Should There Be Tougher Gun Laws?

[Engert]

You foreigners don't get it do you?
Here, watch this documentary for more insight into our traditions. It's an hour long though so watch it at your leisure with headphones on when no one is bothering you.

 

[Hanafuda]

Wasn't there armed security at Columbine at the time of the massacre there? Do the NRA not know that, or are they deliberately ignoring it when pushing to make Kindergarten Cop a reality?

Yes there was, and he actually kept one of the shooters (Harris) occupied for a while with shooting at him instead of more kids. But, given the magnitude of that attack, he didn't and probably couldn't have made much difference. The Columbine shooters had more than just guns. They had constructed 99 various homemade explosive devices, including propane bombs. And as for weapons, they used sawed off shotguns, Tec-9 pistols, and a 9mm carbine (using 10 round mags, not hi-capacity mags). They did not use AR-15's or AK-47's.

I'm a parent of a 20 year old who's out of school now and a 9 year old who's still in elementary school. I don't really have a problem with this idea of a security officer in each school, but in practice it's just going to be a guy eating donuts. But when it comes to the idea of school teachers being allowed, if they choose, to be trained and have access to a secured firearm for the purpose of defending their kids and themselves, absolutely. Consider this ... when my child is home with me, asleep at night, I am her defender, her protector. That's my job as her parent. But when I drop her off at school, when the school assumes the legal status of in loco parentis, who is her defender then? Is it acceptable that no defense exists for our children while they're in school, except for 911? As they say, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. (And at Newtown last week, they were about 20 minutes away.)

The gun control advocates have said they want a "conversation" about how to keep school attacks/shootings from happening. But they don't seem to think increased security in the schools should be included in that conversation - the only subject they consider worth talking about is more restrictions on guns. They don't seem very willing to talk seriously about doing something to limit access to and purchase of guns by the mentally ill, either. The NRA is proposing that a standardized national database of those adjudicated to be mentally ill be incorporated into the NICS background check. Sounds like common sense to me, but I'm seeing gun control advocates poo-pooing it as a waste, or just NRA trying to deflect. This obstinance from the gun control lobby, that new gun control laws are the only thing that can be included in this so-called "conversation," tells me they're not really serious about protecting children - "doing it for the children" is just an effective means of swaying the public opinion, along with fear-mongering, scary propaganda and made-up terms like "assault weapon" for sporting guns that are functionally no different than hunting weapons that have a more traditional appearance. Their only goal is getting one incremental step closer to a total ban, and they'll happily capitalize on peoples' deaths to make it happen.


.

 

[BlueStar]

And you wouldn't have any fear of an angry student taking a teacher's gun in a rage or a teacher themself snapping while carrying around a gun? The implication that our children in the UK have no "protectors" either at home or school because the people looking after them don't have guns is a pretty alien concept to me, I have to say. I'd feel safer with my kid in a UK or Australian school with unarmed educators than in a US school where teachers can choose to carry firearms, I can say that for sure.

 

[xist]

[1986]

Not exactly relevant then. (the survey is from the first date)

 

[Hanafuda]

And you wouldn't have any fear of an angry student taking a teacher's gun in a rage or a teacher themself snapping while carrying around a gun? The implication that our children in the UK have no "protectors" either at home or school because the people looking after them don't have guns is a pretty alien concept to me, I have to say. I'd feel safer with my kid in a UK or Australian school with unarmed educators than in a US school where teachers can choose to carry firearms, I can say that for sure.

I said a "secured firearm", i.e. it would be in a quick-access safe, like the one I linked a picture of earlier in this thread. As for a teacher snapping, I suppose the same teacher could as easily manage to crush a few 3rd graders' skulls with a heavy stapler or something. There is no such thing as 100% "safe."

Also, perspective: As horrendous as this tragedy was, the risk of any person dying in one of these random mass shootings is extremely small, roughly the same as the risk of being struck by lightning. On the other hand, about 800 American children under 15yo die every year in drowning accidents, all 100% preventable ... but I don't hear much outcry to ban swimming pools.

 

[Hanafuda]

Not exactly relevant then. (the survey is from the first date)

Cuz why, exactly? Guns do something different now than they did in '86? Imprisoned felons have a different psychology now than in '86?

Actually, maybe you're right ... given the wave of states passing CCW laws since then, criminals are probably even more fearful of citizens shooting back now than they were in '86.

 

[BlueStar]

And would this safe be physically attached to the teacher? Or if the teacher is helping a kid with their work and the gun is at their desk, tough, no 'defense' from shooters? I really don't get how anyone thinks "But mroe people are killed from cars/swimming pools/fatty food" or whatever is any kind of sensible argument. Aside from the fact the purpose of weapons is totally different from the purpose of those things, you might as well say swimming kills ore people than terrorism so you can't make laws against terrorism without also wanting to ban swimming.

 

[xist]

Cuz why, exactly?

I apologise for the abruptness of that comment. I realised i should have said more but didn't want to edit in something you may not see. It came across more antagonistic than i intended.

With over 25 years between now and when the research was published it's immensely likely that opinion has changed. We've had a change in gang culture, a change in poverty levels, a change in policing.

I appreciate that you're backing one side of this argument, but unlike legal definitions social research can become outdated and irrelevant as time goes on. Even technical scientific research becomes "historic" after a period of time, and certainly when i studied a citation that was over a quarter of a century old wouldn't hold much weight.

 

[Hanafuda]

I apologise for the abruptness of that comment. I realised i should have said more but didn't want to edit in something you may not see. It came across more antagonistic than i intended.

With over 25 years between now and when the research was published it's immensely likely that opinion has changed. We've had a change in gang culture, a change in poverty levels, a change in policing.

I appreciate that you're backing one side of this argument, but unlike legal definitions social research can become outdated and irrelevant as time goes on. Even technical scientific research becomes "historic" after a period of time, and certainly when i studied a citation that was over a quarter of a century old wouldn't hold much weight.

Not disputing anything you just said. It was no_chocobo who first mentioned the study, but he didn't cite the source. You asked, and I provided the info, only because you asked. I'm not sure I agree that it's no longer a valid study just because it was done in 1986 (I'm a lot older than most of you guys so '86 doesn't seem so long ago to me ... yeah we have iphones now and we didn't then, but people haven't changed as much as you think. Human nature is a constant.). But I also don't really care what a sampling of felons had to say on the subject, either.

 

[Castiel]

But when it comes to the idea of school teachers being allowed, if they choose, to be trained and have access to a secured firearm for the purpose of defending their kids and themselves, absolutely.

Adding on to the idea of a teacher snapping: A very good friend of mine, who is a teacher at my school, told us a story of one of the previous teachers for that subject at our school. One of the students wasn't doing something right so the teacher actually punched the kid and then threw him against the wall and started choking him. The ministry took away the guys license to teach, but then he moved to Alberta and became a teacher there somewhere.

I'm not saying it's a really terrible idea, as most teachers aren't like that, but I have come across a few teachers who just don't give a crap and do like to scare students into listening to them. If this idea you mentioned were to come into play, there would have to be some way of making sure that the teacher would be responsible with a firearm in their possession.

 

[Hanafuda]

Adding on to the idea of a teacher snapping: A very good friend of mine, who is a teacher at my school, told us a story of one of the previous teachers for that subject at our school. One of the students wasn't doing something right so the teacher actually punched the kid and then threw him against the wall and started choking him. The ministry took away the guys license to teach, but then he moved to Alberta and became a teacher there somewhere.

I'm not saying it's a really terrible idea, as most teachers aren't like that, but I have come across a few teachers who just don't give a crap and do like to scare students into listening to them. If this idea you mentioned were to come into play, there would have to be some way of making sure that the teacher would be responsible with a firearm in their possession.

Like I said above, there are already plenty of objects in a classroom that could be used to kill ... stapler, scissors, etc. In an elementary school, if a teacher truly went bonkers on murder, I'm sure 8 - 10 children in a closed classroom could be fatally stabbed with scissors by the much larger, stronger adult before anyone could do much about it. So worrying about the teacher as a threat is just looking for excuses not to consider this.

Anyway, though this was an interesting read ... it's from The Atlantic, which is a liberal and pro-gun control publication. But in this article, they're repeating what I said earlier, that it's the war on drugs that's the real catalyst behind America's crime problem. They begin the article by saying how all these different kinds of gun control measures would still be a good thing, but that eliminating drug prohibition is the only thing that would really make a difference. I agree on the second part, but disagree on the first part. And they never really explain or defend the assertion that more gun control would be good, either - they just assume you must agree. After all, you're reading The Atlantic. LOL. But it is a good article, even though I know I wouldn't be able to stand 10 minutes in a room with the author of the piece. Please take the time to read it.


http://www.theatlantic.com/business...-gun-death-policy-ending-the-drug-war/266505/

 

[xist]

Please take the time to read it.

Perhaps this is a stupid thought, but it's one i had whilst reading the beginning of that article....instead of focusing on removing guns from people, why not just silently remove all ammunition from retailers. Perhaps if firing a gun had a real monetary cost it'd stop them being used so often....as Chris Rock said "Cause if a bullet cost five thousand dollars there would be no more innocent bystanders."

Also, how many addicts would actually own a gun? Surely they'd have sold anything of monetary value in an attempt to score something for the next hit. The war on drugs is an easy target, and whilst i don't dispute it'd have an effect, i do think it's not as quantifiable as many sources might suggest.

 

[Engert]

But in this article, they're repeating what I said earlier, that it's the war on drugs that's the real catalyst behind America's crime problem.

Hahahaha.
Really?
So, U.S. government being the biggest arms dealer in the world, torturing people, assassinating people, spending half of our budged into military and law enforcement defense, setting an example for a complete disregard of human life in home and abroad has nothing to do with it?
You see friend, this is why the gun-culture with never change in U.S. Because people don't ask the hard questions. Don't take a step back and look in the mirror or at their government and say 'let's stop this madness'. They instead look for easy answers to kick the bucket down the road for a few more years.
And as long as U.S.A. exists with its current mentality and constitution, guns are here to stay.
What I liked in that article is that taking the guns forcefully might cause something close to a Civil War. That’s very true.
So that's why you start at the government. Cut the defense budget in half, take all the weapons from the cops and maybe we'll have something called a modern healthy society. And not a society armed to the teeth that practices instant “justice”.
But of course this will never happen because we are a proud nation and like to throw our weight around the world.
Nothing will change really.

 

[Chary]

Well, strict gun laws might not be as effective as you think. In Texas, gun laws are the most lenient in the US. Nearly anyone can get any gun immediately here. But guess what? Some States with stricter gun laws than Texas have more gun-related assaults and murders. So, in the end, stricter gun laws may make a difference, but a very minute one at that.

 

[Hanafuda]

Engert,

You know, when it comes to much of what you have to say there, I agree with you. For example, until Obama stops killing children with unmanned drone strikes, I don't really have much use for his fake tears over some kids in Connecticut. And as long as the local police have select-fire M16A4's, why shouldn't I be able to buy one? I'm also strongly opposed to the direction our foreign policy has taken the last 10 years ... not just Bush going into Iraq and Afghan, but Obama ramping it up and adding Yemen and Pakistan to the mix. The type of campaign that's being waged with these drones is the most inhuman and evil of methods ... the bravery of being out of range.

Suppose you get someone elected President in the USA who says he will cut the defense budget in half like you suggest. He'll be assassinated. You know it. And that is the underlying evil that the people in this country who insist on owning guns don't want to succumb to. You really think the US federal government (and the interests that are really pulling the strings) would leave all our remaining liberties and privileges intact if the potential of armed resistance were removed? Eventually it'd be like the fucking Hunger Games.

You're probably right. It's a stalemate, and nothing will change really. Maybe that's why the 2nd amendment got put in there???

 

[totalnoob617]

 

[no_chocobo]

The reason you can do this is because more legal weapons = more illegal weapons. I wouldn't have the first @#!*% clue how to go about getting an illegal gun in the UK.

Legal weapons != more illegal weapons. Why is it that every handgun has to be registered to be purchased, but there is an abundance of handguns without papers? Many drug dealers also deal in unregistered handguns, it just kind of goes with the trade. You might not know where to get an illegal gun in the UK, but is almost every major city in your country overrun with drugs, poverty, and civil unrest? I live near "The Murder Capital" of the country, and have seen some pretty interesting things. Have you ever had the windows in your car broken out because (censoring this here!) "we don't want anyone of your race around here"? In my personal situation, I think owning a gun is wise. Suppose you call the police because someone is breaking into your house at night, how long does it take for them to show up? Maybe 5 minutes? In the city of Detroit, THEY DON'T COME! The Detroit police department makes the residents come to the police station to file a report on a B&E, they won't even come to the scene. I can tell you from experience talking to people in the inner city, if normal citizens weren't allowed to own firearms, and couldn't rely on the police for protection, it wouldn't take long for the criminals to figure this out.... and then it'd be ABSOLUTE FREAKING MAYHEM.

But in this article, they're repeating what I said earlier, that it's the war on drugs that's the real catalyst behind America's crime problem.

Yessir

Also, how many addicts would actually own a gun? Surely they'd have sold anything of monetary value in an attempt to score something for the next hit.

You'd be supprised how many addicts are not straight up junkies living on the streets. Lets say the business exec who likes to do lines on the weekend drives down to a dealer in the inner city, do you think its smart for him to carry around $5k in cash, dressed nicely, drive a car that costs $70k, and stop in a rough neighborhood for 20 min WITHOUT a gun? He's basically a giant red target!

 

[Guild McCommunist]

I'm sure this is a gold mine for ShitGBAtempSays but I can shove my hand only so far up a cow's rectum before I start feeling bad about myself.

 

[Hanafuda]

I'm sure this is a gold mine for ShitGBAtempSays but I can shove my hand only so far up a cow's rectum before I start feeling bad about myself.

Just like you, only thinking of yourself. What about the cow's feelings??

 

[BlueStar]

Legal weapons != more illegal weapons. Why is it that every handgun has to be registered to be purchased, but there is an abundance of handguns without papers?

Because legal handguns get stolen or get sold by authorised dealers who falsify the paperwork. The guns used in the most recent massacre were not legally owned by the shooter, but he was only able to use them because someone (his mother) was able to buy them legally. That's why it's so much more difficult to buy an illegal weapon over here than over there.

As for living near the 'murder capital', yes, the US has four times as many murders than the UK, largely because you've allowed the country to become flooded with firearms.