What type of gun-control would actually stop mass shootings?

[Ultra O’Dia]

what would you like in order to defend yourself from a home invader?

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Arming the teachers. Oh boy, one of those. That doesn't get a seat at the grownup table.

And you're going to try to sneak in SROs as something "one side" wants?

I'm not sneaking in anything. I brought up a widely discussed policy proposal. Labeling me "one of those" and treating me like a child is non-responsive.

I asked a concrete yes or no question. Would you support arming teachers who are willing to carry guns to make schools more secure and save the lives of students? I am assuming your snark means no. And by your logic, that means dead kids are acceptable to you.

 

[Fawlty]

I'm not sneaking in anything. I brought up a widely discussed policy proposal. Labeling me "one of those" and treating me like a child is non-responsive.

I asked a concrete yes or no question. Would you support arming teachers who are willing to carry guns to make schools more secure and save the lives of students? I am assuming your snark means no. And by your logic, that means dead kids are acceptable to you.

Nice try. But still bullshit. A precondition of the armed teachers proposal is that it values the guns. It's not that people think teachers should be armed, it's that people see it as the way to maintain the gun humping. It's guns first, solutions second. It's exactly the kind of ridiculous horseshit that comes out of that sort of thinking.

 

[InternetHero]

Nice try. But still bullshit. A precondition of the armed teachers proposal is that it values the guns. It's not that people think teachers should be armed, it's that people see it as the way to maintain the gun humping. It's guns first, solutions second. It's exactly the kind of ridiculous horseshit that comes out of that sort of thinking.

This sounds a lot more like your feelings than your thoughts.

That: "The cultural role of the NRA is to be the fat white face that absorbs the Left’s hatred for the hunting, shooting, and gun-collecting demographics."

That everyone loves their guns more than the children, and anyone who says otherwise must be lying...

Somehow that seems more like angry projection than complex ethical reality.

Are some of your "best friends" gun enthusiasts? Have you talked to them? Interviewed them? Read their thoughtful as well as stupid opinion pieces?

Do you truly care or just really, really feel something you want must be done?

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Nice try. But still bullshit. A precondition of the armed teachers proposal is that it values the guns. It's not that people think teachers should be armed, it's that people see it as the way to maintain the gun humping. It's guns first, solutions second. It's exactly the kind of ridiculous horseshit that comes out of that sort of thinking.

So is your answer yes or no?

Or is your aversion to guns great enough that any solution that involves them is unacceptable, even if that means more kids die? Because it is much easier and faster to permit licensed teachers to carry than to remove the hundreds of millions of guns in the US. Even if someone was ultimately aiming at a total ban, in the interim before that is accomplished they should want kids to be as safe as possible. And any school attacked by a shooter that has three or four armed adults inside is going to be measurably safer than school with no armed personnel. We could have armed teachers before the end of the school year. Hell, we could make then use their own guns and it wouldn't even cost us anything if only we were willing to try. But no, @Fawlty would rather play holier than thou on the internet than save kids, isn't that the way your argument works?

As far as banning guns you guys haven't even started collecting signature for an amendment. You're lazy about what you claim to believe and have done jack shit to achieve your goals other than some self-righteous attempts at emotional blackmail.

 

[Patrick Carey]

I don't have the same views as "Mr Hogg." However, I would appreciate if people would just be honest and admit that their personal guns vs. schoolchild brains cost-benefit analysis concludes that it's not worth it to make any real changes.

I can easily say that 30 dead kids this year has me not at all wanting to give up my means of defense. Doesn't even seem like a hard thing to say, at all.

 

[kenetics]

Cops engaging school shooters almost always ended the incident abruptly. Seems like a characteristic of these incidents is that the shooter commits suicide when finally confronted by the police.

Or they will just shoot the armed guard or cop. The criminal always has the jump on unexpecting officer.

Like you said all these shooters already have their mind up. Suicide is usually part of the plan too.

 

[LMP]

The only thing that would stop people from wanting to hurt one another is s complete change in human nature. Humans have always been a violent creature. I don't think there is anything that will ever stop that. I think we will eventually destroy ourselves.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Or they will just shoot the armed guard or cop. The criminal always has the jump on unexpecting officer.

Like you said all these shooters already have their mind up. Suicide is usually part of the plan too.

Sure, there will be situations in which police, security, or other armed good guys lose. Historically, in school shootings, the presence of armed police (not outside) has ended the incident fairly abruptly. We don't usually see long firefights between the police and the shooter. Once the ability to kill with impunity, that all-powerful rush, is ended, the little jerks off themselves.

 

[IDL]

Mass shootings can occur with any gun. Would be more difficult with say, a single shot though.

But to get to the point where people couldn't gain access to a handgun or something would require a total repeal of the second amendment and a huge crackdown. Basically throwing that freedom out the window for hundreds of millions of people.

 

[MadSquabbles500]

People deserve to be able to protect themselves from criminals.

Nobody can possibly protect themselves from the US Army.

Therefore, there is no need for semi or automatic weapons, as they are more than needed for protection, and useless against tanks and planes, etc.

There should be a simple one or two shot pistol available for every registered, honest citizen.

Also, less movies and rap songs about how awesome shoot ups are.

Revolvers, shotguns, bolt actions, derringers, and lever actions.

Citizens cannot directly confront a proper army, but they can do guerrilla, terrorist style insurgency. For that you will need auto weapons though.

 

[MadSquabbles500]

Mass shootings can occur with any gun. Would be more difficult with say, a single shot though.

But to get to the point where people couldn't gain access to a handgun or something would require a total repeal of the second amendment and a huge crackdown. Basically throwing that freedom out the window for hundreds of millions of people.

Unless they go Blackbeard and carry multiple single shots.

 

[IloveTHIS]

As a STRONG defender of the 2nd Amendment, I fully support longer wait periods. Especially so if someone is a first time gun purchaser.

This is the only thing that can realistically help, other than pissing all over the constitution and everyone's rights by banning guns(not an option). if there was a 3-6month wait period, maybe it just might be long enough for someone in a horrible mental space to turn the table and change their mind about committing an atrocity.

Second: at least one police officer should be the LAW at every school. These are children, why would we not dedicate at least 1 police officer who would just be writing speeding tickets or sitting around. 1 mandatory 2 preferable for highschools.

These psychos WILL reconsider if they know there are 2 police officers ready to respond with gunfire within SECONDS. Thats why they almost always give up as soon as police start shooting at them. Because they are cowards. They dont want a gunfight/shootout. They want to slaughter those are completely and totally defenseless.

There was an attempted shooting just a few days ago where the kid tried to get the police officer out of the way first but failed. He knew with that officer around his plan could not unfold the way he wanted it to.

Third, and this one is completely unrealistic despite it having the biggest potential benefit, but the media has to change. It should be nearly impossible to find the name of the shooter or pictures of the shooter, rather than the fucking media broadcasting them and every single fucking detail about them to the world. This is EXACTLY what they want. For the world to know them and fear them. This would not happen if the media treated the killers like a nameless faceless scumbag, and focused more on the heros and victims.

 

[dontsnitch]

As a STRONG defender of the 2nd Amendment, I fully support longer wait periods. Especially so if someone is a first time gun purchaser.

This is the only thing that can realistically help, other than pissing all over the constitution and everyone's rights by banning guns(not an option). if there was a 3-6month wait period, maybe it just might be long enough for someone in a horrible mental space to turn the table and change their mind about committing an atrocity.

Second: at least one police officer should be the LAW at every school. These are children, why would we not dedicate at least 1 police officer who would just be writing speeding tickets or sitting around. 1 mandatory 2 preferable for highschools.

These psychos WILL reconsider if they know there are 2 police officers ready to respond with gunfire within SECONDS. Thats why they almost always give up as soon as police start shooting at them. Because they are cowards. They dont want a gunfight/shootout. They want to slaughter those are completely and totally defenseless.

There was an attempted shooting just a few days ago where the kid tried to get the police officer out of the way first but failed. He knew with that officer around his plan could not unfold the way he wanted it to.

Third, and this one is completely unrealistic despite it having the biggest potential benefit, but the media has to change. It should be nearly impossible to find the name of the shooter or pictures of the shooter, rather than the fucking media broadcasting them and every single fucking detail about them to the world. This is EXACTLY what they want. For the world to know them and fear them. This would not happen if the media treated the killers like a nameless faceless scumbag, and focused more on the heros and victims.

If I agree with this guy, does it mean I want kids to die or not?

Good post either way.

 

[Dolomite]

As a STRONG defender of the 2nd Amendment,

a 3-6month wait period,

a STRONG defender of the 2nd Amendment

STRONG defender

6 month wait

Jesus.

 

[spamking]

Cops got shot too in these school shootings. Them being there didn't stop them.

Will we be able to prevent 100% of any violent event at a school or other soft target? Probably not. The presence of law enforcement or guards do act as a deterrent.

Limiting access to a single main point of entry would greatly reduce the threat regardless of whether an armed guard is there or not. Physical barriers often discourage folks simply by appearing to be a deterrent.

Why should it be harder for me to get into a Federal building while in uniform with my ID than it is for me to enter many schools around the country?

 

[spamking]

The manufacturers are influencing lawmakers via $$$.

Every manufacturer of each and every type of object in the world practices some sort of lobbying activities.

This plays no role in what I decide to do with their object after I purchase it.

My question still stands . . .

 

[jamesmiller14]

We aren't going to force folks to lock something up.

Therefore we need to vastly improve school security.

That's exactly what I'm saying.

 

[kenetics]

Will we be able to prevent 100% of any violent event at a school or other soft target? Probably not. The presence of law enforcement or guards do act as a deterrent.

Limiting access to a single main point of entry would greatly reduce the threat regardless of whether an armed guard is there or not. Physical barriers often discourage folks simply by appearing to be a deterrent.

Why should it be harder for me to get into a Federal building while in uniform with my ID than it is for me to enter many schools around the country?

It's the kids doing the shootings most of the time. Most HS kids have I.D . So I don't get what you're saying about having I.D lol.

I just think that people who decide they are going to shoot people in the community will do so with armed cops or not. Most of them commit suicide anyways.

 

[spamking]

It's the kids doing the shootings most of the time. Most HS kids have I.D . So I don't get what you're saying about having I.D lol.

My point was that I was still required to go through a security screening . . . my backpack was screened, I went through a metal detector.

It would be nice if there was rarely a need for kid to carry a backpack . . . that way when someone showed up with one it would be easier to screen.

I just think that people who decide they are going to shoot people in the community will do so with armed cops or not. Most of them commit suicide anyways.

I'm sure many will do just that . . . but on-site security would deter many who may have second thoughts about taking others with them.