Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action.
On December 19 2012 17:00 biology]major wrote: let concealed carry be allowed inside schools, and have the people with permits (staff and teachers) receive basic training from local law enforcement. Do background checks or psych evals if necessary. Right now, schools are just exposed territory with 0 protection, and shit like newtown can happen anytime. Combine that with assault rifle ban, and you are empowering civilians while weakening the sociopaths.
an other option is to make all guns illegal for everyone, and then the sociopaths get them --> civilians don't ---> cops late for party and many people dead
Suppose that the principal and vice principal were both trained and armed. Suppose that the shooter was able to kill both of them in a gun battle. Then the school would be helpless. So now what. Arm the custodians? I guess we should arm every individual teacher too right? In fact, why not train all the children how to shoot a gun in case the teacher is killed? Where does it end? A classroom with a loaded gun is completely obnoxious and inappropriate. I swear the NRA and gun supporters have their heads screwed on backwards. What the fuck kind of logic is that.
By your logic, we should have armed staff everywhere, including the movie theater (where there was a shooting), public street corners (where there was a shooting)...so have armed staff in every public venue? Because we are afraid of a shooter? That's a society living in fear. Thats not how a society should operate. That tells me something is wrong with our society. We should be talking about how to prevent the wrong people from getting guns and making sure the right people are sufficiently trained and educated with their guns. Not this wild west bullshit.
In this thread, and on other places, you often come across the argument that guns should be allowed since people who want to use them in an unacceptable way (such as for example robbery or murder) will have access to guns no matter the regulation. I do agree that someone who has set his mind on having a gun, will get one no matter what. This is true also for, for example, Sweden with strict laws. Though I disagree that this is a valid argument for allowing citizens to carry guns. The purpose of gun laws (in for example Sweden, but also generally) is to minimize the costs of accidents (and accidents do happen). As an hypothetical situation: Had Marvin Gaye lived in Sweden, he would probably still be alive as his father upon hearing a disturnace would have called the police, not shot is own son. (For info on the death see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Marvin_Gaye)
I believe in countries where citizens trust the state to guarantee their protection, guns should be outlawed. If, however, trust is low it might be hard to pass such laws.
So a gun shooting happens in "gun free zone" and the answer is more gun free zones? Imagine if all of the teachers and janitors there were packing weapons, the shooter wouldn't have had a chance.
all typical arguments are made from both sides in this video. the typical liberal who does not recognize any arguments and simply goes for the emotional train. it obviously ends in shouting match, as expected.
Wow, this video is amazing. A perfect microcosm of the entire gun control debate.
People who advocate disarmament are so incredibly irrational. Trying to explain to them why they are wrong is like trying to teach a dog long division.
On December 19 2012 22:56 Zergofobic wrote: So a gun shooting happens in "gun free zone" and the answer is more gun free zones? Imagine if all of the teachers and janitors there were packing weapons, the shooter wouldn't have had a chance.
Imagine every teacher walking around with guns. Then imagine a student getting hold of the gun for whatever reason. Stealing, picking the lock gun box, teacher missplace the gun, a moments of inattention. If teachers and other staff starts having guns at school...something is going to happen, and its not going to be pretty.
On December 19 2012 17:00 biology]major wrote: let concealed carry be allowed inside schools, and have the people with permits (staff and teachers) receive basic training from local law enforcement. Do background checks or psych evals if necessary. Right now, schools are just exposed territory with 0 protection, and shit like newtown can happen anytime. Combine that with assault rifle ban, and you are empowering civilians while weakening the sociopaths.
an other option is to make all guns illegal for everyone, and then the sociopaths get them --> civilians don't ---> cops late for party and many people dead
Suppose that the principal and vice principal were both trained and armed. Suppose that the shooter was able to kill both of them in a gun battle. Then the school would be helpless. So now what. Arm the custodians? I guess we should arm every individual teacher too right? In fact, why not train all the children how to shoot a gun in case the teacher is killed? Where does it end? A classroom with a loaded gun is completely obnoxious and inappropriate. I swear the NRA and gun supporters have their heads screwed on backwards. What the fuck kind of logic is that.
By your logic, we should have armed staff everywhere, including the movie theater (where there was a shooting), public street corners (where there was a shooting)...so have armed staff in every public venue? Because we are afraid of a shooter? That's a society living in fear. Thats not how a society should operate. That tells me something is wrong with our society. We should be talking about how to prevent the wrong people from getting guns and making sure the right people are sufficiently trained and educated with their guns. Not this wild west bullshit.
That summarizes all there is to say about it. Good post!
all typical arguments are made from both sides in this video. the typical liberal who does not recognize any arguments and simply goes for the emotional train. it obviously ends in shouting match, as expected.
Wow, this video is amazing. A perfect microcosm of the entire gun control debate.
People who advocate disarmament are so incredibly irrational. Trying to explain to them why they are wrong is like trying to teach a dog long division.
Yes because every other developed nation that has less guns and less homicides is doing it wrong. It's a shame the interviewer lost his cool but any rational person would have trouble staying calm with the bullshit Pratt was spouting.
On December 19 2012 22:56 Zergofobic wrote: So a gun shooting happens in "gun free zone" and the answer is more gun free zones? Imagine if all of the teachers and janitors there were packing weapons, the shooter wouldn't have had a chance.
Imagine every teacher walking around with guns. Then imagine a student getting hold of the gun for whatever reason. Stealing, picking the lock gun box, teacher missplace the gun, a moments of inattention. If teachers and other staff starts having guns at school...something is going to happen, and its not going to be pretty.
That is not the case at all. This just shows that you have very little confidence in humanity, you think every human is pathetic and weak, possibly channeling your own weakness there, but that is just not the case in almost all of the cases.
People do act responsibly in the large, large majority of cases. But here is another video to prove my point:
On December 19 2012 23:02 Undrass wrote: If teachers and other staff starts having guns at school...something is going to happen, and its not going to be pretty.
Something worse than 26 people having to sit around and wait to die because they can't defend themselves?
Do you see how irrational you are being? You make an emotional and ominous statement like this, but have no evidence or any form of logic to base it on. It's just a raw outpouring of emotion and fear. What "something" will happen? Where is the proof that this scary "something" will come to pass?
One of the most well respected swedish criminologists, Leif GW Persson was asked about the school shooting yesterday on a TV show, and I thought it would be great to share some insight from a person who have studied these things for years, and who have reached a level of respect that everybody here could only dream about. He is a person who is well known for his detached way to look at crime, and how he always uses statistics to form his views.
Here's a direct translation: Q: What is required in order to prevent new massacres? A: Well, to prevent is one thing, and to decrease them, that's something else. You can find very strong and direct links between access to weapons, especially certain types of weapons, like half-automatic weapons that tend to be used in these situations, and how often these events occur. When the amounts of weapons increases, this type of crime increases.
He also said that it's possible that something similar would happen in Sweden, but because of our major restrictions, it would require very special circumstances, such as having a parent who likes to hunt game as a hobby, but typically it's very hard for them to get weapons as deadly as this.
So basically his point was that if you restrict the access to weapons, there will be less opportunities. It's pretty simple math really. I don't expect everybody to accept his views as the truth, but I would value his opinion over all the posts in this thread.
all typical arguments are made from both sides in this video. the typical liberal who does not recognize any arguments and simply goes for the emotional train. it obviously ends in shouting match, as expected.
Wow, this video is amazing. A perfect microcosm of the entire gun control debate.
People who advocate disarmament are so incredibly irrational. Trying to explain to them why they are wrong is like trying to teach a dog long division.
Yes because every other developed nation that has less guns and less homicides is doing it wrong. It's a shame the interviewer lost his cool but any rational person would have trouble staying calm with the bullshit Pratt was spouting.
As pointed out in the video, areas of the USA without gun restrictions have far lower murder rates and rates of violent crime than completely disarmed European countries.
The problem in America happens in places like cities or schools where law abiding citizens have been disarmed.
On December 19 2012 22:56 Zergofobic wrote: So a gun shooting happens in "gun free zone" and the answer is more gun free zones? Imagine if all of the teachers and janitors there were packing weapons, the shooter wouldn't have had a chance.
Imagine every teacher walking around with guns. Then imagine a student getting hold of the gun for whatever reason. Stealing, picking the lock gun box, teacher missplace the gun, a moments of inattention. If teachers and other staff starts having guns at school...something is going to happen, and its not going to be pretty.
That is not the case at all. This just shows that you have very little confidence in humanity, you think every human is pathetic and weak, possibly channeling your own weakness there, but that is just not the case in almost all of the cases.
People do act responsibly in the large, large majority of cases. But here is another video to prove my point:
Quality video there, I don't see how you think it proves anything. Interviewing some random dude who wrote a vaguely academic pro-gun book seems legit.
Quote from the author: "I haven't found a place in the world that's had a ban on guns where we haven't seen an increase in murders afterwards." <- either lying or using dodgy statistics
On December 19 2012 23:14 ninini wrote: One of the most well respected swedish criminologists, Leif GW Persson was asked about the school shooting yesterday on a TV show, and I thought it would be great to share some insight from a person who have studied these things for years, and who have reached a level of respect that everybody here could only dream about. He is a person who is well known for his detached way to look at crime, and how he always uses statistics to form his views.
Here's a direct translation: Q: What is required in order to prevent new massacres? A: Well, to prevent is one thing, and to decrease them, that's something else. You can find very strong and direct links between access to weapons, especially certain types of weapons, like half-automatic weapons that tend to be used in these situations, and how often these events occur. When the amounts of weapons increases, this type of crime increases.
He also said that it's possible that something similar would happen in Sweden, but because of our major restrictions, it would require very special circumstances, such as having a parent who likes to hunt game as a hobby, but typically it's very hard for them to get weapons as deadly as this.
So basically his point was that if you restrict the access to weapons, there will be less opportunities. It's pretty simple math really. I don't expect everybody to accept his views as the truth, but I would value his opinion over all the posts in this thread.
Sorry, but coming from Swedish "authority", I don't find it very meaningful. There is absolutely NO correlation between the number or type of weapons to crime or mass shootings, absolutely no correlation.
In fact there was just an event that proves this where a man in China slaughtered over 20 children in a school with a knife. What is next, ban knifes?
But just for the sake of it, you do got more chance of dying from bee sting, lightning strike, accidental strangulation and even allergies from flowers than you have from mass shooting. This is true in the USA, as well as most other countries as well.
On December 19 2012 23:14 ninini wrote: One of the most well respected swedish criminologists, Leif GW Persson was asked about the school shooting yesterday on a TV show, and I thought it would be great to share some insight from a person who have studied these things for years, and who have reached a level of respect that everybody here could only dream about. He is a person who is well known for his detached way to look at crime, and how he always uses statistics to form his views.
Here's a direct translation: Q: What is required in order to prevent new massacres? A: Well, to prevent is one thing, and to decrease them, that's something else. You can find very strong and direct links between access to weapons, especially certain types of weapons, like half-automatic weapons that tend to be used in these situations, and how often these events occur. When the amounts of weapons increases, this type of crime increases.
He also said that it's possible that something similar would happen in Sweden, but because of our major restrictions, it would require very special circumstances, such as having a parent who likes to hunt game as a hobby, but typically it's very hard for them to get weapons as deadly as this.
So basically his point was that if you restrict the access to weapons, there will be less opportunities. It's pretty simple math really. I don't expect everybody to accept his views as the truth, but I would value his opinion over all the posts in this thread.
Sorry, but coming from Swedish "authority", I don't find it very meaningful. There is absolutely NO correlation between the number or type of weapons to crime or mass shootings, absolutely no correlation.
In fact there was just an event that proves this where a man in China slaughtered over 20 children in a school with a knife. What is next, ban knifes?
But just for the sake of it, you do got more chance of dying from bee sting, lightning strike, accidental strangulation and even allergies from flowers than you have from mass shooting. This is true in the USA, as well as most other countries as well.
#1 So you write a respected criminologist off because they're Swedish and then somehow Zergofobic has the authority to say there's absolutely no correlation? #2 There were 0 casualties in that knife attack, stop spouting nonsense. Glad the guy had a knife and not a military grade firearm. #3 So we shouldn't try to reduce mass shootings?
An example from my home country:
"Violent crime and gun-related deaths did not come to an end in Australia, of course. But as the Washington Post pointed out in August, homicides by firearm plunged 59 percent between 1995 and 2006, with no corresponding increase in non-firearm-related homicides. The drop in suicides by gun was even steeper: 65 percent. Studies found a close correlation between the sharp declines and the gun buybacks.
Robberies involving a firearm also dropped significantly. Meanwhile, home invasions did not increase, contrary to fears that firearm ownership is needed to deter such crimes. But here's the most stunning statistic. In the decade before the Port Arthur massacre, there had been 11 mass shootings in the country. There hasn't been a single one in Australia since." from http://www.sacbee.com/2012/12/18/5060929/mass-shooting-in-australia-provides.html
all typical arguments are made from both sides in this video. the typical liberal who does not recognize any arguments and simply goes for the emotional train. it obviously ends in shouting match, as expected.
I am sorry but I see it anyway around. An assault rifle for self defense? 6 guns in the house?
Sure it's needed if you live in a country where criminals can also have so many guns, you obviously need a bigger, better, more powerful, MORE guns, right?
Let's take a look at a mass murder case that occurred a few times in Japan, a knifing cases. Would a gun be useful at all? The murderer just walk around and suddenly started stabbing and ran away. Even if you had a gun, you would probably dead by then.
Let's take a look at other countries where gun ownership ain't allowed for normal citizens like Hong Kong. Sure there are illegal guns, but only obtained by organized criminals. We know and most of everyone who lives in Hong Kong know, but we feel SAFE. Why? Those aren't gonna shoot normal citizens. There are no mentally unstable person to be able to get a gun and just gun down everyone. In fact, the relatively recent case of shooting was an ex police and that was how he got the gun
I am just as pissed as Piers honestly, what makes your countries so dangerous that a normal household need so many guns?
I am not doubting a normal responsible American probably really need the extra guns to be safe, but when guns are easier to get, it is easier for some people who aren't so responsible and start using it to kill others.
EPT
