twa Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 I'm not opposed to having a trained security guard on the premises, armed with various implements and with a strong understanding of the use of force continuum. That's useful for non-gun related violence. If the football team's 275 pound offensive tackle decides to start punching people because someone made a your mom joke, you might need something more than physical restraints (though certainly far less than a gun, probably something in the middle like pepper spray or a taser). That being said, odds are good that with sufficient reasonable restrictions, significant armed presence in schools wouldn't be necessary. http://qz.com/37015/how-school-killings-in-the-us-stack-up-against-36-other-countries-put-together/ A minor security presence would probably be more than enough. A....trained security guard for a whole school or college?.....you serious? we don't compare to other countries....for better or worse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogofWar1 Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 A....trained security guard for a whole school or college?.....you serious? we don't compare to other countries....for better or worse For a school. A campus certainly would be different, and they generally have their own police forces, which, aside from often being kind of dickish, are mostly fine. The fact that we don't examine what other, less gun violent, countries do is a large part of the problem. We convince ourselves that we found the best way when our outcomes suck and their outcomes are vastly superior. Same thing with internet and medical care, among other things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 we do examine it....and seem to reject it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogofWar1 Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 we do examine it....and seem to reject it Some reject it, unfortunately they also have enough power to make it policy. Meanwhile, people keep dying in droves. Usually that suggest something was off about the rejection of alternative policies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 (edited) Just posting because I'm a data junkie. Edited October 2, 2015 by Springfield Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 Some reject it, unfortunately they also have enough power to make it policy. Meanwhile, people keep dying in droves. Usually that suggest something was off about the rejection of alternative policies. alternatives that work with a different populace under different rules. We rejected some of their other peccadilloes as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dont Taze Me Bro Posted October 2, 2015 Author Share Posted October 2, 2015 (edited) For a school. A campus certainly would be different, and they generally have their own police forces, which, aside from often being kind of dickish, are mostly fine. The fact that we don't examine what other, less gun violent, countries do is a large part of the problem. We convince ourselves that we found the best way when our outcomes suck and their outcomes are vastly superior. Same thing with internet and medical care, among other things. I'm fortunate, my daughter's elementary school has a local police officer, armed, stationed at the school all day during school hours. They actually park their police car on the sidewalk in front of the school (where they designated him to park) in plain sight. He patrols and watches over the school. As a parent, makes me feel a lot better about my child's safety and from tragic events happening. Not that one could still not happen, but it eases the fear a lot. I wish all schools from elementary to college could provide that service. Edited October 2, 2015 by Dont Taze Me Bro 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogofWar1 Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 alternatives that work with a different populace under different rules. We rejected some of their other peccadilloes as well. Well then we should do studies as to what our problems are and do studies on their solutions and try to adapt their solutions to our populace with all its different rules. Except we can't do those studies, because the CDC is blocked from doing them. So all we can do is sit here with our crappy outcomes, while they sit there with their better outcomes, and we just have to look confused and saddened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skins24 Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 Stricter gun laws? Sure. All for it. Why not? But I hope no one is under the illusion that would do anything to stop incidents like we've seen today... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 I think the answer to most problems starts with education. Sadly, the NRA would be the first place to go to educate people on gun safety but anyone who isn't way conservative just scoffs at that idea because NRA=awful lobbyists, not my party, right wing assholes, etc. It's more fun and easier to paint them in a negative light than look at what they have to offer. Uh, I'm pretty certain that most of our mass shooters were fully aware that if you point a gun at someone, and pull the trigger, it might hurt them. : (In fact, just my gut level suspicion, but I would suspect that they thought their gun was far more deadly than it actually was. My suspicion is that most of them fully expected to kill a whole lot more people than they actually did.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 We sure did. Something's happened in the past...50 years? An increase in violence in the movies we watch (as I'm typing here I'm watching Jason Bourne shoot up a bunch of bad guys trying to kill him), video games, music....media sensationalism. I do think there's an aspect of most of these shootings which is the outsider that wants to be heard. The nerds that got picked on who want revenge against the popular kids and athletes, the socially awkward kid who locked himself in his room and played Warcraft who was just overall anti-social. Everyone can be heard these days, everyone has a voice. There's facebook, there's twitter. But if you really want to get noticed, it's sure to get some media attention if you commit a heinous shooting. I guarantee there's some people out there today who saw this on TV all day and got the crazy idea to do something similar in their head. The shooter even posted on a blog this exact sentiment back in August. He said basically that nobody knew the guy who shot the reporters in VA, but now everybody knows him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 Looking for an example of a good guy with a guy stopping a mass shooting? Not a home robbery. Stopping somebody here that wanted to shoot a bunch of people and was stopped by somebody else before they succeeded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 I admit I am part of the problem. Because I too want us to do "something". But I don't have any idea what that is. What specific changes in our gun laws would have prevented yesterday? Background checks? Closing the gun show loophole? I admire Obamas passion, but question his leadership on this issue. He's had ample opportunity to do "something" but all I've seen from him is blaming congress for NOT doing something. The only way we stop incidents like yesterday is to ban firearms. And I don't see anyone coming close to suggesting that is the "something" we should do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 Right, but there can be barriers. And logically the more potential harm something can do the more barriers there would be and the stronger the enforcement would be. And the more effort/resources it takes to surmount those barriers, or the more risk that is carried in surmounting those barriers, the less likely someone is to get around the barriers or even try. Can't stop everyone, some people would go to the ends of the Earth to get a firearm illegally; but if that's what it took, I guarantee you that probably 99% of people wouldn't even try. I'm not opposed to having a trained security guard on the premises, armed with various implements and with a strong understanding of the use of force continuum. That's useful for non-gun related violence. If the football team's 275 pound offensive tackle decides to start punching people because someone made a your mom joke, you might need something more than physical restraints (though certainly far less than a gun, probably something in the middle like pepper spray or a taser). That being said, odds are good that with sufficient reasonable restrictions, significant armed presence in schools wouldn't be necessary. http://qz.com/37015/how-school-killings-in-the-us-stack-up-against-36-other-countries-put-together/ A minor security presence would probably be more than enough. Just a thought: using stats that eliminate "terrorists and militants" from the calculation are probably pretty worthless. Because I'm pretty sure a bullet fired from a militants gun kills a kid the same way it does from anyone else. Why? Because they ignore incidents that would inflate numbers from other countries when compared to the U.S. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 (edited) For mass shootings, it is hard to identify a single approach that would be very effective mostly because realistically, they are still pretty rare and when things are rare it is hard to identify trends/things that would have a significant impact. However, there is research related to different gun laws in different states that show that they have an impact on total gun deaths. Things like making people get a license approved by local law enforcement does seem to reduce real gun deaths. Edited October 2, 2015 by PeterMP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 Looking for an example of a good guy with a guy stopping a mass shooting? Not a home robbery. Stopping somebody here that wanted to shoot a bunch of people and was stopped by somebody else before they succeeded. Not trying to be a dick, but these mass shootings at school all take place where there is a federal law prohibiting anyone from carrying a gun. So if someone did "prevent" a guy from shooting up a school he would be convicted of breaking a federal law and have to spend 5 years in jail. Especially since shooting someone before they shoot anyone else is, by definition, a gun crime. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve09ru Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 Removing guns completely is 100% unrealistic. So many guns are out there that there would be no way to coordinate besides saying: "Everyone bring your guns in." Guns would still be easily accessible if someone wanted one. We'd have people starting gun rings and then you would have the dangerous ones who are the only ones with a willingness to gain possession and access. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 (edited) Close the loopholes that allow authorized dealers to sell gobs of guns to criminals.(Not the mass shooters.. the gangbangers and other assorted lowlifes loaded up with weaponry. These people do not make their own guns.) "Loophole" is not a thing that is supposed to be there. In terms of a law, it's an area that is incomplete, and requires closing. if it was not, then it would not be a "loophole", it would not even be part of the discussion of another law. Close the loopholes. "Criminals always get guns" is what we always hear. "No matter what, you can't stop a criminal from getting a gun." And in my mind, that ignores that the gun comes from SOMEWHERE to get to the criminal.i very much doubt they buy factory-direct. So "enforce the laws" means do not allow loopholes that allow people to get around the law, and thus making them un-enforceable. But, the lobby won't go for it because criminals are customers too, and their misbehavior drives sales even higher. The more they use their illegal guns and the more mayhem they cause with them, the more legal guns are sold. So there's no desire to close any loophole by the big lobby. and if the big lobby says no, well, that really means " **** no ". Our representative government will not go against their masters.And it's cute when people think that's us. You are one of two roles, customer or victim. Either one rings the register. ~Bang Edited October 2, 2015 by Bang 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 I admit I am part of the problem. Because I too want us to do "something". But I don't have any idea what that is. What specific changes in our gun laws would have prevented yesterday? Background checks? Closing the gun show loophole? I admire Obamas passion, but question his leadership on this issue. He's had ample opportunity to do "something" but all I've seen from him is blaming congress for NOT doing something. The only way we stop incidents like yesterday is to ban firearms. And I don't see anyone coming close to suggesting that is the "something" we should do. Kind of like Dodge City/Wyatt Earp style? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 Kind of like Dodge City/Wyatt Earp style? you mean disarming visitors/strangers while the good guys carry and the town folk have them at their home and business? ....and maybe even schools Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 you mean disarming visitors/strangers while the good guys carry and the town folk have them at their home and business? ....and maybe even schools In Dodge City only the cops had guns. If you didn't comply you got knocked over the head. Didn't you ever see the Kevin Costner movie? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 In Dodge City only the cops had guns. If you didn't comply you got knocked over the head. Didn't you ever see the Kevin Costner movie? Seriously, in many places, you could have gun on your property, but carrying a gun was illegal. Taking a gun from your house to a school would have been against the law. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-winkler/did-the-wild-west-have-mo_b_956035.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 Not trying to be a dick, but these mass shootings at school all take place where there is a federal law prohibiting anyone from carrying a gun. So if someone did "prevent" a guy from shooting up a school he would be convicted of breaking a federal law and have to spend 5 years in jail. Especially since shooting someone before they shoot anyone else is, by definition, a gun crime. Not all mass shootings happen in their zones. I'm asking for an example in the past 10 years. 20 years 30 years. We're told good guys with guns stop the bad guys with them. But when? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 Banning guns doesn't keep guns out of the hands of the bad guys. Mentally ill people who want to hurt other people will find a gun if they need it. This is the point that gun rights advocates love to bring up. The usual tactic to defend it is debating how just because a law could be broken doesn't mean it shouldn't be a law. No gun rights advocate is arguing to legalize kidnapping, rape, or murder. The other obvious counter is to look at countries with serious gun bans like Japan. Do the bad guys and mentally ill get guns there and go on rampages? On a per capita basis is it worse in every other civilized country or is the US a special case? It's a fairy tale at this point to try to instill a full gun ban. I don't think anyone really supports that except for the most extreme segments, but the logic I have quoted is dumb. More, it's full of bullet holes. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 In Dodge City only the cops had guns. If you didn't comply you got knocked over the head. Didn't you ever see the Kevin Costner movie? once or twice in Dodge city the townfolk lived at their business or rather close with guns.....stranger danger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts