...a couple staffers had been armed?

Tags: control, gun, guns, killings, mass

Views: 8210

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

I can not define Nutcase as used in G.M.s post, which is what I replied to.

But I will define it as I perceive it to be.

Nut case - Any individual willing to plot to invade a school and execute 20 plus children.

That would be one of many definitions of a Nutcase.

And if the individuals mother did not have firearms then he would not have gotten them from his mother.

Disarming ourselves is the obvious answer. It is not an easy answer nor very popular, but that does not mean it is not the right answer, or an impossible goal. Even if it takes the next 100 years to accomplish.

Either 20 dead children along with all the other recent mass shootings is an acceptable sacrifice for having access to firearms like we do or it is not and we willingly relinquish that privilege.

Question: Shouldn't the right answer have the right result?

Question: Shouldn't the right answer also be possible?

Question: Is disarming ourselves possible in any practical way? (I think, given the practical obstacles—and despite it's being a theoretical possibility—we have to say no.)

Thus... If disarming ourselves is impossible, then it can't achieve the right result. Therefore, disarming ourselves isn't the right answer, if indeed there even is one.

M.M. you are more then welcome to disarm yourself, I won't stop you or anyone from not having a gun, disarm yourself all you want.

But that's not really what you mean is it?

What you are really purposing is disarming others who don't want to be disarmed isn't it?

Thanks just the same, I will be keeping my arms (including the two attached to my shoulders), regardless of the desires of others.

AREAIRES, ICAO airline code

Already disarmed.

Not to offend you but that is the most paranoid thing I have ever read.

In my opinion, not incontrovertible fact, guns are like god.

Both are clung to out of fear.

Both have to be given up WILLINGLY.

And both prevent us from becoming a better and more peaceful species.

@M.M.

Paranoid???....:D

Already disarmed.

I would be surprised if that wasn't so obvious.

Not to offend you but that is the most paranoid thing I have ever read.

No offense taken, but then I'm not the paranoid one.

In my opinion, not incontrovertible fact, guns are like god.

You are correct, your opinion is NOT a fact, no one's opinion is a fact.  Facts can be verified, opinions are rarely factual but often emotional.

Take this opinion for example:

Both are clung to out of fear.

Really? And your evidence for this conclusion is what?  You are comparing the tangible (guns) to the intangible (doGs) using the emotion of fear. In an empirical sense how are you going to do that?

And another example:

Both have to be given up WILLINGLY.

What?  Where in the historical record have guns every be given up WILLINGLY?

And both prevent us from becoming a better and more peaceful species.

Uhhhhh....(scratches head)...so removing guns and doGs will somehow change the basic drives of the human species? A robber will no longer feel the need to rob?  A rapist will no longer feel the need to rape? A etc. will no longer feel the need to etc.?

In my opinion (not a fact) we are what prevents us from becoming a better and more peaceful species.

Disarming people? How? How do you take guns away from "nutcases" without disarming non-nutcases. Maybe we need a national sanity test everyone has to take whether they want to buy a gun or not. Surely that would be even more useful. We can cull out all the nutcases and eliminate a lot of other problems all in one fell swoop. No more homicidal gun nuts, no more hoarders or obsessive hand washers.

Our world will be a better place, right?

Was the shooter's mom a "nutcase." Should some cops at some point have shown up on her doorstep to tell her, "You're a nutcase. Give us your guns."

I'm not a gun proponent by any stretch of the imagination. Don't have one; don't want one. I just laugh at the measures anti-gun people (a) think will work and (b) imagine are possible.

If your question is how having an armed security guard not cut down on the death toll, we have evidence of its lack of effectiveness. It may have the potential to cut it down, but Columbine had an armed security officer, and VA Tech had a police force. There are real life examples of the effectiveness of the idea.

On the other hand America being as unique as it is when compared to other countries in regards to its gun use/tradition/obsession/Consitituional Right, what we have no evidence of is, is whether a real consistant and significant effort a gun control will work or not. So shouldn't that be attempted before we dismiss it as not effective?

Regardless of its political likelihood argument, NRA lobbying efforts, bought and paid for Congressmen, etc., if we are discussing the theoretical should it be attempts before its dismissed?

If gun control were to work, it would probably take 10-20 years or more to really have a profound effect. 

What to do in the meantime even if gun control goes into effect is a practical question.

Thus back to my earlier point. Complex problems often require multifaceted approaches, and as you state a bit of patience for the effect to be realized.

I never said take the idea off the table, just that it alone would never be enough to significantly impact the problem. It's an all of the above solution.

For every example that one can offer of the effectiveness of an armed guard someone else can argue an example of its ineffectiveness. If it works out to be fifty-fifty, its is not statistical different than not having them there at all, but certainly important to the individual families whose children were spared in that specific example.

For every example that one can offer of the effectiveness of an armed guard someone else can argue an example of its ineffectiveness. If it works out to be fifty-fifty, its is not statistical different than not having them there at all, but certainly important to the individual families whose children were spared in that specific example.

It doesn't work out to fifty-fifty if one side's arguments are illogical, contrary to common sense, and contrary to fact. It only works out to fifty-fifty in an atmosphere of "all arguments are equally good."

Arguments against providing armed responders in schools generally assume something stupid (that the armed responders need to be rent-a-cops, uniformed police, etc.) Many counter arguments illogically point to the relatively few cases where armed response has gone horribly wrong. Some even seem to argue that if your response can't save every child, it's not worth even trying, or that the possibility of a "friendly fire" incident in which the responder injures or kills a child by mistake makes the response a failure even if that was the price to save several.

The arguments propounded by gun opponents are often just as wacky as the ones used by the NRA and the gun nuts.

I am not assuming all arguments are equally good.

So after 20 something pages of this you are saying that if someone who is present in a official capacity, un-uniformed and unidentifiable in anyway with training and a conceal carry permit, less children would be dead because once in awhile but not always he would brandish his weapon and take out the bad guy without any collateral damage?

That's what this boils down to? That's not much of stretch is it. Am I missing something in my summary?

I don't think anyone is saying that having an armed "friendly" on the scene is a fail-safe way to prevent slaughters like this, it would just improve the odds in a way that's likely to be very statistically significant. (BTW, I really don't like the idea of uniformed security guards because they are just target practice for a shooter like we had in Newtown.) 

Here's how effective gun control would work, every house, outhouse, barn, tool shed, garage (etc., etc., etc.) would be searched, guns found and melted down. You need to get rid of the weapons. Gun laws concentrate on gun ownership, but you don't need to own a gun to use it in a crime. You just need to have it in your hands. A stolen or borrowed gun kills just as effectively as a gun one owns. 

RSS

Blog Posts

What do you do with the anger?

Posted by dataguy on September 20, 2014 at 5:12pm 3 Comments

Aftermath

Posted by Belle Rose on September 20, 2014 at 2:42am 5 Comments

Ads

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service