Another school shooting

[CNS]

Our SRO got arrested for beating up his wife.

Not standing up for that piece of trash, but I guarantee you know someone from work, school, church, etc that abuses the hell out of his wife in some way and that you have no idea of.

[CNS]

Well maybe police forces should hire better officers to make up the void.

i'm sure they are just turning down the cream of the crop.

The cream of the crop don't apply because the money is not there. Force them to spend money/fed grants for cops in schools increases.

The last guy I know that signed up for the police did so because he had a fantasy of wearing his uniform/taking his badge into bars and having women fall all over him.  Not kidding.

[HeinBallz]

 

[nicname]

Wouldn't it be easier and probably smarter to have law enforcement officers at all schools than to give guns to teachers?

Not a bad idea but I don't like the idea of introducing firearms to a environment such as a school. Specific train would need to be adopted for these officers and it should not be the over-the-hill 15 days till retirement types. It would almost have to be the best officers.

Really, the cop at my school was kind of weird for a few days, but you got used to him after a while. He really just sat at a desk by the entrance and read the paper. I didn't feel any safer, though I never really felt unsafe in the first place. I just think that in almost every case, the shooter ends up shooting himself at the end of his spree. So in what way does the possibility of getting shot by somebody else inhibit them? They aren't walking out of that building, regardless.

It could stop them from shooting more people.

Maybe. Even if some teachers had guns, the outcome would depend heavily on which classroom the shooter decided to walk into, and then whether the teacher was the first target or not. As horrifying as these school shootings are, the death tolls are not as high as people make them out to be. I would argue that a shooter could easily take out 14 people (same # as Columbine) by shooting up a single classroom. The teacher carrying the gun would most likely be shot before he/she even knew what was going on.

I won't try to deny any of that. It could all happen. I do think it is folly to think of these things in isolated incidents.  Say there are 50 would be school shootings in a year.  If only one life was saved it would be worth it.  It wouldn't matter if it was saved from deterrence, shooting the perpetrator, or scaring them into stopping before they committed.

but, banning all guns isn't worth potentially saving that 1 life?

One of these things infringes on liberty. One of these things does not. 

[puniraptor]

Our SRO got arrested for beating up his wife.

Not standing up for that piece of trash, but I guarantee you know someone from work, school, church, etc that abuses the hell out of his wife in some way and that you have no idea of.

I know. Not generalizing or knocking SRO's at all. Just an interesting (to me) anecdote that really has no relevance to this discussion.

[steve dave]

Wouldn't it be easier and probably smarter to have law enforcement officers at all schools than to give guns to teachers?

Not a bad idea but I don't like the idea of introducing firearms to a environment such as a school. Specific train would need to be adopted for these officers and it should not be the over-the-hill 15 days till retirement types. It would almost have to be the best officers.

Really, the cop at my school was kind of weird for a few days, but you got used to him after a while. He really just sat at a desk by the entrance and read the paper. I didn't feel any safer, though I never really felt unsafe in the first place. I just think that in almost every case, the shooter ends up shooting himself at the end of his spree. So in what way does the possibility of getting shot by somebody else inhibit them? They aren't walking out of that building, regardless.

It could stop them from shooting more people.

Maybe. Even if some teachers had guns, the outcome would depend heavily on which classroom the shooter decided to walk into, and then whether the teacher was the first target or not. As horrifying as these school shootings are, the death tolls are not as high as people make them out to be. I would argue that a shooter could easily take out 14 people (same # as Columbine) by shooting up a single classroom. The teacher carrying the gun would most likely be shot before he/she even knew what was going on.

I won't try to deny any of that. It could all happen. I do think it is folly to think of these things in isolated incidents.  Say there are 50 would be school shootings in a year.  If only one life was saved it would be worth it.  It wouldn't matter if it was saved from deterrence, shooting the perpetrator, or scaring them into stopping before they committed.

but, banning all guns isn't worth potentially saving that 1 life?

One of these things infringes on liberty. One of these things does not.

stupid talking point. every law infringes on your liberty to do what is illegal. liberties that can't be propertly handled must be taken away for the greater good of society.

[puniraptor]

http://gawker.com/5968807/down-with-big-gun

interesting take on another angle.

[Rage Against the McKee]

I think the best solution would be to repeal the 2nd amendment and just take the guns off the street. That's not happening in my lifetime, though, so I think we should set gun control policy based upon the facts of previous mass shootings.

1. Most school shootings are perpetrated by students. You should have to be 21 to own or use a firearm of any kind. There are too many kids who are not mentally ready to hold life and death in their hands.

2. Gun owners should be required to lock their guns in a heavy duty safe that cannot be removed from their property. If your gun is used to commit a murder, you should face a charge similar to murder yourself. Keeping your combination or key from your kids is your responsibility.

3. The gun tax is a good idea.

4. You should not be able to have a gun that fires more than 6 shots in a single clip. Also, no automatic or semi-automatic weapons.

As long as guns exist, there will be gun-related violence. I think there is a lot that can be done to curb that violence, though.

[steve dave]

I think the best solution would be to repeal the 2nd amendment and just take the guns off the street. That's not happening in my lifetime, though, so I think we should set gun control policy based upon the facts of previous mass shootings.

1. Most school shootings are perpetrated by students. You should have to be 21 to own or use a firearm of any kind. There are too many kids who are not mentally ready to hold life and death in their hands.

2. Gun owners should be required to lock their guns in a heavy duty safe that cannot be removed from their property. If your gun is used to commit a murder, you should face a charge similar to murder yourself. Keeping your combination or key from your kids is your responsibility.

3. The gun tax is a good idea.

4. You should not be able to have a gun that fires more than 6 shots in a single clip. Also, no automatic or semi-automatic weapons.

As long as guns exist, there will be gun-related violence. I think there is a lot that can be done to curb that violence, though.

agree with all of this. good post.

[nicname]

Wouldn't it be easier and probably smarter to have law enforcement officers at all schools than to give guns to teachers?

Not a bad idea but I don't like the idea of introducing firearms to a environment such as a school. Specific train would need to be adopted for these officers and it should not be the over-the-hill 15 days till retirement types. It would almost have to be the best officers.

Really, the cop at my school was kind of weird for a few days, but you got used to him after a while. He really just sat at a desk by the entrance and read the paper. I didn't feel any safer, though I never really felt unsafe in the first place. I just think that in almost every case, the shooter ends up shooting himself at the end of his spree. So in what way does the possibility of getting shot by somebody else inhibit them? They aren't walking out of that building, regardless.

It could stop them from shooting more people.

Maybe. Even if some teachers had guns, the outcome would depend heavily on which classroom the shooter decided to walk into, and then whether the teacher was the first target or not. As horrifying as these school shootings are, the death tolls are not as high as people make them out to be. I would argue that a shooter could easily take out 14 people (same # as Columbine) by shooting up a single classroom. The teacher carrying the gun would most likely be shot before he/she even knew what was going on.

I won't try to deny any of that. It could all happen. I do think it is folly to think of these things in isolated incidents.  Say there are 50 would be school shootings in a year.  If only one life was saved it would be worth it.  It wouldn't matter if it was saved from deterrence, shooting the perpetrator, or scaring them into stopping before they committed.

but, banning all guns isn't worth potentially saving that 1 life?

One of these things infringes on liberty. One of these things does not.

stupid talking point. every law infringes on your liberty to do what is illegal. liberties that can't be propertly handled must be taken away for the greater good of society.

no, it's not a stupid talking point.  we don't have the the right to infringe on anyone else's liberty. it is the basis, or is supposed to be the basis, of every law in this country.  that is why you can own a gun, but you can't murder people. you can own a knife but you can't go around stabbing people. you can own a car but you can't go around running people over, driving drunk or operating it in such a way that infringes on the safety and liberty of others.

I won't deny that there are laws out there(that shouldn't be) that take away liberties that otherwise people would and should have. 

the whole point of liberty is to protect the minority against what others, even a majority, and even those in power say is or isn't for the greater good of society.  We don't live in a country of mob rule, or at least we aren't supposed to.

[star seed 7]

sd, in addition to your proposed changes:

get the guns out of the house.  if you want to shoot at a range, guns are required to be locked up and stay at the range.  you're a hunter?  use a bow and arrow and at least try to pretend the animals have a chance.

[puniraptor]

Wouldn't it be easier and probably smarter to have law enforcement officers at all schools than to give guns to teachers?

Not a bad idea but I don't like the idea of introducing firearms to a environment such as a school. Specific train would need to be adopted for these officers and it should not be the over-the-hill 15 days till retirement types. It would almost have to be the best officers.

Really, the cop at my school was kind of weird for a few days, but you got used to him after a while. He really just sat at a desk by the entrance and read the paper. I didn't feel any safer, though I never really felt unsafe in the first place. I just think that in almost every case, the shooter ends up shooting himself at the end of his spree. So in what way does the possibility of getting shot by somebody else inhibit them? They aren't walking out of that building, regardless.

It could stop them from shooting more people.

Maybe. Even if some teachers had guns, the outcome would depend heavily on which classroom the shooter decided to walk into, and then whether the teacher was the first target or not. As horrifying as these school shootings are, the death tolls are not as high as people make them out to be. I would argue that a shooter could easily take out 14 people (same # as Columbine) by shooting up a single classroom. The teacher carrying the gun would most likely be shot before he/she even knew what was going on.

I won't try to deny any of that. It could all happen. I do think it is folly to think of these things in isolated incidents.  Say there are 50 would be school shootings in a year.  If only one life was saved it would be worth it.  It wouldn't matter if it was saved from deterrence, shooting the perpetrator, or scaring them into stopping before they committed.

but, banning all guns isn't worth potentially saving that 1 life?

One of these things infringes on liberty. One of these things does not.

stupid talking point. every law infringes on your liberty to do what is illegal. liberties that can't be propertly handled must be taken away for the greater good of society.

no, it's not a stupid talking point.  we don't have the the right to infringe on anyone else's liberty. it is the basis, or is supposed to be the basis, of every law in this country.  that is why you can own a gun, but you can't murder people. you can own a knife but you can't go around stabbing people. you can own a car but you can't go around running people over, driving drunk or operating it in such a way that infringes on the safety and liberty of others.

I won't deny that there are laws out there(that shouldn't be) that take away liberties that otherwise people would and should have. 

the whole point of liberty is to protect the minority against what others, even a majority, and even those in power say is or isn't for the greater good of society.  We don't live in a country of mob rule, or at least we aren't supposed to.

So the freedom to own firearms is worth it?

[star seed 7]

comes down to if you think owning a piece of metal is "liberty" or not.

i personally could handle owning a nuclear weapon, but i'm not sure i want everyone else in the country to have one.

[steve dave]

comes down to if you think owning a piece of metal is "liberty" or not.

i personally could handle owning a nuclear weapon, but i'm not sure i want everyone else in the country to have one.

literally thousands of things are illegal to own because they are a detriment to society. rednecks don't throw a fit because they don't have the rough ridin' liberty to own anthrax.

[nicname]

Wouldn't it be easier and probably smarter to have law enforcement officers at all schools than to give guns to teachers?

Not a bad idea but I don't like the idea of introducing firearms to a environment such as a school. Specific train would need to be adopted for these officers and it should not be the over-the-hill 15 days till retirement types. It would almost have to be the best officers.

Really, the cop at my school was kind of weird for a few days, but you got used to him after a while. He really just sat at a desk by the entrance and read the paper. I didn't feel any safer, though I never really felt unsafe in the first place. I just think that in almost every case, the shooter ends up shooting himself at the end of his spree. So in what way does the possibility of getting shot by somebody else inhibit them? They aren't walking out of that building, regardless.

It could stop them from shooting more people.

Maybe. Even if some teachers had guns, the outcome would depend heavily on which classroom the shooter decided to walk into, and then whether the teacher was the first target or not. As horrifying as these school shootings are, the death tolls are not as high as people make them out to be. I would argue that a shooter could easily take out 14 people (same # as Columbine) by shooting up a single classroom. The teacher carrying the gun would most likely be shot before he/she even knew what was going on.

I won't try to deny any of that. It could all happen. I do think it is folly to think of these things in isolated incidents.  Say there are 50 would be school shootings in a year.  If only one life was saved it would be worth it.  It wouldn't matter if it was saved from deterrence, shooting the perpetrator, or scaring them into stopping before they committed.

but, banning all guns isn't worth potentially saving that 1 life?

One of these things infringes on liberty. One of these things does not.

stupid talking point. every law infringes on your liberty to do what is illegal. liberties that can't be propertly handled must be taken away for the greater good of society.

no, it's not a stupid talking point.  we don't have the the right to infringe on anyone else's liberty. it is the basis, or is supposed to be the basis, of every law in this country.  that is why you can own a gun, but you can't murder people. you can own a knife but you can't go around stabbing people. you can own a car but you can't go around running people over, driving drunk or operating it in such a way that infringes on the safety and liberty of others.

I won't deny that there are laws out there(that shouldn't be) that take away liberties that otherwise people would and should have. 

the whole point of liberty is to protect the minority against what others, even a majority, and even those in power say is or isn't for the greater good of society.  We don't live in a country of mob rule, or at least we aren't supposed to.

So the freedom to own firearms is worth it?

Yes. 

[8manpick]

comes down to if you think owning a piece of metal is "liberty" or not.

i personally could handle owning a nuclear weapon, but i'm not sure i want everyone else in the country to have one.

literally thousands of things are illegal to own because they are a detriment to society. rednecks don't throw a fit because they don't have the rough ridin' liberty to own anthrax.

They sure don't throw a fit because they can't own drugs.

[star seed 7]

comes down to if you think owning a piece of metal is "liberty" or not.

i personally could handle owning a nuclear weapon, but i'm not sure i want everyone else in the country to have one.

literally thousands of things are illegal to own because they are a detriment to society. rednecks don't throw a fit because they don't have the rough ridin' liberty to own anthrax.

They sure don't throw a fit because they can't own drugs.

some of them are still angry that they can't own people 

[puniraptor]

So the freedom to own firearms is worth it?

Yes.

There's really no debate to be had then. Just disagreement.

[HeinBallz]

We're going backwards covering stuff we've already covered.

Sin tax - God idea.  Let's go with that - someone draw up the papers.

/thread
:tappingfootguy:

[nicname]

comes down to if you think owning a piece of metal is "liberty" or not.

i personally could handle owning a nuclear weapon, but i'm not sure i want everyone else in the country to have one.

literally thousands of things are illegal to own because they are a detriment to society. rednecks don't throw a fit because they don't have the rough ridin' liberty to own anthrax.

They sure don't throw a fit because they can't own drugs.

some of them are still angry that they can't own people 

speaking of racism, gun control on minorities was one of the main catalysts used in keeping blacks "in their place" during slavery and after reformation. 

[8manpick]

So the freedom to own firearms is worth it?

Yes.

There's really no debate to be had then. Just disagreement.

I said that on like page 4

[nicname]

comes down to if you think owning a piece of metal is "liberty" or not.

i personally could handle owning a nuclear weapon, but i'm not sure i want everyone else in the country to have one.

literally thousands of things are illegal to own because they are a detriment to society. rednecks don't throw a fit because they don't have the rough ridin' liberty to own anthrax.

They sure don't throw a fit because they can't own drugs.

Many, also don't think that homosexuals should receive the same marital benefits from the government that heterosexuals do.  It is an inconsistency with regards to liberty.  It is easy to stand up for the things that matter to you.  It is also easy to try and use mob rule to stop others from doing things you don't agree with. 

[HeinBallz]

since we're rehashing stuff to piss each other off...   Did anyone see this:



I know right?  what a shill.

[steve dave]

comes down to if you think owning a piece of metal is "liberty" or not.

i personally could handle owning a nuclear weapon, but i'm not sure i want everyone else in the country to have one.

literally thousands of things are illegal to own because they are a detriment to society. rednecks don't throw a fit because they don't have the rough ridin' liberty to own anthrax.

They sure don't throw a fit because they can't own drugs.

Many, also don't think that homosexuals should receive the same marital benefits from the government that heterosexuals do.  It is an inconsistency with regards to liberty.  It is easy to stand up for the things that matter to you.  It is also easy to try and use mob rule to stop others from doing things you don't agree with.

funny which sides politcally come down on the issues you mention

[puniraptor]

We're going backwards covering stuff we've already covered.

Sin tax - God idea.  Let's go with that - someone draw up the papers.

/thread
:tappingfootguy:

The gun nuts arent any more likely to accept registration than they are a ban, to them it's the same thing.

Also this route would have done nothing to prevent this tragedy. The mom was an affluent law abiding citizen who loved guns. Unless the registration process could have identified that she had a mentally ill son.