Page 2 of 42
Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order
Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 9:01 pm
by Phatscotty
Only the 4th stiffest gun control? OMG I WAS
WAYYYYYY OFF!!!!
The point stands
Phatscotty wrote:Connecticut already has one of the stiffest gun control control policies in America
Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order
Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 9:03 pm
by Phatscotty
Answer: more guns
1 or 2 teachers needs to be trained with and entrusted with a gun, in every school.
Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order
Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 9:06 pm
by crispybits
dcowboys055 wrote:One thing that hasn't been mentioned in the thread, is it ok to take away the ability of a law abiding "good" citizen to protect themself, their family, and their home? The discussion has centered around bad guys getting the guns anyways. Not throwing my opinion out there, just wondering.
As mentioned before, you have "bad guys" and "insane guys" (there is some overlap but it's statistically insignificant)
For the insane guys, I haven't heard of a case where a spree shooter is taken down by a civilian with their own firearm. It's always the cops that take them down as far as I've seen. You have crimes of passion I guess, but they come under the insane heading, where the perpetrator will not have ready access and will pick up a knife or some other weapon. It's not that they want to shoot their victim, they want to hurt them, so whatever is the most convenient weapon will normally be used.
For the bad guys, generally they aren't actually that interested in hurting or killing anyone (just makes their sentences longer if they get caught), but rather in dealing drugs or robbing people or otherwise profiting somehow from their crime. An innocent civilian stands the risk to get robbed (and even if they had a gun they would have to have it ready when they get a gun pulled on them or it's useless anyway) but generally speaking they aren't at much risk of serious personal harm from bad guys.
Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order
Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 9:08 pm
by /
Phatscotty wrote:Answer: more guns
1 or 2 teachers needs to be trained with and entrusted with a gun, in every school.
Why the teachers? There are already security officers in the schools, who I think should be armed as a priority, not all public educators can necessarily, in my opinion be trusted with the responsibility of keeping their (speculative) on-site guns away from students.
Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order
Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 9:11 pm
by saxitoxin
If you want to stop spree shootings in the U.S., instead of just turning
spree shootings into spree knifings like in China or
spree sniper attacks like in Finland, you need to start with repealing every piece of legislation inspired by the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act.
Finland has endemic spree shootings, but tough firearms laws. What does it have in common with the U.S.? They made the same radical shift from institutional to outpatient treatment of the mentally ill. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1484394) I'd suggest there's a similar correlation in other countries with high spree shootings, like Germany.
If you only just want to create fundraising opportunities for your favorite politician, but don't really care if anyone gets blown away, then advocating for firearms regulation is definitely the way to go.
For the record, though, I don't support re-institutionalization. I'm okay with the current level of spree shooting deaths versus the alternative of psychiatric confinement.
Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order
Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 9:15 pm
by Phatscotty
not to mention, all this BS about tougher gun laws totally lets the murderer off the hook/blames something other than the murderer. It's the person using the object, not the object.
Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order
Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 9:17 pm
by saxitoxin
Phatscotty wrote:not to mention, all this BS about tougher gun laws totally lets the murderer off the hook/blames something other than the murderer. It's the person using the object, not the object.
OK, that's a fair point, but it's not a position I'm advancing or willing to defend since it's not a solutions-based statement.
Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order
Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 9:19 pm
by maxfaraday
Phatscotty wrote:The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun
This.
Make guns illegals, the bad guys will still find a way to get one.
Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order
Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 9:20 pm
by Phatscotty
saxitoxin wrote:Phatscotty wrote:not to mention, all this BS about tougher gun laws totally lets the murderer off the hook/blames something other than the murderer. It's the person using the object, not the object.
OK, that's a fair point, but it's not a position I'm advancing or willing to defend since it's not a solutions-based statement.
my solution based statement: more guns in schools
Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order
Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 9:22 pm
by Neoteny
Yes. That's what I'm saying. We should be training our children in schools to be markspeople, and arm them with semiautomatic weapons.
Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order
Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 9:23 pm
by Night Strike
/ wrote:Phatscotty wrote:Answer: more guns
1 or 2 teachers needs to be trained with and entrusted with a gun, in every school.
Why the teachers? There are already security officers in the schools, who I think should be armed as a priority, not all public educators can necessarily, in my opinion be trusted with the responsibility of keeping their (speculative) on-site guns away from students.
Because then the security officer would be the first person killed. If you don't know which people in a building may be carrying a gun, then it makes the situation much more dangerous for the attacker.
Do you know why the shooter in Aurora, Colorado, picked that specific theater out of 11 in the area? It wasn't the only one doing a midnight premiere or even have the biggest theater. It also wasn't the closest to the killer's home either. But it WAS the only one to have a sign posted saying concealed guns weren't allowed. People who want to kill others go where they know they will have the least resistance possible.
Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order
Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 9:26 pm
by Phatscotty
/ wrote:Phatscotty wrote:Answer: more guns
1 or 2 teachers needs to be trained with and entrusted with a gun, in every school.
Why the teachers? There are already security officers in the schools, who I think should be armed as a priority, not all public educators can necessarily, in my opinion be trusted with the responsibility of keeping their (speculative) on-site guns away from students.
not all....just 1 or 2. Security officers with guns is a start, but then any potential shooter also can easily pinpoint where the only person who can stop them is, and the element of surprise will always be in the murderers favor
Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order
Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 9:41 pm
by Nobunaga
Banning guns would contradict the US Constitution.
An amendment? Has an amendment ever been added to the Constitution so as to cancel out another? Has an amendment ever been added to negate rights?
No way in hell 3/4 of state legislatures would pass such an amendment (required to get it done). Draconian state-level control is the only approach that really works, and the way it should be done, if it's to be done.
Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order
Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 9:47 pm
by /
maxfaraday wrote:Phatscotty wrote:The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun
This.
Make guns illegals, the bad guys will still find a way to get one.
Bazookas are illegal in America without an extremely hard to get Destructive Device permit, and that's why all the bad guys here have illegal bazookas and we can't defend ourselves against them.
I feel that, if nothing else, assault riffles should be illegal for personal sale, use, and possession.
Night Strike wrote:Because then the security officer would be the first person killed. If you don't know which people in a building may be carrying a gun, then it makes the situation much more dangerous for the attacker.
Do you know why the shooter in Aurora, Colorado, picked that specific theater out of 11 in the area? It wasn't the only one doing a midnight premiere or even have the biggest theater. It also wasn't the closest to the killer's home either. But it WAS the only one to have a sign posted saying concealed guns weren't allowed. People who want to kill others go where they know they will have the least resistance possible.
A fair point, perhaps it would be a good preventative measure with the right precautions.
It's just that if the teacher would carrying it on their person it would leave room for students to grab it as they passed by, and if they had it in their desks it would be frequently unattended as well.
Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order
Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 9:51 pm
by Phatscotty
Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order
Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 9:54 pm
by spiesr
Nobunaga wrote:Has an amendment ever been added to the Constitution so as to cancel out another?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-first_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order
Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 9:55 pm
by macbone
Arming teachers in schools? That's just absurd, Scotty.
The American public schools have huge problems with disruptive students, but arming teachers isn't the solution.
It's amazing that here in Hong Kong, society's pretty free. You can walk down the street with a beer and that's perfectly fine. But guns are restricted (not banned - just tightly controlled), and guess what? People aren't killed by handguns. Most of the deaths are from traffic fatalities (which is similar to the U.S. in that respect). HK society is very safe. (Of course, HK isn't going to overthrow their government, either, so there's that.)
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/hong-kong
Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order
Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 9:55 pm
by macbone
I thought he was just being facetious. =)
Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order
Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 9:56 pm
by Nobunaga
Excellent! Thank you for that. Thank god for that, too, eh?
Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order
Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 9:56 pm
by Phatscotty
macbone wrote:Arming teachers in schools? That's just absurd, Scotty.
The American public schools have huge problems with disruptive students, but arming teachers isn't the solution.
What other alternatives exist that can
prevent a massacre like this one?
Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order
Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 10:00 pm
by crispybits
Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order
Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 10:01 pm
by Nobunaga
crispybits wrote:
What is this supposed to mean? I don't follow.
Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order
Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 10:06 pm
by Ray Rider
Metsfanmax wrote:saxitoxin wrote:- From 2002 to 2012, 99 people were killed** in the U.S. during spree shootings. The population of USA is 314 million. In other words,
0.3 per 1 million Americans were killed in spree shootings. Firearms regulation in USA is considered
Permissive by the University of Sydney School of Public Health. [/list]
...
**
figure is 276 since 1984, assumption of even body count spread over period of years and adjusted to 99 for 2002-2012 time period[/size]
I don't think that's an accurate assumption:
Hmm, looks to me like assault deaths in the US are declining just fine as it is. With it at an all-time low since the 60s even in spite of the assault weapons ban expiring in 2004, it seems safe to say that gun availability has little to do with the issue.
Metsfanmax wrote:saxitoxin wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:saxitoxin wrote:- From 2002 to 2012, 99 people were killed** in the U.S. during spree shootings. The population of USA is 314 million. In other words,
0.3 per 1 million Americans were killed in spree shootings. Firearms regulation in USA is considered
Permissive by the University of Sydney School of Public Health. [/list]
...
**
figure is 276 since 1984, assumption of even body count spread over period of years and adjusted to 99 for 2002-2012 time period[/size]
I don't think that's an accurate assumption:
Okay, if 100% of spree shooting deaths occurred during 2002-2012, and none occurred from 1984-2002, then the per-capita spree shooting fatality rate increases to 0.9 per 1 million, versus Finland's 4.8 per 1 million. That seems tenuous but I'll concede that point, if you like.
For comparison: in general,
there is a positive correlation between gun ownership and homicide rates (in general, not just considering spree shootings).
Firstly, correlation doesn't prove causation. You should know that.
Secondly, isn't this that "study" that was debunked a long time back because it counted suicides as homicides?
Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order
Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 10:11 pm
by Night Strike
Ray Rider wrote:Secondly, isn't this that "study" that was debunked a long time back because it counted suicides as homicides?
Similarly, there are more suicides by guns than homicides by guns in the US.
Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order
Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 10:24 pm
by TA1LGUNN3R
CreepersWiener wrote:Perhaps now we can start BANNING GUNS! It is way past due.
If this guy didn't have guns...HE WOULDN'T have shot anyone!
I agree. We should also ban the following:
- Household chemicals
- Sharp objects (including writing utensils)
- Objects that have enough mass to harm a person if they're under human force
- Trans fats
- Saturated fats
- Closed fists
- Pretty much anything made of metal
- Same with plastic
- Ropes or elastic materials which can be used to fashion projectile weapons
- Drugs
- Basic chemistry sets
- Rocks
- The internet
I think we should also create a new federal agency that goes around gathering any stick which is greater than a half inch in diameter, as these can be sharpened into weapons.
-TG
