I have an idea that could limit school shootings

spartan231490

New member
Jan 14, 2010
5,186
0
0
Strazdas said:
A Smooth Criminal said:
snip
Yes, america desperately needs complete reform on gun ownership, and that includes taking away currently owned guns (with returning money for their worth ofc). it needs a complete reform and swift military style action if it wants not to become mexico 2
This is impossible. American's own somewhere in the neighborhood of 1 trillion dollars worth of guns and related equipment, the government can't afford to reimburse american gun owners for their stuff, not even half it's worth. Also, wherever you are getting your info is mistaken, murder rates are declining in the US, have been since 1992, we're not turning into mexico 2, and saying that is needlessly inflammatory. Also, studies show no correlation between gun control or gun ownership and murder rates.
 

Starik20X6

New member
Oct 28, 2009
1,685
0
0
tangoprime said:
Starik20X6 said:
Couldn't agree more. In my mind guns for nobody is the best solution, but as you said, it's so culturally ingrained at this point it may be inseparable. So, as much as I would like to see them gone completely, I think if anything's going to change it will have to be gradual, or it'll be met with too much resistance.

The problem being, "removed completely" means removed from people who actually follow the law. Unfortunately, as an earlier poster mentioned, the crime problem thanks to other overzealous laws brought about by knee jerk reactions have permeated our streets, jails, and even military with members of drug gangs, and propped up cartels in this hemisphere who support them. If guns are removed from all the law abiding people who would follow such laws, the only ones that would be armed are an ineffectual police force and gangs/criminals who would have open reign over the newly disarmed populace.

I live in a state where criminals have to think twice and fear for their own safety, because it's as likely as not that they'll be shot and killed in robberies/home invasions/other dastardly criminal shit. Remove that fear, and they'll have no mortal fear of breaking the law- worst case? They end up in jail with their homies for a stretch. As a law abiding citizen, I don't wan't to live under those conditions.

So to move on and offer solutions instead of arguing over the perceived problem- Here's the best I've seen yet: End the ridiculous "war on drugs" and do as a few states with the balls to butt heads with the Federal Government have in this past election, and legalize. Drugs are illegal and it's illegal to buy them, but marijuana is as ubiquitous as guns in this country, probably more so, I bet more people in the US have a dimebag in their house than a gun, so what does that say for the ability to ban something through making it illegal? Anyway, legalize- gang violence over turf to sell on, over money, those cartels, evaporate overnight. No sense spilling blood for your corner on which to sling that rock when citizens can now go buy a pack of marlboro greens or whatever at the corner store. Wham, law enforcement and prison costs reduced drastically, legal system becomes efficient now that it's not so clogged with drug related offenses, law enforcement and courts can focus on true crime instead of being completely narcocentric.

Next step: Tax it. With the ridiculous reduction in law enforcement/court/prison/correction spending and new tax base, along with job growth in a new sector, state and federal governments now have much more money to through into social programs, for the sake of this topic, to help the mentally ill and help train people how to identify people who need help.

So... do we spend hundreds of millions of dollars if not more in ineffectually banning another item, further clogging courts and jails with otherwise upstanding citizens, and cause criminals to no longer have mortal fear of committing crimes against law abiding folks, or do we roll back some asinine bans that have shown decade after decade to be causing more problems than good, and start helping people who need help, and hopefully catching them before they go off the deep end?

*wonders how many people will read past the first line or two thinking this is another pro-gunner and dismissing my post without hearing it out*
But that's one of the things I don't understand. I live in Australia, and last time I checked, I don't live in constant fear of getting shot because I don't own a gun. The last time someone went mental with a gun here was in 1996.

Nobody can tell me that restricting gun sales would lead to some kind of militarised criminal underworld while the people can do nothing but cower in fear, because I live in a country with tighter gun laws and, well look at that, we hardly ever have any mass shootings. Yes, there is still gun crime, people do get shot and people do die. But on a much smaller, less frequent scale. And, nearly all of the people who get shot are members of criminal gangs- they're not shooting the innocents, they're killing each other.

As for the killers who are mentally unhinged, they can't get guns here. Thorough background checks take care of that little problem.
 

SonOfVoorhees

New member
Aug 3, 2011
3,509
0
0
Your answer to a gun nut attacking schools is to add more guns? Ok. Doesnt really solve the issue of why it happened and the fact he had access to all those guns. American police are armed and this has done nothing to crime so why would a man with a gun stop a person shooting up a school? Only thing it will solve would be only 15 kids would die instead of 20, so all your doing is limiting numbers. Fact is you can kill a lot of people with a gun over a short period of time.

Limit gun ownership to small calibre and ban bullet buying in shops. How many bullets does a person need for protection? You get a mags worth and you have to account for every bullet used to the police. Yep, only police can give you bullets. Also gun safety tests need to be completed before you get a licence.

Thing is America is screwed, they will never be able to control guns. Its to late. But what they can do is limit the accidental deaths from firearms. For instance kids shooting each other when they find there dads gun.
 

Proeliator

New member
Aug 22, 2012
91
0
0
Brotha Desmond said:
How about this...
tighter gun control.
Drat, I was this close to not finding an American who was advocating sticker gun control...

Because a state with some of the strictest gun control laws defiantly made a difference in this situation. Clearly, if someone can steal guns from a law abiding citizen and commit a terrible act, no one but the all powerful, trustworthy, never-do-wrong government should have them. I'm sure all the families who have to bury their loved ones are happy this tragedy turned into a national discussion of gun control laws.

And here I am being a part of the problem ffuuuuuuu-
 
Nov 28, 2007
10,686
0
0
Ban all guns! Ignore the fact that there are literally millions, if not billions, of guns in the U.S., a good deal of which are in the hands of private owners! The U.K. did it! Never mind the fact that the U.K. has about a quarter of the population and 2 percent of the area. If one country can do it, every country can!
 
Jun 11, 2009
443
0
0
Friendly Lich said:
Improve society? that's quite an undertaking.
Yes, it is.

It's almost like there's no easy solution to reducing gun violence in a country that has systematically endorsed gun ownership and use since its inception more than two hundred years ago, and which has enough guns in its borders for every single man, woman, and child to carry one with them.

Doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

Kenkurogue said:
Ok . Even though I had jokingly thought about arming the teachers, I agree that would be a bad idea. More gun controllable is also a bad idea. Do you honestly think that a person that has no problem shooting a bunch of other people is going give a crap ifit is illegal for him to own the gun. There will always be a small percent of people that are crazy and a small percent of those that will turn to violence. What happened in that school was awful but if you think there is some way to completely prevent these kind of incidents from occurring then you may be a little delusional. I agree abouttreating the source of the problem as the best way to combat the problem.
Do you honestly think that a person that has no problem shooting a bunch of other people is going give a crap ifit is illegal for him to own the gun.
It's not an issue of making people not want to use guns, or to make gun ownership illegal. It's an issue (personally, anyway) of making guns difficult to obtain. Look at Japan: guns are so scarce over there that not even the police carry them, or Britain, where guns are almost as difficult to obtain. Those particular countries have extremely low rates of deaths and violence related to guns, especially in comparison to the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

The surveys are a few years old, but I think the numbers speak for themselves.

Of course, there are also a number of countries at the other end of the scale (Scandinavian/Nordic countries like Finland, Sweden, Norway, etc.) where military service is mandatory, gun ownership is very high, and there are still a fraction of the US's deaths. The thing about the US is that it exists between these two points: it has insane numbers of firearms, but few people are actually trained in proper firearm handling, safety, use, etc.

Frankly, though I would love for guns to simply not exist, period, the best course for the US is probably making everyone aware of the dangers presented by firearms and educating people how to handle and store them safely, in addition to the aforementioned societal cleanups that would make people feel like they have more options in life than murdering eighteen children and eight teachers before shooting themselves in the head.
 

CCountZero

New member
Sep 20, 2008
539
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?
So whomever's gonna go on a rampage hides his weapon and kills the Veteran first.

"Oh, but you're forgetting about the vest."

If someone is standing fifteen feet from you, with an AR15-style weapon, there's only so much any vest will do. I suppose an EOD suit might save your life, but even that extreme is unlikely to leave you able to return fire, much less stop the assailant.

No way in hell that's ever gonna work, but just for lulz, I'd suggest an FN P90, as it's nice and compact for room clearing and general CQC, while packing a relatively high rate of fire and spits out a 5.7x28mm round which has great penetrative ability for those pesky vests.

He'd need a sidearm as well, of course, in case he gets a primary weapon malfunction.

Should also note that I've never heard of any professionals who actually use visible-spectrum lasers in day-to-day operations.
I know a lot of people use them for home-defense, in case they need to shoot under a couch or something like that, but the general consensus seems to be that lasers actually slow down your target and sights acquisition.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
Rogue Trooper said:
Zachary Amaranth said:
Rogue Trooper said:
What possible use could you have for a silenced rifile?
Spiders. If Critical Miss has taught me anything....
Well you could just get a very big boot
I always ask myself WWESD? And Erin Stout would NOT use a big boot!

Athinira said:
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.
Or bypass them, short them out, or mitigate their effectiveness. So yeah, I agree there.

clippen05 said:
Newsflash, they don't. We get one every half-decade or so.
Two a decade? We've had more than two in a year.

DrunkenMonkey said:
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.
Of course, there's limited evidence to support this notion. While it might deter copycats, the number of copycats are pretty small, so it still doesn't address the primary issue at hands. This is as specious as the "ban video games" argument. I mean, it might cut down on people influenced by the glorification of violence, so why not?

spartan231490 said:
As I said, the data doesn't support any suggestion that gun control, or lack of guns, reduces the number of homicides that take place.


While it could be a coincidence that the states with more gun laws tend to have fewer gun deaths per capita, it seems quite unlikely.

Also to be perfectly frank, the fact that someone exists who would even consider comparing the possession of guns to the possession of PEOPLE makes me physically ill, and doing so has earned you the number one slot on my ignore list.
Actually, he merely suggested that the removal of slavery was both against the way America was founded and deleterious to the economy, which were two of your arguments as to why gun control would be bad. That's a fair analogue. He didn't liken gun ownership to slave ownership.

Ignoring the problem with your own logic doesn't make it go away.
 

spartan231490

New member
Jan 14, 2010
5,186
0
0
Zachary Amaranth said:
snip



While it could be a coincidence that the states with more gun laws tend to have fewer gun deaths per capita, it seems quite unlikely.

Also to be perfectly frank, the fact that someone exists who would even consider comparing the possession of guns to the possession of PEOPLE makes me physically ill, and doing so has earned you the number one slot on my ignore list.
Actually, he merely suggested that the removal of slavery was both against the way America was founded and deleterious to the economy, which were two of your arguments as to why gun control would be bad. That's a fair analogue. He didn't liken gun ownership to slave ownership.

Ignoring the problem with your own logic doesn't make it go away.
Why on earth do people pull out the death by gun statistic? It makes no sense. The person who is stabbed to death is no less dead than the person shot. The family of the stabbing victim don't miss them any less than the family of the gunshot victim. Murder is murder. Further, you post no statistic about which states have the most guns. I would expect texas to have more guns than just about anyone, and they're sitting on the average orange color. Further, Vermont has the fewest gun laws in the union, and they are one of the 5 safest states every single year, usually number 1. Furthermore, Illinois isn't one of the states with the lowest rates of gun injury, despite having some of the strictest laws, in fact it's the only state that doesn't allow carry of handguns. Furthermore, Iowa has some of the least strict gun laws in the Union, they allow open carry of handguns, they have no "assault weapon" ban, they don't require registration of long guns, and their hand-gun law is shall-issue, and they have one of the lowest rates of gun injury per capita.

You're map not only uses an irrelevant statistic, but it also doesn't actually say anything about which states have the strictest gun laws, or the highest gun ownership, that is all assumed by you, and you overlook many anomolies.

Also, I counter your coincidence with another coincidence: "the nine European nations with the lowest rates of gun ownership (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000 population) have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000 population)." http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/

You made me break my rule about not posting studies >_<
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
spartan231490 said:
Why on earth do people pull out the death by gun statistic?
Because it's the relevant topic at hand.

Further, Vermont has the fewest gun laws in the union, and they are one of the 5 safest states every single year, usually number 1.
I live in Vermont. The population of Vermont is low enough to skew any practical sample. You'll note Alaska, comparable in guns laws, is far more dangerous, too.

Furthermore, Illinois isn't one of the states with the lowest rates of gun injury, despite having some of the strictest laws, in fact it's the only state that doesn't allow carry of handguns. Furthermore, Iowa has some of the least strict gun laws in the Union, they allow open carry of handguns, they have no "assault weapon" ban, they don't require registration of long guns, and their hand-gun law is shall-issue, and they have one of the lowest rates of gun injury per capita.
Well, pointing at would could reliably be exceptions is certainly the way to prove it true!

strictest gun laws, or the highest gun ownership, that is all assumed by you, and you overlook many anomolies.
I didn't assume. I did research. Not only that, but the most commonly held up examples of gun violence in restricted states are NY, MA, CT and CA.

But if it makes it easier to dodge by calling it an assumption, feel free. As for anomalies, I've already pointed out a couple you've overlooked, so you might want to check that defense.

Also, I counter your coincidence with another coincidence: "the nine European nations with the lowest rates of gun ownership (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000 population) have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000 population)." http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/
Of course, you're not ignoring levels of gun ownership, so I guess you're okay with defying your own complaints.

Still, the article failed the moment it called banning guns the "common wisdom," considering there is nothing common about it. It still disregards the patterns in terms of actual gun deaths, which is still relevant to the argument no matter how loudly you protest.
 

Mazza35

New member
Jan 20, 2011
302
0
0
I hate hearing 'JUST GET RID OF GUNS TO CIVIES, PROBLEM SOLVED'

No, it's not. Criminals and people with bad intentions (Let's call them 'baddies' from hereon) can get guns no matter what the gun laws. It's called the black market (Oh I love this line. 'Make it illegal to have gun? Tell me again how criminals obey the law?') and there are shitloads of weapons for sale, not just little pew pew handguns, full auto military rifles and other high caliber firearms.

Now I'm not saying gives guns to anyone, but I'm not saying take them away from good people that will use for target shooting, hunting and the occasional person that takes down a gunman on the streets. (Principle stopped gunman, oh with his legally owned firearm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_High_School_shooting )

If you look at the facts, not just the FIREARM related crimes, but crimes in general, they sky rocket when you severely reduce guns in the hands of good people, with good intentions. I mean, I live in Australia, gun laws here are tough, best you'll get in a bolt action hunting rifle (But the baddies have semi auto shottys, pistol and other fun stuff) but we used to have carry openly and concealing licenses. But, they took our guns away, in average, crime shot up (Pun) (Murder, armed robberys, breaking and entering ect.) went up around 30-40% (My god, contradicts every argument about less guns = less crime)


In short, don't throw guns at everyone, give them to not crazy people, basic training. Let people carry in public (Not everyone will, it's not the fucking wild west) and it will DETER people from committing crimes, it wont stop them. But they will drop, and people will have a way of defending themselves against people WHO WILL HAVE GUNS NO MATTER WHAT.


P.S Serbia's 'firearm related death' rate is 3.90 (tiny) and guess what? They have fuckloads of guns, AKs, you name it. Basically every family has at least ONE longarm or pistol.
 

spartan231490

New member
Jan 14, 2010
5,186
0
0
Zachary Amaranth said:
spartan231490 said:
Why on earth do people pull out the death by gun statistic?
Because it's the relevant topic at hand.
How is it relevant. How is it any more tragic when someone is shot to death, then when they're stabbed to death? Why should we try to stop shootings, instead of murders?
Further, Vermont has the fewest gun laws in the union, and they are one of the 5 safest states every single year, usually number 1.
I live in Vermont. The population of Vermont is low enough to skew any practical sample. You'll note Alaska, comparable in guns laws, is far more dangerous, too.
If you're going to use population density as an exclusionary criteria, then you should control the rest of your data for population density.
Furthermore, Illinois isn't one of the states with the lowest rates of gun injury, despite having some of the strictest laws, in fact it's the only state that doesn't allow carry of handguns. Furthermore, Iowa has some of the least strict gun laws in the Union, they allow open carry of handguns, they have no "assault weapon" ban, they don't require registration of long guns, and their hand-gun law is shall-issue, and they have one of the lowest rates of gun injury per capita.
Well, pointing at would could reliably be exceptions is certainly the way to prove it true!
You continually misunderstand me. I never said that gun control increases crime, or that high gun ownership reduces it. I am simply pointing out that with this many anomalies, in just a 50 item sample, you have to seriously question any conclusion you draw. There is obviously something deeper at work that is not understood.
strictest gun laws, or the highest gun ownership, that is all assumed by you, and you overlook many anomalies.
I didn't assume. I did research. Not only that, but the most commonly held up examples of gun violence in restricted states are NY, MA, CT and CA.

But if it makes it easier to dodge by calling it an assumption, feel free. As for anomalies, I've already pointed out a couple you've overlooked, so you might want to check that defense.
If you did research, then show it. You can't just expect me to take your word for it. I don't even really need a source, but I would like to know which states you consider to have strict gun laws and which don't, and how that's determined.
Also, I counter your coincidence with another coincidence: "the nine European nations with the lowest rates of gun ownership (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000 population) have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000 population)." http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/
Of course, you're not ignoring levels of gun ownership, so I guess you're okay with defying your own complaints.
I don't really understand what your saying here. At all. What complaint did I violate by accounting for levels of gun ownership?
Still, the article failed the moment it called banning guns the "common wisdom," considering there is nothing common about it. It still disregards the patterns in terms of actual gun deaths, which is still relevant to the argument no matter how loudly you protest.
It didn't fail, it's an introduction, it is meant to catch your attention, it isn't actually making a value statement. Further, the "wisdom" seems to be pretty common to me, many people do believe that banning guns would reduce crime and murder, just because most countries don't do it doesn't meant that isn't what people think. If people didn't think that you wouldn't have dozens of people on this site crying out for America to ban guns, when they don't even live here!
 

Mycroft Holmes

New member
Sep 26, 2011
850
0
0
iseko said:
One, the rein of gengis khan is long over last I checked. Ok, that one was for giggles.
Last I checked there was no one named Gengis Khan existed except in a bastardized spelling by an idiot British explorer who couldn't get Chinghiz' name right.

spelled in variety of ways in different languages such as English Chinghiz, Chinghis, and Chingiz, Chinese: &#25104;&#21513;&#24605;&#27735;; pinyin: Chéngjís&#299; Hán, Turkic: Cengiz Han, Çingiz Xan, Çingiz Han, Chingizxon, Ç&#305;ñ&#287;&#305;z Xan, Chengez Khan, Chinggis Khan, Chinggis Xaan, Chingis Khan, Jenghis Khan, Chinggis Qan, Djingis Kahn, Russian: &#1063;&#1080;&#1085;&#1075;&#1080;&#1089;&#1093;&#1072;&#1085; (&#268;ingiskhan) or &#1063;&#1080;&#1085;&#1075;&#1080;&#1079;-&#1093;&#1072;&#1085; (&#268;ingiz-khan), etc. Temüjin is written in Chinese as simplified Chinese: &#38081;&#26408;&#30495;; traditional Chinese: &#37941;&#26408;&#30494;; pinyin: Ti&#283;mùzh&#275;n.
iseko said:
My point being. Can't compare a few thousand years to a few hundred :).
There have been more people alive in the past 300 years than there were in every year before combined.

iseko said:
Secondly (and I'm really thanking you for this one), an experienced archer is very deadly. What is the key word here? Experienced. How long would it take to train to become one of those?
Depends on the person and the circumstances. 10,000 hours is theoretically the time to master something IE 417 days. Figure 6 hours a day would take you 4.5 years to achieve mastery. So I would say you could become an experienced archer in a year to a year and a half in your spare time(8 hours sleeping, 6 hours archerizing, 10 hours doing whatever else.) If you wanted to kick it up into overdrive and do pretty much nothing but shooting/sleeping/eating then you could probably get pretty fucking good in 4 or 5 months.

The only reason you'd need a lot more time to get ready is if you going to fight like an actual Kassai warrior, from horseback, which is a much harder skill and basically the reason why the Chinese couldn't just train up groups of horse archers to combat the Mongolians

iseko said:
Third, ever seen the effect of a shotgun to the chest? Some arrows are more deadly than some bullets. Some bullets are deadlier then arrows.
Shotguns shoot shells not bullets.

Also if your argument is gun are dangerous then a 'whats more dangerous' argument is not something you want to get into. Because you can make explosives capable of killing hundreds of people out off things bought at your local grocery market and hardware store with information found with two seconds of googling. You can make a claymore with ballbearing and duct tape that could, if set off at a sporting event/pep rally/crowded area. Easily wound/kill 30 people over a wide range. Set up a few of them and you could kill hundreds.

iseko said:
Fourth and last, there are some documented cases of a people being shot multiple times (as in a lot) and surviving. More then 50% of gunshots are lethal tho. Don't believe the movies where McClane (die hard reference) takes a bullet in the shoulder and walks it off :). Go ask a doctor in which part of your body it couldn't hurt to get shot (and by couldn't hurt I mean: isn't lethal). You'd be surprised.
No, I wouldn't be. Because most of the body mass is not critical to living, unless you're in the middle of the woods fending for yourself, you can get along being wounded in most places. But in that case a freaking ACL tear would result in your death, so you kind of have to agree that a thing called modern medicine exists. Obviously it's going to suck to get shot anywhere, but there's very little chance it will kill you, especially with the average caliber bullet. http://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/the-center-mass-myth-and-ending-a-gunfight-triggernometry/

There was a high degree of lethality in this recent shooting because each person was shot many times.

Also what part of being shot in the shoulder would kill you exactly? Even hitting a major artery in the arm like the brachial artery would easily take a half hour to bleed you out and kill you, assuming you don't get any medical attention whatsoever and don't at all try to stop the bleeding yourself. And the vein's aren't even the bulk of the arm/shoulder. You're more likely to just get damage to bone, ligaments, CT, muscles and so forth than you are to get damage to anything serious.

Things that are lethal in a very short time(IE before Doctors can get to you.) Would be solid organs, liver, kidneys, ect. That are highly vascularized and will bleed heavily. Hits to major arteries, aorta, jugular, vena cava, carotid. Heart. Spinal nerves for vertebrae c 3,4,5(Keep the diaphragm alive.) And the Brain(which even still large portions of it are not critical to actual survival. Even if you hit something like the Pons its unpredictable what the actual effects of the damage will be there's people who have had railroad power rods shot through their brains, and others who have had giant drill bits inserted and lived.)
 

Strazdas

Robots will replace your job
May 28, 2011
8,407
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.
your point? utopian heaven?

A Smooth Criminal said:
I'm sure all of those children appreciate the agonizing pain and the horror that they had inflicted on them...

You know what would happen if the person with the knife aimed somewhere around the head? There would be a few less live children in china.
Yeah because they would have preferred death than pain for a few months. suuuuure.
yeah, and able to kill in one hit with a knife versus able to kill in one him with a gun is how much difference? if you really think knives are as effective as guns you may be one of the crazy ones.

A Smooth Criminal said:
I'm not pro guns, I don't agree with them being so openly accessible, however taking them away from current gun owners would be ineffective and wouldn't reduce crime. In fact, it would probably increase it.

For every school shooting there are a lot more muggings, robberies and generic assaults. There aren't that many crazy people who want to shoot up people, however there are a lot of people who want to steal and commit common but still equally awful crimes. Guess what? These are your stereotypical crooks committing these crimes. Do you think they'd suddenly stop committing crimes if they're the only ones with firearms?
not this idiocity again. removing guns remove gun crimes. fact.
how is same criminals doing same thing increase crimerate?

irmasterlol said:
This is completely delusional. It cannot be done. The one thing that would accomplish is cause the black market for firearms to explode overnight and give even more money to the Mexican drug cartels that everyone is apparently so afraid of. What works over in Glorious Socialist People's Republic of Europe does not transfer cleanly over here in America. We love freedom too much.
Yes it can, its just a matter of want. americans dont want it, or are too stupid. American gun access IS the black market. funnily enough mexican gun cartels are armed with weapons legally bought in US and smuggled into mexico. American legla gun market is the middle america black market. limiting acess to wepapons in america would actually cut down black market a lot.

clippen05 said:
If you pay them 50,000$ in salary, you still have to give them other benefits as they are government employees. So lets say with yearly benefits all in all to keep someone like that on salary costs 60,000 $.

60,000 times 98,817 is 5,929,020,000. Or nearly 6 billion dollars per annum.
stop right here? who pay the guards that much? that makes it to 5000 per month, and thats just ludicrous. noone (and i meant it) should earn that much.
SextusMaximus said:
Maybe stop people being total fucking psychopaths
impossible.

Now you're looking at more than ONE TRILLION DOLLARS worth of stuff that you would be stealing from the American people. I say stealing, because the government definitely can't afford to pay them even half of the value of their guns and other, now useless, equipment.
yes, you can afford 3 trillions oil wars in middle easy but cant afford 1 trillion in cleaning up your own country.

Ultratwinkie said:
i never said gun was the only problem in america, its far from that. but guns are a LARGE problem in american and other countries. your american free gun acess causes problems in other countries, becuase legal american guns are the black market.

spartan231490 said:
This is impossible. American's own somewhere in the neighborhood of 1 trillion dollars worth of guns and related equipment, the government can't afford to reimburse american gun owners for their stuff, not even half it's worth. Also, wherever you are getting your info is mistaken, murder rates are declining in the US, have been since 1992, we're not turning into mexico 2, and saying that is needlessly inflammatory. Also, studies show no correlation between gun control or gun ownership and murder rates.
please stop being ignorant. american can afford reimbursing 1 trillion worth of guns if they stopped 3 trillion worth of wars. and the cause of gun control is far more important than some war in iraq.
beside, most of those guns would not have to be reimbursed because certainly most people who own guns at the moment will try oto keep them and therefore get a license, if they fit the profile of a sane person. so the actual need for reimbursement, even accounting for stupidity of American gun owners, would be less than half of that. crime rates overall has been declining since 1992 and much of this is attributed to videogames. however even with that crime rates are still way too big.
even the FBI is saying that usa will turn into mexico 2, so im sorry, but your sources are wrong. if you really cant find a study that see releationship between gun lack of guns and gun crime dropping then you should be the one on the ignore list, you troll.
 

Eclectic Dreck

New member
Sep 3, 2008
6,662
0
0
There are multiple problems with the notion really. The first is obvious - it costs a fair amount to hire such a person. Many schools have problems paying teachers and thus fulfill their primary obligation in the world. The second is that there simply isn't a particularly good way to find out how well someone is going to respond to the notion of throwing themselves in peril for strangers until the very moment you ask this of them.

To put this another way, consider that there are approximately 130,000 schools in the US (not counting universities, colleges and trade schools). Even at an incredibly low wage and benefit cost of say $25,000 (Less than a teacher of any subject with zero years experience in the field and fresh out of college) you'd suddenly need to pay an additional 3.2 billion dollars. The total federal budget for schools of this sort is about 32 billion. The plan would thus be a ten percent increase in spending.

Thus you start to see the real problem. The first, is that there is no significant evidence the expense would solve anything. The second is that there is literally no way you'd find any sort of political support. Beyond the usual problems of ever suggesting that violence can be used to resolve violence, you have the problem that you'd advocate an enormous increase in spending in a particular area - a point likely to ensure you wouldn't have much conservative support while simultaneously advocating wider application of firearms - a point likely to ensure you won't have much liberal support, all while advocating raising children in a world where it becomes obvious that bad shit does indeed happen - a point likely to undermine support with anyone who happens to be left.
 

WolfThomas

Man must have a code.
Dec 21, 2007
5,292
0
0
Mycroft Holmes said:
Shotguns shoot shells not bullets.
A shell is the name of a shotgun cartridge. A shotgun shoots "shot" funnily enough or "slugs". Shot is many pellets, slugs one large pellet. Regardless they're all part of the blanket term "bullets".

(Backs away because he wasn't keeping track on the rest of the argument. Just looking for moments to be needlessly pedantic).
 

Eclectic Dreck

New member
Sep 3, 2008
6,662
0
0
One final point. Since this debate, like any other that dares mention firearms, has degenerated into the same circular arguments about gun control we've all heard a thousand times, I'd like to simply point out a few things.

First, everyone agrees that guns make killing someone easier. My Glock 30 can produce fatal injury far easier than my ceramic carving knife I use in the kitchen. Anyone who refuses to agree with this notion is clearly insane and thus you can safely ignore anything they say after. But, the pattern of facts is a corpse is a corpse regardless of the means by which it arrived. The important answer is, as it always has been: why did that happen and what could have been done to prevent it.

And here is where the problem comes up. Everyone wants to look for the easy answer. For some, the answer is that personal protection is the way to go and therefore they advocate the right to carry weapons and the duty of the individual to take matters into their own hands. To support their case, they have various anecdotal evidence of those times where an armed individual saved the day. Really good stuff that tugs at the heart strings. Opposing them are the people who say that the simple solution is to remove all the guns thus making it slightly harder to murder anyone, an equally compelling point.

Yet in both cases we run into problems. There is hugely contradictory evidence on both sides. We have evidence that shows crime rates increasing with gun control and decreasing with controls. We see whole nations with both loose controls on weapons as well as loose controls on murder itself and bafflingly see a dramatic decrease in gun violence. This could go on but the pattern of facts is sufficient that any side could choose any set of evidence to support their argument. This implies a problem: that we are not looking at the correct problem.

The gun control argument overlooks the fundamental problem that controls are not terribly effective at restricting access to firearms. They ignore that the controls themselves are presented without much regard to how or why using a firearm might be useful. Take for example the arguments against large capacity magazines after the shooting in Colorado. Forcing the shooter to use a 30 round magazine doesn't mean he stops shooting after the 30th shot - it means he reloads, an act that takes a trained individual less than a second to complete in ideal circumstances. California insists that no handgun have a capacity greater than 10 rounds ignoring both the damage than 10 rounds can do and how easily one can legally acquire the means to get around this problem. It also attempts to ignore the equally obvious problem - we have owned weapons since the nation was founded and even if a program were developed to reverse this trend, many would simply not give their weapons away until the moment the government actually arrived to take them and more than a few would resist that act. Even if the nation had the collective will to accomplish this, the process would take decades to complete at the cost of billions if not trillions.

On the non control side you have endless questions about how much safer it is to be armed. It increases one's confidence so how many gun deaths happen that could have been avoided entirely? How many negligent discharges kill people in the nation? Endless questions and problems and inconsistencies.

For my money in the argument, neither side has much of a basis to make a claim that they have the better answer. On the control side you have far too many problems inherent in the process to justify the difficulty when the fundamental problem remains and I do not hold the life of a stranger so dear that I'm willing to risk so much on a plan with so little evidence to support it. The non-control side doesn't hold up much better either. I have a permit to carry a weapon and own three different firearms to that end yet if pressed I would never use my weapon to play hero. There is a single space in the world I would defend with lethal force and only one life other than my own I'd ever attempt to intervene to save. And even then, in the only case I've ever personally encountered where use of a firearm may have been useful, it was demonstrably useless. I was mugged by a man with a gun who hopped out of a bush behind me as I walked up to my apartment. I was armed at the time and yet I did not draw my weapon to defend myself. To do so would mean I place my life in the hands of that man's willingness to pull the trigger because, even at speed, drawing and firing takes far, far, far longer than simply squeezing a trigger. My own personal experience thus indicates that simply being armed and prepared to defend oneself is insufficient to assure safety and even an unhealthy hyper vigilance would not really make me safe.

The real answer for the problem is out there. There is a reason that the US has high rates of gun violence but it isn't video games or access to guns or a culture of violence or any of the rest of that nonsense. Every other nation out there deals with that stuff without heaps of corpses. The answer is there in places we don't want to look because, in the end, it will force us to recognize the myriad problems with all the progress of modern civilization that we desperately want to ignore if for no other reason than those too are problems we have no idea how to face.

Thus why the debate always instead rests upon the same basis it always has. Each side gets to feel like they stay true to their moral cause while simultaneously ensuring no progress in the discussion will ever be made. By the time you're 20, you've already heard every single argument that has ever existed about the debate and made up your mind. There is no arrangement of those details that will likely change any particular person's mind much less any significant portion of one side or the other.