Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Likewise - you missed the phrase *automatic weapons*
Are those really going to cost 5-10 bucks?
Theres very few fully autos out there.. all these tragedies you speak of were with semi autos. And they might be that cheap. Ban them and then theyll start being imported RIGHT ALONG will the thousands of tons of other illegal contraband that is imported from Mexico etc.. it will be JUST LIKE drugs.. they are MORE plentiful AND CHEAPER BECAUSE of prohibition. If they were legal and regulated the price would be driven UP. Look at the places that legalized marijuana.. In those areas the price has risen. The same grades of product is less expensive on the steet than where its legal for those to purchase...
Again, the black market workes different than a legal, regulated market your first mistake.
Your second mistake is thinking that we wont import even MORE guns if they were banned. No matter the law, the fact IS if banned we'd be FLOODED with them right along side the other illegal contraband. The structure is already there, it doesnt matter what product is being moved the black market is the most effective and quickest reacting to its customer base.
Banning guns in THIS country would make what we have for gun problems NOW seem like childs play... imagine EVERY crackhead/junky getting a free semi auto with the purchase of their next 20$ hit... cause thats how plentiful and regulated it would be in a situation like that.
I can't believe anyone's answer to gun violence is more guns. I doubt even armed guards would make much of a difference. If someone is on a suicide mission how detered are they going to be by an armed guard anyway? They aren't afraid of death. Plus there's no way to have an armed guard everywhere in the school...and you assume the armed guard would be able to the stop the shooter. Maybe they could and maybe they couldn't, maybe they'd be shot first. Even the best trained person might panic or be caught off guard in a situation like that. All the gun fanatics act like anyone with a gun could pull a James Bond and save the day in a shoot out...yeah right. No one knows for sure how they'll react in that situation. The best solution is one where these nuts aren't able to get guns in the first place and where those who do have guns use and store them responsibly. Imagine if his mother had stored her guns in a locked safe...
I can't believe anyone's answer to gun violence is more guns.
I can't believe that anyone's answer here ignores the real-world experience of Israel, where the answer to a school shooting was just that, more guns ... they armed the teachers, the school staff, and allowed firearms on the school grounds. Proven fact: no more school shootings since they did this.
Of course, on a much broader scale ... the solution to activity such as wars has pretty much been limited to using more firepower than the other side; ie, the solution to the aggression of Germany in WW2 was to use "more guns". The war didn't end because folk stood around and made nice and asked that the aggressors turn in their firearms.
I doubt even armed guards would make much of a difference. If someone is on a suicide mission how detered are they going to be by an armed guard anyway? They aren't afraid of death. Plus there's no way to have an armed guard everywhere in the school...and you assume the armed guard would be able to the stop the shooter. Maybe they could and maybe they couldn't, maybe they'd be shot first. Even the best trained person might panic or be caught off guard in a situation like that. All the gun fanatics act like anyone with a gun could pull a James Bond and save the day in a shoot out...yeah right. No one knows for sure how they'll react in that situation. The best solution is one where these nuts aren't able to get guns in the first place and where those who do have guns use and store them responsibly. Imagine if his mother had stored her guns in a locked safe...
Since it's been upheld that your local police department does not have any responsibility toward your personal protection, who's gonna' protect you (and me) when some deranged sick individual decides it's your day to die at his (or her) hands via whatever means is convenient? Your personal injury and potential death is seconds away from a knife, box cutter, piece of wire or strong string, baseball bat, hockey stick, golf club, chunk of wood, nominal size rock, hatchet, axe, solid wood pencil, screwdriver, a small bottle of flammable liquid and a lighter, or even a large container (say a 55 gallon drum, filled with fuel and fertilizer), various toxic substances (weed killer, common over the counter medications) ... in short, virtually all common objects that has an innocent use but can be turned against you by a determined assailant. Need we also mention that fists can get the job done, too?
In short, if you're confronted with by a crazed person with intent to do evil upon your person, would you rather:
1) be able to incapacitate the threat in a timely manner? or
2) call for help on your mobile device for a police force that might be able to track down your killer?
3) text or tweet your situation to others that might be able to complain?
BTDT, and option #1 was my preference that I legally chose to exercise.
I'll agree with you up to a point: The best action is to see to it that the "nuts" (as you describe them) aren't able to get WEAPONS in the first place and use them. That means addressing the real problem here, the crazed behavior of people.
Now, we have seen folk on these threads on C-D who assert that they'd rather not defend themselves, some who even claimed that they were active duty military. I'll not disagree that they have the freedom to make that choice for themselves, but to make that choice on my behalf or that of my family is not an acceptable response.
At that, I've posted in years past of this forum how my having ready access to a firearm stopped a felony assault (which could have lead to far more serious consequences, one was where a crazy person was attempting to rape two women in a remote campsite locale), ending the situation. I didn't set out to be a hero, circumstances found me and I was able to be of assistance.
As well, so many of you anti-gun zealots assume that every confrontation will end in some sort of high risk firefight with adverse consequences. Totally false premise, as I have learned in real world situations ... no shots needed to be fired when I was able to simply display the fact that I was armed and willing to use it as required to incapacitate the assailant.
Yes, he was eating lunch nearby and showed up after the shooting started. He was a "community resource officer", not a guard.
You are a right a community resource officer is not a "guard" but rather a full fledge sworn officer of the Jefferson County Sheriff's Department as is the case in many school districts.
As for the Deputy Earl Gardner was was assigned to Columbine High School, yes, he was away from the school at the beginning of the shootings. So what does that tell us? That this isn't about just one armed guard but two, or is it three because one day a guard is out sick, but then you find out that because of the size of the school you need 3 or 4 more.
And, as Deputy Gardner, who by the way is in favor of having officers like himself assigned to schools points out, if you are going to arm folks in schools they cannot be distracted by other duties, like teaching. They have to be dedicated to security. Which should be a no brainer to anyone serious promoting this idea. And at $43,000 a pop, what the JCSO starts its deputies at, isn't going to be a cheap proposition.
Keep in mind that Gardner a 15 year veteran had to attempt engaging Kiebold holding a semi-automatic rifle with his .45 automatic at a distance of 60-70 yards and his actions did nothing to prevent Kiebold for killing another 11 people after the engagement. Yet for some reason folks are under the impression that an untrained or partially trained part-time, or worse, volunteer is going to be more effective? That's nothing but putting a bandaid on cancer.
Those that argue that Australia or the UK have managed to control guns through stringent methods ignore the fact that both of those countries are many times smaller in population and are islands. The US, sadly, shares a border, a long one, with a country, Mexico, that has strict gun laws as well. A Marine found that out recently. However, the drug cartels are not really concerned about Mexico's strict gun laws and so they run rampant to include crossing over into the US to do some harm occasionally. Congress can ban weapons, attempt confiscation yada, yada which is going to create a vast market for illegal guns coming in from every direction just like drugs. We tried banning booze. We outlaw illegal drugs. We have laws against illegal immigration. Why argue over gun bans when the ground truth is laws do not work. Chicago has strict gun laws as well. Very high murder rate.
Selective banning does work. As much as we hate the TSA, there is a small chance of someone taking a gun on an aircraft. Of course it only needs to fail once and then we are back to more calls for nude flying. But we selectively ban guns from schools which doesn't work. In my state, guns are banned from churches, government buildings. You get checked going into some government buildings and no checks going into churches. If a local community wants to pay the bill to stiffen ingress into a school, then let them pay for it. It works for airports. Works for government buildings. It might work for some schools and not for others. Let any community that wants to try it have at it. Free to choose. But a national ban will never work.
I might add that we have two teams in this debate. Neither is going to give an inch so debate is needless. Suggesting that someone who disagrees with me is irrational is hardly a good starting point even if a debate begins.
However, the drug cartels are not really concerned about Mexico's strict gun laws and so they run rampant to include crossing over into the US to do some harm occasionally.
So the argument is that unstable high school students and there ilk will be hooking up with Mexican cartels to purchase weapons? No banning guns won't stop gun violence. And no government regulation will make Americans totally safe from gun violence, but more stringent gun laws can make America more safe.
How many elementary, middle, and highschools in the US do you think there are? How many armed guards do you propose, and what should their pay be?
I don't propose any; I don't think it's a good idea, regardless of its efficiacy. I just think your objections to it are spurious.
Quote:
You know what would be more effective? Yep..
You think it's expensive and difficult to post armed guards at schools? Well, implementing and enforcing a gun ban, "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in" is going to be a lot harder. You think there are scenarios where armed guards won't succeed? Well, there are plenty of scenarios where a gun ban doesn't succeed -- starting with your nutcase being someone in authority (a police officer, a military officer) who does have access to guns. It is not at all evident that banning guns will eliminate the possibility of something like Sandy Hook.
Sorry, but I don't see a 15 y.o. with psychological problems saving up a couple hundred thousand dollars, wandering into a "gun-easy," and buying a black market automatic weapon..
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, then are dreamt of in your philosophy. When I was in high school -- and this was a suburban high school, not an inner city one known for crime -- I knew another kid who was involved in gun-running. Wouldn't have taken "a couple hundred thousand" to get a gun from him, though he was more known for supplying cocaine and pot. The reason you can't understand the pro-gun side's position (if indeed you can't, and aren't just being disingenuous) is that you hold as self-evident so many things which are demonstrably not so.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
