Newtown School Shootings

One or two armed people in an entire school keeping a maniac from running through rooms as quickly might do alot to lower the body count. Just making them think harder could cut it down a bit. They will probably die, but they would probably die anyway. I like the L.A. Police chief's idea of sending multiple police officers to stop by every school in the city randomly a couple times a day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

As the article said, Obama has done literally nothing to inhibit gun ownership,

---

Wrong: http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news...16_103154.html

Quote:

---

She noted that the U.S. government, however, rejected Seoul’s proposal to export some 600,000 M1 Carbines, which were also used in the Korean War, as they come with a magazine that can carry multiple rounds unlike the Garands.

“We plan to announce a bid later this month or in February for the selection of agencies to sell the M1 rifles to Americans,” Kim said. “The U.S. has been reviewing legal procedures for the approval of a third party transfer.”

The official said Korea plans to purchase locally developed K2 rifles with the money raised by selling the M1s.

The Obama administration blocked the purchase of 87,310 M1 Garands and 770,160 M1 Carbines in 2010, saying the American-made antique rifles could “potentially be exploited by individuals seeking firearms for illicit purposes.”

---

Quote:

---

At any rate, I also like the rest of the article's thrust, that only a grassroots, citizen led movement similar to MADD will ever be able to change your warped societal view that gun ownership should be protected at the expense of all else.

---

We do not have that view.

It is extremely rational not to base legislation, and wholesale curtailing of rights, on extremely rare events. Especially when the root of the problem is mentally ill people wanting to kill a lot of people. No gun ban deals with that, which is the core issue.

It's like the TSA and their asinine policies on liquids and shoes.

Quote:

---

They certainly do not win by their superior marksmanship, discipline or the quality of their guns.

---

Well they have, generally, bad eyesight and worse guns. Americans have fancy optics and glasses or laser eye surgery.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catiline

More people are killed by cars, you don't see anti gun people trying to ban them.

---

Talk about a straw man. Cars provide a valid social benefit, consumable alcohol provides none. If the argument is that guns are unnecessary (which presents an incredibly slippery slope in its own right) and their use results in the occasional mass shooting, alchohol serves even less of a purpose (firearms are used every day to prevent and/or defend against crime) and certainly is the cause of millions of deaths each year, thousands of which are innocent children.

Are you in favor of a return to prohibition? If not, can you explain why your concern for the lives of such children extends only the threat posed by firearms and not alcohol or other unnecessary and risky freedoms that Americans currently enjoy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Says the guy who was in favor of invading two countries, killing hundreds of thousands of people and taking a whole lot of freedoms away over a statistically insignificant terror attack... Statistical significance can obviously not be a deciding factor.

---

I'm not sure who you are talking about, but it surely isn't me. I supported the Bush era wars because their successful outcomes would have been in the best interests of the United States and the people of Afghanistan and Iraq. At the time, I thought a) that the repressed and abused populations of both nations would jump at the chance to form representative governments and b) that the US military was more proficient in making war than it turned out to be. So much for that.

Speaking of 9/11 though, why does first reaction to national tragedies always seem to be a move to restrict freedom? That applies to both US parties. I think we were all a bit naive after 9/11, but haven't we learned our lesson? Mass shootings are not a national epidemic. They do not represent an existential threat to our way of life. Are we really going to let the - yes - statistically insignificant actions of two or three mentally disturbed individuals dictate legislation that will affect millions of law abiding citizens? What an incredibly immature reaction that would be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

So if 2A absolutists such as Panzer want to propose something, anything more realistic than turning our schools into armed camps, let's hear it. 'Cause the left and center are hamstrung on this issue. So let's hear what the right has to say. If anything.

---

The idea that this tragedy requires legislative action is a fallacy in itself. While the nation has seen more mass shootings lately (ie: three) than usual, their extreme rarity should preclude any broad policy shift. Not every tragic loss of life requires the federal government to wrap society in another layer of bubble wrap. As mentioned above, if our national focus is to directed towards decreasing preventable deaths by curtailing freedoms currently enjoyed, a return to prohibition and any number of other issues should take priority. Taking aim (no pun intended) at gun ownership out of an emotional reaction to a headline grabbing, yet isolated incident is not logical.

I agree statistically speaking it used to be a lot more dangerous with guns. An American during the War of Independence was ten times more likely to die of a gunshot wound then a citizen of today.

In 1776 it is estimated that there was 1/100th of the population of the modern US.
8000 died on the battlefield over an eight year period.

In comparison whilst the 11,000 who died of homicides this year from guns seems a lot larger. Once you adjust for population inflation it comes down to 100 per year. Which is a mere 800 over an eight year period or just ten percent.

So the human cost for freedom is cheaper then ever. IMDHO that is the very definition of progress. ~:cheers:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PJ

While the nation has seen more mass shootings lately (ie: three) than usual, their extreme rarity should preclude any broad policy shift.

---

Three mass shootings within 12 months is by no measure 'an extreme rarity'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

I agree statistically speaking it used to be a lot more dangerous with guns. An American during the War of Independence was ten times more likely to die of a gunshot wound then a citizen of today.

---

No shit Sherlock

I agree with Panzer by the way, shootings like this hit hard but are very rare.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

1) Taser: Not guaranteed to put the attacker down. Ive seen way too many videos of people needing multiple tases plus some manhandling to subdue. Plus they recover after a little while so I hope you got to cable ties handy to tie him up.

2) Mace: Will not stop a determined attacker. Its good if you need to delay the attacker so you can run, but to stop him dead in his tracks? Not good enough. In police training cops are trained to withstand mace. Also, we were at a demonstration in ROTC of MP's (military police) getting a monthly mace test. They get sprayed and have to react to certain situations to ensure they can still function without full use of their eyes. From the looks of it, some of the MP's seem to have built up something of a resistance.
Hilarious to watch though.

EDIT: Also, intimidation is half the battle. Whats more terrifying? The barrel of a shotgun or pistol, or a taser?

---

A shotgun with a tazer round?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

No shit Sherlock

I agree with Panzer by the way, shootings like this hit hard but are very rare.

---

It's more common in the US than the rest of the western world combined.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

It's more common in the US than the rest of the western world combined.

---

US is a big country. I think the US and Europe taken as a whole are pretty much even. Not a statistically significant difference at least. We have had this in Norway, Finland, Germany, Netherlands, I wouldn't say it is dramatically more common in the US. A loner gone nuts, Columbine, Tech whatwasit, the Joker, and this one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

It's more common in the US than the rest of the western world combined.

---

WE need incidence, not prevalence.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

US is a big country. I think the US and Europe taken as a whole are pretty much even. Not a statistically significant difference at least. We have had this in Norway, Finland, Germany, Netherlands, I wouldn't say it is dramatically more common in the US. A loner gone nuts, Columbine, Tech whatwasit, the Joker, and this one.

---

Europe has over 700 million people. The US is a lot less than that.

If Americans really want the right to have loads of really dangerous weapons, and are happy with the side-effects, then fine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

Europe has over 700 million people. The US is a lot less than that.

If Americans really want the right to have loads of really dangerous weapons, and are happy with the side-effects, then fine.

---

I think it has more to do with being in a highly competitive society personally, all that 'be what you can be' nonsense as not everybody can be the best, becomming prom-queen and things like that, being pretty good should be more than enough to get by. I can understand why people can get lost in that, but I wouldn't blame the guns for it. More a matter of self-worthiness that is under attack for some.

No, it's got to do with having shitloads of guns floating about the place, not not being prom queen.

Moderate alcohol consumption has plenty of social benefits. It can also cause a great deal of harm, which is why its sale and consumption are placed under a whole range of different restrictions. But alcohol isn't explicitly designed to kill people, where as hand guns and assault rifles explicitly and solely are.

There are shitloads of guns everywhere. It's a social problem people can snap when picked upon. Just this week this poor girl threw herselve before a train here in front of her classmates. A different outcome for the same problem really. She wanted to make a point. Andres made a great case here in this thread.

And what's better - snapping and jumping in fornt of a train, or snapping and going on a murderous rampage? The former is sad. the latter is evil. And it's a pernicious evil enabled by a ridiculous lie about a freedom that isn't enshrined in a 200 year old document written by people who could never imagine where we are now.

Society has all sorts of problems - the world and people in particular are not pleasant. That being the case how can it possibly be a good thing to allow people the tools to do this sort of thing, especially when those tools serve no other purpose.

We need to learn from Futurama - have proper suicide booths around the place for those seeking a Darwin Award.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catiline

And what's better - snapping and jumping in fornt of a train, or snapping and going on a murderous rampage? The former is sad. the latter is evil. And it's a pernicious evil enabled by a ridiculous lie about a freedom that isn't enshrined in a 200 year old document written by people who could never imagine where we are now.

Society has all sorts of problems - the world and people in particular are not pleasant. That being the case how can it possibly be a good thing to allow people the tools to do this sort of thing, especially when those tools serve no other purpose.

---

Well if you allready acknowledge that the problems run a little deeper them why be so comfortable on the surface

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gaius Scribonius Curio

Three mass shootings within 12 months is by no measure 'an extreme rarity'.

---

Far more homicides with guns than there are mass shootings. Supposedly, Chicago is more dangerous than Afghanistan. Over 200 deaths in 6 months last I heard. Yet nobody seems to really care.

Also Catiline, have you ever fired a gun before?

Well, if you're looking for the most jaw-droppingly wrong-headed reaction to the Newton massacre, you won't find it in this thread. Nope, the grand slam winner is Newsweek's Megan McArdle.

I'd also like us to encourage people to gang rush shooters, rather than following their instincts to hide; if we drilled it into young people that the correct thing to do is for everyone to instantly run at the guy with the gun, these sorts of mass shootings would be less deadly, because even a guy with a very powerful weapon can be brought down by 8-12 unarmed bodies piling on him at once. Would it work? Would people do it? I have no idea; all I can say is that both these things would be more effective than banning rifles with pistol grips.

McArdle leaves herself some wiggle room by not directly saying she wants six- and seven-year-olds to gang-rush a mass murderer, but the implication is clear. I suppose any sociopath who wants to shoot up a kindergarten had better spend some time running calculations on this site: How many five-year-olds can you take in a fight?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

Also Catiline, have you ever fired a gun before?

---

Yes thanks. Not sure what that's got to do with anything, unless I'm supposed to be overcome by feeling of empowering freedom and masculine liberty when I do it. What I actually come away with is the idea that a) its fun b) it's difficult to hit what you want, and c) that the things should stay locked up at the gun club where they belong because they're bloody dangerous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catiline

Yes thanks. Not sure what that's got to do with anything, unless I'm supposed to be overcome by feeling of empowering freedom and masculine liberty when I do it. What I actually come away with is the idea that a) its fun b) it's difficult to hit what you want, and c) that the things should stay locked up at the gun club where they belong because they're bloody dangerous.

---

I was just wondering. The only people I know in the outside world who are as rabidly anti-gun as you are have never fired one before. The ones who were as extremely anti-gun usually end up moderating their views afterwards to a more balanced opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Well, if you're looking for the most jaw-droppingly wrong-headed reaction to the Newton massacre, you won't find it in this thread. Nope, the grand slam winner is Newsweek's Megan McArdle.

I'd also like us to encourage people to gang rush shooters, rather than following their instincts to hide; if we drilled it into young people that the correct thing to do is for everyone to instantly run at the guy with the gun, these sorts of mass shootings would be less deadly, because even a guy with a very powerful weapon can be brought down by 8-12 unarmed bodies piling on him at once. Would it work? Would people do it? I have no idea; all I can say is that both these things would be more effective than banning rifles with pistol grips.

McArdle leaves herself some wiggle room by not directly saying she wants six- and seven-year-olds to gang-rush a mass murderer, but the implication is clear. I suppose any sociopath who wants to shoot up a kindergarten had better spend some time running calculations on this site: How many five-year-olds can you take in a fight?

---

I think the worst I saw was one suggesting that people shouldn't grieve because infact they're weren't murdered kids, they were actually heroes who fell in the defense of liberty and freedom.

Or 26 new pairs of cold dead hands as the Daily Mash put it - http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/i...-2012121753763

Americans waddling towards a shooter, others with their hands hard on the accelerator of the mobility assists... Clearing a distance of what? 50-100m with a shooter blasting away...

Assuming that the person has ensured targets to the front and not behind (as they do choose the terrain) this person is advocating charging down someone who is firing a semi-automatic weapon directly at them.

I imagine that the limiting factor would be the amount of ammo the person carries - the greater the density of persons charging the faster the effective fire (I am assuming the average civillian would be incapacitated by shock from pretty much any wound from a high-velocity rifle).

Gun advocates stupid... who could possibly say.

~:smoking:

I'm not anti gun per se. I've got no issues with public servants, be they military or police or the like havng them. I've got no issues with hunting weapons, provided they're used with respect and kept safely. I simply think that weapons whose sole intention is to kill another human have no place in civilian society. Keep them at the gun club if you must have them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

I was just wondering. The only people I know in the outside world who are as rabidly anti-gun as you are have never fired one before. The ones who were as extremely anti-gun usually end up moderating their views afterwards to a more balanced opinion.

---

You might be surprised. In fact I wish I had a gun because I'm awesome and all that and would use it only to do good. But then again I realize that I also have faults and it would be unfair to give one to me because I think I'm good but not to other people who think the same of themselves. As such I think it's better if we all don't have one. And yes, that's partly because I can easily see how I would casually overestimate my own prowess in handling a gun. Then again I have no education on how to handle one.

It's also nice to see that @Fragony has adopted my view after arguing against it. ~;)

As for the charging thing, it could work in the sense that fewer people may die if it's not happening on an open field, but it would require drilling stoicism into the children and turning them into some kind of mindless hive-mentality zombieforce. Of course that may help them later in their job in a sweatshop as well. ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catiline

I'm not anti gun per se. I've got no issues with public servants, be they military or police or the like havng them. I've got no issues with hunting weapons, provided they're used with respect and kept safely. I simply think that weapons whose sole intention is to kill another human have no place in civilian society. Keep them at the gun club if you must have them.

---

You're entitled to your opinion. I'm entitled to my constitutionally guaranteed right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Americans waddling towards a shooter, others with their hands hard on the accelerator of the mobility assists... Clearing a distance of what? 50-100m with a shooter blasting away...

Assuming that the person has ensured targets to the front and not behind (as they do choose the terrain) this person is advocating charging down someone who is firing a semi-automatic weapon directly at them.

I imagine that the limiting factor would be the amount of ammo the person carries - the greater the density of persons charging the faster the effective fire (I am assuming the average civillian would be incapacitated by shock from pretty much any wound from a high-velocity rifle).

Gun advocates stupid... who could possibly say.

~:smoking:

---

if the Japanese could do it on WW2 I find it extremely offensive for you to suggest Americans are not able to do the same or better.

'Muricah **** YEAH!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin

if the Japanese could do it on WW2 I find it extremely offensive for you to suggest Americans are not able to do the same or better.

'Muricah **** YEAH!

---

In those attacks the Americans soldiers often had qualms regarding shooting persons. Here we have someone who has set out to kill unarmed persons.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

You're entitled to your opinion. I'm entitled to my constitutionally guaranteed right.

---

Bearing in mind gun regulation during the time of the founding fathers and it clearly states about state militia, American's typically think the 2nd amendment means something other than what it actually means.