School shooting today. At least 3 kids dead.

[SkepticThinker]

Most school shooters are suicidal. You have a suicidal group of people in the world unfortunately then you have the another group which is nothing like them. They are suicidal and murderers. Sad st

dont hold class on first floor. Maybe administrative with small windows with bars

So the solution is to make schools more like prisons?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Are they?
Tell me, when's the last time a "responsible non-criminal citizen" stopped a gang shoot out? A mafia hit? A bank robbery?
On average, how much gun crime (actual crime - I'm not even talking about mass shootings by confused / desperate / whatever otherwise non-criminal citizens) is prevented by "responsible non-criminal citizens" with "civilian guns" as opposed to gun crime that just runs its course?

I don't know but there are instances of people using guns to protect themselves and others. Without a gun option they would have been dead. If it is just a numbers game to you then ok. However, it is more than that. People that have guns for self protection are not choosing to use the gun in an evil way. Gang shootings and such are people choosing to use the gun in an evil way. Why should these criminals get to use guns for evil but non criminals not get to use a gun for good? If a trained citizen in the Nashville school had a gun maybe less people would have been dead. It took a police officer with a gun to stop that person but it took 14 minutes. Why couldn't a private citizen have that same opportunity? The school was in a gun free zone.

Of the thousands of deaths as a result of gun violence in the us, is actually done by gangsters / professional criminals?
What's the % rate here? Do you even know?

43% homicide, 54% suicide, <1% Police, 2% undetermined.

As has been explained multiple times now: they'll have a hard time getting them.
They will cost loads of money and be hard to come by.

That is what is claimed, it has not been shown.

In countries where there's 1 civilian gun for every 100 citizens, it's a LOT harder and more expensive to get your hands on one of those illegally then it is when in a country that has 120 such guns for every 100 citizens.

How do you not get that?

Where do the guns go and how do you keep them out of the country? How do you prevent people from making them?

There's another flip side here....
If it's that hard to come by and so expensive, then it will be handled with a lot more care and only be really available to the select few.

Meaning actual professional gangsters / criminals. And those guys understand that keeping a low profile is how you don't get caught. So you can forget about those guys going a killing spree in some school or whatevs. In fact most likely, they'll only use those guns to kill their own (rivals, traitors, etc). They'll also use them to threaten people when robbing. And they'll prefer not to use them to shoot then either, since that brings so much more heat.

What I'm saying is that loads of guns in civilian hands is WORSE then a couple guns in a couple gangster hands.
It leads to MORE innocent deaths, not less.

There are severe consequences for using a gun to kill someone today, why would there be more "heat" if you use a gun if they are banned? It is still illegal to use an illegal gun today.

Price. Guns and ammo are much larger and heavier and therefor harder to move.
You seem to conveniently forget a big part of the distribution channel.

So a truck manages to get to some warehouse without being checked...
What then? Is the job done now? Nope. Those goods still need to get into the hands of the dealers and eventually the customers.
With drugs, this is easy to do. You can break it up in ever smaller packages. Can't do that with an AR15.

A small package of cocaine can serve hundreds of customers. To serve hundreds of customers with guns, you need several trucks instead of a single backpack.

How can you not understand the difficulty (ie: added risk) of this not-so-small logistical issue?

You underestimate the ingenuity of criminals. Guns will be made for smuggling. If the borders are not secured then they will have no problem getting them and ammo into the country. Criminals don't care about gun laws today why would they care if they are banned?

Good luck with that.
I'm not too worried about the black market being flooded with "home made guns". Especially not made by a 3d printer.
You might want to check out what such a printer capable of such actually costs.
You might want to check what is involved in creating a gun that way, how long it takes and -again- what it costs.

I have, the point is cost won't be an issue because they can fund whatever they want with drug trafficking. Look, I agree less people will have guns, however, it matters who has the guns doesn't it. Are you willing to put someone in jail that wants a gun in their house for protection and will never use it for evil if guns are made illegal?

Why not?
How about the flip side?
How does it make sense that any average joe can just go into a store and buy a friggin AR15???

Why is a 9mm AR-15 worse than a 9mm handgun?

No amount of background checks or screenings will eliminate the problem that is caused by having 120 guns for every 100 citizens.

I agree but I think we can do better in this area.

So why stop at guns then?
Why not tanks? Bazooka's? Rocket launchers? Surface to air missiles? Torpedo's? ICBM's? Nukes?

What's the difference?

Because those are not guns. Guns are protected not tanks, nukes etc.

 

[Mock Turtle]

That is a false choice. We can have both. I disagree that we can disarm the US to a point where criminals have rare access to guns. Why wouldn't guns and ammo come across the border like drugs do now? We need to address the reasons behind daily shooting in Chicago, LA, NY etc. for example. Taking away guns is like taking away aspirin because some use it to overdose. The root cause is rarely considered.

So the USA is the exception and unlike many other civilised countries? Well perhaps it is - as to so many heads in the sand.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't know but there are instances of people using guns to protect themselves and others. Without a gun option they would have been dead. If it is just a numbers game to you then ok. However, it is more than that. People that have guns for self protection are not choosing to use the gun in an evil way. Gang shootings and such are people choosing to use the gun in an evil way. Why should these criminals get to use guns for evil but non criminals not get to use a gun for good? If a trained citizen in the Nashville school had a gun maybe less people would have been dead. It took a police officer with a gun to stop that person but it took 14 minutes. Why couldn't a private citizen have that same opportunity? The school was in a gun free zone.
...

Honestly, giving a person a gun is nothing in itself. For certain situations it requires a lot of training to use a gun.
Friendly fire is one, but there are other considerations.
Now in the ideal situation a clear line of sight, amble time and simple practice shooting the gun and hitting, will do the job.
But that is the ideal situation.
So consider other situations and explain how one human with minimal training won't do in all cases?
Can you do that?

 

[dybmh]

The day it's not okay to gloat over a child killer being offed by the cops is the day God needs to end the world.

Keeping the killer alive, at least temporarily, can render valuable information leading to better proactive preventive measures. Red-flag laws could work, but they need to be expanded. I expect that AI tracking social media posts would be able to identify a shift in rhetoric of a licensed gun owner. AI would need good data to be effective at this. The best most complete data would come from the killer themself.

 

[Jimmy]

So the solution is to make schools more like prisons?

Did u read what I wrote? Far from a prison. I call it common sense to protect our children.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

"And driving and drinking are heavily regulated and taxed."

You forgot illegal. Those laws sure stop people from driving drunk huh?

More than you think.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Keeping the killer alive, at least temporarily, can render valuable information leading to better proactive preventive measures.

I do agree with this. Why execute even serial killers when studying them has the potential to avert and prevent such killings by identifying those at risk and offering early interventions?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't know but there are instances of people using guns to protect themselves and others. Without a gun option they would have been dead. If it is just a numbers game to you then ok. However, it is more than that. People that have guns for self protection are not choosing to use the gun in an evil way.

They're choosing to use their gun in a foolish way, certainly, but I agree they aren't necessarily evil.

Gang shootings and such are people choosing to use the gun in an evil way. Why should these criminals get to use guns for evil but non criminals not get to use a gun for good?

Keeping "defensive" firearms isn't "for good."

Generally harmful but honestly mistaken <> "for good"

If a trained citizen in the Nashville school had a gun maybe less people would have been dead.

If a trained citizen in the Nashville school had a gun, then maybe they would have unintentionally taken out some other innocent bystanders. Maybe the cops would have seen the gun and taken them out instead of the real shooter.

Maybe they would have committed a school shooting themselves. I think it's reasonable to question the motives of someone who wants to bring guns into an elementary school.

It took a police officer with a gun to stop that person but it took 14 minutes. Why couldn't a private citizen have that same opportunity? The school was in a gun free zone.

How much longer would it have taken the police to clear the school if they knew that there were armed civilians in there not affiliated with the shooter?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

If they're able to pay for them.

When it comes to guns, the illegal gun market is fed almost entirely by the legal gun market. Cut off that supply to the legal gun market and market forces will drive costs up.

Why would this dynamic stay the same when guns are made illegal?

We may never be able to stop a billionaire from buying a gun that he's obsessed with owning, but it's very possible to price, say, a burglar out of carrying a handgun "just in case."

Why do you believe this will be the case?

Also, remember that firearm deaths in the US are mostly about suicide, and most of those involve guns that are legally in the home.

What I saw was 54% of gun deaths are by suicide, 43% are used for homicide. What part of the suicides would have found another way to kill themselves? The cause of the suicide is not the gun nor is it the cause of the homicide.

It'll be tricky. About half the guns used in crime in Canada are smuggled in from the US.

Still, as I touched on earlier, you don't have to stop every gun to have an effect. The more enforcement, the fewer guns. The fewer guns, the fewer the criminals who will have guns.

Ok, but it necessarily unarms law abiding people more than it does criminals.

3D printed guns just barely exist right now. I'm not sure how someone would ever print a cartridge complete with gunpowder, though.

It's kind of a side point, though: even if it's technically possible for a very motivated person with the right skills and equipment to make a gun in their basement, most people who use guns in crime don't have the motivation, skills or equipment. Even if homemade 3D-printed guns do end up sneaking onto the black market in numbers big enough to worry about, we're still way better off than the current situation with guns flowing into the black market on an industrial scale from modern firearm manufacturers.

I disagree, you are giving an advantage to people that are willing to comit crimes.

Indeed. That's why I support making all handguns and all semi-auto firearms restricted weapons: you can own them (with the proper license and training) and you can use them at the range, but they stay securely stored at the range and can't come home with you.

This is not acceptable. I agree with training requirements. What use are they at the range if a criminal has one illegally in my house.

Gun ownership isn't any sort of fundamental human right. It's been deemed a right by current US law; that's it.

There are no fundamental human rights. All rights come from people through the government, they are agreed upon. In the US a constitutional amendment will need to be passed to ban guns are further restrict them as you are proposing.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Did u read what I wrote? Far from a prison. I call it common sense to protect our children.

What you wrote sounds to me like a prison.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Why do you believe this will be the case?

Because America is very talented when it comes to getting things to be affordable or unaffordable for people. Like beef and corn, which they make cheap, or booze and tobacco which they make expensive.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What I saw was 54% of gun deaths are by suicide, 43% are used for homicide. What part of the suicides would have found another way to kill themselves? The cause of the suicide is not the gun nor is it the cause of the homicide.

It is hard to say what percentage of suicides would find another way. Some of them would, but guns make suicide far too easy. A friend of mine took his own life with a gun because his life was going to ****. It only takes a second with a gun. Cut your wrists and yo have all sorts of time to change your mind. Take poison? Well that is painful and you can often call a poison control center. Jump off of a cliff? Sure, but people rarely have a cliff in their backyard. They would have to drive for quite a while and then hike to do that. Perhaps if one lived in a tall building one could jump. But not that many of us do so. Getting rid of guns would probably drop the suicide rate substantially. I cannot "prove" that, but it seems to be a rational conclusion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why would this dynamic stay the same when guns are made illegal?


Why do you believe this will be the case?

Are you familiar with market forces?

What I saw was 54% of gun deaths are by suicide, 43% are used for homicide. What part of the suicides would have found another way to kill themselves? The cause of the suicide is not the gun nor is it the cause of the homicide.

Evidence shows that without access to firearms, suicide rates go down. It's considered a risk factor for suicide for good reason.

Ok, but it necessarily unarms law abiding people more than it does criminals.

I'm okay with that.

I disagree, you are giving an advantage to people that are willing to comit crimes.

I have no idea what point you're trying to make.

This is not acceptable. I agree with training requirements. What use are they at the range if a criminal has one illegally in my house.

A gun in the home is much more likely to be used against someone living in the home than against an armed intruder.

You're entitled to your opinion; you aren't entitled to your own facts. If you think that keeping a gun in your house makes you or your family safer, you're just wrong.

There are no fundamental human rights. All rights come from people through the government, they are agreed upon. In the US a constitutional amendment will need to be passed to ban guns are further restrict them as you are proposing.

Yes, I think a Constitutional amendment is in order. Yes, it will likely take a change in nationwide political sentiment for that to happen.

The more feasible approach in the short term, which wouldn't take a Constitutional amendment, is what I suggested earlier: just get rid of the protections against liability for the gun industry and let market forces and voluntary measures limit access to firearms.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How do you prevent someone from getting a gun illegally? What is proper gun control to you?

A big part would be reducing the number held privately. How do you think that criminals get their guns? The rather stupid argument that "Criminals would just get guns from another source" fails because criminals quite often take the easiest route. Right now guns are frequently acquired as a byproduct of home burglaries. Criminals do not have the money to buy guns usually even if they legally could. Criminals buy stolen guns. There is a quick but limited market for stolen guns. Stolen guns sell for far less than retail value. And if they were made illegal they would have to buy smuggled guns, and smuggling raises the price of items. It does not drop it.

There are all sorts of "proper gun control". Did you know that there are many people that own guns in Germany and England? We could have the same sort of gun control that they do. You can own a gun. You just cannot keep it in your house. You need to belong to a gun club that is licensed and monitored by the state. Your guns would be safely held under lock and key when you were not using them for legitimate purposes.

Gun control works if it is nation wide. Mass shooting deaths dropped after Clinton's ban on assault weapons. That law was largely cosmetic and it still appears to have worked. It was eventually found unconstitutional largely because it was cosmetic. Passing a legal version, which would be based upon what a gun is capable of rather than upon looks, and it would likely be even more effective. .

Last night I asked poster what he would do if we had the sort of gun control that German or England had. His first foolish response was that he had gun safes. So what? Good for him. That does not mean that everyone would have gun safes. That does not mean that even if there was a law that everyone had to have a gun safe that they would buy and use one. It was a foolish "So what?" argument.


What would you do if our nation passed such a gun control law? Would you obey it or go rogue?

 

[Sand Dancer]

Nice outlook

I don't like it, but I gotta be realistic. I wish it were not a likelihood.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

They're choosing to use their gun in a foolish way, certainly, but I agree they aren't necessarily evil.

Murdering people is evil in my opinion.

Keeping "defensive" firearms isn't "for good."

Generally harmful but honestly mistaken <> "for good"

When used properly they can be used for good. The police officers used them for good to kill the murderer at the Tennessee school. The Principle heard the shots, called the police then went unarmed toward the killer and was murdered. If she was allowed to have a gun then at least she would have had a chance.

If a trained citizen in the Nashville school had a gun, then maybe they would have unintentionally taken out some other innocent bystanders. Maybe the cops would have seen the gun and taken them out instead of the real shooter.

This is absurd. If a trained police officer can take out the murder a trained citizen can too. 14 minutes to respond was great but way too long in this situation. Someone at the school needs to be armed. There are 98,500 public schools in America. If we pay two trained officers to be at the school full time, lets say $100,000 for salary and benefits for each that is only $20 billion per year. Congress farts ans they spend $20 billion. We can do this, there is no will especially on the democrat's side.

Maybe they would have committed a school shooting themselves. I think it's reasonable to question the motives of someone who wants to bring guns into an elementary school.

Ridiculous. Wanting to bring a gun to an elementary school to protect kids is reasonable. Do you question the motives of armed guards at banks, white house, congress, supreme court etc.?

How much longer would it have taken the police to clear the school if they knew that there were armed civilians in there not affiliated with the shooter?

Include this is everyone's training. You need to get rid of the idea that the police can save you and step up and protect yourself and others for yourself.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

So the USA is the exception and unlike many other civilised countries? Well perhaps it is - as to so many heads in the sand.

Are you going to answer any of the questions I posed?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Honestly, giving a person a gun is nothing in itself. For certain situations it requires a lot of training to use a gun.
Friendly fire is one, but there are other considerations.
Now in the ideal situation a clear line of sight, amble time and simple practice shooting the gun and hitting, will do the job.
But that is the ideal situation.
So consider other situations and explain how one human with minimal training won't do in all cases?
Can you do that?

No, but I know waiting 14 minutes to let a killer run free through a school is unacceptable. What is training for if not to help you in those situations? I would rather die fighting and trying to keep the death count low than be murdered running. If your kid was at this school would you want them to wait 14 minutes for the police or have an armed guard or teacher/principal at the school?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Because America is very talented when it comes to getting things to be affordable or unaffordable for people. Like beef and corn, which they make cheap, or booze and tobacco which they make expensive.

This is the reasoning your relying on to disarm law abiding Americans?