...a couple staffers had been armed?

Tags: control, gun, guns, killings, mass

Views: 8225

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

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.

@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?

RSS

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