Discussion in 'Community' started by Ghost, Dec 14, 2012.
found naritikiwhozit's comment:
If someone could quote this so FIDo could see it:
No, it's not. It actually does make sense however the issue is that it utterly fails to address the underlying problem. If you are trying to ensure that school shootings continue but are brought to a close quicker, this is the best band-aid solution out there.
Teaching is stressful enough without having to be trained in killing people too. I think it would just increase the numbers of school shootings anyway, one way or another. Kids would have more access to guns, stressed out teachers flip out from time to time....
I don't have a problem with strengthening the mental health checks, and I've advocated for such changes here already. As for universal background checks, I don't see where they are really needed. The vast majority of guns that are used in crimes are either stolen or bought through dealers that already have to perform those checks. It simply doesn't strike me as though it's actually addressing a real problem. Show me the evidence that it is one of the major sources for criminal guns and I'll consider it. Until then, I'd oppose it.
As for tracking the sale of all weapons in a national database, that's a non-starter. For one thing, how are you going to get the existing 300 million guns into that database? (When Canada tried to implement a long gun registry, only about third of the number of guns they estimated to exist in the country were actually registered.) Moreover, historically speaking, registration has always been a step towards confiscation, even in the US. As a result, when the NICS system was created, it was made illegal for the government to retain the background check information beyond 30 days. (The sale information still has to be retained by the dealer, and is turned over to BATFE when the dealer closes up shop.)
As for harsher penalties for bringing guns near schools, I am opposed to that. First of all, the Gun Free School Zones Act was already ruled unconstitutional once for violating the Commerce Clause (see Lopez v. US). Since it was reenacted (with a minor change), it has remained untested and unused. It can and should remain a choice by the individual states whether or not to allow someone to carry on school property. (For example, in Utah it has been legal for any CWP holder to carry on school property for quite some time. How many school shootings have there been in Utah?)
Hey, look, I can spout meaningless anecdotal evidence, too: Maine has a higher population density than Utah, and doesn't allow CWP holders onto school properties. It has nothing on Wikipedia's list of school shootings in the United States. By contrast, Utah has one suicide listed. It's almost like it's nonsensical speculation on your part due to school shootings' low statistical rate of occurrence, or something!
Snapple Fact: Frogs never drink.
Hope that helps sway the discussion toward a resolution...
Only one suicide utilizing a gun while on school property. Sorry, my phrasing was less than optimal, there. I in no way wish to slander against Utah's 10th place position in state rankings of per capita suicide rates.
Only 10th? I just assumed Utah would be #1. Because, you know. Utah.
Nah, #1 is Wyoming, surprisingly. So much for "bury me not on the lone prairie."
It's because Utah is the #1 consumer of pornography. People are less likely to commit suicide when they have commitments.
Well, it is Utah. They do buy lots of porn. So I don't think they need a gun to replace their members like other state's citizens do since they're very well versed on where it's located.
Edit: Aha-ha! Didn't see Darth Guy's reply, but yeah.
Nearly 1200 replies and not one person here made a Zardoz reference? I'm disappointed in all of you.
i hope you didnt comb through all those largely ****** posts looking for a reference to a ****** sean connery diaper-fetishism film because that would be really depressing
for the sake of my emotional state, im going to assume you either didnt vet your statement at all or did a forums search and called it good
Rogue, I would prefer it if you referenced the fact Connery wore a nappy in the film. As was his wont.
And yet, it is a counter indication for the people who claim that allowing teachers (or anyone else) to be armed on school property would increase the chances of shootings happening. If that were the case, you would expect more shootings than average in Utah schools, rather than far less.
You might call it anecdotal, but it doesn't change the fact that the policy that many of you have derided as being likely to increase violence has already been implemented in some places, and yet the predicted chaos and violence hasn't resulted. It's similar to the claims that blood would run in the streets if concealed carry laws (particularly "shall issue" laws) were passed, and yet the crime rate continues to decrease. The hysterical claims simply haven't come to pass.
i fixed it
I don't think it would cause more school shootings. It would have, most likely, no impact on that. How could it? I'm just kind of uncomfortable with the way this country is slowly sliding back to an Old West mentality where everyone is supposed to have a gun and everyone is expected to be able to take any miscreant down with a head shot should the need arise. I'm not comfortable with that. There has to be a better option for taking care of mass shootings and other types of crimes than just flooding the populace with weapons in an arms race with criminals.
When the Soviets and redcoats* invade, you'll regret that statement, hippy.
(* Redcoats = red coats = red = soviet = communism)
Ah, so given literally no evidence either way regarding its effectiveness in preventing school shooting incidents, you err on the side of having guns near children because it hasn't resulted in a bloodbath. Gotcha.
Society is sick and unless we reform it from the base up, it's only going to get sicker.
And what do we do to sick animals? We shoot them. With guns.
Guns are already near children in most places they go. In Virginia, for example, you can find people carrying guns at the grocery store, the library, in the parks, and almost anywhere else you go. You just don't know about it because those guns are usually concealed.
What I'm asking for is that the proposed solutions would be effective before you put them in place. The example of Utah shows that the fears expressed by those opposed to allowing CWP holders to carry in school are unfounded. After all, how many teachers have snapped and started shooting their students? How many students have stolen their teacher's gun and gone on a killing spree? How many shootings have happened over poor grades or someone just having a bad day.
In contrast, all but one of the mass murders (as defined by the FBI*) using guns in the last 40 years have happened in places where guns were essentially prohibited. (The one exception was Tucson.) It was already illegal for Adam Lanza to be armed at Sandy Hook. In fact, he'd already broken quite a few laws that day before he got anywhere near the school. How well did the existing prohibitions work? What would be so different about the new proposed ones that would supposedly make them more effective?
If you have evidence that it would be more effective, then present the evidence. But don't just demand policy because of knee-jerk reactions.
* The FBI defines a mass murder as 4 or people killed, not including the shooter(s).
Do you know how bad the "Old West" actually was? Consider Tombstone, Arizona. Do you know what the peak number of homicides they had in the 1800s was? 3. That was in 1881, the year of the famous "Gunfight at the OK Corral", which accounted for all three of them. The population at the time was about 3500. Most years, they didn't have any homicides.
Also, I have to point out once again, that no one is insisting that anyone be required to carry, in a school or anywhere else. All anyone has advocated is giving the option. I remember in high school I had several teachers who were former military and undoubtedly had training in how to use a gun, including in stressful conditions. They might not be able to "take any miscreant down with a head shot", but then they don't need to. Most shooters in that sort of situation either surrender or commit suicide once they face opposition.
Which is more likely to leave students at the mercy of such shooters? The possibility of an armed teacher/administrator, or the near-certainty of everyone being unarmed?
You should read this article by a real, genuine Russian, on why Americans should keep their guns.
This article is amazing, really. Some real classic lines in there.