When exactly did you do that? Because all I saw was a ridiculous claim that if there were no guns, criminals would make them in machine shops and the problem of gun violence would be as bad as it is now. Plus the whining about the word “fantasy”. What would you call Crafter_Man’s “guarantee” that he would have saved the poor children? A rational claim? If you guys don’t like the word “fantasy”, then stop arguing the issue with fantasies. Engage in a “reasonable discussion”.
No, it doesn’t, catsix, and you’re smarter than this. It’s at best suggestive, particularly when there’s strong reason to believe that a confounding variable is responsible for the effect, as there is in this case. If all violent crime went down - which it did - gun violence would be expected to decrease as well.
Perhaps you should explain that to Crafter_Man.
Hey, gun advocates. You guys keep saying the people are the problem to be fixed. Well, ain’t no denying that there’s broken people. But how, precisely, do you intend to fix them? Come up with some specific suggestions, please.
And more of the traditional pro-gun fantasy. No attention to the fact that it’s a lot more difficult to kill without a gun, and a lot easier to stop someone without a gun.
You did. I quoted it in a later post. You used precisely that word - you “guaranteed” that those girls would be alive had you been there.
Ol’ thinker ain’t workin’ to well, huh?
Are you arguing that a knife is precisely as deadly a weapon as a gun? That someone can just as easily commit mass murder with a knife?
If not, this argument’s a non-starter. If so, then we’re back in fantasy land.
Sheesh. I’m not ordinarily so strident about this issue; I should go back to my old policy of just not reading these threads. But the ridiculous, bizarre rhetoric that dominates these discussions is a real disappointment; this place usually has higher standards than that.
Yes, I would. I would go to HR, and if HR was not willing to change the workplace rules to forbid concealed carry in the workplace, I would find another job. Fortunately, concealed carry is illegal in NYC, so I’m pretty confident that if someone was packing and not deranged, they’d be looking for a job (once they finished their trial).
No its not, you just need a license (if you own your own business or deal with a lot of cash, it is not terribly difficult to get). I used to have a license, many storeowners have a license. However, you make a good point. Guns are illegal in NYC, there is lower per capita gun crime in NYC than there is in places like Los Angeles.
Most likely, it’s even odds that said teacher would already have a suitable gun, but the training would have to be dealt with. It’s not much more expensive than any standard training certification. Might be cheaper. There’s systems in place to handle it. As for a biometric gun safe, a box with a lock to put guns in, that is biometric in nature… can’t check, at work. Froogle says $479 for one version.
Nope, but having one person in every neighborhood happens to work. I took down a racoon once, and I grew up shooting rats down by the pond. Couldn’t poison them, as they were eating the duck food (and the ducks), and it’d kill the ducks. So I shot 'em till they were all dead. Havn’t seen a rat there for twenty years, now. (Yeah, we tried Havahart and other traps. Didn’t get 'em all)
Doesn’t matter, it’s literally impossible, with human abilities, to get rid of all the guns in the US. And we aren’t going to do it. Can we talk reality here?
Hm. Bout one threat every quarter, two real bombs, zero deaths. (One bomb was actually a chem teacher’s fireworks demo. REALLY cool chem teacher)
Cause you can’t eliminate the shootings. You can’t get rid of the one or two nutbars who seem perfectly normal for twenty years and then flip out. All you can do is try to protect people when they do flip out.
Could have made the revolver in the UK. It just requires enough tools to machine auto parts. And much less precision. And if I was a raving loony and british, the obssessive sort, I might well build exactly the gun I wanted, and go out shooting with a Webley duplicate elephant gun. That said, there seem to be shootings and gang incidents in Manchester. So there are guns there…
I think, by and large, this is a problem society can solve to 99% accuracy. And has.
It’s that .001 percent that gives you what you had yesterday. And the only way to deal with it is to have someone on the scene.
I hope I’ll know what to do if it ever happens to me. It might. Violence isn’t the only option, but a willingness to apply violence is one tool, and sometimes the right one.
I never claimed that it would be as bad as it is now. You can substantiate that claim, right?
I am engaging in a reasonable discussion. I already took Crafter_Man to task for his comments. I have not engaged in any “fantasies” in this thread, just reasonable suppositions and valid objections. You, on the other hand, have done little more than throw insults my way even after I asked you to stop.
glee, if you won’t even acknowledge the possibility that something like Dunblane could happen again in the UK we really don’t have anything else to discuss. I’m not interested in talking past each other anymore.
I’m not a “gun advocate”. At best, I’m gun-neutral. I did have a semi-serious suggestion to have some sort of mental agaitation detectors or something. I’m obviously not any sort of expert at that sort of thing, but the point is that we have to fix the weirdo problem, because if it’s not guns, it would be weirdos with knives, rocks, syringes full of AIDS, or whatever. I do actually believe that we’re too loosey-goosey with guns, but the weirdos are the bigger problem here.
Are you arguing that it only should concern society to stop mass murder while finding single murder acceptable? Is it not ultimately the impulse to murder which is the problem, while the tools employed are secondary? Remove what tools you will, as long as the impulse remains, the problem still exists.
While mankind is not a crop of vegetables, you may still find that if you dig a little and get at the root of some problems, you may not end up having to pull out so many weeds in the long run.
My google-fu was apparently weak (no surprise there, it usually is), plus I was searching from the office - not the best place to look up gun information. I’d like to find out how likely it is my coworkers are armed, or even allowed to arm themselves. Your statements are contradictory (“it’s not [illegal to concealed carry], you just need a license” and “guns are illegal in NYC”).
So your recommendation is that we reduce this to an insoluble problem, and then forget about it, right? Because we have no way of even identifying those people, let alone fixing them. All this focus on the perpetrators is deceptive - not everyone is good. Not everyone is sane. We can’t always fix the ones who aren’t, so waiting for that to happen just means deciding we’re helpless. Is that really a way to solve problems?
I don’t know why people in this thread keep saying, over and over, that we have to fix the people who commit these crimes as though it were a problem society could solve and is choosing not to. Consider the matter realistically. It’s not going to help anything to decide to consider only the part of this equation that we can’t make any difference about.
Ahh! So guns and knives aren’t identical, are they?
I’m not in favor of any sort of murder. And you know that. Would it be fair to characterize your post as saying that killing five kids is no worse than killing one? As long as someone decides they want to go out and kill, they might as well knock of a bunch of people and have a really good time? Of course not. You don’t think that. So don’t make an argument whose conclusion is that the two are interchangeable.
So please, present your proposal to prevent people from having the impulse to kill. I’m all ears. Otherwise, it’s only a philosophical problem, because as it is, you’ve declared that we are to examine only the portion of the issue that we have no control over.
My conclusion was that One murder, any murder, is too many. And if you had bothered to read the second half of my post (#127) you would have seen the questions that I asked trying to get to the root of it.
But no, this just has to devolve into just another pointless, re-hashed, recycled, and totally boring gun-control thread. And I’m not going to waste my time in one of those.
Perhaps you should’ve read my entire post. Like this part:
And that’s fine. I also have not advocated arming every teacher. I think those like myself should have the choice. You want me to pass a test to carry in a public school? OK, will do. But I should have the choice.
Why?
I mean if I really meant to go on a major shooting spree, I wouldn’t be packing a legal concealed pistol.
We have millions of students in the US, and hundreds of thousands (?) of schools. A shooting here and there is a statistical outlier - when you’ve got a whole lot of something, and a perception bias based on reporting (everyone hears about every school shooting on the news 24/7 for weeks), you lose perspective on the fact that it’s really a statistical oddity, not a serious threat to your average student. And you shouldn’t make policy based on statistical outliers.
It’s like shark attacks. They’re heavily reported, but exceedingly rare - but many people won’t go in the ocean because of the imaginary shark menace.
I very much agree with this sentiment. I would never advocate forcing anyone to be armed (outside of a military setting).
However, there are stupid, nonsensical feel-good laws that keep people who have gone through the effort or getting a permit, and taken the responsibility from being armed in school. If a person can be trusted to be armed out of the classroom, then they would be an asset to have armed in school.
A law like “no guns within 200 yards of a school” is just nonsensical. Sure, it feels good if you don’t think about it. But what is it going to do? A guy is going to go shoot up a school, to commit brutal, insane murder, but then he remembers “Shit, it’s illegal to take this gun near the school, I better go home”? No, the laws prevent responsible, law abiding teachers and school staff from being armed, while doing nothing to stop people of ill intent.
It’s not that simple. We’d like it to be that simple - and that’s why school shooting discussions always focus on the guns. The guns are a discrete, easily identified issue (although not easily solved). It’s easy to place the blame there, and talk about them. It’s much more complex to try to figure out what’s at the root of the problem.
It might seem so intuitively, but it’s certainly not ridiculous. More guns in the hands of the “good guys” can offset the monopoly on power that the bad guys have in a society where law-abiding citizens are disarmed. See SDMB concealed carry permit threads for more on this argument. States with liberal conceal carry policies have experienced a drop in violent crime faster than states without. There’s debate in there, but to categorize one side as “ridiculous” is inaccurate.
Yeah, this is a standard counter-argument by gun control advocates that assumes too much and appeals to emotion. “If you have a gun, someone is just gonna take it away from you!” or “If you’re a woman with a gun, a big strong man can easily disarm you…”
No one knows when you’re carrying, and disarming someone isn’t all that easy if you do.
There have been instances where lawful gun owners have stopped in-progress school shootings - the referenced Pearl incident earlier in the thread. In that case, he had to go out to his truck to get his gun to stop the shooter, because he wasn’t allowed to have it in school. You won’t hear about these things, though, because the media has a general policy of not reporting incidents in which law abiding citizens with guns did good.
Another point to bring up is that they planted bombs in the school, but that they didn’t function very well. They had the potential to cause more deaths than the guns did. Without having the guns, they might’ve spent more time getting the bomb right.
Isn’t that precisely what he did? If there are more guns, and less violence, then you can’t conclude that more guns always leads to more violence.
See just about any SDMB gun thread as to why your assessment is simplistic and mostly inaccurate. For an equally simplistic counter-argument, look at Switzerland. Guns everywhere, little crime. I guess the evidence is with me. Well, no, actually, it’s a little more complicated than that.
Why? Are you convinced that the people at your workplace hold ill intent and are willing to kill you, or something? If so - then I’d find another job, regardless of carry laws. There’s nothing stopping an unlicensed person from coming in with a gun and shooting you. If you don’t feel that they have ill intent, then why does it matter?
I did and if you agreed with me, that having a gun doesn’t “guarantee” saving lives, then why would you comment on my post at all, since it wasn’t directed at you or anything you said? It wasn’t like I said, “Guns are uselss…”
It appeared to me, since you responded to my post; that you seemed to think I was saying that people shouldn’t have the tools to defend themselves, when in fact i commenting on the tendency for some people to pound their chests, wave their imaginary guns around and put their Batman under-roos on.
I actually think this is conflating two different things… while banning guns from areas near schools won’t stop the type of murders we’ve been discussing, they will arguably reduce the frequency of accidental shootings or shootings from bored teens showing off their latest weapon.
So I think you are right in what you say, but maybe need to qualify your point to say that “banning guns within 200m of a school won’t stop insane murderers, but it may mean that a dispute over bullying or girls or whatever doesn’t end up with bullets flying”.
That’s a wider issue though, and doesn’t solve the problem of insane shooters.
These individuals are not “our fellow men”. There are a separate species distinguishable only by the predatory and narcissistic nature of their behavior. I can’t justify this in any scientific way, but it certainly feels right, and it’s an excellent psychological crutch to get me through the day. Maybe it’s my religion.
…which leads to another point, and that is that teens cannot legally possess a handgun, and a longarm would be obvious. Therefore, a teen “showing off his latest weapon” is exceedingly unlikely because that would be prima facie evidence of a crime. So, again, we get back to crime, the criminal mindset, and what makes these people tick.
Nope. That’s a strawman. One does not have to have a ready-made solution in order to correctly identify the problem(s). I do agree that we’re too lax about who can have guns, what type, and how many. But we are currently politically unable to solve that problem, either. So, blaming it on the access to guns is also reducing it to an “insoluble solution”.
The teen showing off his latest weapon is already committing a crime - carrying a weapon without a license. Having the 200 yard rule make it a double crime doesn’t make the situation safer - if he’s caught with a gun, he’s in trouble either way. And for any actual incident to be prevented, he’d have to be discovered carrying a gun on the same day he was going to end up shooting someone. But the current laws already facilitate the rare scenarios anyway.
So, no, I’m afraid that counter-example doesn’t hold water - the gun free school zone law doesn’t change anything.
