I have an idea that could limit school shootings

sunder202

New member
Jan 13, 2010
10
0
0
tangoprime said:
Rogue Trooper said:
The Event said:
Friendly Lich said:
This device would only apply to assault weapons. Do you own assault weapons?
Under the US definition of an "assault weapon" yes I do.
High capacity semi automatic shotgun
High capacity semi automatic .22 rifles
And a couple of silenced rifles too.

I'm not actually in the US though but I suspect there will be people who are who are in the same circumstance as me.
What possible use could you have for a silenced rifile?
Sound suppressed weapons are fairly commonplace for hunting/sport shooting in Europe. The stigma of suppressed or "silenced" weapons being bad guy evil guns comes from hollywood. They're better on the shooter's ears, don't disturb others as much (in the case of ranges or varmit hunting), and don't scare away every bit of game for miles. Also, suppressed weapon vs. non-suppressed weapon, want to guess which does more harm? Bullets fired from suppressed weapons are generally much lower velocity, thus have less energy than non-suppressed.

Again, knee jerk reaction from someone who doesn't know what they're talking about, but sees something that looks scary because that's how they've been conditioned. Thanks for helping prove a point.



Misinformed / uninformed people about firearms make me sad.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZ4gCGiYGdE - what hollywood makes people belive it sounds like


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaIp_fc2Lqs - what it really sounds like.
 

Scarim Coral

Jumped the ship
Legacy
Apr 30, 2020
18,157
1
3
Country
UK
Ok that new idea of yours is better than the original but there are a few things to consider-

You gonna need more than one secruity guard for obvious reason. While the guard is on side, the shooter will approach on the other side.

The guard(s) will cost the school (depending how wealty that school is) unless the government will pay for them.

The guard will got to be vigilant at his/ her job and for that school to be targeted is competely random meaning the guard(s) may drop his/ her guard or are you expected this sort of result?

 

LukOMar

New member
Mar 3, 2012
5
0
0
Friendly Lich said:
EDIT: I have come up with a second proposal as my initial one seems to be very flawed. Please scroll down to read it.

New Idea: One trained security person in each school with bullet proof vest. Possibly a veteran as they have trouble finding jobs and their war experience could give them an edge over the less experienced shooter. Laser point sight on the gun for maximum accuracy, but I don't know exactly what gun would be best for the situation; defiantly not an automatic though as less bullets in the air would be ideal.

Can you help me develop/refine this idea please?
Hi! But are you sure that we're solving the right issue here? I mean sure, any guard is strictly better than no guard, but if we need to defend children from raving, fire-arm-bearing psychopaths, than clearly something is wrong with society, not the schools.

Hence, why not rather limit the killer's ability to kill by, say, forbidding the sale of bullets to individuals (and requiring special permit for hunters, which they require anyhow to hunt) and further forbidding having charged weapons in cities? In fact, then we can event implement a system to detect loaded weaponry and it would make everything safer and everybody is happy (or should be): the children are safer (except for marginal cases, which will happen in any solution that does not invade personal freedom) and if you wan to fire your gun, you may do so in a designated and especially prepared area.
 

bioject

New member
Aug 12, 2010
59
0
0
Friendly Lich said:
EDIT: I have come up with a second proposal as my initial one seems to be very flawed. Please scroll down to read it.

New Idea: One trained security person in each school with bullet proof vest. Possibly a veteran as they have trouble finding jobs and their war experience could give them an edge over the less experienced shooter. Laser point sight on the gun for maximum accuracy, but I don't know exactly what gun would be best for the situation; defiantly not an automatic though as less bullets in the air would be ideal.

Can you help me develop/refine this idea please?
Or how about each teacher takes a firearms class and carries a firearm.
 

iseko

New member
Dec 4, 2008
727
0
0
tangoprime said:
iseko said:
I know it is probably WAAAAAAAAAY out there but hear me out. Don't give people access to guns. Guns exist only to kill people/animals. No ordinary person needs to kill anyone/anything. Ergo don't give people guns.

Don't give people access to swords. Swords only exist to kill people/animals. No ordinary person needs to kill anyone/anything.
Don't give people access to Bows and Arrows. Bows and Arrows only exist to kill people/animals. No ordinary person needs to kill anyone/anything.
Don't give people access to cars that go over 65mph, cars that go over 65mph only exist to violate traffic laws and endanger others on the road. No ordinary person needs to violate traffic laws and endanger others.
Don't give people access to beer. Beer only exists to make one intoxicated putting themselves and others at risk. No ordinary person needs to poison themselves enough to put themselves and others in danger.
/sarcasme Yes that comparison is completely legit.
So according to you we should give nukes to all? All inventions are equally harmful and have the same killing potential? A car is built for transportation. Alcohol is intoxicating but isn't designed to kill. A sword, bow and arrow are designed to kill. So yes people shouldn't have acces to them. On the other hand they don't have the same killing potential as a glock now do they? But you are right. They should be banned too.
Your argument is invalid. Like I said: by your logic people should have access to nuclear weapons. Nice going!
 

spartan231490

New member
Jan 14, 2010
5,186
0
0
Comocat said:
Maybe have guns that are sensitive to emotion, so when someone is striken with crazy, they wont fire.

For example when you buy a gun you do a background check and present a baseline biofeed back signature. That signature is embedded in the gun. If certain "tells" are present, that is extreme deviations from your norm, the gun wont fire.

I'm sure there are problems with this, but maybe it can be refined.
Yeah, because when an attacker is screaming at you with a gun in his/her hands your biofeed signature would be perfectly identical to when you're buying the gun in the store. For that matter, having a shot on a nice buck is gonna do weird things to your emotional state.

Also, guns are relatively simple, if such a device was put into the gun, you would learn how to take it out just by performing basic maintenance on the firearm.
Wadders said:
Hows about some way of performing extensive background checks, Xbox live, bank statements that sort of thing, that are completed before a person is given permission to buy a gun. That way people who buy and play games wont have access to weapons, and this kind of tragedy will never happen again.
Is this a serious suggestion, because I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around it. You're suggesting that playing video games should be an exclusionary criteria to owning firearms? I literally can't think of dumber idea.
Friendly Lich said:
DoPo said:
Friendly Lich said:
Invent a device that would be put on weapons like the ones used in the shooting that would alert schools within a certain range that the weapon is entering the area. That way the school could execute an emergency evacuation plan of some kind. I know that this could be done. However I lack the skills and means to invent it myself otherwise I would.

Can you help me develop/refine this idea please?
So-o-o, like an RFID chip? Like the ones you already have in your passport, on your purchases (it's how the alarm rings if you have unpaid stuff), some libraries have it in their books (mostly for the alarm thingie), also magnetic cards, some keys, etc. It's pretty widely used. It's also pretty easy to bypass, too. I can't think of anything that is essentially an RFID chip that you cannot ever take off or hide.

Oh, and by the way, you can easily clone an RFID signature. Without ever touching it. So, like, for example, if you have some sort of ID card (my uni has them), I'd suggest buying card holder slips, which mask it, while the card is inside.
Yes I think I know what you are talking about. Not every criminal would be able to figure out how to disable the device. The idea is too limit school shootings, completely preventing them is pretty impossible. Further If the device were soldered into the gun it would be even harder to remove and would take certain skills and resources to do. Thanks for your response it was very informative.
Yeah, any criminal could. I'm not saying this to be a downer, but basic maintenance of a firearm requires you to disassemble it. Any portion of the firearm that your typical gun-owner doesn't already see when cleaning his/her gun is exposed to pressures and temperatures that would fry any kind of tech this advanced. You're talking 4000 degrees F and 70,000 pounds per square inch on the low end.
Friendly Lich said:
The Event said:
I see a flaw with your idea.

I own guns. I live opposite a school.
I also drive past another school every time I go to the range.
This device would only apply to assault weapons. Do you own assault weapons?
What is your definition of assault weapon? The gun in question was not fully automatic, it was a semi-automatic firearm virtually identical to the firearms owned by millions of sport shooters in the US alone.
 

Wintermoot

New member
Aug 20, 2009
6,563
0
0
or just limit what type of guns a civilian can buy.
IE no automatic weapons.
People will still get their hands on stuff like M16's but it would solve the problem at least partially.
 

Wadders

New member
Aug 16, 2008
3,796
0
0
spartan231490 said:
Wadders said:
Hows about some way of performing extensive background checks, Xbox live, bank statements that sort of thing, that are completed before a person is given permission to buy a gun. That way people who buy and play games wont have access to weapons, and this kind of tragedy will never happen again.
Is this a serious suggestion, because I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around it. You're suggesting that playing video games should be an exclusionary criteria to owning firearms? I literally can't think of dumber idea.
No, it is not.
 

Rogue Trooper

New member
Oct 25, 2012
179
0
0
tangoprime said:
Rogue Trooper said:
The Event said:
Friendly Lich said:
This device would only apply to assault weapons. Do you own assault weapons?
Under the US definition of an "assault weapon" yes I do.
High capacity semi automatic shotgun
High capacity semi automatic .22 rifles
And a couple of silenced rifles too.

I'm not actually in the US though but I suspect there will be people who are who are in the same circumstance as me.
What possible use could you have for a silenced rifile?
Sound suppressed weapons are fairly commonplace for hunting/sport shooting in Europe. The stigma of suppressed or "silenced" weapons being bad guy evil guns comes from hollywood. They're better on the shooter's ears, don't disturb others as much (in the case of ranges or varmit hunting), and don't scare away every bit of game for miles. Also, suppressed weapon vs. non-suppressed weapon, want to guess which does more harm? Bullets fired from suppressed weapons are generally much lower velocity, thus have less energy than non-suppressed.

Again, knee jerk reaction from someone who doesn't know what they're talking about, but sees something that looks scary because that's how they've been conditioned. Thanks for helping prove a point.
That was a pretty funny response but anyway I have some expliening to do. Alright first thing first I do have some pretty good experience with firearms mostly shotguns and rifiles, which I had the opportunity to use and learn the workings of in my time in the army cadets.

 I never used silencers because the cadets don't need them so please don't same that I have been "conditioned" by Hollywood, because I haven't and it just makes you out to be an asshole. 

Although I never actually knew that silencers were used for hunting so thanks for telling me about that i suppose. Although that's not what am bothering to reply to you for.

This reason why I am is because generally your response to my question was very rude and I know guys like you. Who think just because they go shooting or hunting they like to think they are king dick and act all smug because of it. It was actually guys like you that forced me to leave cadets and I wouldn't be surprised if you were searching or waiting on these forms to just show the escapist community your mighty knowledge of firearm.

 Also silencers in a firing range is pretty stupid because any shooter worth is salt would know that wearing ear protection is a lot more cheaper than buying a silencer, or do guys like you just lack common sense? 
 

Sennune

New member
Apr 15, 2009
43
0
0
LukOMar said:
Friendly Lich said:
EDIT: I have come up with a second proposal as my initial one seems to be very flawed. Please scroll down to read it.

New Idea: One trained security person in each school with bullet proof vest. Possibly a veteran as they have trouble finding jobs and their war experience could give them an edge over the less experienced shooter. Laser point sight on the gun for maximum accuracy, but I don't know exactly what gun would be best for the situation; defiantly not an automatic though as less bullets in the air would be ideal.

Can you help me develop/refine this idea please?
Hi! But are you sure that we're solving the right issue here? I mean sure, any guard is strictly better than no guard, but if we need to defend children from raving, fire-arm-bearing psychopaths, than clearly something is wrong with society, not the schools.

Hence, why not rather limit the killer's ability to kill by, say, forbidding the sale of bullets to individuals (and requiring special permit for hunters, which they require anyhow to hunt) and further forbidding having charged weapons in cities? In fact, then we can event implement a system to detect loaded weaponry and it would make everything safer and everybody is happy (or should be): the children are safer (except for marginal cases, which will happen in any solution that does not invade personal freedom) and if you wan to fire your gun, you may do so in a designated and especially prepared area.
First I'd like to say the original idea here is deterrence. Deterrence does not work. The majority of murders are crimes of passion. If someone is in an emotionally compromised state, I think it goes without saying that they are irrational. People in this mindset don't hesitate at the thought of an armed response to their actions, because they are not thinking. If homicide offenders did in fact think of the repercussions of their actions before killing another human being, than I think they would consider alternate ways of fixing the dysfunction in their life. Fact is, they don't think, no amount of guns, laws, etc. is going to snap them out of their episode.

Secondly, to you LukOMar, guns aren't the issue. A human's, specifically male, capacity to kill is incredible. There have been studies done that show infants who play with gun shaped objects already exhibit an understanding of its use as a weapon. It's something hardwired into humans. There is always a methodology to being able to pre-maturely end the life of another person. I hear things like "we need more gun control!" and "we should ban guns!". That won't work, because 40% of the United States gun sales are unregulated. That includes trafficking or good ole boys trading in the sticks. Some are criminal and some are arguably innocent. Also, the ability to reload your own ammunition means less of an emphasis on buying new ammunition. If you're a gun enthusiast or know someone who is, there's a chance they might be reloading their ammunition to save money. Weapons and ammo are plentiful, and government policy won't change that. Also to the detectors and restricted geographical areas, those do exist in some states. I know many schools already have metal detectors and I've seen several cities with firearm bans in certain areas. I haven't checked crime rates but I'd assume there isn't a significant difference.

My last point is deterrence and legislature won't work in direct opposition to mass murder and rampage killing. What will work is interventions on the individual level. Failure to appropriately resolve conflict and communicate appropriately seems to be an ever increasing facet of our world. Taking in consideration Connecticut, it seems to have been caused by a conflict between the guy and his parents. They couldn't solve their problems, it escalated. He took a gun that didn't belong to him, ammo that didn't belong to him, and went on a rampage.
 

Rogue Trooper

New member
Oct 25, 2012
179
0
0
tangoprime said:
Rogue Trooper said:
The Event said:
Friendly Lich said:
This device would only apply to assault weapons. Do you own assault weapons?
Under the US definition of an "assault weapon" yes I do.
High capacity semi automatic shotgun
High capacity semi automatic .22 rifles
And a couple of silenced rifles too.

I'm not actually in the US though but I suspect there will be people who are who are in the same circumstance as me.
What possible use could you have for a silenced rifile?
Also for the uninformed, "Assault Weapons" =/= Assault Rifles. "Assault Weapons" is a legal/political term for guns that look scary and have some bolt ons that make them look like scary military guns. Generally the difference between a normal auto-loader and a scary political bait "Assault Weapon" is a stock with a separated grip, magazine fed (vs. say, tube fed, which could still hold a dozen or more rounds depending on the weapon, such as my Marlin that holds 20 rounds in the tube, and is not an "assault weapon"), and a barrel shroud, which is just a piece of metal with holes drilled in it to dissapate heat that goes over the barrel where there's a possibility your hands might touch so you don't burn yourself.

Assault Rifles, on the other hand, are select fire (that is, capable of automatic fire) military weapons, which have already been highly regulated, prohibitively expensive, and rare, since the 1930's. I agree that no private citizen needs those, they're already nearly impossible to get legally, though that doesn't stop the gangs from having their AKs, MACs and Tec-9s at all, does it?
Dude, I never asked what an assault rifile was. I have had experience with them and a know a bit about their history of creation. So please simmer down, am not really in the mood to get into a gun debate.
 

Athinira

New member
Jan 25, 2010
804
0
0
Your idea(s) are terrible.

1) You can't put sensors on weapons. Even if the technology exists, there exists abundance of weapons without, and criminals WILL find ways to launder the weapons and remove the chips.

2) An armed guard at a school might sound like a great idea on paper, but there are several problems around it. First of all, the idea is already in works in other areas (anonymous sky marshalls sometimes fly on American planes, although they aren't armed to my knowledge). The difference is that these Sky Marshalls can blend in amongst the passengers. A guard at a school cannot blend in, and is therefore an easy first target since everybody knows who he is and know he is there. Remember, the guy who did this school shooting worked at the school. He would be identified by the guard as a friendly until the point that he starts shooting.

Second of all, armed guards at school aren't going to make the children feel secure. In addition, the guards themself can be a danger. It's not uncommon for armed guards (or soldiers) to take their jobs a little too serious and shoot innocent people if they feel threatened. Guards do not belong at institutions for children. At most, they belong outside, but that requires more guards per school and is a financial impossibility.
 

clippen05

New member
Jul 10, 2012
529
0
0
You say 'limit' like these things happen every week. Newsflash, they don't. We get one every half-decade or so. Yeah, this shit happens. It's a tragedy when they do happen. But sticking in armed guards in conducive to having a learning environment. You want kids to feel safe at school... well treating a school like a maximum security prison isn't going to create a feeling of safety. And besides, 1 or 2 guards vs 1 or 2 intruders will not result in a win for the guards every-time, no matter how much experience they have.
 

tangoprime

Renegade Interrupt
May 5, 2011
716
0
0
Rogue Trooper said:
tangoprime said:
Rogue Trooper said:
The Event said:
Friendly Lich said:
This device would only apply to assault weapons. Do you own assault weapons?
Under the US definition of an "assault weapon" yes I do.
High capacity semi automatic shotgun
High capacity semi automatic .22 rifles
And a couple of silenced rifles too.

I'm not actually in the US though but I suspect there will be people who are who are in the same circumstance as me.
What possible use could you have for a silenced rifile?
Sound suppressed weapons are fairly commonplace for hunting/sport shooting in Europe. The stigma of suppressed or "silenced" weapons being bad guy evil guns comes from hollywood. They're better on the shooter's ears, don't disturb others as much (in the case of ranges or varmit hunting), and don't scare away every bit of game for miles. Also, suppressed weapon vs. non-suppressed weapon, want to guess which does more harm? Bullets fired from suppressed weapons are generally much lower velocity, thus have less energy than non-suppressed.

Again, knee jerk reaction from someone who doesn't know what they're talking about, but sees something that looks scary because that's how they've been conditioned. Thanks for helping prove a point.
That was a pretty funny response but anyway I have some expliening to do. Alright first thing first I do have some pretty good experience with firearms mostly shotguns and rifiles, which I had the opportunity to use and learn the workings of in my time in the army cadets.

 I never used silencers because the cadets don't need them so please don't same that I have been "conditioned" by Hollywood, because I haven't and it just makes you out to be an asshole. 

Although I never actually knew that silencers were used for hunting so thanks for telling me about that i suppose. Although that's not what am bothering to reply to you for.

This reason why I am is because generally your response to my question was very rude and I know guys like you. Who think just because they go shooting or hunting they like to think they are king dick and act all smug because of it. It was actually guys like you that forced me to leave cadets and I wouldn't be surprised if you were searching or waiting on these forms to just show the escapist community your mighty knowledge of firearm.

 Also silencers in a firing range is pretty stupid because any shooter worth is salt would know that wearing ear protection is a lot more cheaper than buying a silencer, or do guys like you just lack common sense? 
Using suppressors on the range isn't for the benefit of those there who would already be wearing hearing protection, but for the benefit of other people and businesses near the ranges. Also, even with hearing protection being used, it's generally a much more pleasant experience firing suppressed rifles, especially for newer shooters. I wasn't trying to be an asshole, or be funny, and I wasn't attempting to be rude. You admitted that you didn't know, so you learned something.

Being in the Cadets, at least you had more knowledge then most. But most people's experience comes solely from what they see in TV/Movies/Games, where "silencers" are only ever used for military/bad guy purposes (hitmen, assassins, etc.) and make the guns super quiet. Though this may have not been the case with you (though you admitted to not knowing), most people don't know better, the immediate reaction to hearing you have a suppressor or seeing that you have a silenced weapon, is "omg why do you have that!?" especially here in the US where suppressors are just about as difficult to obtain legally as a submachine gun, which is to say, an extremely difficult and lengthy process, whereas in Europe, having a suppressor on your weapon is generally considered courtesy to other shooters or nearby land owners.

I apologize if sharing knowledge with others to attempt to avert such unwarranted reactions as those I mentioned offended you, and I'm sorry to hear you were forced to leave the Cadets by dicks who acted like know-it-alls. I assure you that I don't trawl through message boards looking for people to belittle, I was simply attempting to spread awareness about something I'm knowledgeable about.
 

tangoprime

Renegade Interrupt
May 5, 2011
716
0
0
iseko said:
tangoprime said:
iseko said:
I know it is probably WAAAAAAAAAY out there but hear me out. Don't give people access to guns. Guns exist only to kill people/animals. No ordinary person needs to kill anyone/anything. Ergo don't give people guns.

Don't give people access to swords. Swords only exist to kill people/animals. No ordinary person needs to kill anyone/anything.
Don't give people access to Bows and Arrows. Bows and Arrows only exist to kill people/animals. No ordinary person needs to kill anyone/anything.
Don't give people access to cars that go over 65mph, cars that go over 65mph only exist to violate traffic laws and endanger others on the road. No ordinary person needs to violate traffic laws and endanger others.
Don't give people access to beer. Beer only exists to make one intoxicated putting themselves and others at risk. No ordinary person needs to poison themselves enough to put themselves and others in danger.
/sarcasme Yes that comparison is completely legit.
So according to you we should give nukes to all? All inventions are equally harmful and have the same killing potential? A car is built for transportation. Alcohol is intoxicating but isn't designed to kill. A sword, bow and arrow are designed to kill. So yes people shouldn't have acces to them. On the other hand they don't have the same killing potential as a glock now do they? But you are right. They should be banned too.
Your argument is invalid. Like I said: by your logic people should have access to nuclear weapons. Nice going!
How does dangerous items with practical uses shouldn't be banned = everyone having nukes? I don't believe they have any relevant practical purposes, nice logic there.
My point was, especially with the first two, that things designed in the past for martial uses have very acceptable uses today. So by your thought, olympic archery, fencing, and shooting should be eliminated, since nobody should be allowed to possess the implements used? Should learning martial arts be banned too, since those were designed for fighting?
 

DrunkenMonkey

New member
Sep 17, 2012
256
0
0
Or you know stop the media from blowing up school shootings as the second coming of christ, like that one forensic psychologist advised. Too much media coverage gives already disturbed people an incentive to actually go through with it.
 

spartan231490

New member
Jan 14, 2010
5,186
0
0
Wadders said:
spartan231490 said:
Wadders said:
Hows about some way of performing extensive background checks, Xbox live, bank statements that sort of thing, that are completed before a person is given permission to buy a gun. That way people who buy and play games wont have access to weapons, and this kind of tragedy will never happen again.
Is this a serious suggestion, because I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around it. You're suggesting that playing video games should be an exclusionary criteria to owning firearms? I literally can't think of dumber idea.
No, it is not.
Thank god. That actually gets a faith in humanity +1.
Friendly Lich said:
EDIT: I have come up with a second proposal as my initial one seems to be very flawed. Please scroll down to read it.

New Idea: One trained security person in each school with bullet proof vest. Possibly a veteran as they have trouble finding jobs and their war experience could give them an edge over the less experienced shooter. Laser point sight on the gun for maximum accuracy, but I don't know exactly what gun would be best for the situation; defiantly not an automatic though as less bullets in the air would be ideal.

Can you help me develop/refine this idea please?
There are a few things I would suggest to improve this idea. Firstly, the cost of providing a trained security person and a firearm is more than many small schools, like many of the ones where these tragedies take place, could afford on their budgets. However, you could allow any staff who have the right to carry concealed firearms to carry said firearms on-campus. You could also provide an incentive for staff members to pursue licencing, perhaps the school could pay licencing fees. Pay for a little bit of ammo every year for extra marksmanship training and maybe a hazard pay bonus and you've got a much cheaper solution than hiring a security agent full-time with no other purpose and providing him with a weapon.

There are also a few different firearms I would suggest as preferred firearms, both for those individuals who carry their own gun(provide an incentive for them to purchase, train with, and carry these firearms) and in schools who don't have any staff members who are licensed to provide for the security personnel they hire. Weapons like the H&K P7 which has a unique mechanism that makes the firearm virtually impossible to fire if you don't know about the mechanism. Or perhaps the ruger P90, which is a double action only, which means that it can be fired rapidly if needed, but it cannot be fired accurately unless you have trained with a double action handgun.

Further, while I don't suggest their use for general self-defense weapons because of their poor performance in windy conditions or against individuals on certain drugs, tazers and/or mace could provide effective, less-than-lethal protection in the controlled conditions of a school building. Further, since they require no licencing and less extensive training than firearms you could provide one to every teacher(tazers would probably be too expensive for this use, but mace might be effective). This would also lesson the threat if a student ended up getting his/her hands on the weapon.