I love it.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
NRA's solution to Sandy Hook massacre: "armed guards" in every school
- Thread starter Josh7289
- Start date
- Status
I love it.
I said many times, if were to be shot at, I'd prefer full auto in almost all situations.
The issue here is how easily the spirit of the law is being violated, I mean, regardless of what your own personal opinion on the subject, we can both agree that this is not the intended result of that regulation?
In fact, I think it speaks to a larger problem in the way we write such laws in this country.
We write these super detailed super prescriptive bills in obtuse legal language, I guess so we can all sue each other afterwards or something.
It doesn't work, and fuck, we really should stop electing so many lawyers into congress, but I (double) digress.
We should just deputize some expert committee that will sit in an office somewhere and decide what is an assault rifle, what is full auto etc.
Those are not difficult questions to answer if you use common sense and judgment, put some congressional oversight to make sure they don't go crazy and we're done.
Fuck, people act like if you couldn't get that specific gun you saw in Call of Duty then the Constitution is dead, seriously, even if we get some of the individual calls wrong, how much does it really matter?
The ATF can probably handle it.
Holy shit. Respect for Frum+1
TheContact
Member
I had armed police officers starting in 2001 in our schools. How trained they were I don't know and how much help they would have been is probably minimal, they only carried handguns.
Well they need to be carrying RPGs.
So would you support making gun licenses like drivers licenses, or having mental health screenings? Because that's the idea, you can't trust people with guns until they prove themselves.
No, the problem with "law abiding citizens" and "bad guys" is that it's an overly simplistic view. It's not one or the other, a person can be both.
The "bad guys" are law abiding citizens too, until they break the law. The idea behind gun restrictions is to take guns away from those "bad guys" while they are still law abiding citizens, and before they go from law abiding citizen to criminals. It's about prevention and not reaction.
speculawyer
Member
This is not true. The point is that anyone can lose their temper, anyone can find themselves in a large bout of depression, or any number of other things. Statistically a good chunk of people will fall into these bad spells, or just turn into or be bad people. The gun obviously doesn't cause it. No one is saying that. No one's demonizing people because they are gun owners. The problem is that if you have a gun, or if everyone has a gun it just makes the potential situation that can arise out of that depression, temper, psychotic breakdown, etc, that much more devastating.
A gun enthusiast AND a dreamer, I see.
Pretty much, and insisting that getting people to stop wanting to commit crime is the key priority is silly. While we can work on that, it's far more productive and realistic to reduce the harm that comes from it. That means deescalating the situation. Less guns, less powerful guns.
Outlawing hunting is one of the crazier things in this thread. I'm not a hunter and I don't ever plan to hunt, but hunters are pretty vital. You know what happens when you outlaw hunting? Deer population explodes. You know what happens when deer population explodes? Wolf population explodes. You know what happens when wolf population explodes? The Grey, but with more eating your face off.
Actually, wolf population is down from what it should be because we've been shooting them, and the effects work in reverse. Deer population explodes, trees and grasses get eaten up before they have a chance to grow, and erosion kicks up.
Efforts have been made to bring them back, to some success.
Don't mind Angry Fork. He's just the liberal caricature we keep around to keep things in perspective.
Don't worry Angry, I still like you even if you are pretty goddamned extreme sometimes 
ClassyPenguin
Banned
As someone who went to public schools in Los Angeles, I laughed out loud when I heard this.
And not to mention most college campuses have actual police stations. NRA is just showed the world how obtuse and out of touch they are.
And not to mention most college campuses have actual police stations. NRA is just showed the world how obtuse and out of touch they are.
I'm not anti-gun, but I think it obvious that current regulations are horribly lax. The 'gun show loophole' being a good example.
I remember going to a gun show outside of Houston once with a friend. Clearly there wasn't much regulation going on. But that bothered me less than walking past booths with 'White Power' banners and books and swastikas on display.
I remember going to a gun show outside of Houston once with a friend. Clearly there wasn't much regulation going on. But that bothered me less than walking past booths with 'White Power' banners and books and swastikas on display.
holy fuck that is the worst idea ever. It sounds like they're just trying to make money off of this. putting armed guards everywhere would cause far more problems and cost a ridiculous amount just to attempt to stop a shooting every once in a while. It's awful, but it won't work.
If it did happen, there would certainly still be another shooting, and their answer of course would be "We need MORE armed guards! In every room!".
fuck off.
If it did happen, there would certainly still be another shooting, and their answer of course would be "We need MORE armed guards! In every room!".
fuck off.
lachesis
Member
Would it be possible to put GPS device or some sort of alarming device into the gun itself, so that when a gunman enters no-gun zone, it would alert the nearest police station?
If the manufactures are required to put such device, untamperable (hard to do) on every gun they manufacture, it wouldn't be as costly as having armed guard in every school all the time.
Of course the murders would try to alter the device or disable the device, and have it made illegal to tamper with it - if the device can send the last location with gun's serial number to the authorities, it would be much easier to prevent the illegal activities that one might've been planning....
If the manufactures are required to put such device, untamperable (hard to do) on every gun they manufacture, it wouldn't be as costly as having armed guard in every school all the time.
Of course the murders would try to alter the device or disable the device, and have it made illegal to tamper with it - if the device can send the last location with gun's serial number to the authorities, it would be much easier to prevent the illegal activities that one might've been planning....
Something like this could be interesting. A story on my local paper's website had someone saying something similar. He was talking about how we've had all these innovations, cool tech things, and regulations added to cars over the year to make them safer, but not much has happened with guns.
Mammoth Jones
Member
I'm pretty sure taking guns away from citizens that have done nothing wrong is already pre-crime in action...
For the love of god...can someone post that gif from boardwalk empire?
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Yeah, figuring out how to make that tamperproof seems difficult...
ClassyPenguin
Banned
I generally believe that the less we track our citizens the better.
Bulbo Urethral Baggins
Banned
I think technology like this is or similar to this would be huge. I have no problem with tracking where each gun goes.
Mammoth Jones
Member
No I wouldn't. Driving a car isn't a right. Owning a gun is. In America at least, and I'm thankful it is.
The underlined statement is a contradiction of the bolded statement. What makes a criminal a criminal? Breaking the law. Until they do, they're not. It's kinda why we don't arrest people for nothing. I'm ALL for taking guns away from bad guys. But to take my gun away when I haven't done anything wrong is a complete violation of a citizen in a free society.
I agree with prevention and not reaction. To me, a semi-automatic "ban" (that doesn't address the majority of gun violence) being proposed less than a week after a terrible tragedy, is as reactionary as you get. Combined with general ignorance about firearms, their uses, and why many legal owners own them yet aren't murderous criminals is pretty much a guarantee of failed legislation. Which will of course eventually require *more* restrictions because a renewed AWB didn't accomplish anything. Protip: Criminals don't follow laws.
Define "gun regulation"? I've read 129018203 different ideas on what "gun regulation" should be. From "One shotgun per household" to "Only pistols" to "No guns, 2nd amendment is dumb" to "Everyone should have a gun even on the toilet cause you just never know". It's all over the place. I don't think it's easy to regulate a right. I think we should keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill and figure out a way to do what without compromising the 2nd Amendment. I know, it'd be so much quicker and easier without those pesky rights....
Agreed. People are not cattle.
How so? You're just assuming they MIGHT do something wrong and that they can't be trusted so let's take action to prevent them from maybe doing so. Possibly.
ClassyPenguin
Banned
And that is the crux of the problem. The 2nd Amendment as we interpret it today is not at all the way it was intended.
And gun ownership should be a privilege not a right. You fuck up, don't follow rules; no guns for you.
Mammoth Jones said:
I work in a refinery as a safety attendant. The whole purpose of my job is to keep track of the various checklists and procedures mandated not only by OSHA and Cal-OSHA but by whatever company owns the refinery not because they expect people to not follow the rules, but because shit happens and it's a way of lowering liability and lowering the cost of lives and possibly millions of dollars. They are very serious about safety. So yes, there are a lot of aspects of life and situations where you need to assume the worst.
Major_Lazer
Member
Yeh good luck US GAF, I'm happy in saying the less guns around society the better dont know how I'd adjust to the US gun culture.
To clarify, "bad guy" doesn't equal criminal. This is what I'm picturing.
Yeah, and some of those "bad guys" fall in the "law-abiding citizen" category. That's who we're trying to prevent from getting guns in the first place, or at least force them to be responsible in their ownership.
Mammoth Jones
Member
I disagree with your first sentence. The right to bear arms is a fundamental right. Firearms 200+ years later is still the main means of self defense for a person. There's a reason it's right after the freedom of speech. And I mean we have a system. That type of change is possible but I don't think it's going to be happening. No matter how often the anti-gun crowd tries to use every tragedy as a soapbox towards that agenda. "Man home alone, shoots burglar" doesn't engender a national conversation. Nor should it to be honest. What happened last week absolutely positively SHOULD cause us to have the conversation we're having in this thread. And to be honest, it's a conversation we NEED to have. As a society. Period. I'm glad we're having this conversation here. I disagree with MANY of you here but I'm seriously thankful that we can discuss stuff like this even on the level of a message board on the internet. I don't think ANYONE wants what happened last Friday to happen again. But we tend to have vastly different ideas on what to do.
There needs to be a focus on gun storage in the home. You want to have guns? Awesome! Buy away! .223? Shit, have at it. Now lock your shit up. The NRA blew an opportunity to really engage with people regarding that and instead chose to bitch about Mortal Kombat and fucking Splatterhouse. What a waste of dialogue there. I think a gun safe in every home that has a firearm by 2020 is a realistic goal. Will it guarantee this not happen again? No. But it's get FAR more support than "The second amendment to the constitution is an outdated relic". And have a tangible impact on guns not getting in the hands of the wrong people.
The bolded is already the law. Felons don't have guns. At least not legally. Criminals lose their 2nd Amendment Rights. I believe in RARE cases they can go to court to get them back. (I think). But like I've said...criminals don't give a fuck about The Rules.
heliosRAzi
Banned
Not all criminals are felons.
I think we could tighten up and/or look at some of the rules similar to this. Felons can't legally buy guns, but I think there might be other violent crimes that we should disallow guns, and possibly take them away from a perpetrator. Domestic abuse is a big one, and I believe we have some laws on the books regarding this throughout the states, but some of those states don't cover things like domestic violence occurring between dating partners. Really, all sorts of violent crimes should get your right to purchase a gun revoked, at least for a good time period, and perhaps you should have to go before a court again to get it reinstated after a bit.
And fixing the private selling/gun show loophole would prevent these sorts of people from getting guns anyway in some cases.
Kind of late to the conversation here, but it's currently easier to get a gun than it is to get a driver's license. For example, if you have a medical condition that may impair you, you have to prove that you're compliant with medications/treatments. There are similar requirements for firearms, but a) actual enforcement is low and b) the robustness of these tests is laughable.
Bringing Canada as an example, a person has to write multiple tests, go through stringent background checks, as well as transport and storage laws.
Freshmaker
I am Korean.
Guns aren't people. I say track 'em to the gates of hell.
Cypher
Member
Just call it the "Save the Kids and End Unemployment Bill" and it should pass easily.
You creates (yet another) a mechanism that tracks people.
There are better ways to approach this issue.
Not sure what tracking would achieve anyway.
Yeah, the tracking part is definitely problematic. The part about it being sensed if it goes inside a "no-gun" area would be interesting. Again, it'd be hard to make that unhackable, but still...
I wonder if there was a sort of material we could mandate guns be made of that would be easily sensed as specifically a gun. Or more interestingly if tampering is a problem I wonder how hard it'd be to put that sort of material in all bullets so that if someone has bullets with them that sensor would go off.
The bullet idea would be easier to implement retroactively, because bullet supply would go through quicker than the actual guns, obviously.
Mammoth Jones
Member
You know, that's far more sensible than arguments about how outdated the 2nd Amendment is and how banning all semi-auto rifles will make a difference in gun crime.
I'd agree with this. I dont want someone convicted of domestic violence getting a gun. Same with just about all violent crimes.
lachesis
Member
I totally agree and that's why I'm saying in "gun free zone" only.
sorta like wifi setup - that if you enter that zone, it would just alarm the police... so the device is pretty much nothing outside of gun free zone like schools.
Bulbo Urethral Baggins
Banned
So what? What's your problem with being tracked?
Those things rarely help and are often abused.
I don't know that there are many examples of such zoning working.
I know it worked terribly with the drug free zones.
Bitmap Frogs
Mr. Community
But later you state that having that right mediated by something like not being a criminal is fine.
What would be so bad about ensuring mentally unstable individuals do not have access to guns. The kind of a damage a 17th century lunatic could inflict with period weapons is but a fraction of the offensive power a modern assault weapon offers.
You guys like to talk about how criminals can get guns anyway but in a weapon less society many criminals do not want to use guns! They do not need them since civilians do not carry and if they get caught they get a longer sentence.
No matter how you slice it, guns cost the US thousands of lives per year. At some point having shiny toys that shoot bullets stops being worth it.
ClassyPenguin
Banned
3,263 gunshot homicides in Los Angeles from 2007-present
http://projects.latimes.com/homicide/cause/gunshot/
26 people is sadly a drop in the bucket.
http://projects.latimes.com/homicide/cause/gunshot/
26 people is sadly a drop in the bucket.
Those were Bad People.
I'm really not going to get an answer for this, am I?
for the record, I'm genuinely confused by this...I mean, is it like the whole 'take what you want from the bible and ignore what's not convenient' thing? Because if so, I'd be surprised. I really thought the pro-gun people had the constitutional high ground here.
I guess this is the first time I've bothered to read the actual amendment (aside from grade school) was just surprised when half of it was something I hadn't heard much of.
Anticitizen One
Banned
2nd ammendment says a well regulated militia has the right to bear arms not bobby joe has a right to go to his local Walmart and buy an assault rifle
Bulbo Urethral Baggins
Banned
How has it been abused? Fill me in.
lachesis
Member
well, drugs don't have tracking devices within them...
it's something that I as a parent would like to have it done around my daughter's elementary school.
Think of large scale metal detector, which only detects guns... or maybe smoke detector?
- Status