Which Sign Will Prevent Another Tragedy? [Pic]

Submitted by: hiltacular 4 years ago in

There"s probably a good argument for both sides. Which one is best though.
There are 152 comments:
Male 573
An armed school cop got into a shootout with Columbine shooter Eric Harris, both him and Klebold still went on to massacre 13 people. Less guns not more guns. Conservaturds make me sick.
0
Reply
Male 573
Sensible national gun control will work.
0
Reply
Male 448
While in my country (NL) there is a very strict law regulating weapons carried by civilians, I can see that in america a complete prohibition is impossible, so why not limit things to a pistol for a person max, with a max of 6 shots. That should be enough to scare the usual criminals.
Having a semi-automatic or a sniper rifle has nothing to do with self defense, and you don`t hink in reality it is a viable option to form militia to overthrow your government if you disagree, right? Not while you got a top notch army to defend the president.

Oh wait, they are mostly over the border defending the name and fame of americuuhhhhh sorry democracy.
0
Reply
Male 275
@McGovtroll
Who is this someone? USSR? Germany?

It sounds like you are agreeing with me though, a nutcase will do what nutcases do regardless of a sign.
0
Reply
Male 28
C.) any sign of threat will be met with deadly dogs.

This way, the dogs can be cute, cuddly companions for the kids during the day, and ferocious murder machines when the need arises.
0
Reply
Male 8,438
HolyGod-"Where are you getting those numbers?"

Correction: My numbers were inaccurate, overall. I was looking at a particular tax bracket`s contributions to the budget, not the overall budget..

2012 numbers are closer to yours:
Healthcare: 22%
Welfare: 12%
Education: 4%
Defense: 24%

2013 Budgeted Numbers:
Healthcare: 24%
Welfare: 11%
Education: 4%
Defense: 24%

HolyGod-"We could cut defense spending IN HALF"

While there is room for cuts, I wouldn`t want to cut it in half.

ALSO, there is MUCH MORE room for cuts social programs, just by eliminating fraud and corruption.
0
Reply
Female 146
Having armed weapons in school (unless it`s being used by the police) is an awful idea. I understand the want for protection, but putting armed materials within reach of small children and older children is not what we need here. No matter how well you keep it out of their reach, some child will find a way to mess with that gun. Plus, teachers are not always the innocent ones. Firearms have no place in schools. Sandy Hook was a tragedy but there`s no need to panic and started putting assault weapons on every corner. As the Brits say "keep calm and carry on"
0
Reply
Male 9,526
MeGrendel

"The money we spend to feed, educate, heal and `support` takes up ~56% of all tax dollars (if youi add the Interest on our dept, it`s ~66%)

National Defense takes up ~16.8%."

Where are you getting those numbers?
The data I have used in the past has 2011 federal spending at $3.6 T.
Healthcare: $858 B (24%)
Welfare: $472 B (13%)
Education: $113 B (3%)
Defense: $878 B (24%)

http://tinyurl.com/d8vnxld

We could cut defense spending IN HALF and still have more go towards defense than the next six highest spending countries COMBINED.
0
Reply
Male 2,034
C. Neither
0
Reply
Male 2,855
easier for the staff to kill everyone
0
Reply
Female 1,467
"It seems he found out she was trying to have him institutionalized and it appears also he lashed for reasons that included `She loves those other kids more than me.`"

I thought it might be something like that. Why does no one say tasers or tranqs or non lethal measures. It`s always need more guns!
0
Reply
Male 3,147
"Morgan is a twit, he`s biased, bigoted and rude! And that`s on a good day! "

well yeah and those aren`t even his worst qualities, but it`s nice to see that Americans are starting to find him as much as c*nt as most of the UK did before he jumped ship.
0
Reply
Male 1,586
I am a teacher and I am trained with firearms. I honestly think that if an individual is trained and they pass some sort of "carry in school" certification that they should be part of a school police force.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
[quote]Normal kids with no mental issues would clearly be detered from going to walmart and buy an automatic rifle with the purpose of shooting "random" people in their school.

However the mentally unstable kids. They will still go buy that automatic rifle to go commit suicide by rentacop.. Good stuff guys.[/quote]

Now which could stop a nutcase from doing so sooner? Also "automatic rifle" shows alot of Europe has lost touch with gun knowledge and will roll over like France the next time someone trys to take over.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
Here`s an idea. Have both! Designate some schools as gun-free and others as having armed staff. Then let teachers decide where they want to work, and let parents decide where they want to send their kids.

Let`s do this across the country and see where the next multiple-victim gun rampage takes place.
0
Reply
Male 40,382
"The actual problem from my POV is they put more mentally ill in prison than hospitals."
@CodeJockey: I 100% agree with that! Because almost all the "nuthouses" were closed, prison is literally the only place to put severly crazy people. They get regular meds & structured environment, but once they`re out it`s off the meds and back to being insane again.

The Ugly Politics of Piers Morgan
Morgan is a twit, he`s biased, bigoted and rude! And that`s on a good day!

@broizfam: Israel has to deal with terrorists as well as mentally unbalanced people. They armed the schools and it`s worked for them!

@Essersmith: "automatic weapons" cannot be bought at WalMart: You are confusing SEMI-auto with actual military guns (which civilians cannot get) It`s already illegal to ow
0
Reply
Male 161
as far as signs go, they are both pretty sweet. i say use both signs.
0
Reply
Male 275
I didnt dare click "more comments" and both of the signs are pretty useless in an american context.
I have been showing these signs to people around me. All voted sign A, when i told them the context all said both were pointless.

To me the clear answer is sign B. Normal kids with no mental issues would clearly be detered from going to walmart and buy an automatic rifle with the purpose of shooting "random" people in their school.

However the mentally unstable kids. They will still go buy that automatic rifle to go commit suicide by rentacop.. Good stuff guys.
0
Reply
Male 335
Neither sign will make any difference at all.
0
Reply
Male 6,070
CrakrJak,
USA may have had about 40 times more school shootings than Israel but also has about 40 times the population, so it ends up being about the same when you do the percentages. Also, I`m not so sure I`d be so trusting of teachers - some of them have done some pretty awful things to kids...what if they were armed? And is it really a good idea to have a loaded weapon in a classroom where the teacher`s attention is often, by necessity (and our expectations!), concentrated elsewhere? This is a really tough issue since there are excellent arguments for both sides. Frankly, I`d prefer my kids to be exposed to the relatively rare instance of a psychotic with a gun than to be in a school where 50 or 100 guns are laying around with, quite likely, many of them not properly secured.
0
Reply
Male 8,438
HolyGod-"WHY is it ok to spend money to kill, but not to spend money to feed, educate, and heal?"

Who says we don`t? We pay MUCH more for that than we do for National Defense.

The money we spend to feed, educate, heal and `support` takes up ~56% of all tax dollars (if youi add the Interest on our dept, it`s ~66%)

National Defense takes up ~16.8%.

So, if you have two people in an elevator, and you want to reduce their combined weight, it`s more effective to put who on a diet: Rosie `Social Programs` O`Donnell or Natalie `Defense` Portman? (hint: Rosie is a gross waste, while Natalie is both attractive and more pleasant to have around).
0
Reply
Male 9,526
Megrendel

I am a fiscal conservative. I would love to slash taxes and government spending. The reason I don`t understand conservatives is to me the easiest and best place to cut spending is the defense department which spends 3 times more than is needed to adequately defend this country. Conservatives want to RAISE spending there and cut it from social programs, schools, and places that help people.

Romney wanted to ditch PBS but spend more on the military.

WHY is it ok to spend money to kill, but not to spend money to feed, educate, and heal?

I truly don`t get it.
0
Reply
Male 3,147
"Piers Morgan is a waddeling twat! "

5cats, we`ve found some common ground :D
0
Reply
Male 8,438
CodeJockey-">Is the Gov`t going to take the crimials guns away? Nope! 1) They already do that here."

You mean they TRY, they`re not very successful at it.

CodeJockey-">Is the Gov`t going to put "crazy people" in the nuthouse againt their will? 2) They do this, too."

Not really. In reality, thanks to the looming requirements of Obamacare, many institutions are shutting down and releasing those with mental issues into the public. There have already been a few incidents around here because of it.
0
Reply
Male 5,624
>Is the Gov`t going to take the crimials guns away? Nope!
>Is the Gov`t going to put "crazy people" in the nuthouse againt their will? Let`s hope not!
>Is the Gov`t going to ban violent games? Again, let`s hope not.

1) They already do that here.
2) They do this, too. The actual problem from my POV is they put more mentally ill in prison than hospitals.
3) They tried: The same people that created "explicit language" stickers tried. As a result, video game composition is now covered under free speech and is self regulated by ESRB.

And it WAS a mentally unbalanced person who`s parent deemed him potentially violent. She was trying to have him committed and he was known to have severe attachment issues as well as other tendencies.
It seems he found out she was trying to have him institutionalized and it appears also he lashed for reasons that included "She loves those other kids more than me."
0
Reply
Male 2,357
[quote]If the immoral person is extremely unlikely to obtain a gun, then you won`t have any need of a gun to defend against him.[/quote]
Unless he gets ahold of a gun.

Either way, let`s say he gets a knife. Is it FAIR to force you to knife fight some lunatic when you could have had a gun instead? Mutually assured destruction actually works.

[quote]Would you not agree that statement works just as well if I change gun to missile, rocket launcher, or nuclear bomb?[/quote]
Yes, I agree.

[quote]If it is theoretically possible for an immoral person to obtain a nuclear bomb[/quote]
It`s not though... Cost is inhibitive; so is material and production.

[quote]how is this fair to me?[/quote]
It isn`t. I think you should have the same capacity to arm yourself as any other citizen.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
Well seems like I`ve missed a bit! I will say this though, I appreciate that the conversation has stayed reasonable and hasn`t become the typical "you`re an idiot" argument I see here all the time.

[quote]All we can do is try to minimise the chances of harm.[/quote]
I get this and I understand where you are coming from. I tend to agree that having firearms accessible correlates positively with an increase in firearm-related crime (obviously...) as well as homicides. Since guns have a high capacity to be lethal, it makes sense that, as market saturation increases, so will misuse; thus, so will homicides.

My point is this: there are ~30k gun deaths each year in the US and ~300m people. Of those 30k, ~10k are suicides. Now, let`s suggest that gun laws can reduce the 20k homicides to 10k.

Is it fair to sacrifice the liberty of 30,000 people to save 1 life?
0
Reply
Male 4,891

Another baited poo post. The only comment here that makes any sense is.......................
THIS!!!!
|
|
|
V
0
Reply
Male 361
It`s never worth looking at the comments when something controversial gets posted. It`s always the same type of "all-knowing" people posting crap that`s unhealthy to read.
0
Reply
Male 8,438
HolyGod-"It states "candidates and incumbents solemnly bind themselves to oppose any and all tax increases." "

Which is perfectly reasonable considering that we are severely overtaxed.

The main point of conservative is that MUCH MORE savings can be had by eliminating fraud & waste. Do that, and you could run the country with the current taxes collected (hell, could even REDUCE taxes).

HolyGod-" The Repubicans fought against a .5$ sales tax increase to fund public schools."

Maybe they didn`t want to waste more money on a corrupt system. (i.e. bid rigging, conflict of interest, misuse of public funds, procurment violations, kickbacks, theft, misuse of public property, etc)


Quite frankly, until Obama does the below, I`m sure very few are going to listen to his gun control ideas:

0
Reply
Male 40,382
Round Up The Usual Suspects!

Blame society is a liberal mantra, eh?
It`s the guns!
It`s the crazy!
It`s violent video games!

All three have spung up after the Newton shooting, as expected.

What is the solution? idk! But I know what will NOT work: more laws.

>Is the Gov`t going to take the crimials guns away? Nope!
>Is the Gov`t going to put "crazy people" in the nuthouse againt their will? Let`s hope not!
>Is the Gov`t going to ban violent games? Again, let`s hope not.

WHO gets to decide what`s crazy or not? WHO gets to decide what`s `violent` or not?
Do you really want a Gov`t with that much power over your life?
0
Reply
Male 14,331
Now how`s A been working out again?


We have air marshals perhaps schools need them. Option B is the only one that will oblige a mass murder their death wish.
0
Reply
Male 9,526
PapaJohns01

" do you prefer we spend another 10 million with 20 million earmarked on the Pakistani version of Sesame Street"

SO you are OK spending billions of dollars to KILL people in the middle east, but not spending a few million to EDUCATE people in the middle east? That is conservatives in a nutshell huh?

$10 million to educate kids in the middle east and Americanize them to a certain degree so they don`t grow up hating us and fearing us.

You`re right seems like a total waste of money. Better to just bomb them.
0
Reply
Male 40,382
[quote] if I change gun to missile, rocket launcher, or nuclear bomb?[/quote]
@HG: Again with the `nuclear bomb` eh?
Since the odds of a criminal in the USA or Canada having one of those weapons is ZERO, I do not require one to defend myself from it.
If attacked by someone with a rocket launcer? A gun will do nicely for self-defence, duh!
Why would I require a rocket launcher to defend myself from another rocket launcher? That arguement is weaksauce...

@papajon: Liberals ALWAYS want someone else to do something, even when they refuse to do it themselves!
Sen Feinstein (D) wants to make all guns illegal, but she herself has a "carry concealed" liscence! Typical, eh?
0
Reply
Male 9,526
papajohns1

"Conservatives are not anti-tax. We`re anti-stupid moronic use of tax dollars."

Wrong. WRONG.

Have you ever heard of Grover Norquist? Well if not he has a pledge. It is signed by virtually all conservatives running for office. It states "candidates and incumbents solemnly bind themselves to oppose any and all tax increases."

It does not say "any and all tax increases except for those for school security guards."

I`m in Arizona. The Repubicans fought against a .5$ sales tax increase to fund public schools. The schools in Arizona are dropping all programs like music and art. I have to buy school supplies for my son. Teachers have 35+ students per room.

Conservatives most certainly are anti-tax.
0
Reply
Male 40,382
[quote]This is just plain stupidity. Prisons don`t deter crime, go sit in the corner.[/quote]
@patchy: Did I SAY `deter`? NO! I said prevented. As it stands in Canada a criminal will serve about 1/3 of his actual sentence because there`s not enough prisons to hold all the criminals!
Keeping them in jail longer has been proven to reduce the rate of re-offending. For one thing: less time on the streets to BE a crimal!

[quote]Some immoral people will get hold of a gun, whatever we do. But we can reduce that number.[/quote]
@Musuko42: We`ve already demonstrated that criminal ownership of guns actually goes UP when they are banned, not down.
Not everyone is built like a linebacker! If someone pulls a knife on me? (or a home invasion) I`d MUCH prefer to have a gun to defend myself, rather than a knife, or Kung-Fu...
0
Reply
Male 579
Wow you libs just don`t get it. Conservatives are not anti-tax. We`re anti-stupid moronic use of tax dollars. One of most noble of actions is to defend the defenseless and if that requires using tax dolalrs to train military vets to be a part of school security and maybe the willing also do programs like DARE or saftey or counsleing the troubled teens, then that`s tax money well spent. Or... do you prefer we spend another 10 million with 20 million earmarked on the Pakistani version of Sesame Street like our tax money is going for now?

Harry Bellafonte just said a few weeks ago something similar to `Obama should just lock up those GOP bastards`. And how about the death threats against NRA leaders et al? And yet you still think we should lay down our arms and take it like good little conservatives should? How about you go turn in your guns and you go feel good about yourself for a while.
0
Reply
Male 9,526
HumanAction

"If it is theoretically possible for an immoral person to obtain a firearm, and I cannot because I am moral, how is this fair to me?"

Would you not agree that statement works just as well if I change gun to missile, rocket launcher, or nuclear bomb?

If it is theoretically possible for an immoral person to obtain a nuclear bomb, and I cannot because I am moral, how is this fair to me?
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@HumanAction

"Not quite. This difference is that a fire has no choice (it is not a living, decision-making creature)."

The fire, in my analogy, is the gun. Guns are not living, decision-making creatures either.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@HumanAction

"If it is theoretically possible for an immoral person to obtain a firearm, and I cannot because I am moral, how is this fair to me?"

If the immoral person is extremely unlikely to obtain a gun, then you won`t have any need of a gun to defend against him.

Some immoral people will get hold of a gun, whatever we do. But we can reduce that number. And in my view, it`s better to reduce that number, through making it harder for them to get the guns, than to prepare to defend against them when they have it.

It speaks to the American mindset that they want a gun for defence, rather than try to make it so they have no threats to defend against.

It`s similar to the other reason given for guns; to defend against tyranny. Isn`t it better to stop the tyranny from developing in the first place, rather than prepare yourself to defend against it once it`s already arrived?
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@HumanAction

"However, can you guarantee that one of those immoral people will never obtain a firearm in your hypothetical world?"

Of course not. There are no certainties in life.

All we can do is try to minimise the chances of harm. And in my view, reducing the chance of the immoral person getting a gun is a better aim than to increase the number of guns to defend against the immoral person once he`s already got a gun, because that second option increases the chances that the immoral person will get the gun in the first place.
0
Reply
Male 9,526
AuburnJunky

"Gun violence is down 14% since the Brady Bill expired. I already cited it. Not gonna search for it again lol."

Do you realize how misleading that is? Saying it that way implies that gun violence went down and that the bill expiring had anything to do with it. Is it intentional? Are you trying to mislead people?

Gun violence has gone down, at the same rate that ALL violence has gone down in this country. SO I could say "knife violence has gone down 14% since the brady bill expired". Get it?

Violence was already trending down and had been for several years when the bill expired.
0
Reply
Male 9,526
Crakr

"Adam Lanza violated over 15 existing gun laws before he even shot one inside Sandy Hook Elementary. Not one or two or even ten more laws would`ve stopped him that day, where an armed guard could have."

OK. I don`t doubt that an armed guard could have helped the situation. Sort of like an air marshal on a plane. I would fully support that.

However those people need to be paid. Can we raise taxes to pay them? Conservatives don`t support raising taxes so we can actually hire enough teachers, pay them appropriately, buy them supplies, or support programs like art and music. Are they going to support raising taxes to hire guards?
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]Building 5 more prisons would have prevented more crime, at a fraction of the cost.
[/quote]
This is just plain stupidity. Prisons don`t deter crime, go sit in the corner.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]Also: Since 1990 the number of guns in the USA has gone from 200 million to 300 million, a 50% increase!
Q: has violent gun crime also gone UP 50%? Or has it in fact dropped? (hint: it has dropped) [/quote]
You don`t even look past the headlines do you? I wonder how many of those added guns were to houses that already had guns? Expecting a point-for-point increase is ridiculous, and the fact that you`re just assuming that all the new guns are given to new gun owners is equally ridiculous.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]You`re agreeing that the places with the `strongest gun laws` are also the places with highest gun crimes, right? [/quote]
Not necessarily, and even if I were I don`t think that`s a causal relationship.

[quote]Has no one ever even HEARD of `Prohibition` and what an abject failure that was? [/quote]
Comparing prohibition of alcohol to gun restrictions is not exactly fair, since there are examples of places instituting gun bans and seeing gun crime drop. Places like Australia have seen gun crime go down after, even the UK has very little gun crime, for 2010/11 they had a rate of 0.1 illegal gun deaths per 100,000 of population. Most of their gun violence is caused by air guns and such as well, with fatalities being rare. Your assertion that "only the criminals will have guns and lots of them" is not really born out in the data, that`s just conjecture.
0
Reply
Male 40,382
Piers Morgan is a waddeling twat!

@patchy: Your links are fine, but the second one says 40% of USA homicide & suicides are NOT with guns! So even in a gun-saturated society, other methods are used.

Canada has similar (but slightly lower) levels of violent crime, despite having fewer guns. More people use knives or other weapons.

Also: Since 1990 the number of guns in the USA has gone from 200 million to 300 million, a 50% increase!
Q: has violent gun crime also gone UP 50%? Or has it in fact dropped? (hint: it has dropped)

Canada spent BILLIONS on that useless "long gun regestry" and got absolutely ZERO from it. Building 5 more prisons would have prevented more crime, at a fraction of the cost.
0
Reply
Male 9,526
AuburnJunky

"Very nice Article HolyGod. It advocates for everything conservatives want.

Only licensed people have weapons. Armed guards at schools. Etc....

Thanks!"

Really conservatives want the kind of gun regulation that they have in Israel? Really? SO do I. You see in israel it is VERY hard to get a license, in most cases you had to have military service. Plus almost all licenses are for a SINGLE hand gun. Most people are not allowed to have rifles or shotguns. Nobody is allowed to have assault weapon style rifles except active security personnel.

You conservatives want those restrictions? Congratulations, you and I just solved the gun debate. Let`s begin implementing these rules now.
0
Reply
Male 40,382
@patchy: You`re agreeing that the places with the `strongest gun laws` are also the places with highest gun crimes, right?

So what would the USA gain by having tough laws nation-wide?
As you point out: New York State has tough laws, but it`s neighbors do not: smuggling guns STILL puts them in the hands of criminals.
SAME goes for the US (and Canada`s) borders! They (we) cannot stop drugs!! HOW would guns be any different?

Thus the end result of tough gun laws is: Criminals have guns, law abiding citizens do NOT.

Has no one ever even HEARD of `Prohibition` and what an abject failure that was? The US gov`t made SUGAR a `controlled substance` FFS...
0
Reply
Male 5,811
@HA: Best not to torture yourself with talking heads on TV. ;-)
0
Reply
Male 5,811
@MeGrendel: There may be less robberies and home invasions when a home has a gun, however the dark side is that you are more likely to have unintentional injury, suicides, or criminal assaults/homicides in the home than homes without guns, and you`re also more at risk of firearm homicide/suicide regardless of storage practice or type/number of guns.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@patch: Gotcha - sorry about that; I am irritated now after watching Piers Morgan act like a child in a debate with Larry Pratt.

I think that`s fair. In general, I believe that the US is more violent than most other "Western" nations. There was just an article on here the other day suggesting the same thing that I meant to read...
0
Reply
Male 8,438
fuzzysheep-"Do criminals in the US get deterred by the possibility of a home-owner wielding a gun?"

Yes. In my area that is a simple axiom. There are many neighborhoods where break-ins do not happen as it has been demonstrated in the past that the owners are willing to use deadly force.

My neighbor shot and killed two intruders in his home. The DA originally wanted to try and charge him (she was a PC liberal). The backlash was such that she reconsidered her stance, he was not charged and she was promptly voted out of office the next election.

You will see signs similar to this in many yards or windows in this area:



But you will NEVER see this sign:



Gee, why aren`t gun grabbers willing to stand by their principles and post this in their
0
Reply
Male 5,811
@HA: When I said "overall violence" I was referencing it in terms of overall violent crime, I wasn`t making a point about guns there.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@patch

[quote]National homicide rates would be a better measure of overall violence[/quote]
I think that even this is tough to say. There are such massive variations in homicide rates among the states that I have a hard time considering national homicide rates as indicative of gun control effectiveness. Even moreso, there are massive variations among different localities.

From my research, I believe that population density (in the US) is more strongly correlated to homicide rates than gun control laws.

[quote]Well, it does mention a knife as an alternative.[/quote]
Ha - good point.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]But when a woman was armed with a gun or knife[/quote]
Well, it does mention a knife as an alternative.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
@HA: National homicide rates would be a better measure of overall violence, and the drastic variation in state laws compound the problem, this is true. At best you could find a correlation, but indeed a correlation doesn`t exactly prove anything. It`s very difficult to pinpoint exact causes when there is so much variation, part of the cost of your system of governance (not that I`m saying it`s a bad system, just...difficult).
0
Reply
Male 2,357
[quote]What you`re saying is this: It`s not the fire`s fault the baby got burned, so why should the fire have to get locked behind a fireguard?[/quote]
Not quite. This difference is that a fire has no choice (it is not a living, decision-making creature).

[quote]I would much rather have a higher chance of being robbed or mugged if it meant I had a lower chance of being shot and killed.[/quote]
Now we are getting to the real problem.

"A 1979 Justice Department study entitled Rape Victimization in American Cities, concluded that of more than 32,000 attempted rapes, 32 percent were actually committed. But when a woman was armed with a gun or knife, only 3 percent of the attempted rapes were actually committed."

So you would willingly trade increased rape for decreased firearms? Why do you hate women so much? (being sarcastic of course)...
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@Musuko

[quote]What we ARE saying is this: with so many immoral people running around, maybe it`s not such a good idea to make it easy for them to get hold of a gun.[/quote]
That`s fine, and that`s a good argument to make. However, can you guarantee that one of those immoral people will never obtain a firearm in your hypothetical world? If not, then the discussion shifts to: is that fair for the rest of us?

If it is theoretically possible for an immoral person to obtain a firearm, and I cannot because I am moral, how is this fair to me? I don`t get the idea of sacrificing the liberty (and fairness) of so many in light of what may or may not happen.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@patch

[quote]But you`re treating New York as a closed system when it is likely that there are guns from places like Vermont getting in.[/quote]
Ah, now I get what you`re saying. If we accept that as a valid criticism though, don`t we then have to dismiss the use of national homicide rates as evidence for gun-control? Since we cannot treat the entire US as a closed system - not to mention the widely varying state and local laws.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
Ultimately, I`m amazed by how passionate some Americans are about their guns. 20 kids shot and killed, and they`re STILL arguing that they`re a good thing.

It really is an alien culture over there.
0
Reply
Male 4,163
B
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@HumanAction

"The argument is that increased gun saturation lowers TOTAL CRIME, not FIREARM CRIME."

If having guns reduces other crimes, but increases firearms crimes, doesn`t that mean you`re trading lives for peace?

I would much rather have a higher chance of being robbed or mugged if it meant I had a lower chance of being shot and killed. I can recover my property and pride. I can`t really recover from a case of the deads.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]It has been suggested time and time again that firearm saturation alone is a causative agent. My simple proof disproves that.[/quote]
But you`re treating New York as a closed system when it is likely that there are guns from places like Vermont getting in. Hence the problem when there is no federal regulation, not everyone plays by the same rules and without border checks at state lines you cannot ensure that guns do not enter from the outside.
0
Reply
Male 187
I think this boils down to the deterrent argument. Do criminals in the US get deterred by the possibility of a home-owner wielding a gun? If they are, do they arm themselves and therefore increase the likelihood of a lethal confrontation? I agree these are tough questions without easy answers but I believe, based on comparisons between countries, that the price America pays for this possible deterrent is obscenely high.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@HumanAction

"But then again, let`s just ban guns, right? Because that is the easy way out. Let`s blame an object for the immorality of society and call it a day."

We`re not blaming the guns. We`re blaming the immoral people running around.

What we ARE saying is this: with so many immoral people running around, maybe it`s not such a good idea to make it easy for them to get hold of a gun.

What you`re saying is this: It`s not the fire`s fault the baby got burned, so why should the fire have to get locked behind a fireguard?
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@patch

[quote]Because you`re assuming that gun regulations are the only variable that is different between the two.[/quote]
Purposefully. It has been suggested time and time again that firearm saturation alone is a causative agent. My simple proof disproves that. I was very careful within my wording to suggest that I am only disproving that firearm saturation causes crime.

The answer is that it does not cause crime.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@fuzzysheep

I tend to think so. I have seen research pointing to both possibilities. My gripe with most research on the matter is that it tends not to be granular enough.

For instance, I`ve noticed many Europeans trumpeting their homicide rates. This is lovely and all, but it does not take into account the fact that guns are legal in some parts of the US and illegal in others. Firearm homicides are disproportionally high in cities, which also tend to have disproportionately strict gun control laws.

National and state statistics tend not to represent this division.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@CrakrJak

"I`m sure you could come up with half a dozen ways to get a firearm."

How? There are no legal gun owners around I could steal from, and I don`t have any criminal connections, nor the slightest idea how I would go about finding them.

Were I an angry, disturbed teen, I couldn`t possibly get hold of a gun. Were I an angry, disturbed teen with a parent with a gun in a drawer somewhere in the house...
0
Reply
Male 5,811
@HA: Because you`re assuming that gun regulations are the only variable that is different between the two. You aren`t taking into account population density or demographic, levels of poverty, or the fact that New York is between two states with lax gun laws (especially Vermont which has no permit requirements) that could be providing guns to people in New York, and the many, many other variables that come into play. Like I said, I don`t necessarily disagree with your point about people, but that comparison is overly simplistic.
0
Reply
Male 187
So you`re saying that the populace being armed reduces America`s crime rate?
0
Reply
Male 2,357
[quote]Avoiding the obvious truth that guns being more available leads to more gun crime is unbelievably stupid.[/quote]
Does anyone argue against this? I am pro-gun and agree that increased firearm saturation positively correlates to an increase in firearm misuse - that`s pretty obvious, right?

I mean, let`s consider if Japan outlaws baseball bats or, at very least, makes it really hard to get one. Would you suppose that, after some time, they would have drastically lower rates of baseball bat misuse? Of course.

The argument is that increased gun saturation lowers TOTAL CRIME, not FIREARM CRIME.
0
Reply
Male 187
This guy killed his mum to get a gun, so surely if she hadn`t had one then he wouldn`t have got one or he would have had to find someone else to steal one off. If, like in the UK, it was really hard to get hold of a gun then finding someone who had one would have been much harder. Maybe the extra time it would have taken to find it would have given someone time to notice something was up with him.

A lot of people are saying it`s easy to find a gun in the UK. It might be possible but it`s no where near as easy. In the UK I would have to try and buy one on the black market - a risky business - or find someone with a very rare gun license. In the US I`d have to, if I was even denied one in a shop, find the nearest person who owns one (so basically the next person I walk past on the street) and steal from them. Which sounds easier?

Avoiding the obvious truth that guns being more available leads to more gun crime is unbelievably stupid.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@patch: How so?
0
Reply
Male 5,811
@HA: While I don`t necessarily disagree with your point, your comparison of New York and Iowa is so far from comprehensive that it can barely be considered a compelling argument.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
But then again, let`s just ban guns, right? Because that is the easy way out. Let`s blame an object for the immorality of society and call it a day.

At least that way we don`t have to face ourselves, am I right?
0
Reply
Male 2,357
Does anyone else think that stricter firearm regulations is akin to treating the symptoms rather than targeting the cause?

It can be easily disproved that firearm availability CAUSES (Hint: Keyword there...) homicides or violence. Let`s prove it quickly with a simple constradiction proof.

Suppose lax gun laws cause an increase in homicide. Relative to New York, Iowa has very lax guns regaulations. Therefore, given our initial assumption, New York MUST have lower homicide rates. However, Iowa has a rate of 1.5 and New York has a rate of 4.0 (per 100k). Thus we have a contradition and must conclude that the initial assumption is false.

We have a social and moral problem in the US. Media perpetuates an anti-hero larger-than-life status for these mass-murderers. We are sloping back into the recession. Politics has divided the country moreso than I have ever seen before.
0
Reply
Male 3,147
"They banned handguns, and handgun crime went up 90%"

yes, because some people didn`t hand their handguns in and were then included as crime figures when caught because keeping handguns was then a crime.

Your figures don`t exclude those who kept guns they`d previously owned legally and did nothing else with them other than hand them in on time.
0
Reply
Male 15,187
Sign C: all firearms are prohibited nationwide under penalty of life imprisonment.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]Gun violence is down 14% since the Brady Bill expired. I already cited it. Not gonna search for it again lol. [/quote]
And from that citation:
"Assigning causes to increases or decreases in the national crime rate is a notorious fool’s errand because of the amount of variables at play, but what the numbers don’t suggest is any clear correlation between gun crime, gun ownership and gun-control laws."

"It bears noting that the FBI’s data, based on reports from local law enforcement, is far from comprehensive. There are no numbers for Florida on firearm murders, and the data for Illinois is incomplete."

"...rankings `are merely a quick choice made by the data user; they provide no insight into the many variables that mold the crime in a particular town, city, county, state, region or other jurisdiction.`"

So your own link says there isn`t even a correlation. Gr
0
Reply
Male 10,338
"It`s equally stupid to think that gun violence will decrease with the increase of guns and armed idiots."

Gun violence is down 14% since the Brady Bill expired. I already cited it. Not gonna search for it again lol.
0
Reply
Male 2,675
"Well....since sign "A" is the one used now and it didn`t prevent sh**, move to sign "B". "

Yeah, if gasoline didn`t put out the fire, let`s try kerosene.
0
Reply
Male 2,675
"HG: If Sandy Hook had had an armed security officer, it`s not likely that Adam Lanza would`ve even gone there. "
Bull. S***. Locked security doors were shot out to gain entry ... ya think that $7/hr 60 year old overweight security guard that public schools could afford would have saved the day or been shot in the ear before he even knew the shooter was there? Or are you predicting that these armed school personnel are like a Navy Seal movie?

"This is the stupidest debate...outlawing guns will stop gun crimes? No. "
It`s equally stupid to think that gun violence will decrease with the increase of guns and armed idiots.
0
Reply
Male 185
Well....since sign "A" is the one used now and it didn`t prevent sh**, move to sign "B".
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Musuko: Lanza tried to buy a rifle and was rejected. That gun law worked. His mother had guns, but he had to kill her to get them.

So he had to commit murder to get to the guns, whether that victim was his mother or a neighbor wouldn`t have made a difference.

How about instead of banning guns, from lawful owners, that we improve our mental healthcare here?

[quote]I wouldn`t have the first clue where I`d get my hands on a gun.[/quote]

Sure you do, if you really thought about it, I`m sure you could come up with half a dozen ways to get a firearm. Again, Adam had to commit murder to get to them. If the thought of murdering his own mother didn`t stop him nothing would`ve.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
MeGrendel won the thread.
0
Reply
Male 8,438
Musuko42-" I wouldn`t have the first clue where I`d get my hands on a gun."

On the other hand, there are many in Europe that DO know where to.

Musuko42-"Adam, however...could just walk into a shop and buy one."

Incorrect. He tried, and was denied.

Musuko42-"Where did the can-do spirit go?"

Can you eliminate Cakes in any country by outlawing bakeries?

No, people can still make them from the raw materials.

Same with guns. There is not one part of the gun that I can not manufacture in my small workshop.
0
Reply
Male 8,438
carmium-"I don`t think the people who went to teaching college were expecting to act as armed police"

markust123-"Only a f*cking idiot would want to arm a teacher."

Why? You`d be hard pressed to find any school that does not have at least a few former military in the staff.

We`re not saying arm ALL teachers. Just those that want the responsibility and pass the proper training.

CrakrJak-" If Sandy Hook had had an armed security officer, it`s not likely that Adam Lanza would`ve even gone there."

That is probably correct. Why did James Holmes choose to shoot up the Cinemark Century Theater in Aurora rather than several that he actually lived closer to? Could it be that Century is the only one with a no-weapons policy?
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@auburnjunky

"We have 40 times more people. ;)"

The winky face tells me you`re joking. If you`re not joking, you should no-longer contribute to this debate, because understanding what a murder rate is should be a prerequisite to talking about the subject.

Incidentally, you have 5 times the number of people, not 40. We`re pretty densely-populated compared to you guys.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
"you were countered with the US killing rate being 40 times that of the UK rate. What is your response to that?"

We have 40 times more people. ;)
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@auburnjunky

Face it, your country has a gun problem. Mine does not. You are more likely to be killed than I am. My country has a lower murder rate. You`ll be hard-pushed to dispute that.

So you can wail all you want about our policies being wrong, but it`s meaningless...because it`s clearly working okay for us.

The same policies may well not work for you, and quite probably wouldn`t. But you don`t get to say our policies are bad because of that. Nor do you get to say our policies WON`T work for you. Because you haven`t tried it.

Actually, I should be madder than this: how DARE you try to criticise my country`s approach on guns? My country, which hasn`t seen a school shooting since 1996.

And yours...which sadly has.

Have some humility and admit that you are doing things badly, and perhaps ask for our advice rather than criticising. Because you`re the fat guy, and we`re the skinny guy, and we can give you diet tips.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@auburnjunky

Godwin alert!

The Nazis also probably ate chicken sandwiches. Chicken sandwiches are not evil because of this.

"Also, I did address those numbers I stated. Gave a link and everything."

And your source was challenged, and you didn`t respond.

In turn, you were countered with the US killing rate being 40 times that of the UK rate. What is your response to that?

You know, it strikes me that guns aren`t the problem...it`s Americans. Other countries and cultures are able to responsibly use guns without slaughtering eachother. Except you.

Guns don`t kill people, Americans do. So it`s really not a good idea to give a gun to an American. They don`t play nice with their toys.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
So sweeping from door to door raiding and searching houses?

Didn`t the Nazis do that when they instituted THEIR gun ban?

No thanks.

Also, I did address those numbers I stated. Gave a link and everything.

I will not play the "Your facts don`t count because they are not what I want to hear" game.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@auburnjunky

"Britain is a small island nation. They banned handguns, and handgun crime went up 90%!"

That`s twice you`ve stated that figure, and twice you`ve failed to properly explain that figure.

And how do you marry that supposed statistic with the recorded fact that our murder rate is MINISCULE compared to yours?

"Also, if we told every criminal to turn in their handguns, I estimate we would get exactly, .001% of them. Just a guess."

You don`t just ask nicely, jeez! You threaten with arrest and imprisonment if you don`t obey the law. You make it known that cops will shoot on sight anyone seen carrying a gun after the hand-in period.

You don`t just make a law. You ENFORCE it.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
""I don`t believe it would be possible to take ALL Guns away."

Your country put men on the moon. Where did the can-do spirit go?

It is possible, and I`m sure you guys can do it if you put your minds to it."

Britain is a small island nation. They banned handguns, and handgun crime went up 90%! If a small island nation cannot protect it`s borders from guns, how can a country with the largest unprotected borders in the world do it?

Also, if we told every criminal to turn in their handguns, I estimate we would get exactly, .001% of them. Just a guess.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
"Read. READ. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD PLEASE READ"

Very nice Article HolyGod. It advocates for everything conservatives want.

Only licensed people have weapons. Armed guards at schools. Etc....

Thanks!
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@Bakcagain21

"you obviously don`t live in a big city in the UK. Where I used to play pool was a front for drug dealers"

You didn`t just live in a city. You lived in a city AND spent a lot of time in a dodgy hangout.

Most people don`t meet both of those requirements.

@gymcoach29

"I don`t believe it would be possible to take ALL Guns away."

Your country put men on the moon. Where did the can-do spirit go?

It is possible, and I`m sure you guys can do it if you put your minds to it.
0
Reply
Male 363
The only way to stop gun violence is to get rid of ALL GUNS from ALL people. If you only make them illegal, you make law abiding citizens victims. There is no winning this debate because I don`t believe it would be possible to take ALL Guns away.
0
Reply
Male 642
depends which kind of audience you want to reach:

1) the guy who wants to get away with murdering kids
2) the guy who wants to murder kids and doesn`t plan to survive it
0
Reply
Male 560
@Musuko42 you obviously don`t live in a big city in the UK. Where I used to play pool was a front for drug dealers (and coincidently the cheapest pool around) Could buy a gun there if I wanted. Can also mention several other places could acquire one. That being said it`s not hard to get a Shotgun license in this country, go shooting club a few times, buy a wall mounted safe apply and you`ve got one. Then off to the gun shop get a shotgun.
0
Reply
Male 560
Most people forget, a lot of people don`t have it in them to take a life. Military have to break that response down, to train soldiers. And still most new recruits instinctively shoot above targets first few times in battle. That being said it`s of my opinion there are too many guns in the US to remove them unfortunately...
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@CrakrJak

To add to your info:

School shootings deaths in the UK in the last ten years, with unarmed teachers and general populus:

Zero.

That beats armed teachers and armed populus (Israel), and unarmed teachers and armed populus (USA).

So...why aren`t you calling for the clearly superior solution of unarmed teachers and unarmed populus? Because it quite clearly leads to fewer dead children!
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@CrakrJak

"If Sandy Hook had had an armed security officer, it`s not likely that Adam Lanza would`ve even gone there."

I doubt someone who was mentally disturbed enough to murder children would make a rational decision like that.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@CrakrJak

Gun laws may not have stopped Adam. But having no guns around for him to get his hands on, legally or otherwise, would have stopped him.

Right now, here where I am, if I had myself a mental break and wanted to go and kill, I wouldn`t have the first clue where I`d get my hands on a gun. From some criminal gangs, perhaps? Where do I find those people? How on earth would a regular person, like me, like Adam, know where to look?

Adam, however...could just walk into a shop and buy one.
0
Reply
Male 55
Gun control debate reminds me a lot about nuclear disarmament and `mutually assured destruction`.

"They`ve got nukes, so we need nukes to defend ourselves" - it`s a fine argument, but not nearly as good as...

"No one`s got nukes"

Trouble is, now that guns are everywhere, how do you get rid of them. It`s not the ban, it`s the amnesty that would have to follow that`s the problem. I can`t see the Crips handing in their weaponry...
0
Reply
Male 219
This is the stupidest debate...outlawing guns will stop gun crimes? No. If we outlaw guns it only keeps guns out of the hands of honest people, not the wacks that do 80% of gun-related crimes...check any city`s crime statistics and you`ll find that 60 to 80% of gun-related crimes happen with illegal firearms...would outlawing guns stop these? No.
0
Reply
Male 3,147
Crackr, again with the carefully selected comparisons.

Do a picture including the UK number of school shootings in the last ten years alongside those of Israel and the US. You know...where we don`t let teachers carry guns, and we don`t let anyone else either.

You could go back 17 years or so in the UK to find a school shooting to show they still happened, but that was Dunblane in 1996, after which private pistol ownership was banned and we`ve had no more since.

Personally I`m not in favour of total bans...just better controls - but you even refuse to include all the relevant information in your arguments.. you just cherry-pick the odd snipets that back up totally your stance. If you were really that confident in the logic of your thinking and the independent stats that back it up... you`d always post them all, instead of carefully selected ones.
0
Reply
Male 3,147
Neither of them....the first one will be ignored by the nutters and the 2nd will just bait them into choosing those particular premises.
0
Reply
Male 13,630
Banning all guns wont work either,
Not many psychos have a gun license but still have em
0
Reply
Male 13,630
Its the 21st century, every little kid has access to the internet which tells you all, good, bad, and fecking disgusting, get a kid who is affected by some sort of perversion, you aint gonna stop him/her from accumulating knowledge, ban guns ok, guns are banned pretty much in the UK but you can still get em, B is not the answer, had teachers over here try and kill pupils with barbells, over taunts etc.. teachers are not military trained folk, they don`t know combat rules.Have a stressful day and some angry parent comes a banging on the window, day um, one dead parent. God Ive had my time running my old teachers ragged damn glad they didn`t have a gun then, I would be history
0
Reply
Male 13,630
Oxymoron
burn and forget the notice
0
Reply
Male 17,512
HG: Also, If gun-free zones are so safe, then why isn`t the White House a gun-free zone?

Yes, I`m being rhetorical. The answer is obvious because the president needs security. Well so do our children and gun-free zones DO NOT make them safer.

Adam Lanza violated over 15 existing gun laws before he even shot one inside Sandy Hook Elementary. Not one or two or even ten more laws would`ve stopped him that day, where an armed guard could have.
0
Reply
Male 96
People doing mass murder don`t care much much dying themselves. Nuff said.
0
Reply
Male 186
Its a never ending debate, and this tragedy will not conclude it. Both sides have points, some more valid than others. We each will form our own opinion, but in the end our constutition will be upheld. This land became its own country because citizens took up arms in defense of itself, and we will always have that right. Be it against government or a violent threat against ourselves or family, we will always have the right to own a firearm for defense.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
HG: If Sandy Hook had had an armed security officer, it`s not likely that Adam Lanza would`ve even gone there.

Gun-free zones are killing zones and the statistics prove that. In Wash. DC and Chicago, the crime and murder rates soared when CCW was banned and gun-free zones implemented.
0
Reply
Male 406
You know I agree with Llews... But if you compare then number of arsonist fires in schools and schools shooting they are very similar .

So the question is do you want keeps to play with matches or guns?
0
Reply
Male 5
in the UK, a country in which it is illegal for any citizen to own a cartridge handgun of any caliber, there have been 0 school shooting deaths in the past 15 years
0
Reply
Male 1,197
wow, what a drated up country
0
Reply
Male 646
One of the main reason that the pro-gun side wants more guns is b/c they don`t trust the govt. (all that the govt must fear the people crap) Who do you think these armed staff would be? Govt workers....

Also, if you don`t trust the govt with guns, why would you be more willing to trust an uneducated dippoo with one...he doesn`t even need a license
0
Reply
Male 4,860
If you want to know where the idiots saying we need to arm our teachers are getting this insainly stupid idea, it is from Larry Pratt. Yes from a gun lobbyist. There`s being sheep and then there is just being stupid.
0
Reply
Male 9,526
CrakrJak

Conservative Logic 101

Look, a country with the kind of gun regulation liberals want has no shootings. I`ll attribute it to this photo I found of an extremely rare instance of a teacher, or more likely security personnel, having a gun and not the extremely strict country wide gun regulation.

In reality very few teachers carry guns and only in the most dangerous areas. The REASON Israel has no school shootings is because they have some of the strictest gun regulation of any country on the planet.

Read. READ. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD PLEASE READ:
http://tinyurl.com/cgn3qg3
0
Reply
Male 5,624
Cats, that doesn`t say "They didn`t attack the school again."
That says "They didn`t attack the school until they thought of doing so again and had better weapons."

If you prefer the sign on the left: You are shortsighted. It doesn`t address the problem in context.

If you prefer the sign on the right: You are a f*cking moron who is even more shortsighted and here is why.

Every weapon used in the incident in context was lawfully purchased and registered to THE FIRST PERSON WHO WAS SHOT.

Neither of you addresses the what is actually dangerous: CHILDREN.
You`re thinking that was a joke. It was not.

More specifically children:
-that bully people
-that are bullied
-with life issues
-with mental defects

If you REALLY want to make an improvement, commit to REGISTERING PARENTS and affordable mental care.
0
Reply
Male 4,860
Only a f*cking idiot would want to arm a teacher. This has nothing to do with left or right.
0
Reply
Male 9,526
CrakrJak

So you want to point at Israel as an example of the way to behave so that children are safe in school? OK. Let`s do that.

Allow me to educate you since you`d rather post asinine pictures than read for yourself:

It is forbidden in Israel to own any kind of firearm, including air pistols and rifles, without a firearms license.

With a license you may own one hand gun. Very few people are issued a license for one rifle or shotgun.
0
Reply
Male 9,526
To obtain a gun license, an applicant must be a resident of Israel for at least three consecutive years, have no criminal record, be in good health, have no history of mental illness, pass a weapons-training course, and be over a certain age (20 for women who completed military service or civil service equivalent, 21 for men who completed military service or civil service equivalent, 27 for those who did not complete military service.

Gun licenses must be renewed every three years and permits are given only for personal use, not for business in the firearms sale while holders for self-defense purposes may own only one handgun, and may purchase a maximum of fifty rounds a year, except for those shot at firing ranges.

In 2005, there were 236,879 private citizens licensed to carry firearms.

You good with that? Sign me up.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
0
Reply
Male 17,512
B
0
Reply
Male 2,675
I know teachers that tied their kids to their chairs, hung them out windows, threw things at them ... and you want to arm them? Sign A might not solve all problems but I think Sign B will allow slightly more problems.
0
Reply
Male 3,908
B
0
Reply
Female 62
I don`t think either of these signs will work . What is needed is a complete and radical overhaul of the medical care and mental health system...at what ever the cost it will be money well spent.Until society accepts that we have a duty of care and a responsibility to everyone to ensure that those with disabilities ,medical and mental health issues are given freely all the support and intervention they need ,then families will be forced to try to fill in the huge gaps and cope with the enormous burden pretty much on their own with tragic consequences .
0
Reply
Female 6,381
I don`t think the people who went to teaching college were expecting to act as armed police as part of their duties.
Still, I kinda wish that principal who rushed the psycho bare-handed had been a gun buff.
0
Reply
Male 181
If signs are outlawed, only outlaws will have signs.
0
Reply
Male 40,382
@broizfam: If they are teachers, left alone with dozens of children every day, chances are pretyy good they`re NOT psychotic killers!
...although the occasional "bad egg" slips through. But that`s highly UN-likely!

Parents trust teachers to keep kids safe every single school-day. Having a gun in the (locked) Principal`s office would harm absolutely no-one!

What Israel Did in 1974
After Palestinian Gunmen entered a school, took hostages and then killed them when Commandos tried to rescue them.
They ARMED teachers & other school staff. It was voluntary, no one forced them to carry a gun against their will, but the terrorists didn`t attack a school again for 25 years...
0
Reply
Male 6,070
Depends on the psychological makeup of the staff!
0
Reply
Male 15,832
[quote]Ordinary criminals might be discouraged by that sign, but a mass murderer doesn`t give a damn. Most of the time those guys kill themselves anyway.[/quote]
So, what you`re saying there is that since they`re crazy, we should just let them kill as many children as the want until they get tired or run low on ammo and decide to kill themselves. Does that pretty much sum it up?
0
Reply
Female 3,562
Maybe we should just replace all the teachers with military policeman. Or better yet, prison wardens.
You know what would stop this kind of insane violence once and for all? If we had any kind of functional mental health care system for people who need more help than a weak easy-fix drug can give.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
[quote]This is too stupid to take seriously..[/quote]
I think what you meant to say was, "I`m too stupid to consider the issue seriously."
0
Reply
Male 92
I like the one I saw somewhere today, it said put 3 or 4 armed veterans in each school. They are trained to handle firearms.
0
Reply
Male 40,382
@HolyGod: If you can`t hit a 20 year-old (over 5` tall) amoung some 6 year olds (under 5` small) y`all need to get new bi-focals...

Anyhow, the children were laying on the ground, that`s the Emergency Proceedure, right? Seriously, that`s what it is.

MANY shootings were stopped by citizens with weapons, but unless lots of folks die? The MSM will not bother to report it...
0
Reply
Male 1,471
This is too stupid to take seriously..
0
Reply
Male 1,292
thank you God... er HolyGod.
0
Reply
Male 27
Everyone should have an assault rifle in one hand and a .45 Magnum in the other, and we should spend all day walking around pointing guns at each other like a bunch of Yosemite Sams in a Mexican standoff.
0
Reply
Male 3,445
Ordinary criminals might be discouraged by that sign, but a mass murderer doesn`t give a damn. Most of the time those guys kill themselves anyway.
0
Reply
Male 39,614

Neither would stop a suicide killer.
Many if not most of these shooting end with the killing offing himself.
0
Reply
Male 9,526
YES EXACTLY!

There were 9 bystanders shot by cops during the police shooting in NY back in August. Plus statistics show only 34% of police shots hit the mark.

However I`m sure the result will be WAY better when a bunch of armed, frantic, confused, scared, 20-something, female teachers rush into a hallway simultaneously with screaming 6 year olds zig zagging everywhere.

Brilliant gun people. JUST BRILLIANT!
0
Reply
Male 171
Why would more guns help anything? when has this argument ever worked for any other subject. more guns will stop the problem of guns? sure lets just start putting out fires with gasoline also while we are at it lets fight the meth epidemic by making sure everyone has and is trained in the use of meth. that right there is some solid Logic.
0
Reply
Male 892
These are extremely binary solutions to an extremely complex situation.
0
Reply
Male 40,382
Left hand sign = Helpless victems here!
Right hand sign = Attempted mass murderers go someplace else!

Calling a place "gun free" is like yelling "open season"...
0
Reply
Male 519
As far as signs go, only sign B. Sign A already exists.
0
Reply
Male 2,619
Are weapons allowed in the first instance?
0
Reply
Male 833
there is no good argument for the first one.
you think some lunatic is gonna see that sign and think "damn i guess ill have to find some place else to shoot up"?

no, they see that and think "sweet no ones armed in there, so i can run amok and be famous!"
0
Reply
Male 161
Link: Which Sign Will Prevent Another Tragedy? [Pic] [Rate Link] - There`s probably a good argument for both sides. Which one is best though.
0
Reply