...a couple staffers had been armed?
Replies are closed for this discussion.
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.
The shooting went on for 10 minutes. How would 2 or 3 minutes retrieving the guns and finding the shooter be "too late"? Yes, too late to save the early victims, but time enough to put an end to the killing before more are killed.
My feeling is that many among us who don't like firearms are willing to live with incidents like this and the death tolls involved if that is the price of having fewer firearms around overall. They feel that if that's the price, the price is worth it.
These incidents are outliers and represent fairly minimal losses in a statistical sense. The degree to which gun laws can influence these events is not what I would call clear. How many massacres have been avoided due to to gun control laws? How many lives would have been saved if firearms had been more readily available? The response to both is the same: an indeterminate number. We can't easily evaluate events which did not happen, and looking at statistics is problematic in these cases.
So I guess you could say I am not willing to take these incidents into strong consideration when evaluating gun control/ rights laws. The resources to commit substantial harm are available to most people through various means. Something keeps the overwhelming majority of us in check, but I accept that there will be exceptions who will lash out. I accept some level of vulnerability in life.
I suspect that the recipes for making bombs or poisons that could result in mass murder are readily available via Google. Like any balloon problem, if you squeeze here you get a bulge there. Squeeze at accessibility of guns and you'll get a bulge at bombs or poison. You'll end up requiring people to have a government permit of some sort to buy household cleaners or pesticides. And if someone is willing to die themselves, what do they care if they have to register?
The will to kill is the problem, not the means.
The problem is your hypothesis does not bare out in reality. Look at any other first world country that has banned guns and you will notice no rise in people making bombs in their kitchen to compensate for laws against guns.
The reason being is that nearly all of these mass killings in america is due to some unassuming person suffering a psychotic break of some sort. Now such a person is nearly never in the right frame of mind to methodically spend time getting the required ingredients and carefully follow the instructions to make a bomb. They are in the perfect frame of mind though to grab a gun and start shooting people .
I haven't looked up stats on guns and gun laws in other countries, but I don't know that you're reasoning here makes much sense. Most mass shooters spend weeks or months methodically planning.
I like firearms and I don't think that more firearms will solve the problem.
In fact, there is an interesting study out of Australia that strongly suggests that fewer firearms reduces firearm deaths (seems intuitive, really).
Also, you have other areas where firearms are available in excess. Yet, safety is not guaranteed.
The whole gun rights/gun control debate plays out like a scene from Dr. Strangelove more often than not.