I’m trying to envision a situation where a fire company would come into a scene like a SWAT team, or SeaBees, and fight their way to the blaze, or post snipers atop the trucks while the hose-draggers get the job done… and I just can’t make it work.
Medical assists on not quite controlled crime scenes. A few local engine companies around here over the years develop reps for not caring to wait for PD to secure crime scenes before rolling in. On several occasions, we found ourselves holding back a block away waiting for PD and along comes fire engine charging to the rescue. 3 minutes later we hear on the radio, “Scene secure per Engine 5”. Roll in and find 2 firemen sitting on the guy who had just stabbed someone and the third starting treatment on the victim.
Good to know that even in a thread like this, there’s an element of humor.
Wasn’t Socrates. It was Starkertes.
:rolleyes: Now why does that sound familiar?
Absent the ‘trying to minimize them’ part, of course.
Put me in the “that’s crazy talk” camp. And whether or not it’s a short-term reaction to Sandy Hook that will fade away in a few weeks, I doubt that there’s such a national belief right now.
Yeah, that would work. Because when we banned, outlawed and confiscated drugs they all disappeared, right? No more gang violence and ODs, right?
The problem is criminals. Honest citizens turning in guns will not stop criminals from getting and using them.
So, why are they armed?
It only differs in degree. There is a lot of ridicule on this board about the very idea of having armed guards in schools. It’s nothing new, and there is an existing federal program to assist this. One that Clinton beefed up after the Columbine shooting. Cops in Schools.
It does in many other countries, notably Japan and the UK.
It will certainly stop criminals from stealing them from said honest persons-you can’t steal what ain’t there.
Different situation. Country size and other things of course but the biggest difference is the amount of gun saturation time. Between stockpiles, the internet and just huge amount of unregistered guns here you just can’t put that genie back in the bottle. In addition, criminals are ‘spoiled’ - they will import them (as they do drugs) if confiscated. I would venture to guess that hundreds of guns are confiscated in this country every day.
Whatever the psychological effects of being deprived of one’s guns might be, I doubt anyone will go through physical withdrawal. And it’ll be a damned sight harder to smuggle in 100 guns than 100 doses of heroin.
And if we want to go back further, it’ll be a damned sight harder to build 100 guns in a machine shop than to make 100 shots of gin in one’s bathtub.
There’s probably a smaller semi-permanent criminal class now than there was at any time since before Prohibition. Adam Lanza wasn’t a criminal. Shooters like this rarely are. The guys who shoot their wives, girlfriends, and exes are rarely criminals, outside of minor brushes with the law.
There are certainly people we can identify who shouldn’t be allowed access to guns, and we should do that. But that’s just a small fraction of the problem. The problem is that you can’t tell who will be the next nutcase to open fire, but that that nutcase will in all likelihood be able to acquire an essentially military level of firepower.
If stolen guns are the #1 way criminals get them it’s only because that happens to be the most convenient way at the time. Remove them from homes and criminals will just move on to the next most convenient way.
Which would be what, exactly?
I don’t know that you can make a useful comparison between the War on Drugs (or Prohibition, before that) to gun control. It takes sophisticated machinery and specialized talent to make a gun. Most drugs can be fairly easily cooked up in a simple kitchen lab or closet grow set up. If there were no legitimate gun market, the legitimate gun manufacturers (aside from a few kept alive by government contracts) would close their door, or turn to some other kind of manufacturing, and it seems highly unlikely that they’d be replaced by some sort of illicit gun factories. There’s still the issue of all the millions of guns that are already out there, but it’s still a finite number - with the stream of new guns shut off (or at least greatly reduced - smuggling would still be an issue) eventually, the supply of existing guns will dry up.
I really don’t want to live in a place where everyone has a gun and at any time, I could be expected to engage in a firefight against some bad guy. The NRA seems to think that society in Mad Max movies or other fictitious post-apocalyptic worlds is the ideal. I happen to disagree.
I kind of feel the same way about this future with everyone packing heat as I do with the land of Libertaria: In theory, it might be a grand place but the shortcomings of humanity make it more likely to have more problems than less.
I don’t trust that everyone will always make the logical decision “gee, everyone has guns so I probably shouldn’t shoot,” because not everyone is rational.
I also don’t see a crowded city block filled with sharp-shooting experts like in zombie movies where they never miss the forehead and never hit a member of their group. I see a bunch of people with shooting skills that range from decent to even sides of barns are safe, and all of them shooting at once… At the backfiring car.
1 dose of heroin will last one day. 1 gun could last a criminal for years. Prohibition produced crime of a previously unheard of level. It’s been said it made Capone. I think you are underestimating criminal resourcefulness.
I agree it’s a problem. I posted else where on this board that if magically disappearing all the existing guns would ensure no more gun deaths I would gladly give mine up. But running out and confiscating all the registered guns just won’t make a dent in the problem of crazies killing children.
Murder is illegal but people still kill. Therefore we should decriminalize murder, amirite?
Same place we get drugs, bring them in from other countries.