School Shooting in CT leaves several children dead.

[pentagathus]

Mass shootings don't happen too often round these parts.

If someone has seriously suggested arming teachers, may I ask how the **** thats going to pan out when a teacher goes crazy? Or when a pupil goes mental and takes the teachers gun (unlikely to be a problem with younger children but for an adolescent kid it would be pretty easy.)
Just out of curiosity, how often do american cops have to threaten people with their guns/use tasers? I guess you can't restrain the average drunken idiot gone violent when you have a gun on your waist.

If a gun-owning teacher is going to go crazy and shoot people, does it really matter if they're legally allowed to carry it to school?

As far as older kids overpowering a teacher and taking their gun - that'd be a very unlikely, though potentially possible scenario. Lots of the kids that get "out of control" with teachers and physically assault them still aren't willing to go so far as to commit a murder (assuming they even know that the teacher is armed). Those teenagers that are willing to commit murder, aren't likely to look for their opportunity in the form of an armed teacher - they'll bring guns from a different source to the school (and then perhaps be confronted by said teacher).

So while it's possible that an armed teacher's concealed gun may be taken away and used in murder(s) that otherwise wouldn't have been possible, I don't think that it's worth worrying more about that than it is that same kid wrestling a plainly visible gun away from a police officer and doing the same.

Well I meant if the teacher snapped whilst at school, also I thought the idea was to have teachers armed as a requirement of being a teacher. Same applies if a kid snaps at school when near an armed teacher.
As to the **** I put in bold, a cop has a taser he can use to neutralise the kid if he's for example being violent towards other kids (might be wrong but I'm assuming all american cops armed with guns are also armed with long range tasers, otherwise thats ****ed up) whereas the teachers only option would be to restrain the kid or point a gun at him. I'm pretty sure the majority of people would attempt to restrain the kid.

 

[Mage246]

Jhess, having states try different things wouldn't work, as has been proven already. We already have less or more restrictive gun laws among the states, but since there's no border control between them people are free to go somewhere with less restrictive gun laws should they desire a firearm. An outright ban in one state would do nothing to change that.

 

[Krik]

A much better mental health system would not only prevent these mass killings but also allow the mentally ill to lead a somewhat normal and happy life. Restricting gun control so that the crazy ones can't get them is fixing a symptom not the cause of the problem itself. If more time and money was put into helping those who need it in ways other than pumping them with sedation drugs and putting them in an institution.

Warning - while you were typing a new reply has been posted. You may wish to review your post.

I've heard that since marijuana were legalized in Washington and Colorado border control from those states outwards has increased, I'd imagine the same would happen for guns though obviously some would slip through.

 

[ealabor]

Illegal weapons tend to have inflated prices.
I doubt he could have afforded those weapons had they been illegal.

Well, if one is going to obtain a gun that is illegal, what stands to reason that one will always pay rather than steal one?

You haven't presented nothing but ****, so far.

Right, except for all the other cases I cited which you glossed over.

There are very few people that are addicted to guns the way some people are addicted to drugs.

Sure that can be said in terms of addiction. However the point is that most people, well American citizens, are cognizant to the fact that they are empowered by law with the Right to have them.

So with such an entrenched tradition, any attempts at general disarmament would really lead to disaster, generating some 60-90 million citizens as law breakers overnight. It would be much reminiscent of prohibition, if not worse.

A similar example could be pointed to marijuana, where the effects of keeping it illegal at large, is having a much bigger negative impact on this nation in terms of treasury, violence, and other ill effects than if it were to be legalized.

 

[Kobrag]

And where would one steal a firearm if they are not available for purchase? 

 

[Elduar_Rhinestone]

That's what I was wondering...

 

[Mage246]

A much better mental health system would not only prevent these mass killings but also allow the mentally ill to lead a somewhat normal and happy life. Restricting gun control so that the crazy ones can't get them is fixing a symptom not the cause of the problem itself. If more time and money was put into helping those who need it in ways other than pumping them with sedation drugs and putting them in an institution.

Warning - while you were typing a new reply has been posted. You may wish to review your post.

I've heard that since marijuana were legalized in Washington and Colorado border control from those states outwards has increased, I'd imagine the same would happen for guns though obviously some would slip through.

There's no border control between states of the US anywhere. If memory serves, free (meaning unrestricted, so not referring to toll roads) transit of goods and people between states is part of the Constitution. What you may be referring to is increased enforcement of certain laws (traffic laws, I'm guessing) in these areas, which may then allow them to catch people who have been using while driving or careless with their purchases.

 

[Krik]

That's true, may not be actual border control but rather indirect tightening.

 

[Jhessail]

Right, except for all the other cases I cited which you glossed over.

Because they were the similar sort of cases. And to defend gun ownership, you managed to dreg up a dozen examples where a firearm POSSIBLY saved a life or perhaps a handful of lives, against the track record of all the gun rampages that have happened in the US? Pretty weak. Plus, you haven't actually responded to any of my points, my logically-challenged little friend. I'd like to see you do that before lambasting others for "ignoring" your "arguments".

So with such an entrenched tradition, any attempts at general disarmament would really lead to disaster, generating some 60-90 million citizens as law breakers overnight. It would be much reminiscent of prohibition, if not worse.

Sure it would. Just like it caused such grave disasters in the UK and Australia. Oh wait, it didn't. 

Jhess, having states try different things wouldn't work, as has been proven already. We already have less or more restrictive gun laws among the states, but since there's no border control between them people are free to go somewhere with less restrictive gun laws should they desire a firearm. An outright ban in one state would do nothing to change that.

That's a shame because if that would work, you wouldn't have the usual excuses.
"Why is the Finnish school system so much better than the American? Duh, they are small and all white"
"Why aren't the Swiss shooting at each other like Americans? Duh, they are small and all white"
"Why don't you ban guns like the Aussies, Brits and Japs did? Duh, 2nd amendment, preventing tyranny!"

 

[ealabor]

And where would one steal a firearm if they are not available for purchase? 

You really going to suggest the hundreds of million of guns in U.S. are just going to disappear?

Like prohibition got rid of alcohol right? Like the war on drugs got rid of drugs right?

The only thing that will change is that law abiding citizens will be labelled criminals, and a black market will be generated resulting in mobs, gangs, cartels,  and subsequently more violence, ala prohibition, ala "the war on drugs"

 

[Lord Burgess1]

At least we haven't heard the argument that banning guns would destroy the Arms industry.

 

[Mage246]

Hundreds of millions of guns don't have to disappear over night. Just eliminate a few million or more a year (or even tens of millions if you want to be aggressive about it), and eventually you'd reduce that number to a small fraction of its current total.

 

[Sir Saladin]

No way man, it's just like trying to outlaw heroin. Just think of all the guys who could no longer buy or own machine guns for rabbit hunting. They'd all be sweating and shaking and ****ting big green bricks for a year or longer just at the thought of not being able to buy the stuff anymore.

 

[Devercia]

Relevant:

Its interesting to know that USA= lots of $ and World = a lot a lot of $.

Also, Japan is not comparable to the US. There is probably more non-gun crime in Chicago than the whole of Japan.

 

[Harkon Haakonson]

Considering the effect of that defense budget is the only thing that keeps the USA as a superpower, I don't see it changing...

 

[Elduar_Rhinestone]

No way man, it's just like trying to outlaw heroin. Just think of all the guys who could no longer buy or own machine guns for rabbit hunting. They'd all be sweating and shaking and ****ting big green bricks for a year or longer just at the thought of not being able to buy the stuff anymore.

 

[ealabor]

You can stop making that comparison now. Because it's dumb, and extremely repetitive.

They are both fine examples of documented instances where the U.S. government sought to make illegal, or enact upon more stringent regulation of something illegal, only to have the outcome increase in crime, violence, and absolutely fail at diminishing or eliminating of the objective in question.

I know it hurts the feelings of those who support the notion "der bannin' guns gunna fix the porblem", that the idea really won't solve the issue, and that having to face the reality of established history with prohibition and war on drugs being a fine example of such failed doctrine is a nightmare for them.


Just the mere notion of guns or ammo becoming scarce in light of talks of any kind of regulation has fueled increased aquisition of fireams and ammo which can be seen in increase of sales.

So, do people that are hastily purchasing fireams out of concern for new regulations that might outlaw them, sound like the sort of people that are intending on handing them over if that should become a reality? **** NO. Otherwise there would be no point in purchasing them.

 

[Magorian Aximand]

Heh, you still have the swear filter on.

I have to ask, while alcohol is legal, did the prohibition of absinthe cause any undue harm or stress? Of course, the answer is no.

So gun control, restricting the purchase or ownership of certain weapons while leaving firearms in general untouched, shouldn't have the horrifying effects you seem to think it would. Your own example argues against you.

 

[Harkon Haakonson]

"So gun control, restricting the purchase or ownership of certain weapons while leaving firearms in general untouched"

Can I ask what you mean exactly by this, Mag? Doesn't seem very clear to me, cheers.

 

[Pharaoh Llandy]

A much better mental health system would not only prevent these mass killings

I don't think it would prevent them. Not entirely. Though it would help to reduce them.

There are still going to be the random, seemingly normal people who just flip for no reason. Like that guy on the X-files who was brane-washed by the government. I do think more needs to be invested into mental health everywhere, but with pretty much free availability of guns, it can only do so much as far as mass-shootings are concerned.