NRA calls for armed school guards

[Shinra Executive]

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.

If you don't have a gun and you are in a dangerous situation, you have no control over it. Transgressors do not have to have a gun or even a weapon for that matter if there are a few of them for you to be in danger. You might not die, but the possibility of being brutalized and potentially left for dead is just as good a reason to have a gun.
That is why anti-gun arguments in this respect do not prevail.

 

[Prince Oberyn Martel]

You Americans are going to want to keep your guns. It's going to be a scary day if ever guns are outlawed for the common people. Take them out the hands of law-abiding, responsible human beings who want to be able to take care of their family from the criminals (and in some many ways the government) who are always going to be in supply of firearms. Yeah really sounds like a brilliant idea whilst the country is slowly becoming a Nazi-Germany throwback.

I don't agree with whats being proposed by the NRA but I do think a school should have staff (or a number of people, depending on size of the site) trained with a concealed firearm on site. Somebody needs to be there to protect the children in a country where mass-shootings are on the rise but it doesn't have to be such a big deal.

A gun is a inanimate object that should be treated with respect. A gun does not have the ability to function on its own. Its not what is causing the damage that should be the issue but who is causing it. What I'd be also more concerned about is why these shootings are happening and why now. There are some high rolling individuals making a lot of money off these dead children whilst you all bicker about an inanimate objects.

 

[CassinoChips]

Nazi Germany? Really?

As I've said... twice now in this thread, I think... virtually every high school and middle school in the country has an armed sheriff's deputy or police officer on site. Including the sites where shootings have happened. It didn't help.

The more guns answer is asinine. If I'm trying to put out a fire, I don't use more fire.

 

[Shinra Executive]

The more guns answer is asinine.

Has mankind become so arrogant to the point where it openly neglects history? Look into history and see if anywhere in the entire era of mankind, disarming citizens has ever ended well.

The less guns answer takes 'asinine' to an entirely different level. So you get in a few decades of a lower death toll. Then what?
This is where anti-gun advocates go silent, because all of history tells what happens next.

The only thing you all do is ridicule the inevitable, as if dumbing it down enough will snuff out the self-evident and certain course humanity always takes when all power is vested into one object.

 

[ribbit]

Every time you've brought up history you've been proven wrong. Times do change you know. I don't understand why you continue to argue the same things over and over.

 

[Shaissa]

If you don't have a gun and you are in a dangerous situation, you have no control over it. Transgressors do not have to have a gun or even a weapon for that matter if there are a few of them for you to be in danger. You might not die, but the possibility of being brutalized and potentially left for dead is just as good a reason to have a gun.
That is why anti-gun arguments in this respect do not prevail.

How? ok if I am in a dangerous situation with a gun and the other guy also has a gun, I have about a 50/50 chance of getting out of it alive... either he shoots me first or i shoot him first...

If we controlled who got the guns then wouldn't it be a little better? Tell me why does every person in a city like... Chicago need a gun? cause they are afraid of all the gang violence and robbers who have guns right? Well look at it this way... if it was illegal for all the gangs to have guns and the robbers to get their hands on guns then would everyone in Chicago need a gun?

Also it is the law to have the gun in a secure spot if you are not using it for hunting or at a shooting range... so really am how is it going protect me from anything like that anyways? It isn't.

So I see it as the army yes should have guns obviously. Hunters, yes for hunting only. and then the police... tell me if no on else had guns, why would anyone else need a gun? wouldn't be for protection anymore.

 

[Shinra Executive]

Every time you've brought up history you've been proven wrong. Times do change you know. I don't understand why you continue to argue the same things over and over.

Every time I bring up history, you all just continue to circulate the same EXACT argument over again- that guns kill people.
So your statement there is laughable. How long have guns been banned in your heavenly haven? 15 years?

Since that time, violent crime has not been reduced, only the death toll. Citizens are at the mercy of more confident criminals, and law abiding citizens are just going to become more and more a glutton for punishment. To extend that to other countries would mark public disaster.

I looked at some studies and seen the lie for what it is- between 1997 and 2001, violent crime doubled where handguns were made illegal.
53 percent of English burglaries occur at home, compared to the 13 percent in America due to the fact that criminals fear the gun.

In 1920, Britain put forth a Firearms Act, which had nothing to do with crime, but rather for the fear of an uprising. In 2012, Muslims are trying to limit free expression, and in certain parts of Europe, it is actually illegal to criticize Islam in the media.

Like I said, you all ignore history. You all are on the way of becoming a run down, destroyed society, and it's not exactly a secret either- Europe has been degrading for a very long time now all around.
Good luck with that.

 

[The Master]

The more guns answer is asinine. If I'm trying to put out a fire, I don't use more fire.

I thought in my opinion it was an appropriate measure to have more people posted at schools... I don't know a lot about how fast the whole "who can and cannot own a gun" thing would go, so at this time having increased security was the best option. Something needed to be done, well there you go. Beggars can't be choosers...

 

[CassinoChips]

I thought in my opinion it was an appropriate measure to have more people posted at schools... I don't know a lot about how fast the whole "who can and cannot own a gun" thing would go, so at this time having increased security was the best option. Something needed to be done, well there you go. Beggars can't be choosers...

Except we have empirical evidence that it doesn't prevent school shootings. For the fourth time, there were armed officers at each shooting at middle and high schools throughout the country, yet that did not stop the shooters from taking lives. Moreover, who would pay for the extra officers/security guards? There are classrooms that don't even have textbooks, arts and music programs are being cut, and you want to place this burden on the schools on top of that? It's not feasible.

Adding armed guards to schools is a reactive answer, not a proactive solution.

 

[The Master]

Except we have empirical evidence that it doesn't prevent school shootings. For the fourth time, there were armed officers at each shooting at middle and high schools throughout the country, yet that did not stop the shooters from taking lives.

Then the officers are evidently not doing a proper job and neither are the schools. There should be bag searches EVERY DAY by officers and teachers not just on 'surprise' occasions... AND schools should not have to pay for this, it should be paid by the Government, they have enough money as it is. I don't know how naiive I'm being... So please tell me

 

[CassinoChips]

Then the officers are evidently not doing a proper job and neither are the schools. There should be bag searches EVERY DAY by officers and teachers not just on 'surprise' occasions... AND schools should not have to pay for this, it should be paid by the Government, they have enough money as it is. I don't know how naiive I'm being... So please tell me

There's not enough time in the day to search 500, 1000, 2000 students every day. You'd cut into what school is there for. School. Think of the hassle you go through at the airport. You want to go through that every single day?

As far as money, school systems get their money from one of two places: a) property taxes, or b) the federal government. So in the end, guess who gets to foot the bill?

 

[The Welsh Paddy]

Having a gun grants you more control over a dangerous situation? That actually made me laugh... a lot. Has this become a matter of "who has the biggest stick"? Hahaha.

You don't need a gun to take control of a dangerous situation. There are so many other ways. And then you say that banning guns isn't gonna solve crimes, and started writing burglary statistics? Now, forgive me if I'm wrong, but I'm assuming I'm speaking for the masses here. I would much rather have my house broken into and my possessions stolen than having the lives of my family or myself taken. Seriously, the mere fact that only the death toll would fall is a fucking huge improvement.

 

[The Master]

There's not enough time in the day to search 500, 1000, 2000 students every day. You'd cut into what school is there for. School. Think of the hassle you go through at the airport. You want to go through that every single day?

As far as money, school systems get their money from one of two places: a) property taxes, or b) the federal government. So in the end, guess who gets to foot the bill?

We had bag checks at school a lot of times and it didn't take a whole lot of time to be honest...

At this point it's become a national security thing. Whoever pays for that shit should pay for this...

Again, I'm being naiive but this is what I feel should be done, alas, the world is not this simple :/

 

[The Welsh Paddy]

We had bag checks at school a lot of times and it didn't take a whole lot of time to be honest...

At this point it's become a national security thing. Whoever pays for that shit should pay for this...

Again, I'm being naiive but this is what I feel should be done, alas, the world is not this simple :/

One thing that I bet you would find annoying, is that if the government made more effective use of tax money, they could easily fund this.
We get the same problems over here.

 

[Shinra Executive]

Metal detectors work just fine in inner city schools. And one day, suburban and rural schools are going to be swallowed by the city. So just take a shortcut and install them now. Problem solved.

 

[Prince Oberyn Martel]

Nazi Germany? Really?

Yeah, a bit of an extreme thought, but it can't be ignored that many actions by the U.S. government in recent years resemble far to similarly what Germany had done which allowed them to get away with what they were doing in their own country back then. There may not be any death camps as such, as in this day and age keeping a lid such a thing will be impossible, but you can bet your ass that if they could keep Guantanamo quiet they would. But thats not for here.

You may not use more fire if you are trying to put one out but the fire is already raging beyond real control. You'll need to completely extinguish the fire. In this case ban everyone (literally everyone world-wide) from firearms and have each and every firearm in the world destroyed. I'd like this to happen... but it won't. There will always be guns and they will always be available illegally to anyone who wishes to have one, regardless. Its a 'to big to fail' business so to speak.

EDIT: My apologies Insanity Wolf. I don't really have the time to invest in a proper discussion as such so it will seem as if im talking out of my ass. Its clear you want a decent discussion on gun control. I agree its something that does need to be looked at but im not comfortable blaming the recent shootings on guns and gun control being the solution. My general point being that there must be something bigger behind it all. Everyone gets caught up in a gun control debate whilst the real reasons go unnoticed.

 

[CassinoChips]

Yeah, a bit of an extreme thought, but it can't be ignored that many actions by the U.S. government in recent years resemble far to similarly what Germany had done which allowed them to get away with what they were doing in their own country back then. There may not be any death camps as such, as in this day and age keeping a lid such a thing will be impossible, but you can bet your ass that if they could keep Guantanamo quiet they would. But thats not for here.

Except for the whole "one man dictating policy" thing. If that were the case, the fiscal cliff situation would not be happening. As it is, Obama (and any President) is checked by the opposition in Congress.

You may not use more fire if you are trying to put one out but the fire is already raging beyond real control. You'll need to completely extinguish the fire. In this case ban everyone (literally everyone world-wide) from firearms and have each and every firearm in the world destroyed. I'd like this to happen... but it won't. There will always be guns and they will always be available illegally to anyone who wishes to have one, regardless. Its a 'to big to fail' business so to speak.

Except that the biggest part of the fire is contained within the United States, which is something that we can get under control. I don't think anybody's naive enough to think that we can eradicate guns from the world completely. Hell, we gave half the people in the Middle East their weapons. But that which we can exert a modicum of control over, specifically rank and file citizens owning arsenals and/or high-capacity assault weapons, should be where our focus lies because we can affect policy and make real change here.

 

[~Griever~]

Except for the whole "one man dictating policy" thing. If that were the case, the fiscal cliff situation would not be happening. As it is, Obama (and any President) is checked by the opposition in Congress.

Opposition? I thought it was pretty clear to everyone now that America is living under a one party system. The only real interest is business interest. You could declare it fascism or its softer form 'corporatism.' The main driving force of this modern economy is consumerism as it's the ultimate distraction and keeps a population docile far more than brute force does. Dictators have learned that being overt in their totalitarian aims usually ends in failure as the majority have far more power than they often realise.

The tragedy of this massacre besides the deaths of innocent people is that now the public is crying out for their government to take their rights away in a post 9/11 frenzied fashion. I hate guns. Let that be clear. I wish guns were eradicated from the face of the Earth. But disarming the public in the current climate seems very advantageous for the 'fascist interests' and extremely risky for the general public.

A lot of people would call this type of talk alarmist or conspiratorial and they would be right in a sense. Never the less the fact that these thoughts are considered alarmist doesn't detract away from the obvious chipping away of liberties that the rest of the world used to idolise America for.

 

[CassinoChips]

Opposition? I thought it was pretty clear to everyone now that America is living under a one party system. The only real interest is business interest. You could declare it fascism or its softer form 'corporatism.' The main driving force of this modern economy is consumerism as it's the ultimate distraction and keeps a population docile far more than brute force does. Dictators have learned that being overt in their totalitarian aims usually ends in failure as the majority have far more power than they often realise.

I'm sorry, I don't drink the Ron Paul Kool-Aid, so I see the clear delineation between the two major parties.

The tragedy of this massacre besides the deaths of innocent people is that now the public is crying out for their government to take their rights away in a post 9/11 frenzied fashion. I hate guns. Let that be clear. I wish guns were eradicated from the face of the Earth. But disarming the public in the current climate seems very advantageous for the 'fascist interests' and extremely risky for the general public.

Because 15,000 deaths per year isn't risky? Listen, I'm not advocating the removal of all guns ever. Just imposing regulation like the 2nd Amendment calls for.

A lot of people would call this type of talk alarmist or conspiratorial and they would be right in a sense. Never the less the fact that these thoughts are considered alarmist doesn't detract away from the obvious chipping away of liberties that the rest of the world used to idolise America for.

Oh come on, read a history book. When the U.S. was founded, you could only vote if you were a white, land-owning male. If you were black, you weren't even counted as a whole person. The U.S. has done nothing but increase the rights of its people, and we continue to do so with the advancement of gay and women's rights. Nobody's taking away rights, it's just reestablishing norms in the face of technology that has outstripped the original framework of the Constitution. The U.S. has always restricted even its most basic principles, like free speech. Nothing and no one is given carte blanche, gun owners should be no exception.

 

[~Griever~]

I'm sorry, I don't drink the Ron Paul Kool-Aid, so I see the clear delineation between the two major parties.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that.

Because 15,000 deaths per year isn't risky? Listen, I'm not advocating the removal of all guns ever. Just imposing regulation like the 2nd Amendment calls for.

I can agree with this. I don't particularly see guns as an answer to anything except defence against other guns.

Oh come on, read a history book. When the U.S. was founded, you could only vote if you were a white, land-owning male. If you were black, you weren't even counted as a whole person. The U.S. has done nothing but increase the rights of its people, and we continue to do so with the advancement of gay and women's rights. Nobody's taking away rights, it's just reestablishing norms in the face of technology that has outstripped the original framework of the Constitution. The U.S. has always restricted even its most basic principles, like free speech. Nothing and no one is given carte blanche, gun owners should be no exception.

You make some good points, but again we'd have to agree to disagree on certain points. The idea that the women's rights movement was funded purely to give women equal rights is flawed. Also, the emancipation of black people has some sinister undertones/different aims than pure liberation that I've come across whilst reading. Obviously this is not the best thread to discuss such issues as the main topic is gun control. To a certain extent I can see what you're saying and agree, but then on the other side you have legislation such as the NDAA and SOPA being introduced or suggested that they will be introduced and that in no way bestows more rights upon the people. It does exactly the opposite.