Guns, mass shootings, and related.

dtguitarfan wrote: Epignosis wrote: Columbine High School, a school of 1700 students, had a grand total of two "armed guards" when the shooting occurred, and one was busy writing a speeding ticket.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/21/columbine-armed-guards_n_2347096.html So? The point still stands, having armed guards does not stop shootings, it just means the shooters will have to work a bit harder. Also, you're big on being all mad about the "unjust" amount we are taxed - you don't think if we start putting a dozen or so guards at every school that this won't result in your taxes being raised?

No, but I'm opposed to public schools anyway.  But if you're going to send your children off, it'd be best that it's not to the slaughter, don't you think?

In any event, I argued in favor of arming some of the teachers.  No additional staff needed- they should be their own first responders.

Epignosis wrote: dtguitarfan wrote: Epignosis wrote: Columbine High School, a school of 1700 students, had a grand total of two "armed guards" when the shooting occurred, and one was busy writing a speeding ticket.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/21/columbine-armed-guards_n_2347096.html So? The point still stands, having armed guards does not stop shootings, it just means the shooters will have to work a bit harder. Also, you're big on being all mad about the "unjust" amount we are taxed - you don't think if we start putting a dozen or so guards at every school that this won't result in your taxes being raised? No, but I'm opposed to public schools anyway.  But if you're going to send your children off, it'd be best that it's not to the slaughter, don't you think? In any event, I argued in favor of arming some of the teachers.  No additional staff needed- they should be their own first responders.

Fine, suppose we abolish public schools (for the record, I think that's heartless and will have dire consequences for our society, but just for the sake of argument).  Or we arm the teachers.  Now the shooters don't have schools to go to, or they don't want to go to schools because it's too risky.  Poor shooter guy, he has nowhere to go...oh wait, there's a shopping mall!  Ok, so now we say "more armed guards in shopping malls."  Now you can't get a crappy shirt at the Gap without spending $50.  But the shooter has nowhere to go, right?  Oh wait, McDonald's!  OK, so now we have armed guards at Micky-D's - you can't buy crappy chicken nuggets that have pieces of chicken cartilage and bone in them without spending $12.  Poor shooter guy, he has no where to kill people now...oooh, a free skate park!

Do you see where I'm going with this?

No, we need to deal with the direct sources of the problem!  People are saying it's a complex problem - and to an extent they are right - there are societal problems we need to deal with, and we do need to deal with mental illness more effectively.  But it seems pretty obvious to me (and many others, by the way) that there is at least one direct source of this problem that we can take care of: gun control is too lax.  But...oh no...if we restrict guns a little more, those poor gun companies won't get to make ridiculous profits!  Poor them!  And those poor crazies won't get to have their 2nd revolutionary war and have their "perfect" new country built on racism and hatred and religious totalitarianism!  Poor them.  *tear* *pulls out tiny little violin and plays a very sad song*

Maby its just me, not able to crasp the idear, but i dont understand how a city full of guns, will ever become a peacefull place.

One could argue that since the #Newtown school massacre eight days ago, no one has better made the case for gun control better than the man who sought to do anything but. National Rifle Association executive VP Wayne LaPierre's bizarro-world speech yesterday appeared to have been delivered from another Earth, the place where video games and violent movies from the '90s can actually kill you, while semi-automatic guns and their bullets are mere entertainment.

Today, we'll bring you back to the real world, talking about the politics of guns, and what the NRA didn't tell us yesterday. We'll also discuss Newtown in the contexts of mental health and faith, and then dig deep into race talk, examining the new Quentin Tarantino slave-revenge film Django Unchained. We've interviewed stars Jamie Foxx and Kerry Washington, to boot!

Our guests this week include our host. Melissa is off for the holidays, and TheGrio managing editor Joy Reid will be stepping in! Among those joining her today will be Ari Melber of The Nation Magazine, University of Pennsylvania professor Anthea Butler, The Cycle host Toure, author Chris Stedman, and Michael Skolnik of Global Grind! See you at 10am ET on msnbc, #nerdland.

Edited by Slartibartfast - December 22 2012 at 08:52

But we're speaking of practical application here. People already have more guns than God? How do we both raise funds AND raise the manpower enough to take away every single gun in the civilian caste? Again I made the point that, if pushed against a corner, people would resort to extreme measures to hide their contraband items and some people can even make guns out of scrapyard wares. 

No, he's saying that we had banned pot making it illegal but most of the US population still grew, sold and consumed it in mass quantities. He's not linking gun violence with pot use. He's saying that one banned item in US was still rampantly used by almost everybody. Or at least that's what I got from it.

Dustin, in your post you mention using a plane as a weapon.  This would be very hard to do, but what you could have said was a car.  That is not hard.

Let's say you keep psycho-killer from getting a gun.  Congrats.  You can never stop or ban your way to keep Adam Lanza from taking an SUV and plowing it into a group of little kids.  Easy.   Nearly unstoppable.  Can't ban cars.  Now of course a well executed gun attack that succeeds to Lanza's degree has a higher body count than a car attack would have, but the point it that such a person could still find a way to inflict great harm.

I'm not against regulation on automatic weapons and I don't mind if they're beefed up.  But the gun issue is little more than a distraction from really figuring out why these young men are doing what they're doing, a difficult conversation we don't want to have because it may shatter some of our pc thinking.  That distraction, for ratings or political points, is what is so offensive to me about what the politicians and media are doing since this shooting. 


Edited by Finnforest - December 22 2012 at 10:48

Atavachron wrote: ^ Then it's a dismal comparison; I understand banning something can lead to a black market, but politically and realistically speaking pot is a bad example.   Let's try to get a grip.

I keep hearing a lot about it's a bad this or a dismal that, but it isn't often said why.

Marijuana is illegal and lots of people buy, sell, and use it.

If guns were illegal, lots of people would buy, sell, and use them.

Quick question: do you think the glorification of guns and the military in video games adds to the problem? I don't have any stats related to use of games in other countries, but here things like Call of Duty are more popular than movies. Now, I play those games but I started playing as an adult, well into adulthood, first person shooters in general (as a child I only played Marios and the sort). But I work and see how many parents buy first person shokters for their children, and it's obvious that these games are played by wrong the audience. Do you think shooting people in a screen eventually desensitizes youngsters from shooting people in general? From violence? Makes them want to try the real stuff?

I fail to see why guns would be different than any other good on a black market, especially since the black market for guns in the world is very well developed already.