NRA calls for armed school guards

[ribbit]

Yes, let's give teachers guns. Especially the ones who would eventually snap and shoot up a class room. Or the ones that would use them as threats to the students. Yes this is a great idea, I cannot wait for it to come to light. Teachers are people too, they're not exempt from the list of who may or may not gun down a school.

 

[The Welsh Paddy]

I know this thread didn't specify teachers being armed in schools, but I guess this could apply to said 'guards' who people think should be posted there. I can't help but think that at some point some teacher or guard is gonna be very stressed and aggravated, and all it will take would be for some upstart kid to push them that one step further towards shooting someone. I think the idea of having armed shool guards is absolutely ridiculous, and the more I read this, the more I see America being a nation full of paranoia. It seems they're so wrapped up with worries about outside threats that they don't solve their inside problems.

Also, there's all this talk about the right to own a gun in order to defend one's own freedom. Why not just keep all guns locked up safely and securely and only allow citizen's access to their own firearm when such a situation arises that requires the use of a firearm to defend against 'tyranny'? I can't help but think that the main reason the government hasn't put a ban on guns is because it's a good tax income.

Having armed guards is going to require a lot of money, and that money is going to have to come from somewhere. Taxes are gonna skyrocket and people are only going to complain anyway.

 

[Dragon Mage]

Okay, I think it's finally time I addressed this issue. I'm only going to say this once and get everything out there because this is a debate I truly DO NOT WANT.

I'll first address the OP.

Anyway, the Chief Executive of the NRA has come out and suggested Armed Police guards should be posted in every school in the US by January 2013. Yes you've read correct, that's Armed Police guards in every school in the US within a month's time. Apparently because schools being a gun free zone makes them more vulnerable than say, Airports.

He then goes on to imply the next mass murderer is already plotting a slaughter and that violent video games and the media have contributed to these atrocities.

As a member of the NRA I ask you to take this with a grain of salt. Yes, the CE did say this, but basically it was a political move. Realistically, this is impossible to do within a month and he knows that. I know that. Everyone knows that, but this statement also doesn't set the NRA up as the bad guy, which is the total goal of this statement. I mean, that seems pretty obvious to me, just reading that article you linked to.

Also, violent video games and media, meh. That's just shit in the wind, and everyone knows it, pay it no attention. As I said, this is merely a political move that was made tactfulness in mind. There is nothing an organization about protecting gun rights can SAY about a situation like this when an entire nation is grieving that will make them seem good. What do grieving people do? They lash out. Fact of life. So I don't see why it's such a terrible thing for them to wait a week before making a statement. Making a political issue of it too soon is just plain insensitive, if you ask me.

I don't even know where to start. If US citizens really believe the remedy for all these atrocities is to have an armed guard in every school something has gone very very wrong with American society in my estimation. I've heard a lot about improving background and mental checks on purchasers but I think the real question Americans have to ask themselves is: why do they feel the overwhelming need to arm themselves? Why is owning a gun such a prominent symbol of American freedom?

It defies belief that the NRA have released a statement (after affording themselves a week to prepare it) advocating the presence of guns in schools. Surely the solution lies in disarmament of the population as opposed to a militarization of schools?

I'm going to treat these questions as totally honest.

1. Americans treat guns for what they really are; a tool to protect, defend and grant yourself a measure of power in dangerous situations. They level the field so that an 80-year-old woman (like my grandmother) can protect herself from a 25-year-old robber and known criminal (like her neighbor). Guns are tools, meant to be used responsibly and to protect the people. Don't give me this 'defense against tyranny' tripe. That was a facet of the second amendment, yes, but it goes beyond that. Guns are tools of defense, not offense, and that is why we want them. I feel MUCH safer walking through Detroit with my concealed weapon (that I do have a license for, thank you) than I do with a puny pocket knife. I do not expect you to fully understand WHY we want them -- if you aren't American, I don't think it's possible. But think of guns as items of empowerment. They empower us -- the people -- to protect and defend ourselves and our families.

2. Maybe guns are a prominent symbol of AMERICAN freedom because we're still one of the few countries that allow our populace to have such arms. It has always been this way.

3. This is a logical fallacy of the slippery slope type. Putting armed guards into schools DOES NOT mean militarizing them. You want militarized schools, go check out North Korea. Oh wait, you can't, because foreigners aren't allowed in. Armed guards in schools (most of the big schools have this, my high school did even though nothing happens there) is merely an added level of security -- security which is, sadly, almost non-existent in many schools. Disarming the population will get you NOTHING other than a higher body count.

Think about it. Gun-control laws will only affect the law abiding. If you take away guns from everyone, that means only those willing and able to break the law can acquire them, and they are now very confident that they will face helpless victims unable to defend themselves. I'll quote Thomas Jefferson at this:

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”

Once again, these laws affect only the law-abiding and do NOTHING to hinder the law breakers.

Now, the current system of gun laws works. Adam Lanza tried to buy guns but was denied because of the gun laws currently in place. The Columbine shooters had the same difficulties and had to turn to a proxy to get them guns. All these shootings happen when the shooters manage to get their hands on guns in some way the laws just can't cover, like Lanza getting his mother's handguns. If she had a trigger lock or stored them in a safe, maybe it would've been a different story, especially since she already suspected his mental stability. That mall-shooting? The gun had been stolen. These are extenuating circumstances laws can't cover, no matter how hard you try.

That said, removing guns entirely from the picture will solve nothing.If someone is determined to commit mass murder, there's very little that can stop them.

Take for example, a man in China that stabbed 22 people at a school: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/30/world/asia/30china.html?_r=0

How about this one, also in China, are stabbed: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/30/world/asia/30china.html?_r=0

See, it doesn't take a gun to kill anyone. Just a person determined to kill others. Give them a knife, a bat, a car, a gun -- anything is a deadly weapon in a madman's hands.

If someone with a gun snaps and decides on shooting someone, someone is getting shot. Why does the everyday citizen need to be subjected to this very real possibility? Because a group of people with a morbid fascination on guns don't want to give them up?

Correction, if someone that wants to kill people snaps, then someone is going to die. You don't need a gun to kill a mass amount of people. Just google AKIHABARA MASSACRE if you don't believe me.

Morbid fascination? What, you think we treat guns like candy? That's insulting and you're smart enough to know better, Harlequin. The everday citizen can defend themselves against such attacks because they can have a gun as well. And this system works.

You want me to throw examples at you? Done.

In Virginia tech, 32 people died. But the media NEVER SAYS A DAMN WORD about Virginia’s Appalachian Law School, where a similar incident occurred in 2002. A shooter killed 3 people before a student went to his car, got his pistol his has a license for, and apprehended the shooter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_School_of_Law_shooting

The mall shooting at Portland, Oregon? Ever wonder why so few people were shot? Because a man with a concealed carry firearm drew on the shooter and when the shooter saw him, decided to take his own life. http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-183593571.html

A woman shoots a man breaking into her home to defend herself and her child. http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/woman-kills-intruder-breaking-home-15286257

Shall I produce more? Because it's only going to prove what I've been saying: Guns in the hands of ordinary citizens are tools of protection and empowerment, not murder. There are more guns in the US than there are people, and yet we DON'T get mass shootings every day. You want to know why that is? Because those guns aren't being bought for murder, they're being bought for hunting and protection. The very fact such mass shootings are rare should tell you something about how the VAST majority of American's treat and use their guns -- they way they supposed to, responsibly. Know how many people die each year from being shot? 30,000. Now if you rule out suicides, only 9,000 die from being shot. Rule out accidents, and that's another thousand dropped off. So that means only 8,000 homicides are actually commited with guns in the US and keep in mind that's still covering things like gang wars.

That's pretty damn awesome out of more than 300 MILLION guns out there. It just goes to prove that Americans use their guns they way they are intended to, and crime and mass murders are the EXCEPTION not the RULE.

That the NRA would be prepared to sacrifice the innocence of the children of an entire nation in order to preserve an unnecessary and paranoid gun culture rather than preserve human life by advocating disarmament speaks volumes of where the organization's priorities lie. To them thousands of gun related deaths are worth it so long as some paranoid citizens can keep their tools of destruction for a sense of warped empowerment.

What the fuck.

How dare you.

How dare you say that? Keep in mind the people you are so brazenly insulting may be the ones right beside you! Since when did the NRA use this incident for their own purposes? Where? Show me! You CAN'T because you're making this up. You're one to accuse others with being out of touch with reality, because your quote here is never a truer example of that. I fight for gun rights because I don't want to be helpless when someoen attacks me or my family. I want to have the ability to protect and defend myself and those I love from those that would do them harm, and your'e accusing me of being a paranoid, baby-killing creep?

Let me tell you this: If you can assure me, 100% gaurantee, that me and my family will never, ever be in danger, that no one will EVER hurt us, then I will hand in my guns right now. If you can ensure complete and total safety, I will have no need of my gun. There would simply be no use for it anymore.

But until that day, I'll keep it with me. Consider, that not everyone has as much faith in their perfect and total safety as you do. Some of us have to look danger in the face everyday and want to be able to do something about it.

Not to mention the armament of teachers. Why do they need to take these measures? Because of an entirely unwarranted paranoia in the general populace?

Unwarrented? UNWARRENTED!?

What a joke! I don't know what crimeless world you're living in, but it sure isn't Earth. Arming teachers is the best way to counter school shootings. Instead of waiting on response times of the authorities or praying a security guard is near by, a teacher can immediately act to defend themselves and the children under their care.

Unwarranted.

What a load of crock. Madmen walk into schools with death on their mind and you say it's totally unwarrented to want to arm teachers? Please.

I'm not blaming inanimate objects as you've suggested, I'm advocating the removal of unnecessary enablers of massacres. If you're opposed to that I assume you're fine with distributing grenades to the wider population and while we're at it, every type of drug because hey, can't blame the inanimate object can you?

Yay, slippery-slope fallacy, my friend!

Enablers of massacres? XDDDDDDDDDDDD I honestly laugh at that. Because guns don't enable anything. A gun doesn't enable any more than a knife, or a bat, or a pickaxe or a chainsaw, or a two-ton truck, or a sword. All of these things can kill. It isn't the object that does the killing, it's the person behind it.

Once again, you're looking at the tool, not the problem. The problem is that we have young men trying to kill as many people as they can. The method they chose (guns) isn't the problem. It's the very fact they did it, that's the problem. Please refer to the middle of my post where I cover the utter and total lack of mental health care system in America.

The problem is this: We have crazy people shooting kids at schools, movies, and malls.

The question you should be asking: Why are dangerous crazy people walking into schools, movies, and malls?

A gun didn't kill those kids, just like a knife didn't kill those kids in China, or a truck didn't kill those people in Akibahara. The people behind those devices is what did it, they are the cause of the death. Taking guns away won't stop mass killings so long as nothing is done about the people doing the actual killing, get it? Treat the source of the problem, not the method.

Teens can deal with seeing that type of presence but small children shouldn't have to deal with that bullshit. If the main reason someone feels they can't give up a gun is because the government might deny them a vote one day they've got a very warped idea of how much power any gun is actually giving them to combat the situation. The US has the strongest military in the world, if the government were to seize power from the people (which it wouldn't let's get serious) there's very little you could do about it even with an arsenal in your closet.

Question: Do you see little kids being traumatized at the sight of a police officer? Because that is what you're saying here. You're saying that little kids are terrified and scarred by the sight of a police officer and that's just stupid. There's no other word for it. Unless you meant something different, but from the way this is phrased, that's just dumb.

You obviously don't know much about the US military. Guess what. It's volunteer only. We don't have a military like China or North Korea. Our military is family and is specifically not bound to the goverment in such a way that it MUST follow what the goverment says. There is no way the goverment can tell the military to bomb their homes and kill their neighbors and friends and family. It is done that way specifically for that reason.

And you say guns don't give us any power against the goverment? Gee, it worked out for us in 1776. Look up "American Minute Man." The reason the American Revolution succeeded is because every family had a gun and since everyone was involved in the Revolution, we could field an army within minutes -- thus the name 'minute-man'. Besides, that's just ONE reason we have guns in America. Don't get too focused on it.

If someone thinks holding on to their weapon based on that outlandish possibility is worth the lives of hundreds of innocents that person has blood on their hands.

That is incredibly insulting and I think you owe me and a lot of other people on here an apology. Honestly, Harlequin, I know how smart you are, we've never disagreed before, and I can't believe you are saying these things now. You just said that I am responsible for the deaths of children merely because I want the right to protect myself and my family.

That is sick, cruel, and totally uncalled for, Harlequin. It really is.

This idea that everyone having a gun somehow equates to shared power baffles me. They're talking about putting infant Americans under armed guards and this doesn't somehow resonate with you as something more akin to a Military State than a land of freedom and opportunity?

When you see a police officer, do you automatically think you're living in a military state? No? Well that's exactly what they are proposing here. Added security to schools. Where you got the images of military men with M16s and dogs and razor wire is beyond me. You're blowing this so far out of proportion, it's mildly hilarious.

Where is the empowerment in you and your loved ones being constantly at the mercy of the average gun toting citizen and their impulses? It's a very warped sense of empowerment indeed. That your priorities would lie in an unwarranted paranoia of the government going from Jekyll to Hyde rather than the more immediate threat of the wider population being armed is lunacy to me.

But I'm not at the mercy of the 'average gun-toting citizen'. Don't you get that? People who carry concealed guns have to go through training and a background check done by the FBI before they can carry it. THEY are your average citizen. Concealed-carry people do not treat this as some kind of ability to get away with the impossible. You'll never even know they are carrying. Letting people know you are carrying isn't even the point. The point is to be prepared should something happen (god frobid) that neccessitates the use of force. No one carries a gun to kill: They carry a gun to defend.

That is where the difference in YOUR perception and reality is. You think everyone carrying a gun means mass shootings everywhere. The reality is that people carry guns so they don't have to sit around helpless if someone attacks them.

And excuse me, but do you honestly think that folks like Adam Lanza are our 'average citizen'? XDDDDDDDDD That is so.... stereotypical, I don't have words for it. HE WAS CRAZY. HE KILLED HIS MOTHER AND THEN KILLED PEOPLE AT WHERE SHE WORKED! Know what crazy people like him do? They fixate on those closest to them -- in this case, his mother. It goes without saying that NOT everyone in the US is a crazy, homicidial sociopath like Adam Lanza here. You're basically saying that the average citizen is a serial-killer, XD, and I don't have to explain why that's a silly idea.

Let me try and provide an examle of empowerment for you.

I am 5' 4" and weigh 124 pounds. I'm not that big, I'm not that strong. Let's say I'm attacked by a man who is 6'1" and weighs 200 pounds. He's much bigger and much stronger than me. There's no way I can shake him off or get away. This results in me getting raped.

But if I have a gun, when this man attacks me, I can draw my gun and drive him away. Most criminals will run upon seeing a weapon pointing at them. I probably don't even have to shoot him, but I can if I must.

That gun, that small piece of metal, has given me the power to defend myself against an attack. THAT is what we mean by empowerment. It removes physical strength from the equation and puts power in my favor. Women, more than any one else, benefit from having a gun.

What if some of these "good guys" with guns turn out to be nutters? With guns? What if they're fucking useless because they'll be the first target for prospective shooters? Oh fuck, haven't thought this through, have we?

The NRA. Let's blame everyone but ourselves. Ah yeds.

And what if every robber is secretly a ninja trained by Jackie Chan and has access to nuclear weapons OMG!

You're using extreme hyperbole as if it were true. Keep doing that and we may as well not leave our houses because the satellites are watching our every move. You're point about the guards being the first targets bears some thinking upon, so therefore I propose an alternative plan to having guards:

How about we arm the teachers with concealed weapons? Hmm? Not a mandatory thing, but plenty would go for it, I'd wager. Imagine, if you will, how quickly Adam Lanza would have been stopped if the teacher who's classroom he walked into was armed? Instead of cowering the the corner and getting shot up, they could have fired back. They could have fought instead of just scream and be killed. Our laws make teachers and students defenseless, that is why they are always targeted. Adding security guards won't fix it -- after all, you can't guarantee a guard will be nearby when something happens. Our best option is to defend those who are defenseless, empower those who have no power and make sure that the next time a shooter walks into a classroom, they get a surprise.

Anyway, whatever. The NRA aren't worth scrutinising because their very existence is based on an abject fetishisation of guns and aren't interested in any meaningful contribution to the debate while gun sales continue to remain healthy in the name of freedom and whatever.

I'm a member of the NRA and I think I'm in a much better position to know how we treat guns, thank you. This quote is wildly unlike you, Stella, because I know you're much smarter than this. Stay calm and think.

Fetishization of guns? WHERE did you get that preposterous idea? Gangs fetishize guns. War lords festishize guns. All the NRA does is defend the right to own guns and use them. Nothing more. It doesn't make guns into some kind of sex-appeal-boosting bullshit. EVERY member of the NRA will be the first to tell you that guns are not toys. Guns are dangerous, guns are NOT taken lightly, and guns should be used with the utmost responsibility and seriousness. It's not liek we go running out, shooting guns into the air while dancing naked under moonlight. XD (That image is pretty funny, though.) Be serious, please, and reign in the wild accusations. All the NRA did was propose an added layer of security, nothing more.

Also, doesn't Canada have just as many guns as the US, but far less shootings? Maybe it's a difference in population as to why the shootings are far less? Or maybe it's a culture issue. You see I don't see guns as the issue myself. I see a society of sick individuals, mostly through no fault of their own. The very culture itself is distorted and obviously having a declining society comprised of citizens armed to the teeth doesn't bode well. Most people in America get taught that they are allowed to own firearms, but are they taught why they are allowed to have firearms and why their founding fathers wrote that right into the constitution?

I'll tell you why Canada has less shootings. Easy answer, really. EVERYONE SHOULD READ THIS, BECAUSE THIS IS THE SOURCE OF OUR PROBLEMS.

1. There's less people in Candada than the US and thus, proportionally, less crime.

2. The mental health care system. This is a system meant to rehabilitate, and sometimes contain, people who are so mentally ill that they are a danger to society. This system is meant to safeguard the rest of the populace from few, dangerous individuals who are serious threats.

Guess what? America doesn't have this system. Nope. Look up the Mental Health Systems Act. Mental asylums were shut down. In fact, there's an old one in a city not far from me that hasn't been torn down or anything, it just sits there. All the patient records are in there still. They just kicked everyone out, locked it up, and walked away. The idea is that the mentally ill people would be put into 'group homes', sorta like rehab centers today, but with a much greater 'community involvement'. The only problem was, no one wanted a house of crazy people living in their suburbs, so the whole program tanked. The solution?

Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Crazy people like Adam Lanza, and the shooters from the Portland Mall, the Batman movie and more are all just running around out there with not a damn person to watch after them except family. And guess how that turned out for Ms. Lanza? (Hint: Her son killed her, took her guns, and shot up the school where she worked.) What's the age of these shooters? Early twenties. Oh gee, guess what the age is for mental illness to develop in men? My aunt works for Homeland Security and she knows firsthand: Police departments get people in that are fucking INSANE and they know -- they know this person will go out and kill someone someday. There are all these mad people out there with zero accountability for them, and they're all just ticking timebombs. Sure, we have a system for the criminally insane -- but they're submitted into these facilities after they've committed a crime.

Canada, however, has a great mental health system. They still have asylums and mandatory care. What they have that America doesn't is, in one word, prevention. And that is what we should be doing -- preventing these kinds of incidents, not responding improperly to the result. The problem is that we have insane people running around unchecked. The solution is to do something about THEM, not their weapon of choice.

And again, I remind you, that in all these mass shootings, the guns were obtained illegally or through murder (Adam Lanza). The guns have NOTHING to do with it. Security guards in schools won't prevent a madman from busting into a school. An insane asylum, however, will. Just one more reason this 'security guards in school' won't work. But no one wants to hear it was the shooter's fault -- they just want to attack the gun, which is absolutely beside the point. Whether he had a gun or a knife makes no difference. The very fact he killed his mother then killed 26 people where she worked is the problem.

If im not mistaken wasnt an ex NRA member responsible for a mass murder? I watched a documentary which was about a highschool shooting and im sure the person was ex NRA. During the interview they talked with some of these guys. One of them slept with a 44. magnum under his pillow, im not kidding and his weapons cupboard could start a war. He lived in a small town where crime was low, he didnt need all these guns let alone one under his pillow. Some of these NRA members are just plain up nutters. Theyre looking for the fight to come to them. Like Olivia said lets all play John Rambo. Anyway, a bit off topic there.

I've never heard of an 'ex NRA' member in a mass shooting. It isn't like the NRA is the same as the Black Panthers. We're not a secret organization. We have more in common with the AARP than anything else.

And there are weirdo's everywhere. They don't characterize their entire demographic. I mean, heh, there's 'real' Na'vi tribes all around the world afterAvatar came out. There are paranoid freaks everywhere. So long as they are content to stay paranoid and wait for the glorious day poor shumck kicks down their door, however, there's nothing to fear from them. THEY aren't the one's going out and shooting people for no reason. Paranoia doesn't work that way 99% of the time. Paranoia is passive -- those people will wait, armed to the teeth, for someone to attack them. They aren't going out and attacking people. The difference is clear.

The question that begs on my mind is why would a person have such a high powered rifle as an AR-15 in their possession anyway? It's a military grade weapon, and to me, it doesn't seem to be an average hunting rifle. I know that weapons are toned down for civilian usage(such as reducing clip sizes) but weapons of this grade shouldn't really be on sale.

Okay, I'm going to break this down for you and Stella because you both asked this question.

The AR-15 (aka, M-16) is a decent hunting rifle, but also good for home defense. I know a couple people have an M-16 (yup, what the Marines use) and they all use theirs for hunting. Unless you're hunting really big game (elk, moose, bear) you don't need a high-powered rifle, and with dense forest, you don't need one that can shoot something 2 miles away. Thus the AK-47 (my boss has one) and the M-16 are all decent hunting rifles: They have enough power to bring down a deer or wild pig (or coyotes in my case, there's a big pack where I live that get too close to our horses) and are mid-range weapons, perfect for a forest setting. They're also quite ergonomic.

Now I want to make it very clear that these weapons are NOTHING compared to the full military version. I mean... I can't even describe how much they are nothing compared to the military version. Small magazines, for one, means these guns are of limited use in any kind of combat situation. Also, you guys do not properly appreciate how powerful full-auto is.

Full-auto is pretty much short for "make the air in front of me a flying wall of lead". Imagine putting out 300 bullets in 2 seconds. You can't. I can't. It's impossible to imagine, but holy shits is it deadly. If a guy walked into a mall with a full-automatic, military M16, you can bet that the body count wouldn't in the twenties. It'd be somewhere in the sixties. Which is EXACTLY why the American populace doesn't have that kind of capability. Technically, it's possible to convert a gun to full-auto, but that was possible only several decades ago. Nowadays, counter measures built in the guns are so good, there's no effing WAY you're going to convert them to full-auto.

These guns may look super deadly and professional because we see them in movies all the time, but let me tell you this: Don't let appearances deceive you. It may look like a bad, scary gun, but in reality it's nothing more than a slightly more powerful handgun (and when it comes to the M16, there are plenty more powerful handguns, believe me), with a frame that makes it more comfortable and easier to make precise shots on large targets. Like deer. (Or terrorists, for the military, but you get my drift.)

A good idea would be to have an increased check on backgrounds of weapon purchasers. This could help pick up an any sort of mental illness, in my opinion. But, that being said, people can flick and change in a very quick time and a person who- at the time of issuing- is of sound mind could develop something later.

I will state once more, that all these shooters acquired their guns illegally, either through proxy, theft, or murder. Adam Lanza TRIED to buy a gun, but he was denied for mental concerns! WE DO check the mental stability of everyone trying to buy a firearm, throughout the country. The system works. It works so well that when a mentally ill person does get their hands on a gun, it was ILLEGALLY. Because they had no other way of getting one.

I'm not completely sure if this is done already so feel free to correct me, but I believe that legal gun owners should be checked up on in a monthly basis by a doctor to maintain if they are still of sound mind to own said weaponry. Obviously, this is easier said than done, but I think it should be introduced.

I appreciate your concern, but ultimately this is impossible to do. NONE of the shooters legally owned a gun. I have a gun and a concealed carry permit too, and there is no way any goverment system is going to get enough funding to check thousands of people like me, every month. It's just not possible. A good sentiment, but ultimately not feasible.

Like I said, this problem should be treated at the source: with getting mentally ill people off the streets and into asylums, which we haven't had since Carter.

The main problem isn't the lack of security, but the mental health issues which usually lead to this type of act. While the active availability to guns is related to acts, I feel that a persons mental issues has much more blame for these. Perhaps a mental health checking scheme could help?

I couldn't agree with you more, and in fact already addressed this earlier in this post. There's absolutely NO system in place to care for mentally ill people, or to contain them BEFORE the commit a crime. THAT'S why these shootings happen. And that's why these shootings will continue to happen with greater frequency until we wise up and do something about the problem, not the tool.

This myth that a teacher who has never fired a gun in a armed intruder situation will somehow become Dirty Harry when an assault rifle is pointed at them is amazingly stupid.

Now you're just being silly.

WHO said that teachers would be unarmed? Who? Where? Show me that quote and I will smack that person myself. I go to the gun range every month to stay in practice. You don't get a concealed carry permit for good behavior, you have to take training classes and pass a background check by the FBI to get that license. This isn't some game, it's treated seriously and yet everyone acts like over here in America we give everyone a free gun for every purchase over 5 or more dollars. Be real here. If teachers want to carry guns in schools, they would have to have mandatory gun range hours, no negotiations about it. We wouldn't just hand them a gun and say 'good luck.'



To conclude:

The guns are not the cause of death, it's the people doing the actually killing. We have no mental health system, ensuring that mentally unstable people run around without any way to keep them contained until they actually commit a crime. A gun is a tool. How someone uses that tool doesn't not define it; it defines the person. A man who uses a hammer to build houses is called a carpenter. A man who uses a hammer to break fingers is called a torturer. Does the hammer change? No. The person does.

People can't keep saying that it's the GUN'S fault for causing this to happen, that the GUN enabled this to happen. It didn't. The people who use them are the actual SOURCE of the problem and that is what we should be treating. Taking guns away will do nothing. Killers will merely move onto knives and swords and if you take them away, they'll go to bats and golf clubs. The weapon is ultimately inconsequential. It is the person that we must take care of.

You shouldn't be saying, OMG, A MADMAN JUST SHOT THESE PEOPLE!

You should be asking, why was this madman walking freely around in the first place?




"It is perhaps a privilege of those who have never had to confront violence to disparage the power to resist." -- Richard Munday










P.S. Quote me if you wish, but I'm not going to reply here. PM me if you want, but I'm not getting drawn into a flaming debate. Sorry.

 

[~Griever~]

Canada has about 15 million guns. US has 310 million. Even scaled for population, there are still (literally) twice as many guns in the US as there are in Canada.

Interesting. Though my original vague point still stands. Even without the guns you'll still have the social pressues/cultural psychology that creates individuals who are capable of mass murder such as this. Maybe the Government should be doing something to help with the growing class divide in the US (as other Governments around the world should be doing.) Highly stratified societies are in general far more violent and unstable.

I do agree with most of you that having armed guards is ludicrous. Though I also agree that if you arm a certain portion of society e.g. the Government (and their private army the police force) you're naive and asking for trouble down the line. In the end Governments don't care about the people. They never have. The only time people are willing to be limited by Government and let the Government grow into a bigger monster is when they are afraid. I think the quote is "those who would trade liberty for the illusion of safety deserve neither."

Obviously, I don't know the solution for the mass shootings America has seen but I also don't relish the idea of more Governmental control for the American people. It's a slippery slope towards tyranny and if you ignore it or placate yourself by thinking "it wouldn't happen these days" then you're probably missing whats going on in the world right now.

 

[Squid]

Ugh, Americans have such a ME ME ME attitude like the world owes you something and you deserve whatever you want and you should have it when you want it.
People DO NOT need guns. People do not need guns for safety people do not need guns for anything. If you all got over your 2nd amendment obsession and thew away your guns, your country would be a safer place.

Schools do not need armed security guards, how traumatising for a kid going to school to see their teacher or a security guard with a gun? And wow, way to ingrain it into their young brains that the only way to be safe is with a gun (also way to make sure they're living in constant fear of being shot). Whats next? Arm the teachers?? What happens if the teacher is careless, leaves it in an unlocked draw or something by accident coz they're stressed and a kid gets it? Or what happens when a teacher has just had enough and snaps like all these other crazy people who have just snapped and gone on shooting sprees??

I fucking hate the saying "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" sure it's true but that doesn't give people the right to get a gun whenever they feel like it. Plus gun loving Americans are ridiculous....the less of you guys without guns the better. The less guns the less shootings, It's been proven time and time again in many different countries with tight gun laws. Gun owners are blind to the facts though because of their I AM AMERICAN AND I DESERVE THIS GUN attitude.

It's time for some re-educating, you Yankies. Police and the Military should be the only people with guns, they are in charge of protecting the people, they are trained to protect you and they have gone through extensive background checks. Security Guards, Teachers and ordinary people do not need guns. The harder it is to get a gun the less deaths by guns there will be.

If a person is crazy and wants to shoot someone up or kill them or whatever, they'll do their darndest to do it but why are you making it so easy for them??

It really just doesn't make sense

 

[Shinra Executive]

This idea that everyone having a gun somehow equates to shared power baffles me. They're talking about putting infant Americans under armed guards and this doesn't somehow resonate with you as something more akin to a Military State than a land of freedom and opportunity?

Where is the empowerment in you and your loved ones being constantly at the mercy of the average gun toting citizen and their impulses? It's a very warped sense of empowerment indeed. That your priorities would lie in an unwarranted paranoia of the government going from Jekyll to Hyde rather than the more immediate threat of the wider population being armed is lunacy to me.

Your argument fails, because the only way you can position it is by pretty much putting your head to government heels. There is no lunacy in observing that the world is simply a bad place and the fact that those with power eventually exploit those without power.
It's a little something called common sense, which is becoming less and less common.

The reason why America can actually live by a constitution is because of shared power. As soon as you take that power away, that constitution will start to deteriorate. America isn't a wad of pussies. I hate to say it, but when you look at other countries who have pretty much become virgins to war and strenuous social endeavors, it's easy to say 'let's give up the guns mate!'. Turning countries into cookie dough doesn't make people better. People from those countries just came over here. They come here because it's a state of freedom.

It's time for some re-educating, you Yankies.

Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it, and damn, if anti-gun logic doesn't leave out the word 'history' in it's vocabulary.
You all are just repeating history. You aren't re-educating, you are de-educating.

 

[CassinoChips]

As a member of the NRA I ask you to take this with a grain of salt.

Oh Caitlin. You drank the Kool-Aid? I thought you were smarter than that.

Yes, the CE did say this, but basically it was a political move. Realistically, this is impossible to do within a month and he knows that. I know that. Everyone knows that, but this statement also doesn't set the NRA up as the bad guy, which is the total goal of this statement. I mean, that seems pretty obvious to me, just reading that article you linked to.

I understand that the majority of - or at least a significant portion of - rank and file NRA members actually would be fine with stricter gun control laws in some forms. It's just the idiot policy-making lobbyists at the top who would rather jerk off with a gun in their hand. Unfortunately, it's those idiots at the top who are lobbying Washington and dictating policy.

So I don't see why it's such a terrible thing for them to wait a week before making a statement. Making a political issue of it too soon is just plain insensitive, if you ask me.

Because it makes them look like they care more about their guns than about the deaths guns are causing. That's why they wait to spew their typical blather. Although they may as well not wait, because clearly they care more about their guns than preventing murder.

1. Americans treat guns for what they really are; a tool to protect, defend and grant yourself a measure of power in dangerous situations.

It's a little more than that. There's an obsession with guns in this country. If it were just a tool, people would get rid of them when they were known to cause 15,000 deaths per year.

2. Maybe guns are a prominent symbol of AMERICAN freedom because we're still one of the few countries that allow our populace to have such arms. It has always been this way.

Because we're the only ones stupid enough not to realize that they kill more than they save.

Disarming the population will get you NOTHING other than a higher body count.

Adam Lanza's mother wasn't part of the population then?

Think about it. Gun-control laws will only affect the law abiding.

And you know who is committing these mass shootings? The law abiding. So yes, let's affect them please.

If you take away guns from everyone,

Not everyone. Most people aren't advocating banning all guns everywhere. Only restricting their access to specific portions of the population, limiting weapons that can fire multiple rounds per second, high capacity clips and magazines, and multiple weapons per person. Your gun is safe. Your guns are not.

Once again, these laws affect only the law-abiding and do NOTHING to hinder the law breakers.

So we should get rid of drug laws too, right? I mean only criminals have the means to access drugs, and it's only criminals that are doing drugs, so clearly the laws are broken and should be taken off the books, since really the only thing they are doing is preventing law-abiding citizens from acquiring and using drugs.

Now, the current system of gun laws works. Adam Lanza tried to buy guns but was denied because of the gun laws currently in place.

So instead he goes to his mother who has six guns in her arsenal in the suburbs for no reason. Legally acquired guns. Six of them. In the suburbs. Sure didn't help her when he shot her in the head.

The Columbine shooters had the same difficulties and had to turn to a proxy to get them guns. All these shootings happen when the shooters manage to get their hands on guns in some way the laws just can't cover, like Lanza getting his mother's handguns. If she had a trigger lock or stored them in a safe, maybe it would've been a different story, especially since she already suspected his mental stability. That mall-shooting? The gun had been stolen. These are extenuating circumstances laws can't cover, no matter how hard you try.

Bullshit. You can cover those. You don't allow multiple guns to a person. You don't allow assault weapons. You mandate weapons training, background checks, firearm registry, and licensing on all carriers. That eliminates the Newtown shooting, the Portland shooting, probably averts Columbine.

Also....

If she had a trigger lock or stored them in a safe,

Let's keep in mind who fought hard against laws requiring trigger locks. That's right, your wonderful NRA.

That said, removing guns entirely from the picture will solve nothing.If someone is determined to commit mass murder, there's very little that can stop them.

Except, you know, not being able to easily access guns.

Take for example, a man in China that stabbed 22 people at a school: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/30/world/asia/30china.html?_r=0

How about this one, also in China, are stabbed: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/30/world/asia/30china.html?_r=0

You know what my favorite part about the story of the dude in China stabbing 22 kids was? NOBODY FUCKING DIED.

See, it doesn't take a gun to kill anyone. Just a person determined to kill others. Give them a knife, a bat, a car, a gun -- anything is a deadly weapon in a madman's hands.

Guns make it 1000 times easier to kill multiple people very quickly. Common sense.

Morbid fascination? What, you think we treat guns like candy? That's insulting and you're smart enough to know better, Harlequin. The everday citizen can defend themselves against such attacks because they can have a gun as well. And this system works.

No, candy is pretty accurate. Guns for people are like candy for children. They jealously guard them against anybody who might take their candy away. They like to enjoy their candy. They rationalize why it wasn't their candy that is giving them cavities. Pretty accurate.

In Virginia tech, 32 people died. But the media NEVER SAYS A DAMN WORD about Virginia’s Appalachian Law School, where a similar incident occurred in 2002. A shooter killed 3 people before a student went to his car, got his pistol his has a license for, and apprehended the shooter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_School_of_Law_shooting

Couple things here.

1) The reason nobody cared (relative to Columbine/Newtown/etc.) about this shooting is because it involved adults, not children.

2) The dudes who went at got guns were police officers and a former Marine. Kinda OK with them owning guns because they've been trained to respond to armed intruder situations.

The mall shooting at Portland, Oregon? Ever wonder why so few people were shot? Because a man with a concealed carry firearm drew on the shooter and when the shooter saw him, decided to take his own life. http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-183593571.html

Bullshit. There's no evidence that the shooter ever saw Meli. Also, by his own account, the reason the shooter stopped firing was because his gun had jammed. The shooter was "banging the side of his gun."

A woman shoots a man breaking into her home to defend herself and her child. http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/woman-kills-intruder-breaking-home-15286257

Good for her. The death toll via guns still hugely outweighs the number of lives saved.

Because those guns aren't being bought for murder, they're being bought for hunting and protection.

Great. You don't need assault weapons for either of those. You don't need drum magazines for either of those. You don't need more than one gun for either of those.

The very fact such mass shootings are rare should tell you something about how the VAST majority of American's treat and use their guns -- they way they supposed to, responsibly. Know how many people die each year from being shot? 30,000. Now if you rule out suicides, only 9,000 die from being shot. Rule out accidents, and that's another thousand dropped off. So that means only 8,000 homicides are actually commited with guns in the US and keep in mind that's still covering things like gang wars.

Why would you rule out suicides? Suicides in many cases are impulse incidents, and are only exacerbated by the availability of the means of committing the act, i.e. a nearby gun. As always, remove the gun, save a life.

That's pretty damn awesome out of more than 300 MILLION guns out there. It just goes to prove that Americans use their guns they way they are intended to, and crime and mass murders are the EXCEPTION not the RULE.

If crime is the exception, why do you carry a gun in Detroit?

How dare you say that? Keep in mind the people you are so brazenly insulting may be the ones right beside you! Since when did the NRA use this incident for their own purposes? Where? Show me! You CAN'T because you're making this up. You're one to accuse others with being out of touch with reality, because your quote here is never a truer example of that. I fight for gun rights because I don't want to be helpless when someoen attacks me or my family. I want to have the ability to protect and defend myself and those I love from those that would do them harm, and your'e accusing me of being a paranoid, baby-killing creep?

RIGHTEOUS INDIGNATION.

There's a difference between gun rights and unfettered gun rights. Most sane people would agree that we should not have unfettered gun rights.

Let me tell you this: If you can assure me, 100% gaurantee, that me and my family will never, ever be in danger, that no one will EVER hurt us, then I will hand in my guns right now. If you can ensure complete and total safety, I will have no need of my gun. There would simply be no use for it anymore.

Can you assure me, 100%, that your gun will never ever be stolen? That you will never ever have a psychological break?

But until that day, I'll keep it with me. Consider, that not everyone has as much faith in their perfect and total safety as you do. Some of us have to look danger in the face everyday and want to be able to do something about it.

Every day! Every single day! Settle down, Rambo.

What a joke! I don't know what crimeless world you're living in, but it sure isn't Earth.

Violent crime in the U.S. is at its lowest rate since they started tracking such things.

Arming teachers is the best way to counter school shootings. Instead of waiting on response times of the authorities or praying a security guard is near by, a teacher can immediately act to defend themselves and the children under their care.

No. Just no. You want to put a gun within easy reach of 25 16-year-olds? Are your taxes going to pay for that teacher's license? For their gun range hours? For their training? And again, making teachers out to be someone who can respond properly without killing bystanders is ludicrous.

What a load of crock. Madmen walk into schools with death on their mind and you say it's totally unwarrented to want to arm teachers? Please.

If you get the guns out of "madmen's" hands, you don't have to arm anyone in the first place.

A gun doesn't enable any more than a knife, or a bat, or a pickaxe or a chainsaw, or a two-ton truck, or a sword. All of these things can kill. It isn't the object that does the killing, it's the person behind it.

You're right. And I don't want to regulate guns. I want to regulate the people behind them.

Once again, you're looking at the tool, not the problem. The problem is that we have young men trying to kill as many people as they can. The method they chose (guns) isn't the problem. It's the very fact they did it, that's the problem. Please refer to the middle of my post where I cover the utter and total lack of mental health care system in America.

Why do they choose guns? Perhaps because they are so readily available to them?

The problem is this: We have crazy people shooting kids at schools, movies, and malls.

The question you should be asking: Why are dangerous crazy people walking into schools, movies, and malls?

A gun didn't kill those kids, just like a knife didn't kill those kids in China, or a truck didn't kill those people in Akibahara. The people behind those devices is what did it, they are the cause of the death. Taking guns away won't stop mass killings so long as nothing is done about the people doing the actual killing, get it? Treat the source of the problem, not the method.

Mass shootings account for about 150 deaths by guns per year. That leaves 14,850 deaths by guns per year "untreated." The vast majority of gun homicides are not committed by people who "snap" and kill several people. They revolve around gang violence, arguments that escalate, and bystanders caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. The mental health problem is certainly a concern. But it doesn't address the problem at the heart of the matter. There are too many guns in this country, and too many people can get their hands on them.

And you say guns don't give us any power against the goverment? Gee, it worked out for us in 1776. Look up "American Minute Man." The reason the American Revolution succeeded is because every family had a gun and since everyone was involved in the Revolution, we could field an army within minutes -- thus the name 'minute-man'. Besides, that's just ONE reason we have guns in America. Don't get too focused on it.

You realize this isn't 1776 any more right? Those guys didn't have anything that could fire mulitple rounds per minute, let alone per second. Different times call for different laws.

That is incredibly insulting and I think you owe me and a lot of other people on here an apology. Honestly, Harlequin, I know how smart you are, we've never disagreed before, and I can't believe you are saying these things now. You just said that I am responsible for the deaths of children merely because I want the right to protect myself and my family.

You, directly, aren't. Your disavowal of the role guns have in these killings contributes to the reasons people die.

When you see a police officer, do you automatically think you're living in a military state? No? Well that's exactly what they are proposing here. Added security to schools. Where you got the images of military men with M16s and dogs and razor wire is beyond me. You're blowing this so far out of proportion, it's mildly hilarious.

When you see gun control, do you automatically recoil in horror and look for the nearest person who is going to kill you? The blowing out of proportion goes both ways.

But I'm not at the mercy of the 'average gun-toting citizen'. Don't you get that? People who carry concealed guns have to go through training and a background check done by the FBI before they can carry it. THEY are your average citizen. Concealed-carry people do not treat this as some kind of ability to get away with the impossible. You'll never even know they are carrying. Letting people know you are carrying isn't even the point. The point is to be prepared should something happen (god frobid) that neccessitates the use of force. No one carries a gun to kill: They carry a gun to defend.

Defend by killing the other person. Don't play semantics.

That is where the difference in YOUR perception and reality is. You think everyone carrying a gun means mass shootings everywhere. The reality is that people carry guns so they don't have to sit around helpless if someone attacks them.

No, most people realize that people carrying a gun means a higher likelihood of somebody getting shot. Which is what we would like to avoid.

And excuse me, but do you honestly think that folks like Adam Lanza are our 'average citizen'? XDDDDDDDDD That is so.... stereotypical, I don't have words for it. HE WAS CRAZY. HE KILLED HIS MOTHER AND THEN KILLED PEOPLE AT WHERE SHE WORKED! Know what crazy people like him do? They fixate on those closest to them -- in this case, his mother. It goes without saying that NOT everyone in the US is a crazy, homicidial sociopath like Adam Lanza here. You're basically saying that the average citizen is a serial-killer, XD, and I don't have to explain why that's a silly idea.

He may have been crazy - although he more likely was diagnosed incorrectly and was certainly autistic - but his mother who owned six guns including an assault rifle, was not. And that's the point. Legal guns, acquired legally, by legal citizens, are being used to kill people. It's not criminals that are doing this.

I am 5' 4" and weigh 124 pounds. I'm not that big, I'm not that strong. Let's say I'm attacked by a man who is 6'1" and weighs 200 pounds. He's much bigger and much stronger than me. There's no way I can shake him off or get away. This results in me getting raped.

Kick him in the nuts. Very effective. Knife him in the gut. Very effective. Also, most rapes are committed by someone the victim knows, not some random dude off the street.

I'm a member of the NRA and I think I'm in a much better position to know how we treat guns, thank you.

Appeal to authority fallacy.

Fetishization of guns? WHERE did you get that preposterous idea? Gangs fetishize guns. War lords festishize guns. All the NRA does is defend the right to own guns and use them. Nothing more. It doesn't make guns into some kind of sex-appeal-boosting bullshit. EVERY member of the NRA will be the first to tell you that guns are not toys. Guns are dangerous, guns are NOT taken lightly, and guns should be used with the utmost responsibility and seriousness. It's not liek we go running out, shooting guns into the air while dancing naked under moonlight. XD (That image is pretty funny, though.) Be serious, please, and reign in the wild accusations. All the NRA did was propose an added layer of security, nothing more.

Fetishization? Of guns? In the U.S.? How about this. Or this. Or this.

And again, I remind you, that in all these mass shootings, the guns were obtained illegally or through murder (Adam Lanza).

Wrong. Seung-Hui Cho acquired his guns legally. Lanza's mother acquired her guns legally. Klebold and Harris actually acquired their guns legally through a gun show, which circumvents virtually every gun control law on the books.

The guns have NOTHING to do with it. Security guards in schools won't prevent a madman from busting into a school. An insane asylum, however, will. Just one more reason this 'security guards in school' won't work. But no one wants to hear it was the shooter's fault -- they just want to attack the gun, which is absolutely beside the point. Whether he had a gun or a knife makes no difference. The very fact he killed his mother then killed 26 people where she worked is the problem.

I can outrun a guy with a knife. I can't outrun a bullet. Common sense.

I've never heard of an 'ex NRA' member in a mass shooting. It isn't like the NRA is the same as the Black Panthers. We're not a secret organization. We have more in common with the AARP than anything else.

Except the whole protecting things that kill people thing.

I will state once more, that all these shooters acquired their guns illegally, either through proxy, theft, or murder. Adam Lanza TRIED to buy a gun, but he was denied for mental concerns! WE DO check the mental stability of everyone trying to buy a firearm, throughout the country. The system works. It works so well that when a mentally ill person does get their hands on a gun, it was ILLEGALLY. Because they had no other way of getting one.

The system does not work. Gun shows and private gun sales are ways to circumvent the laws, for one. For two, you can jump to a state with laxer gun laws to circumvent your own state's. So no, the system does not work.

WHO said that teachers would be unarmed? Who? Where? Show me that quote and I will smack that person myself. I go to the gun range every month to stay in practice. You don't get a concealed carry permit for good behavior, you have to take training classes and pass a background check by the FBI to get that license. This isn't some game, it's treated seriously and yet everyone acts like over here in America we give everyone a free gun for every purchase over 5 or more dollars. Be real here. If teachers want to carry guns in schools, they would have to have mandatory gun range hours, no negotiations about it. We wouldn't just hand them a gun and say 'good luck.'

You might want to read my post again. I never said the word "unarmed." However, since you're willing to foot the bill for all this training, how much of your paycheck should we whittle away for the taxes it would cost to properly train a teacher.

You should be asking, why was this madman walking freely around in the first place?

Or, alternatively, why do we continue to allow madmen to acquire guns legally?

P.S. Quote me if you wish, but I'm not going to reply here. PM me if you want, but I'm not getting drawn into a flaming debate. Sorry.

If you're that scared of defending your opinions, you shouldn't post them in the first place.

 

[Shinra Executive]

A man is walking down the street and gets mugged and killed. If he had a gun, he could have saved himself. Another man is at home, with his wife and kids. People break in, kills his wife, wounds his children. If he had a gun, he could have saved his family, but instead had to wait for the false hope of the police getting there in time.

Unlike mass shootings, these things happen everyday. Liberals love their damn statistics, but statistics don't mean anything when your looking death right in the face. Therefore, anti-guns is preposterous. Nobody really gives a shit about statistics, they don't want to be victims. Any anti-gun blowhard will wish they had a gun if it ever happens that they find their self in a life threatening situation.

In my opinion, I think the most freedom killing thing one can do is strip people of arms. It's both a new beginning and the cause of tyranny. In the next fifty years, we are going to see the citizens of such countries start to become more and more suppressed until it eventually turns into oppression. In certain parts of Europe, for example, the already limited free speech is becoming more limited. They are all being bound up in invisible chains and don't even realize it.

 

[Harlequin]

@Dragon Mage

Some Americans are responsible with their firearms. Some have a perverse fascination with firearms. Some rob and intimidate with theirs. Hey, some even commit infanticide with them. Can't argue with the facts right?

There's no question a weapon in someone's hand empowers them, but a weapon in everyone's hand only empowers those who are inclined to use them. And when every Tom, Dick and Harry has the capacity to shatter your life by murdering your loved ones you're very much at the mercy of those who are inclined to act on their anger, jealousy, bitterness, resentment and hate. The idea that strictly madmen carry out these shootings is a half truth. It's certainly a form of psychosis but it's ordinary people who snap.

And if you think criminals can just acquire a weapon when it's illegal like you can buy a bunch of flowers you don't have a very good idea of how the black market works. Granted, if guns were made illegal tomorrow in the US it wouldn't be too problematic to acquire one because the country is absolutely saturated with guns but take for example the UK where guns have been phased out of society, it's not as simple as finding someone willing to sell a gun to you like drugs. You don't post your need for a gun on craigslist! You have to find someone who has a gun for sale but chances are your best bet would be to find someone who knows of someone who has a gun for sale. Then, the challenge is first getting them to divulge that information to you and then vouching for you and establishing a link between you and the seller. That alone takes either enormous trust or horrendous naivety on their part, not to mention that once you have this weapon if you get caught with that gun you're open to be charged with every crime that can be attributed to that gun. When what you thought would be a possession charge turns into you looking at 25 to life your tongue is going to loosen very quick and a lot of people are going to be implicated as a product of your stupidity.

Very few people who go through all that effort and risk actually end up doing crimes that don't pay in the slightest. You're looking at armed robbery as the most likely scenario to come from that. The only people who would have such regular access to guns would be those who run in gang circles and even then only those who can be entrusted with the responsibility to not use them so whimsically as to bring heat on their practices. If they're a threat to you then no arsenal in your closet is going to stop the Mafia from putting the squeeze on you. Street gangs may have guns but they're confiscated very quickly because they're used in very petty, poorly planned crimes. In the UK, the chances of an intruder entering the average household with a gun is remote. If it's something you're genuinely paranoid of in Britain to me you certainly fit the profile of someone who shouldn't be allowed to go anywhere near a gun.

Knives may be a problem but in the case of mass murder kitchen knives are prone to snap in frenzied attacks, they're not built for stabbing. Not to mention the fatigue that would set in after a prolonged assault and the relative ease to stopping a knife wielder when the alternative is a gun slinger. A bat can be used for sport and a car is a very expensive and bizarre weapon of choice. A gun is built for destruction. The rounds are anti-material rounds. There really is no disputing it.

The thought that there are people out there who argue these mass murders are inevitable because someone could/would wreak the same havoc in a car would be laughable if it wasn't incredibly sad.

And quite frankly, if the Chief Executive isn't forced to resign that means the organization supports his views and his statement. What I said about the NRA was the reality of their position. It's this unnecessary paranoia and fear mongering that the NRA perpetuate which makes disarmament out of the question, by extension enabling regular shootings. You yourself are perpetuating this paranoia! When was the last time you had to use a firearm to protect yourself?

I have no where near total faith in society, which is precisely the reason why I would hate for everyone to be armed to the teeth! People aren't hopelessly defenseless and crime isn't flourishing in the UK nor Australia. What makes you think the USA couldn't possibly follow suit?

That is incredibly insulting and I think you owe me and a lot of other people on here an apology. Honestly, Harlequin, I know how smart you are, we've never disagreed before, and I can't believe you are saying these things now. You just said that I am responsible for the deaths of children merely because I want the right to protect myself and my family.

That is sick, cruel, and totally uncalled for, Harlequin. It really is.

It's insulting to suggest someone who obstructs stricter gun control laws is recklessly putting innocents at risk? The reason why an apology isn't forthcoming is because that's the reality of it. If thousands of innocents are dying annually and yet you've never been in a situation that called for you to use your gun... yet you're still adamant it's worth that annual sacrifice based on what really just equates to paranoia and you oppose tighter gun controls, then whilst you haven't pulled the trigger that killed the children you've blocked measures that would've potentially prevented such regular tragedies.

But I'm not at the mercy of the 'average gun-toting citizen'. Don't you get that?

Listen, whether a gun wielding citizen is responsible or not you're still at the mercy of their impulses. There is still an enormous trust in allowing them to arm themselves.

--- Edit ---
Shinra Executive

A man is walking down the street and gets mugged and killed. If he had a gun, he could have saved himself. Another man is at home, with his wife and kids. People break in, kills his wife, wounds his children. If he had a gun, he could have saved his family, but instead had to wait for the false hope of the police getting there in time.

Killed how? With a gun perhaps?

A man walks down the street and is mugged at gunpoint. If he had a gun he could have been shot trying to draw on the mugger.

If I'm at home and an intruder breaks in a puts a gun to my head I'm going to wish I had a gun. If my gun is in the closet upstairs and his is pointed at my face I'm going to wish neither of us had guns in the first place. Liberal views have absolutely nothing to do with it.

 

[Shinra Executive]

Killed how? With a gun perhaps?

A man walks down the street and is mugged at gunpoint. If he had a gun he could have been shot trying to draw on the mugger.

Yes, with a gun, because guns don't magically disappear off the face of the Earth. Making guns illegal just makes a criminal with a gun more confident.
A gun store is not the only place to get a gun- in fact, most murders are done with stolen guns so the wrap doesn't lead back to the shooter.
Nobody who lives in REALITY wants to live in fear just because other people fail to protect themselves. SOME people believe in self perseverance, not some asinine notion of making the world adequate to preserve themselves.

 

[Harlequin]

Yes, with a gun, because guns don't magically disappear off the face of the Earth. Making guns illegal just makes a criminal with a gun more confident.
A gun store is not the only place to get a gun- in fact, most murders are done with stolen guns so the wrap doesn't lead back to the shooter.
Nobody who lives in REALITY wants to live in fear just because other people fail to protect themselves. SOME people believe in self perseverance, not some asinine notion of making the world adequate to preserve themselves.

What gun??! Where is your average criminal going to find a gun in the UK? I've addressed this point guns aren't nearly as available as people like to think when they've been phased out. The only reason they would be in the USA if it were to be illegal tomorrow is because the country is absolutely saturated with guns.

What has your gun protected you from that my lack of a gun hasn't?

 

[The Welsh Paddy]

But the thing is, if guns were illegal, then these criminals wouldn't be able to steal another person's firearm so easilly. Simple.

I mean, you talk about the majority of these gun crimes being done with a stolen firearm. Like that Adam Lanza bloke who stole the gun from his mother. She got that legally, but had there been laws against your average citizen possessing a firearm, then how would he have managed to steal it? He would have had to acquire one through a dealer, which would be much more difficult.

Banning firearms isn't gonna put a complete stop to gun crime, but it would put a tight leash on it and make it that much more difficult to accomplish.

But seriously...

Hardly anyone uses firearms in the UK. Even our police force don't have them unless under some very particular circumstances that may call the need for them. But you know what? Even though police officers have been killed doing their job here, a survey was carried out and there was still a majority vote against police officers carrying a firearm. The majority of police officers here, given the choice, would rather not use them.

 

[Shinra Executive]

But the thing is, if guns were illegal, then these criminals wouldn't be able to steal another person's firearm so easilly. Simple.

But the thing is, if a criminal has a gun, then you might just die. Simple.

Also: see stabbing, battering, jumping, and so on. Just because I wouldn't die doesn't mean I want to be mortally wounded or left for potential death either. You leave somebody to that fate because you want to fix the world with something that cannot fix it? Instead of people taking some personal accountability and arming themselves, they want to strip everyone else of guns?

The world is not responsible for you and your loved ones. It is a bad place. Get used to it.

 

[The Welsh Paddy]

But if it was legal to own a gun, and I had one, chances are that criminal would manage to shoot me before I even take aim. Unless I was Neo... Or Christian Bale in Equilibrium... Since that isn't the case, then I'd pretty much be fucked either way. I'm not doubting people have prevented crime by using a firearm, or managed to save themselves from a life threatening situation. It's just that they're mostly used for the worse. I mean, 8,000 murders per year with a gun? I know America is huge and all, but I still find that number too large for my liking. Even if it only trims it down a little, that's still more lives being saved, regardless of whether or not it's only a few.

The point that most people seem to be making here, who are against guns, is that it would help prevent gun crime, not eradicate it. At least that's the way I see it.

 

[Shinra Executive]

But if it was legal to own a gun, and I had one, chances are that criminal would manage to shoot me before I even take aim. Unless I was Neo... Or Christian Bale in Equilibrium... Since that isn't the case, then I'd pretty much be fucked either way. I'm not doubting people have prevented crime by using a firearm, or managed to save themselves from a life threatening situation. It's just that they're mostly used for the worse. I mean, 8,000 murders per year with a gun? I know America is huge and all, but I still find that number too large for my liking. Even if it only trims it down a little, that's still more lives being saved, regardless of whether or not it's only a few.

The point that most people seem to be making here, who are against guns, is that it would help prevent gun crime, not eradicate it. At least that's the way I see it.

If you have a gun, your heart isn't racing when you are approached by a mysterious stranger in the dead of the night. The first thing you do is hold your pistol. One does not simply make up a specific situation and act like that's supposed to suffice for an anti-gun argument. Situations come in all shapes and sizes.

And yes, America is big. It is 311 million big, as opposed to the UK's 62 million. Also, that is where all the criminals go. All Latin gangs in America, for example, were originally formed in other places, where instead of using a gun, simply grabbed a machete. Crips and Bloods in the 60's would make spray paint grenades and stab the shit out each other.
Places in Europe ban guns because they don't have those problems. Instead of being glad that you live in a place where guns aren't required, you all try to act like you all are some example. Yall aren't, yall are just lucky. It's the reason why guns were able to banned in the first place.

 

[ribbit]

So if a man comes to beat you up in the middle of the night you should grip your trusty pistol and shoot him through the eyes?

 

[Shinra Executive]

So if a man comes to beat you up in the middle of the night you should grip your trusty pistol and shoot him through the eyes?

There wouldn't be a fight, because I would pull out my pistol and they would run away. I won't get stabbed, battered, or jumped either.
You gonna have a bloody, medieval royale or are you going to be prepared? That's the purpose which guns were made for in the first place.

Try it out once. See how fast your opinion changes on gun protection.

 

[charliepanayi]

I find it highly amusing anyone continues to argue with this guy.

Anyway, gun control arguments are pointless, nothing will change, nothing ever does. And it's not just laws, it's over two hundred years of attitudes. Good luck to any politician who even attempts to start trying to change that.

 

[Shaissa]

Well I don't know about you guys but I don't carry a gun everywhere I go, so if someone did mug me, and had a gun yeah i wouldn't be able to pull out any gun and shoot them.

Really I think we really should limit who gets guns. I mean if you are not a hunter, or a police officer or in the army, why would you need a gun? I'm no hunter or anything like that and I don't carry a gun. I just don't see the point of every person wanting a gun to "protect themselves" when if they were illegal then guess what, you wouldn't need a gun anyways.

 

[~Griever~]

The whole thing with this situation is that it's an emotional response to an evocative issue. Children being murdered is never going to be okay, but you've also got to face reality and be aware that thousands of children die everyday. Just think of the civilian casualties that have occurred in countries such as Iraq, Syria and Libya due to drone attacks from the US and NATO forces. Obama's crocodile tears cannot justify or gloss over such issues. The media barely reports it and there is virtually zero outcry from the western nations.

In a time when liberties are constantly under threat with such acts as the NDAA and SOPA I'd be very cautious as to the real reason the Government wants to disarm the public. Maybe the people 'behind the scenes' really are compassionate and care deeply about children and their safety, but judging by the US's foreign policy (and other nations that follow suit) I highly doubt it.