Shootings......WTF? - Page 14 - BLOODY-DISGUSTING
MOVIES MUSIC VIDEO GAMES COMICS MOVIE PIT VIDEO COMMUNITY
ZergNet


Go Back   BLOODY-DISGUSTING > General Talk > Whateverland

Whateverland The title says it all.... whatever. If it doesn't fit anywhere else post it here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-26-2012, 02:09 AM   #131
R. Flagg
I Eat Brains!
 
R. Flagg's Avatar
R. Flagg is muching on some greasy, grimy gopher guts
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: In Jennifer Connelly's basement
Posts: 5,717
Default

Agree with me, disagree with me, here's my thought on this topic:

1. Handguns that aren't revolvers, assault weapons, high capacity clips, semi-auto & full-auto conversion kits, and any other guns and gun related items that are only useful for killing other human beings should be banned for civilian use and as many as possible of the ones out there seized. Revolvers and non semi-auto/full-auto rifles and shotguns should remain legal. Standard long guns serve a purpose in terms of hunting (I know there's a few hunters that hunt with hand guns but most forms of hunting use long guns) while banning non-revolver handguns, high capacity clips, and conversion kits will limit how many rounds someone can fire. I admit that the military and law enforcement will still need the banned guns (I stress again: banned for civilian use) and that you can still kill someone with a revolver, standard rifle, or shotgun but limiting the killing capacity of the guns available to the general public will at least limit how much damage these spree killers can do. I also know a ban like this doesn't really address the guns in the hands of criminals (due to the fact that very few of those guns are legally owned and registered) but this can be resolved by law enforcement doing it's job and seizing the illegal firearms they encounter, it would be a slow process but it would whittle down the number of those guns that are out there. You say you need an assault weapon for self defense? I call bullshit, you can defend yourself just as easily with a revolver or standard long gun.

2. Guns safes, gun locks, and the technology the limits the ability of a gun to fire when it's not in the hands of the registered owner (I'm not sure how it works but I think it uses fingerprint recognition) needs to be mandatory for all gun owners, not just a suggestion.

3. Gun safety courses need to be mandatory and re-upped on a regular basis (I'd prefer every year but every five years is probably more realistic). Just because someone can pass the courses now doesn't mean they will always be able to, things like illness and old age do decrease folks ability to do things they used to do. Metal illness evaluations need to be part of the gun safety courses as well.

4. Background checks need to be mandatory for all guns, all ammo, and all environments in which they are sold (here in Michigan background checks aren't required for gun show sales), these background checks also need to look for mental illnesses of all types and include all the members of the home where the gun will be. Some folks might complain that this is an invasion of privacy but we're talking about owning a device designed solely to kill, not something that could be deadly if used incorrectly but designed for non lethal use. There also needs to be real enforcement of these background checks with all sellers found to be violating the law loosing all right to sell guns and ammo for life.

5. Society needs to return to the idea that it's acceptable to spank your kids when they misbehave. I'm not talking about abusing kids but the hippified version of child-rearing that has dominated American society for the last 25 or so years has created younger generations that are unable to accept not getting their way and that see extreme responses like the Sandy Hook tragedy as an acceptable response to disappointment. As someone who did receive spankings as a child I know for a fact that they are an effective tool for raising a child that has learned the difference from right and wrong. Parents has a whole also need to get back to hands-on child rearing instead of seeing school as free child care and the t.v., video game system, cell phone, computer, etc. as babysitters, if you're adult enough to bring a kid into the world then you need to be adult enough to raise the kid in a manner where you're aware of what the kid is doing and that doesn't expect the rest of society to do your job for you.

6. DON"T PUT GUNS IN SCHOOLS!!! The NRA is batshit for even thinking this is a viable option (Columbine did have an armed security guard on duty and it did absolutely nothing to stop that tragedy). The reality is that unless teachers, security guards, or other personnale(sp?) have the proper training (it's more than just being able to hit a stationary target, it's being able to hit a moving target in high stress situations like say having someone firing at you, a skill that most hunters and target shooters don't have) the result will be more dead babies and another potential gun for spree killing dirtbags like Lanza to use.


I could continue (i.e. removing the stigma associated with mental illness so people will actually seek help, stopping the blaming of media when these things happen, etc.) but this post is getting long and it's getting late. The main point I making here is that banning all firearms is something this country will likely never (and shouldn't have to) see but we're in real need of some common sense regarding gun ownership and regulation and putting it off will only allow tragedies like this to continue.
__________________


"Do you think I'm spooky?" (Fox Mulder-The X-Files)

"Yoouuu Raannngggg" (Lurch-The Addams Family)
R. Flagg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2012, 09:00 AM   #132
Willowfang
has gone to plaid
 
Willowfang's Avatar
Willowfang is half Thundercat on his childhood's side
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: SoCal
Posts: 54,058
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by R. Flagg View Post
Agree with me, disagree with me, here's my thought on this topic:

6. DON"T PUT GUNS IN SCHOOLS!!! The NRA is batshit for even thinking this is a viable option (Columbine did have an armed security guard on duty and it did absolutely nothing to stop that tragedy). The reality is that unless teachers, security guards, or other personnale(sp?) have the proper training (it's more than just being able to hit a stationary target, it's being able to hit a moving target in high stress situations like say having someone firing at you, a skill that most hunters and target shooters don't have) the result will be more dead babies and another potential gun for spree killing dirtbags like Lanza to use.
All points a good except for this. Over 1/3 of our schools already have armed security guards. Your argument is invalid. Given the facts, disagreeing with the NRA in this case makes you batshit crazy. You may not have known this fact tho,.

If you instead want to make an argument that, "yes, armed teacher could be effective, but I want a solution other than armed teacher because that to me ingrains that we can't do better or that this is as close to 'utopia' as we're ever gonna be" then yeah, that would make sense.

An armed response person isn't going to be successful every time. But if that's your criteria, we might as well do away with all security guards, police, and soldiers.
__________________
2014 Song Draft
*** "Weird Al" Yankovic ***
I Lost On Jeopardy
Yoda
Beverly Hillbillies
She Drives Like Crazy
Gump
The Saga Begins
It's All About the Pentiums
Grapefruit Diet
White & Nerdy
Canadian Idiot
Smells Like Nirvana
Inactive
Eat It
Foil
Willowfang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2012, 10:20 AM   #133
Heretic
It... Won't... Die...
 
Heretic's Avatar
Heretic is up to shenanigans
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 15,413
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Willowfang View Post
All points a good except for this. Over 1/3 of our schools already have armed security guards. Your argument is invalid. Given the facts, disagreeing with the NRA in this case makes you batshit crazy. You may not have known this fact tho,.

If you instead want to make an argument that, "yes, armed teacher could be effective, but I want a solution other than armed teacher because that to me ingrains that we can't do better or that this is as close to 'utopia' as we're ever gonna be" then yeah, that would make sense.

An armed response person isn't going to be successful every time. But if that's your criteria, we might as well do away with all security guards, police, and soldiers.
The problem with this "solution", is that there simply aren't enough trained personnel, to make it a reality. If they were to implement this, you would wind up with a fuckload of "volunteers", who took a weekend course, being tasked with protecting children.

How long would it take, for one of these grossly untrained personnel, to make a mistake, or worse yet, take advantage of their newfound power? Extreme scenarios, yes, but ones that would have their possibilities of happening multiplied by god knows how much, if this kind of plan was implemented.

I look at like this:

More guns = more problems

Less guns = same problems

I don't know what the solution is, but I sure as hell don't think it's more guns.
__________________


Heretic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2012, 10:47 AM   #134
R. Flagg
I Eat Brains!
 
R. Flagg's Avatar
R. Flagg is muching on some greasy, grimy gopher guts
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: In Jennifer Connelly's basement
Posts: 5,717
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Willowfang View Post
All points a good except for this. Over 1/3 of our schools already have armed security guards. Your argument is invalid. Given the facts, disagreeing with the NRA in this case makes you batshit crazy. You may not have known this fact tho,.

If you instead want to make an argument that, "yes, armed teacher could be effective, but I want a solution other than armed teacher because that to me ingrains that we can't do better or that this is as close to 'utopia' as we're ever gonna be" then yeah, that would make sense.

An armed response person isn't going to be successful every time. But if that's your criteria, we might as well do away with all security guards, police, and soldiers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heretic View Post
The problem with this "solution", is that there simply aren't enough trained personnel, to make it a reality. If they were to implement this, you would wind up with a fuckload of "volunteers", who took a weekend course, being tasked with protecting children.

How long would it take, for one of these grossly untrained personnel, to make a mistake, or worse yet, take advantage of their newfound power? Extreme scenarios, yes, but ones that would have their possibilities of happening multiplied by god knows how much, if this kind of plan was implemented.
This part of Heretic's response is pretty much what I was going to say, having armed staff in schools who don't know how to properly use a firearm will create more problems than it will solve. Law enforcement requires regular training for it's officers to prove that they still have the ability to use their weapons properly, without a similar requirement for teachers, security guards, or whoever else they decide to arm we'll end up with guns in schools in the hands of folks who don't know how to use them.
__________________


"Do you think I'm spooky?" (Fox Mulder-The X-Files)

"Yoouuu Raannngggg" (Lurch-The Addams Family)
R. Flagg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2012, 11:47 AM   #135
Willowfang
has gone to plaid
 
Willowfang's Avatar
Willowfang is half Thundercat on his childhood's side
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: SoCal
Posts: 54,058
Default

That is a good point, but to say categorically it would not make schools safer than they are now would be wrong. I would agree that we should find a solution that would at least plateau or grow to greater heights than arming teachers. But there'd have to be a time frame where we put armed guards in place if nothing else can be come up with.

Making it voluntary for teaches to carry isn't really helpful either. Given that teachers are mostly liberal, nearly all teachers would prolly decline.

I still think a Morality/Ethics class needs to be part of the solution.

While we as a society may be far from a utopia, waiting till we're closer to a utopia before teaching utopian ethics means never. We should hope to one day reach a utopian like society, but we're not gonna get there until we agree on some baseline ethics and values for it and then teaching it for X number of generations.
__________________
2014 Song Draft
*** "Weird Al" Yankovic ***
I Lost On Jeopardy
Yoda
Beverly Hillbillies
She Drives Like Crazy
Gump
The Saga Begins
It's All About the Pentiums
Grapefruit Diet
White & Nerdy
Canadian Idiot
Smells Like Nirvana
Inactive
Eat It
Foil

Last edited by Willowfang; 12-26-2012 at 11:50 AM.
Willowfang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2012, 04:59 PM   #136
Talunex
Fresh Kill
 
Talunex's Avatar
Talunex is drinking coffee
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Southern Utah
Posts: 695
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Willowfang View Post
All points a good except for this. Over 1/3 of our schools already have armed security guards. Your argument is invalid. Given the facts, disagreeing with the NRA in this case makes you batshit crazy. You may not have known this fact tho,.

If you instead want to make an argument that, "yes, armed teacher could be effective, but I want a solution other than armed teacher because that to me ingrains that we can't do better or that this is as close to 'utopia' as we're ever gonna be" then yeah, that would make sense.

An armed response person isn't going to be successful every time. But if that's your criteria, we might as well do away with all security guards, police, and soldiers.
Apologies up front. I've quoted Willowfang, who was quoting Flagg. This isn't directed at either. It's just my musings at some of the comments I read as I worked my way down the thread.

If we may skip back to 1999/2000 former President Clinton proposed tighter armed security in schools, in the wake of Columbine. He actually implemented it too. It was phased out, this year, by the current administration, with the cuts made to the education department budget.

Columbine did have an armed deputy, on duty, the day of their shooting. He exchanged fire, with the shooters, and organized an evacuation which undoubtedly saved lives. Accepted it didn't prevent the shooting occurring in the first place. I mean, shit, what is going to prevent it?

The Columbine shooting occurred during the last assault weapons ban, that many would like to see re-introduced. At a time when a democratic president wanted to do what the NRA are asking to go back to! Shit! My kids go to a school that already has a duty police officer on site during school hours, in a state that already allows teachers to carry concealed!! I raise your batshit insane to a already happenin,' Bub!

I still maintain that removing all the dangerous aspects of guns is like pissing into the wind. It isn't going to happen. Ban them all if need be. Tomorrow, but it will not remove any of those currently in circulation. None. People are already stockpiling guns and ammunition. No argument with the rest but, like I said in a previous post, which laws would we like to see introduced which would bolster the several felonies he committed before he entered the school? Or the several more after?

Has anyone here seen exactly how many guns, and rounds, of ammunition are currently being sold?! These firearms will be 'grandfathered' into any forthcoming legislation. It's pushing decades of gun and ammunition sales onto the streets years, maybe decades, ahead of when they would be! If at all!

That is how gun culture is in the US. I can see that people want change but you have to unravel 236 years of second ammendment and that isn't going to happen in mine, yours, or anybody's, lifetime.
__________________
Talunex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2012, 05:42 PM   #137
darkcore
Fresh Kill
 
darkcore's Avatar
darkcore has no status.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 457
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Talunex View Post
..........

That is how gun culture is in the US. I can see that people want change but you have to unravel 236 years of second ammendment and that isn't going to happen in mine, yours, or anybody's, lifetime.
Like anything in life, if you take a certain path, sometimes you can't untangle the consequences very easily and are left with some crappy results to contend with for a very long time.

Conceptually and theoretically we might say that guns should be removed from society but realistically and practically the solutions in the USA are extremely hard to implement.

What with a significant amount of people who own guns believing that aliens walk amongst us, the earth is flat, Obama is an actual communist, and that the Government has some secret plan to disarm civilians in order to round people up and lock them up in secret concentration camps. After killing off the majority of them and keeping the rest as slaves for the elite ruling class. Therefore we need to have guns. Lots and lots and lots of them.

I mention the above example as it highlights how difficult it is to have a rational debate about guns with a significant amount of people who are clearly on a different wavelength.

(Btw, I'm not saying that all gun owners are fruitloops....just saying the debate is not clear cut when there's a diverse number of people who own guns. Some mad, some sane, some ill, some dangerous, some not dangerous, etc, etc).

Nevertheless, even if things take time, and the obstacles are huge and difficult, it doesn't stop humans from tackling problems. Just like the ants who toil away, each ant doing their little duty for the good of the nest, etc...so do we humans work for years and centuries sometimes towards solving a particular problem.

With guns in the USA, it's either throw the hands up and accept the status quo, or look to slowly instigate some reasonable and fair solution.

Arming guards, etc to the teeth at schools, and various public places, as well as individuals arming themselves to feel safe in public is a natural, short term response to a violent episode.

Of course it contributes to a higher risk due to more guns flooding the streets, but that's a natural consequence when there's a culture of guns on a nationwide scale for the last couple of centuries. Can't have the one without the other. (I'm not saying it's a good or smart response, just a natural response given the established gun culture).

The trick is finding ways to start working on long term solutions. Even if it takes 100 years or more. I'm still scratching my head on this *lol*
__________________

Last edited by darkcore; 12-29-2012 at 05:47 PM.
darkcore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2012, 06:31 PM   #138
Talunex
Fresh Kill
 
Talunex's Avatar
Talunex is drinking coffee
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Southern Utah
Posts: 695
Default

I can agree with that. I can't begin to fathom a solution, either, and it goes way beyond putting armed police in schools or banning certain types of firearms.

The 1st Amendment allows us to sit here and discuss our issues. The 4th protects us from the abuse of those that disagree with our exercising of the 1st. The 5th allows us fairness should we be held accountable and the 2nd allows us to defend all of them.

You can't disagree with one without being open to losing them all.
__________________
Talunex is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:53 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2001-Present BLOODY-DISGUSTING LLC