Gun Control 3

[AverageGuy]

There's no better way to maintain a divide than to sound so reactionary AND stupid that you scare the shit out of everyone who thinks differently from you.

Of course it's stupid and reactionary. That's the point. I'm going to ignore the whole be a bridge builder or divider bit because I'm feeling way too cynical, but... Look. I've never been 100% ban guns because I don't really feel it's practical (politically practical; I don't buy the too many guns argument, given sufficient time and resources), because I've known people who are able to own guns responsibly, and because there are places other than the U.S. which seem to do better with gun violence.

However, after every shooting, you're guaranteed to see someone advocating more people carrying guns, much like the article in the Atlantic, based on the hypothetical, "I'd rather have a gun than not when facing someone who's pointing a gun at me." Well, sure, pretty much anyone would, given that when someone's already pointing a gun at you flight isn't much of an option. But it's a BS argument.

The truth is concealed carry is allowed now (my father has a concealed carry permit, though he doesn't tend to carry a weapon, and I have a brother with one, who carries a sidearm constantly, but the fact that he's an army veteran turned personal security makes me hope he knows more about what he's doing than random guy on the street), and there obviously isn't wide enough use to effectively deter criminals. Felons are more worried about getting shot by homeowners than police? Fine. They're still breaking into homes. 300 million guns in America, apparently too many to ever get rid of, and someone still needs to expand on the case for more guns. Concealed carry is already legal in some form in 49/50 states (shall issue in 38, with some weirdness in Alabama, may issue in 8, unrestricted in 3), and we need to expand right-to-carry laws? What exactly is the barrier here? When do we start seeing an effective deterrent?

[Addien]

Women SHOULD carry pepper spray, its quite sensible. While it does not and can not ward off ALL that is evil, it surely might have a good effect on savage dogs (and other critters) and savage men (and savage women; women can be violent criminals as well). To say a woman should be sensible is not blaming a victim; and yes, it does imply shes NOT sensible if she lacks it...but even that doesnt blame a victim for being attacked as that's rarely the victims fault; I cant think of ANY time a victim would be at fault if her or his attacker were human. Animal attack, yes...thats why the caveat.

No, we should not expect anyone to carry a weapon...ONLY if they wish to. That goes for guns as well as pepper spray. Carrying a weapon can be sensible and rational and logical...but someone who does not wish to do so should never be forced into it.

As for training its also sensible for those who have weapons of any type to be trained in their use. With NO guns other than the shooters, we see and saw what happened, even an adult with "minimal training" is better than none, and may be able to shoot the attacker. Yes, you are right that some may die in cross fire, it may be far less though had the shooter been able to shoot unhindered.

Are you seriously suggesting that a crossfire between people with a minimum of training, an assailant, and a room full of children is somehow SAFER? Because I don't agree with that for a second.

As for the pepper spray example, no one is suggesting that it isn't sensible advice, but it's wrong to ultimately put the onus of preventing injury on the victim.

[delete this account pls]

So many assumptions, so little time. First, you are assuming armed criminals all got their guns legally.

Um, no I'm not. I kinda assume anyone who owns a gun got it illegally since guns are illegal. But even if they did what difference does it make? You dont have to go to a firing range to practice with a gun.

Second, you are trying to convince everyone these cannot be obtained in the UK.

I dont live in the UK. But yes, guns can be obtained by criminals in Australia. Biker gangs, various organised crime groups, drug cartels. None of these people are breaking into my house to steal my wallet, however. Professional criminals in countries that aren't the US dont use guns that much because it draws too much attention, and when they do use them, they use them on each other, or on the police (who are also armed). There have been occasional incidents of innocent bystanders being killed in public gun battles by accident, but those things are rare because, again, it draws too much attention down upon the criminals, and those innocent bystanders being armed wouldn't have helped them much unless they go through daily life with their gun in hand, loaded, just in case.

Third, bringing a cricket (or baseball) bat to a gun fight, is an incredibly bad idea. Third, the fantasy is believing I'd be better off unarmed, against an armed assailant.

You dont seem to be getting this. I am not bringing a cricket bat to a gun fight. The armed assailant breaking into my house (already an incredibly small statistical probability in itself) is NOT CARRYING A GUN. This guy breaking into my house (I'm my imagination he's the Sasquatch. Because why not. The Sasquatch has about as much chance of breaking into my house when Im home to murder me as some random dude does) most likely has a knife, or some sort of club. Because those are the weapons the vast majority of armed robbers in this country use. Literally nobody I know has ever been a victim of a gun crime. It isn't impossible, but the chances of it happening, statistically, are so small I'd be better off worrying about an invasion from New Zealand

Fourth, I've trained with a variety of weapons, including handguns, rifles and shotguns, under a variety of circumstances with targets at a variety of distances. How, disadvantaged, do you think I'd be on familiar territory at a range of twelve feet?

Against a sleepy person in their mid 60's who has just woken up? Honestly? I'm not even lying to make a point, Lorien. I'm sorry, but I'm backing the fully awake intruder in this situation every time. You are an older lady who is fast asleep. The intruder has a loaded gun, and is storming your house with the express intent of murdering you. Life is not an action movie.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

I really don't see how armed adults (presumably with handguns, not assault rifles), with potentially minimal training, in a stressful, traumatic situation, with

Not to mention, should we expect civilians in a public school to be armed at all times? I'm going into teaching. No way do I feel comfortable with that responsibility, nor should it be asked of me.

I was in the military 8 years, and I've taught middle school for the last five years. Even with all that experience I don't want to carry a gun in the classroom. Ever. It is the stupidest idea I've ever heard.

[Res ipsa loquitur]

She was murdered in their home. So SHE HAD IT ON HER more or less. Unless you are seriously suggesting she wear one on her hip in her own home, having the weapons in her home clearly did the opposite of helping her defend herself.

If she knew her son was that unstable, she should have had it on her. A gun serves no use if the owner can not get to it in a timely manner. Having the weapon in her home may have helped her IF she had had it on her.

[maize]

If she knew her son was that unstable, she should have had it on her. A gun serves no use if the owner can not get to it in a timely manner. Having the weapon in her home may have helped her IF she had had it on her.

Anyone is one traumatic event away from becoming depressed and raged to the point of unstable. Maybe we ought to have guns on the sidewalk every 10 feet so we can get to it in a timely manner.

[Res ipsa loquitur]

Are you seriously suggesting that a crossfire between people with a minimum of training, an assailant, and a room full of children is somehow SAFER? Because I don't agree with that for a second.

As for the pepper spray example, no one is suggesting that it isn't sensible advice, but it's wrong to ultimately put the onus of preventing injury on the victim.

I do not think it is wrong to tell women (and men!) they should act sensibly to prevent themselves from becoming crime victims; carrying pepper spray is one method of prevention. Women and men should take some responsibility for their own safety; but to blame someone who does NOT wish to carry pepper spray for being attacked is just incredibly wrong on just about every level. It may be valid to say that had they been carrying it they may have been able to fend off attacker, but thats NOT blaming them for being attacked at all.

Edited: forgot to answer your first paragraph!! Yes, we saw how SAFE the kids were with no one defending them; all 20 died. Had someone been shooting the attacker, it may have been that one or maybe even 10 kids were hit or killed....but so may the attacker have been. And 10 dead kids is far preferable to 20.

[maize]

Against a sleepy person in their mid 60's who has just woken up? Honestly? I'm not even lying to make a point, Lorien. I'm sorry, but I'm backing the fully awake intruder in this situation every time. You are an older lady who is fast asleep. The intruder has a loaded gun, and is storming your house with the express intent of murdering you. Life is not an action movie.

It isn't? I was thinking of owning a ballistic missile in case a random dude in New Zealand opts for first strike on my house with his scud. Oh wait, owning missiles is illegal right? Guess I won't have to go shopping for Patriots. Too bad we're not doing the same with guns.

[Ravenhair]

I have grown up around guns, learned gun safety from my dad, and I have owned guns.

That said, and truly all rational thought aside, I do not doubt the efficacy of guns; they kill, as do other weapons. The problem is guns cause carnage, and they cause the kind of horrific carnage we have seen today, which few other weapons can cause. I have tried to think about what actions could have been taken to prevent the events of today. A guard posted, and a sign-in sheet? My daughter's private school has that. It would not have stopped a person carrying a concealed weapon. A pat down of every person entering the building? That wouldn't have even stopped what happened today because the shooter would have taken out the guard first before the pat down began. A gun-free zone? That is laughable because people with concealed carry permits can still legally carry in these zones in certain states like Louisiana; they can be asked to leave the premises, however. A person who had a carry permit using his/her gun to take out the shooter? Probably not. In that situation, surrounded by children, most people would possess neither the accuracy nor the mental fortitude to take out the shooter. I am finding it increasingly difficult to justify my belief in the continued sale and purchase of guns in the United States on a purely emotional level, especially today with the slaughter of innocents.

I truly don't know the answer to the problems we have in the United States because of guns. I do know that my thoughts about guns are radically changing; perhaps they were already altered, and I just didn't know it.

[Lady Olenna]

I always seem to be on the opposite side of the fence in the genchat threads so I'm prepared to get chewed out for my opinions, but here we go:

Hubby was in an outdoors store last week and overheard the manager trying to explain to an irrate customer why he couldn't purchase a shotgun. Apparently gun manufacturers are putting a halt to gun making in anticipation that Obama will try to change the constitution and second amendment in some way of another. IF, and I stress IF this is the case our country will be starting on a slippery slope (meaning, change one amendment now, more will be altered later).

Now, in the cases of these mass shootings it seems to me that the problem isn't necessarily the guns but the lack of mental health support, facilities, trained personnel, etc. It seems obvious to me that anyone walking into a mall, school, movie theatre or any venue intending to kill people randomly is more than likely suffering from mental health issues. A sane person does not decide one day to kill their mother and then go to an elementary school and kill 26 adults and children. The problem with this is that even trained professionals are unable to determine who is going to snap or when. My belief is that it starts at home and parents that may sense something is amiss with their children should speak to a professional about it as soon as possible. I realize that there are holes in this theory but it just seems like people, all people, have to be hyper aware of everything and everyone around them (including their families) because you just never know.

I know this thread is about gun control, so I will put my .02 cents in and say that banning guns won't solve the problem. There are always ways for people to get guns. Countries that ban guns still have huge problems with them anyway. I would love to see a system in which potential gun buyers are given a psychological background test but that's never going to happen because its impossible to implement. And although background checks help, some people with mental health issues do not have a criminal background and will not be flagged. And therefore qualify to purchase a gun. And then there are folks who will buy a gun for someone unable to buy one of their own for a nice profit.

I read in another thread that in china today 22 kids were killed (injured ) by stabbing. I haven't looked it up to verify it, but if that is true, obviously people without gun access will find other options.

I wish I knew what made people snap like they do. It would be great to have a way to help them to prevent these horrible massacres.

Edited for clearness (hopefully) and poor grammar.

[Addien]

I have grown up around guns, learned gun safety from my dad, and I have owned guns.

That said, and truly all rational thought aside, I do not doubt the efficacy of guns; they kill, as do other weapons. The problem is guns cause carnage, and they cause the kind of horrific carnage we have seen today, which few other weapons can cause. I have tried to think about what actions could have been taken to prevent the events of today. A guard posted, and a sign-in sheet? My daughter's private school has that. It would not have stopped a person carrying a concealed weapon. A pat down of every person entering the building? That wouldn't have even stopped what happened today because the shooter would have taken out the guard first before the pat down began. A gun-free zone? That is laughable because people with concealed carry permits can still legally carry in these zones; they can be asked to leave the premises, however. A person who had a carry permit using his/her gun to take out the shooter? Probably not. In that situation, surrounded by children, most people would possess neither the accuracy nor the mental fortitude to take out the shooter. I am finding it increasingly difficult to justify my belief in the continued sale and purchase of guns in the United States on a purely emotional level, especially today with the slaughter of innocents.

I truly don't know the answer to the problems we have in the United States because of guns. I do know that my thoughts about guns are radically changing; perhaps they were already altered, and I just didn't know it.

I know there is probably a counterargument to this, but metal detectors work at the school where I teach.

[maize]

I have grown up around guns, learned gun safety from my dad, and I have owned guns.

That said, and truly all rational thought aside, I do not doubt the efficacy of guns; they kill, as do other weapons. The problem is guns cause carnage, and they cause the kind of horrific carnage we have seen today, which few other weapons can cause. I have tried to think about what actions could have been taken to prevent the events of today. A guard posted, and a sign-in sheet? My daughter's private school has that. It would not have stopped a person carrying a concealed weapon. A pat down of every person entering the building? That wouldn't have even stopped what happened today because the shooter would have taken out the guard first before the pat down began. A gun-free zone? That is laughable because people with concealed carry permits can still legally carry in these zones; they can be asked to leave the premises, however. A person who had a carry permit using his/her gun to take out the shooter? Probably not. In that situation, surrounded by children, most people would possess neither the accuracy nor the mental fortitude to take out the shooter. I am finding it increasingly difficult to justify my belief in the continued sale and purchase of guns in the United States on a purely emotional level, especially today with the slaughter of innocents.

I truly don't know the answer to the problems we have in the United States because of guns. I do know that my thoughts about guns are radically changing; perhaps they were already altered, and I just didn't know it.

Good post. I actually think a security guard or two would work, especially considering most mass shooters are cowards(a bulletproof vest at a school? Theater?) The problem is, are we going to need a patdown at movies? Restaurants?

[maize]

I always seem to be on the opposite side of the fence in the genchat threads so I'm prepared to get chewed out for my opinions, but here we go:

Hubby was in an outdoors store last week and overheard the manager trying to explain to an irrate customer why he couldn't purchase a shotgun. Apparently gun manufacturers are putting a halt to gun making in anticipation that Obama will try to change the constitution and second amendment in some way of another. IF, and I stress IF this is the case our country will be starting on a slippery slope (meaning, change one amendment now, more will be altered later).

Now, in the cases of these mass shootings it seems to me that the problem isn't necessarily the guns but the lack of mental health support, facilities, trained personnel, etc. It seems obvious to me that anyone walking into a mall, school, movie theatre or any venue intending to kill people randomly is more than likely suffering from mental health issues. A sane person does not decide one day to kill their mother and then go to an elementary school and kill 26 adults and children. The problem with this is that even trained professionals are unable to determine who is going to snap or when. My belief is that it starts at home and parents that may sense something is amiss with their children should speak to a professional about it as soon as possible. I realize that there are holes in this theory but it just seems like people, all people, have to be hyper aware of everything and everyone around them (including their families) because you just never know.

I know this thread is about gun control, so I will put my .02 cents in and say that banning guns won't solve the problem. There are always ways for people to get guns. Countries that ban guns still have huge problems with them anyway. I would love to see a system in which potential gun buyers are given a psychological background test but that's never going to happen because its impossible to implement. And although background checks help, some people with mental health issues do not have a criminal background and will not be flagged. And therefore qualify to purchase a gun. And then there are folks who will buy a gun for someone unable to buy one of their own for a nice profit.

I read in another thread that in china today 22 kids were killed (injured ) by stabbing. I haven't looked it up to verify it, but if that is true, obviously people without gun access will find other options.

I wish I knew what made people snap like they do. It would be great to have a way to help them to prevent these horrible massacres.

Edited for clearness (hopefully) and poor grammar.

I think as long as anyone is one traumatic event away from becoming unstable, there's only so much you can do to prevent mental breakdowns.

And actually, societies with outright gun bans are doing pretty well in terms of mass murder. Japan for instance, and thats not a place with a shortage of depressed introvert males.

And the rampage in China? A man went crazy with a knife. 27 kids injured.

0 killed.

[Lady Olenna]

Good post. I actually think a security guard or two would work, especially considering most mass shooters are cowards(a bulletproof vest at a school? Theater?) The problem is, are we going to need a patdown at movies? Restaurants?

This is my concern as well. There really isn't an effective method in place to determine if/when these individuals will strike.

And the fact that they do these things suited up in vests and all black or camo, masks - what have you - really makes me wonder where their mentality is. Are they hearing voices? Are they acting out some fantasy? Do they think its like a video game?

In cases in which the perp kills themselves we may never know. But with James Holmes it looked as though he tried to reach out for help and help didn't arrive quickly enough.

Eta: that doesn't give Holmes an excuse for the horrid things he did, just makes me wonder if it could have been prevented at all

[Ravenhair]

I know there is probably a counterargument to this, but metal detectors work at the school where I teach.

I'm sure there is a counterargument, but I'm too tired to think of one. I will tell you that in New Orleans, it is a huge stigma for a school to have a metal detector. To most rational people, this may sound ludicrous, but here it's as if the School Board or other officials are announcing that they do not consider the school to be safe, and they expect the students to be armed if metal detectors are present. Accordingly, most of the private schools here do not have them, and the majority of both the private and public elementary/lower schools do not have them. The thought process has probably been that metal detectors were not needed for elementary/lower schools because one would not expect the children to be carrying weapons. Very few people would anticipate a scenario like what happened today; I expect that the stigma of metal detectors, as well as our expectations for safety in lower schools, will be irrevocably altered by today's horror.

[maize]

This is my concern as well. There really isn't an effective method in place to determine if/when these individuals will strike.

And the fact that they do these things suited up in vests and all black or camo, masks - what have you - really makes me wonder where their mentality is. Are they hearing voices? Are they acting out some fantasy? Do they think its like a video game?

In cases in which the perp kills themselves we may never know. But with James Holmes it looked as though he tried to reach out for help and help didn't arrive quickly enough.

Eta: that doesn't give Holmes an excuse for the horrid things he did, just makes me wonder if it could have been prevented at all

Yes. Sadly, many of these seem intelligent enough to strike at societies weakest point and time.

Perhaps they're just too depressed and raged to the point where they are numb to everything. The world has wronged them, they think, and it's your fault I'm like this, it's your fault I'm hitting back. This inner justification leads to tragedy...

[KhaleesiDany]

I have a question for parents.

Should you send your kids to school? Will you keep sending them if they don't want to go?

Because if I was a kid I would not want to go to school again.

[Leviathan I]

http://en.wikipedia....school_massacre

http://en.wikipedia....habara_massacre

http://en.wikipedia....he_Tokyo_subway

Gun related homicides 2008: US 9,484. Japan 11.

Gun related homicides 2007: US 10,086. Japan 22.

Gun related homicides 2006: US 10,225. Japan 2.

[Addien]

I'm sure there is a counterargument, but I'm too tired to think of one. I will tell you that in New Orleans, it is a huge stigma for a school to have a metal detector. To most rational people, this may sound ludicrous, but here it's as if the School Board or other officials are announcing that they do not consider the school to be safe, and they expect the students to be armed if metal detectors are present. Accordingly, most of the private schools here do not have them, and the majority of both the private and public elementary/lower schools do not have them. The thought process has probably been that metal detectors were not needed for elementary/lower schools because one would not expect the children to be carrying weapons. Very few people would anticipate a scenario like what happened today; I expect that the stigma of metal detectors, as well as our expectations for safety in lower schools, will be irrevocably altered by today's horror.

White middle-class people tend to think of metal detectors as "bad", but the students at the urban, inner-city school where I teach love the metal detectors. They love being able to feel safe at school. I'm not saying that makes it "OK", just another point of view. They feel more confident and safe about coming to school, and this is a school where truancy can be a problem.

[maize]

Gun related homicides 2008: US 9,484. Japan 11.

Gun related homicides 2007: US 10,086. Japan 22.

Gun related homicides 2006: US 10,225. Japan 2.

Since the U.S. had double the population lets adjust the numbers :)

Gun related homicides 2008: US 9,484. Japan 22

Gun related homicides 2007: US 10,086. Japan 44.

Gun related homicides 2006: US 10,225. Japan 4

Hmm I wonder what this means ...