I don't think it's a waste. But I perceive that as a small portion of the solution at best. I see a lot more options when it comes to mental wellness.

These efforts are going to be expensive, so to adopt an expensive one crossing one's fingers it'll work is just not smart. 

Do you even have an argument against the point I made? Putting words in my mouth and saying I've abandoned all logic certainly isn't an argument.

I SAID that the attack lasted 10 minutes. Obviously, they could be on the scene (the school is quite small with only 300 students) in minutes and undoubtedly save some lives.

Clear enough?

The idea that it would take them 10 minutes or more to get their weapons out and arrive at the scene is just, well, laughable. 

Are you laughing yet?

Ok, so lets put guns in schools so not quite as many people are being killed. If that Connecticut school had a gun only 7 or 8 or 9 children would have been killed in the few minutes it would have taken to open the safe and get to the scene. That would have been so much better right? Guns are a major part of the problem so it totally makes sense that the solution should be more guns! Guns for everyone!

Better than just reacting to each incident as it happens is also working to PREVENT such incidents from happening in the first place so fewer incidents are happening and fewer people are being killed. Guns are like a religion to so many people in the USA. Guns are so sacred that the mere mention of talking about changing gun laws is blasphmey. Any argument or voice of support in talking about and possably changing gun laws is immediately misunderstood as being anti-gun.

"... only 7 or 8 or 9 children would have been killed in the few minutes it would have taken to open the safe and get to the scene. That would have been so much better right?"

Obviously, for the families of the kids who weren't killed, yes that would have been a better outcome. I don't see how a human being could argue otherwise, but my eyes are listening.

You can't prevent bad people from getting guns in a country where guns are widely available and where possessing them is protected by the Constitution and where there's insufficient interest in initiating the almost impossible task of modifying it.

I'd support lots more control over guns but I see that as a Plan Z, it's so unlikely to ever happen.

Consider the downside, if he knew there were guns in school that could be reached in 2 or 3 minutes, he would get a more powerful gun that would allow him to do the job in that short duration.

I think there is no way more guns is going to make it safe. Maybe no guns not more guns.

Duh! Why advertise that you're prepared? It just gives the bad guys something to figure out a way to handle. No, I would keep it secret.

In fact, the guns could be in a locked cabinet somewhere, only to be opened if gunshots were heard.

Already too late.

RSS

Events

Services we love!

© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service