Funky Papa
FUNK-Y-PPA-4
Unemployment solved.
-
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
Unemployment solved.
Adults only bud. Guess anyone that has a different view is terrible. You sound like the NRA about videogames.
Emerson
May contain jokes =>
What percentage of schools already have a posted police officer with a weapon?
I don't really have a problem with the idea of an officer in school. I don't think it's some magical cure, but I don't think it's a laughable idea either. Post some more cops in schools rather than having them trolling for speeding tickets.
I don't really have a problem with the idea of an officer in school. I don't think it's some magical cure, but I don't think it's a laughable idea either. Post some more cops in schools rather than having them trolling for speeding tickets.
Or even have a cop nearby in a car, kind of like a radius tether so they still patrol other stuff. They may already do this sort of thing and I don't know.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B001LGGGUU/?tag=neogaf0e-20
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000E8Z7Y2/?tag=neogaf0e-20
NRA endorsed video games! Not even an 18 certificate
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000E8Z7Y2/?tag=neogaf0e-20
NRA endorsed video games! Not even an 18 certificate
Agreed, you need more than one armed guard though or the shooters will just kill the guard first and then proceed with their rampage.
fastford58
Member
Disclaimer: I'm fervently pro-gun, and have been banned a couple times for trolling anti-gunners. I'll stay civil if everyone else does, but I have seen some truly disgusting behaviour from both sides over the last few days (not limited to gaf threads).
I do not personally think the largest problem is guns, but sticking to that issue, I do believe the USA to be lax in two key areas:
1. Safe storage regulation.
I do not see the need to keep a loaded gun under a pillow or in a bed stand, or even in a closet or whatever. This is especially true if you have kids in the house, and in the case of Sandy-Hook, someone with a known mental instability that is cause of concern.
That being said, I do believe that people should be able to have access to their firearms in case somebody enters their household and means them harm.
There are smaller safes out there that offer quick access, either through a key code input or biometric reader. I would not store a gun in one of these all of the time, but if someone wanted to place a pistol or whatever in there at bed time if they so felt the need, then they could. There are similar items available for rifles/shotguns.
Even with my large safe at home which is ~7000lbs, I can be into it and have what I need in a matter of seconds.
Safe storage isn't about keeping criminals out, it is about keeping your family safe. Criminals can crack anything if they put their minds to it.
In Canada, safe storage is written into the Firearms Act (C68). While there are many problems with that act, I believe safe storage requirements are not a problem as they do more good than bad.
Outside of regulating for safe storage, a lot of it is common sense. Unfortunately, a lax attitude about firearms in the US has lead to some major missteps in common sense. I will not go so far as to blame Lanza's mother for the death of those kids, but personally speaking, I would not have firearms in the house with someone who is know to be unstable.
2. A formalized license system, Federally regulated.
My view on licensing is unpopular in pro-firearms circles, but I do believe there should be a standard met by individuals who own firearms.
In Canuckistan, we have an application process. First we have to pass a course that demonstrates knowledge of safety, laws, some basic ballistics, different types of firearm actions (that's the mechanical part, for those who don't know). In the same course, we have to demonstrate with accuracy how to safely handle all of the different actions.
Requirement to pass is 85 or 90 percent on both the written and practical test.
We submit our test results, along with references and a several page application to the RCMP (the federal branch of police in Canada). They go through your application, call your references, and do a comprehensive database search on CPIC, which is a Canada-wide search of every police data-base to see if your name pops up. This process takes a minimum of 28 days from receipt of application to approval, but in most cases it takes longer (Mine took 76 days from start to finish).
That is a glimpse into our system, there are many other things considered (some I agree with, some that I do not agree with).
In Canada, even if you are arrested for something fairly minor (loud argument domestic, for example), your guns are taken, and you may be handed a prohibition from owning firearms for 5 to 10 years.
The system as it stands holds Canadian gun owners to a higher standard than the average citizen. If you value your rights, you keep your ducks in a row. Statistically speaking, we are also among a group of people with the lowest crime rate. We are taken to task for everything and we are expected to uphold the laws and be impeccably responsible when it comes to firearms.
I do believe these two things would go a long way in the USA to at least help the situation from a multi-modal approach.
To be clear, I believe the "gun problem" is actually a minor player in the true roots of the US' violence issue, but it is something that can be addressed to add some mitigation to the situation.
I do not personally think the largest problem is guns, but sticking to that issue, I do believe the USA to be lax in two key areas:
1. Safe storage regulation.
I do not see the need to keep a loaded gun under a pillow or in a bed stand, or even in a closet or whatever. This is especially true if you have kids in the house, and in the case of Sandy-Hook, someone with a known mental instability that is cause of concern.
That being said, I do believe that people should be able to have access to their firearms in case somebody enters their household and means them harm.
There are smaller safes out there that offer quick access, either through a key code input or biometric reader. I would not store a gun in one of these all of the time, but if someone wanted to place a pistol or whatever in there at bed time if they so felt the need, then they could. There are similar items available for rifles/shotguns.
Even with my large safe at home which is ~7000lbs, I can be into it and have what I need in a matter of seconds.
Safe storage isn't about keeping criminals out, it is about keeping your family safe. Criminals can crack anything if they put their minds to it.
In Canada, safe storage is written into the Firearms Act (C68). While there are many problems with that act, I believe safe storage requirements are not a problem as they do more good than bad.
Outside of regulating for safe storage, a lot of it is common sense. Unfortunately, a lax attitude about firearms in the US has lead to some major missteps in common sense. I will not go so far as to blame Lanza's mother for the death of those kids, but personally speaking, I would not have firearms in the house with someone who is know to be unstable.
2. A formalized license system, Federally regulated.
My view on licensing is unpopular in pro-firearms circles, but I do believe there should be a standard met by individuals who own firearms.
In Canuckistan, we have an application process. First we have to pass a course that demonstrates knowledge of safety, laws, some basic ballistics, different types of firearm actions (that's the mechanical part, for those who don't know). In the same course, we have to demonstrate with accuracy how to safely handle all of the different actions.
Requirement to pass is 85 or 90 percent on both the written and practical test.
We submit our test results, along with references and a several page application to the RCMP (the federal branch of police in Canada). They go through your application, call your references, and do a comprehensive database search on CPIC, which is a Canada-wide search of every police data-base to see if your name pops up. This process takes a minimum of 28 days from receipt of application to approval, but in most cases it takes longer (Mine took 76 days from start to finish).
That is a glimpse into our system, there are many other things considered (some I agree with, some that I do not agree with).
In Canada, even if you are arrested for something fairly minor (loud argument domestic, for example), your guns are taken, and you may be handed a prohibition from owning firearms for 5 to 10 years.
The system as it stands holds Canadian gun owners to a higher standard than the average citizen. If you value your rights, you keep your ducks in a row. Statistically speaking, we are also among a group of people with the lowest crime rate. We are taken to task for everything and we are expected to uphold the laws and be impeccably responsible when it comes to firearms.
I do believe these two things would go a long way in the USA to at least help the situation from a multi-modal approach.
To be clear, I believe the "gun problem" is actually a minor player in the true roots of the US' violence issue, but it is something that can be addressed to add some mitigation to the situation.
anotherVegan
Member
And then the people being guarded get guns? Everyone gets a gun, Oprah style?
Mammoth Jones
Member
I think getting rid of the Second Amendment would leave us far more prone to a police state than guards.
But let me be absolutely clear: I believe the NRA screwed the pooch. Bad. I walked into the deli this morning to grab a cup of coffee and the papers basically read "NRA NUTS WANT MORE GUNS IN SCHOOL!" and I giggled because, I mean, how could the NRA *not* expect that kind of response? It's exactly that kind of nonsense that makes non-gun owners believe that all firearm owners believe that.
I really wish he had taken the time to explain semi-automatic firearms to the public. Because most don't have a clue. They see a rifle with picatinny rails and think it's somehow "more" dangerous than other firearms as if pistols,rifles, and shotguns shoot chocolate and marshmellows
~Devil Trigger~
In favor of setting Muslim women on fire
But then people might demand to ban the sell of all guns.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
But the second ammendment doesn't unilaterally protect all methods of violence, and this is what I keep coming back to. Why are all firearms specifically protected no matter what their capabilities but as soon as you step outside the "gun" circle all of the sudden its fine to have restrictions on what people own? Why do we draw that line based on method and not effect?
(And I don't notice the military using shotguns)
I think the response the NRA provided was perfect. It was perfect in the sense that truly represented what the majority of NRA members believe. As a resident of a rural region in a red state in a county that votes 80% Republican, after the Newtown shooting my Facebook feed was filled with suggestions to have every teacher carrying a concealed weapon, to have armed guards in every school, etc. This is the thinking of these people -- they want an armed escalation in the US.
Mammoth Jones, as an avid hunter and gun owner, I have to say I don't know what the heck you are talking about. This is the kind of rifle I use for hunting small game:
^ This is a bolt-action Winchester .223 with a 5 round magazine. It can be / is used by some to hunt deer as well.
^ This is a semi-automatic Bushmaster .223 assault rifle with a 30 round magazine (almost the same model that was used at Newtown).
In your post you dismissed the notion that the latter is more dangerous than the former and, in doing so, also dismissed the notion that you have any sense of sound judgment.
Mammoth Jones, as an avid hunter and gun owner, I have to say I don't know what the heck you are talking about. This is the kind of rifle I use for hunting small game:
^ This is a bolt-action Winchester .223 with a 5 round magazine. It can be / is used by some to hunt deer as well.
^ This is a semi-automatic Bushmaster .223 assault rifle with a 30 round magazine (almost the same model that was used at Newtown).
In your post you dismissed the notion that the latter is more dangerous than the former and, in doing so, also dismissed the notion that you have any sense of sound judgment.
ErasureAcer
Banned
So the NRA is promoting people to kill whomever they find "bad"...that's what I got from the guy's statement of good guys with guns kill bad guys with guns. That just gives the okay to mow down people you expect are bad like George Zimmerman did to Trayvon.
D
Deleted member 13876
Unconfirmed Member
Iron Man armors with non-lethal repulsor tech for all.
Funky Papa
FUNK-Y-PPA-4
What the fuck is small game to you? Surely we are not talking about rabbits and pheasants, unless you are interested in shredding them to pieces.
The .22lr is the quintessential small game caliber and it has been for the longest time.
Mammoth Jones
Member
I've already linked the Second Amendment. It protects arms. I'm sorry if you don't like that or want to change the definition of key words in it to make the goal gun control legislation more convenient but that's currently the way it is. I personally believe it's the way it should be.
A pistol, shotgun, bolt action rifle, semi-automatic are all dangerous if in the wrong hands. All would spell disaster in the hands of a suicidal school shooter determined to go out in glory for media attention. But they're all perfectly fine in the hands of a law abiding citizen. Why the need to single semi-automatic rifles out? As if pistols/shotguns and other rifles are less dangerous in the wrong hands?
We can have legislation that doesn't infringe on peoples 2A rights. But it's hard to even have that conversation when some simply don't agree with 2A at its core and refer to it as outdated. I don't believe the right of a free people to bear arms in defense of home or country or physical person will ever become outdated.
An all out assault on poverty in America would make much more of a tangible difference than taking any currently legal firearm away from law-abiding citizens that have done NOTHING to justify altering/redefining their Constitutional Rights and taking it away from them.
Addressing responsible gun storage in the home would have a FAR greater immediate impact. How many news stories have you read about a kid taking their parents gun to school? Even if no one gets hurt. That's a storage problem and we need to focus on that. Own your gun if you want but lock it up.
Honestly, I can't tell if you are joking or just an idiot.
Popular small game for which the .223 is appropriate:
Bobcat
Coyote
Feral hogs (not to be confused with wild boars)
Black fox
Red fox
Gray fox
Funky Papa
FUNK-Y-PPA-4
Easy down, cowboy.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
I find it utterly arbitrary. Method A of killing is protected beyond even a suggestion of a doubt, method B is not. Why? Because one involves firing metal projectiles at high speed and the others do not. Its fine to infringe on someone's right to violence as long as they choose a method other then a gun.
Mammoth Jones
Member
The latter isn't any more or less dangerous in the hands of a law abiding citizen.
I'd argue that your rifle in the hands of a suicidal criminal is far more dangerous than the semi-auto in the hands of a legal gun owner with no criminal record just going to the range and minding his/her business.
But if you're going to assume I have no sense of sound judgement it'd be very difficult for me to point that out. In my defense, take your time and check my post history to gauge where my judgement stands. I've been fairly consistent.
PjotrStroganov
Member
That's a weird way of comparing things on equal terms.
Voice of reason. (don't know your post history)
this is the type of thing that makes me laugh at conservative values. one will argue that obama's making the US socialist by providing health care but now they proposition creating a police state executed through public schools.
government shouldn't be getting bigger cause big government fails except the government should expand dramatically by putting armed officers in the classroom!!! (lol no)
government shouldn't be getting bigger cause big government fails except the government should expand dramatically by putting armed officers in the classroom!!! (lol no)
I'm not sure if I've seen anyone on GAF craft logical fallacies quite as well as you do. I'm almost impressed!
The point here is that, having access to both, what's stopping the potential mass murderer from going with the most lethal option? It's going to take someone a lot longer to kill 27 people with a 5-round bolt action rifle than it is with a 30-round semi-auto. You and I both know that, why are you dancing around it?
Freshmaker
I am Korean.
If someone's carrying a gun into an area where they have no business carrying a gun, then that person is worthy of tracking.
They should save us all some grief and tie that chip to a cyanide tipped needle that'll automatically pop out once a loon marches into a school, church, or public building.
Columbine had an armed police officer. Didn't do shit. You need way more than 1 to stop a shooting spree. You basically need a police force at every school for it to work.
So much for guns leading to freedom. Guns apparently promote freedom by... requiring a police state where armed agents of the state are everywhere watching your every move.
So much for guns leading to freedom. Guns apparently promote freedom by... requiring a police state where armed agents of the state are everywhere watching your every move.
Mammoth Jones
Member
I do not mean to dance around anything. A semi-automatic is simply more effective than a bolt action. As a pistol is more effective than a musket. But let's not pretend one shoots bubble gum and the other shoots bullets. Both are horrible in the hands of a mentally deranged person. I simply disagree with taking away the rights of law abiding people that haven't done anything wrong because of the actions of criminals.
Also, keep in mind. The guy had a pistol, a shotgun and a semi-auto. If you take away the semi-auto in that situation where he had free reign until the police arrived do you think the shotgun or pistol wouldn't have sufficed for his self-destructive suicidal spree?
The problem in this specific case was the open access to the firearms at home. All of them. The pistol. The semi-auto. The shotgun. All should have been locked up in a heavy duty safe. The fact that they weren't is troubling since the Mother should have known better. (This is what I've read, please correct me if it's inaccurate
Especially when she was actively trying to get him committed. That's legislation that would have prented this. If followed: -Firearms can't be in a home w/ a pending court case to have someone in said home committed.
A reasonable compromise to me would be if someone wants a semi-auto they need to store it in a safe. But I'm told that's unrealistic yet dismantling the second amendment is?
Are there really a lot of banks with armed guards? Aside from movies, I don't recall ever seeing any, even in the city.
EDIT:
EDIT:
Columbine had two, actually.
I do not mean to dance around anything. A semi-automatic is simply more effective than a bolt action. As a pistol is more effective than a musket. But let's not pretend one shoots bubble gum and the other shoots bullets. Both are horrible in the hands of a mentally deranged person. I simply disagree with taking away the rights of law abiding people that haven't done anything wrong because of the actions of criminals.
Also, keep in mind. The guy had a pistol, a shotgun and a semi-auto. If you take away the semi-auto in that situation where he had free reign until the police arrived do you think the shotgun or pistol wouldn't have sufficed for his self-destructive suicidal spree?
The problem in this specific case was the open access to the firearms at home. All of them. The pistol. The semi-auto. The shotgun. All should have been locked up in a heavy duty safe. The fact that they weren't is troubling since the Mother should have known better. (This is what I've read, please correct me if it's inaccurate
-Firearms can't be in a home w/ a pending court case to have someone in said home committed.
A reasonable compromise to me would be if someone wants a semi-auto they need to store it in a safe. But I'm told that's unrealistic yet dismantling the second amendment is?
When someone has guns locked in a safe, you don't think they'd tell their adult children the combination? If their thinking is that the guns protect the family, they would want their family to be able to access the guns if they weren't around. Sure in this case she was having her son committed, but most spree shooters surprise their parents with their actions.
The problem with all these weak gun control laws is that they assume there are bad people and good people and that good people never become bad people, or that if they do, it's a slow process during which you can remove their guns. Until the moment a spree shooter starts shooting, they are typically law abiding citizens.
Dreams-Visions
Member
2 points I strongly agree with and wish more focus was put here instead of on AR's or magazine sizes.
I believe both will have a dramatic effect on gun violence over time if coupled with a major, nation-wide, federally-funded gun buy back program. Done annually or quarterly. Millions of loose guns would be taken off the streets.
empty vessel
Member
I understand this sentiment in the abstract. But the reality is this:
Now, all rights have costs. But society has to judge those costs worth the right. If somebody speaks freely, the worst thing that happens is somebody takes offense. And freedom of speech does not include speech that is intended and likely to incite imminent violence. So even speech is limited to prevent violence. Gun rights arguments are, in a word, extreme. They insist that society tolerate the deaths of its members as its cost. It's time for that to change, because the request is extreme and we should reject it. What gun control advocates want is simply for the US to look more like the rest of the developed world. And we can do that by examining the rest of the world's policies and implementing the best ones here.
Incidentally, I do believe that this is more than simply about the presence of firearms. It is also, at root, about inequality, which creates social rifts and causes violence. But that the root may be inequality does not mean that the proliferation of firearms and their ease of access is not also a problem. After all, the UK has a pretty high inequality as well and it has not the rate of gun violence that the US does.
Dismantling the second amendment has become imperative. Mostly because gun rights advocates have acted irresponsibly by thwarting reasonable policies that could reduce the risk to members of society of being harmed by firearms and also because that amendment has recently become something that is harmful to society rather than beneficial to it. As I've said before, I think gun rights advocates only have themselves to blame for this for recklessly promoting the proliferation of firearms.
I think the gun show loophole is one of the worst issues that hasn't been addressed yet. The whole notion of background checks or any restrictions on access to guns is shot to shit by the ease of going to a gun show and walking away with any gun you want within the hour if you had cash on hand.
I understand this sentiment in the abstract. But the reality is this:
Now, all rights have costs. But society has to judge those costs worth the right. If somebody speaks freely, the worst thing that happens is somebody takes offense. And freedom of speech does not include speech that is intended and likely to incite imminent violence. So even speech is limited to prevent violence. Gun rights arguments are, in a word, extreme. They insist that society tolerate the deaths of its members as its cost. It's time for that to change, because the request is extreme and we should reject it. What gun control advocates want is simply for the US to look more like the rest of the developed world. And we can do that by examining the rest of the world's policies and implementing the best ones here.
Incidentally, I do believe that this is more than simply about the presence of firearms. It is also, at root, about inequality, which creates social rifts and causes violence. But that the root may be inequality does not mean that the proliferation of firearms and their ease of access is not also a problem. After all, the UK has a pretty high inequality as well and it has not the rate of gun violence that the US does.
Dismantling the second amendment has become imperative. Mostly because gun rights advocates have acted irresponsibly by thwarting reasonable policies that could reduce the risk to members of society of being harmed by firearms and also because that amendment has recently become something that is harmful to society rather than beneficial to it. As I've said before, I think gun rights advocates only have themselves to blame for this for recklessly promoting the proliferation of firearms.
Japan has basically no gun crimes because they don't allow people to own rifles or handguns. Only shotguns are allowed. It's also extremely difficult to get a license to buy that shotgun. They haven't had a gun-related mass murder in over 70 years as a result. The very few mass murders that have occurred have had comparatively small death tolls because it's hard to kill a lot of people without a gun. Mass murders are really just suicide by cop and a cry for attention. Take away guns and the person just commits suicide alone or just stews in their misery.
To use a knife, it requires physical strength and getting up close to your victim. Most spree shooters are cowards and losers, probably not the most athletic people, so a knife isn't going to help them kill very many people before they get stopped. Also the whole notion that some loser kid who hides in his parent's basement knows where to buy a gun illegally is ridiculous. Do you know where you can buy a gun right now other than at a gun show? I'm pretty sure the average GAFfer isn't connected with the local organized crime ring.
Delusibeta
Banned
Assuming he's in the US, a gun shop.
crisdecuba
Member
Thank you for laying things out reasonably and without vitriol. I am one of those "on the fence" type of people when it comes to this issue and I agree wholeheartedly with your two major posts.
Exactly, there's clear link between the amount of privately possesed firearms and firearm related deaths (both murders and accidental). The current situation boils down to the right to bear arms is more important than the lives of thousands of people every year.
People are still allowed to hunt professionally or recretionally in Japan or visit ranges for recreational purposes. Yes, you can't own a firearm as a hobby, but be frank, is it really worth all the lives lost?
Right now the important thing is to force some sense into the laws, 300 million guns in the circulation is simply an absurd number and it shows in the stastistics.
MInd linking me to news coverage of this anecdote so I can read about the circumstances for myself?
So the problem with America is that they're American? Americans are just more violent than people from any other democracy?
Western Europe has really low gun violence compared to the US as well. They are culturally a lot more similar to the US. What is a good example? Or can the US not be compared to any country?
Razgriz-Specter
Member
the easiest thing to start with is banning high capacity magazines.
there is no reason any civilian gun needs more than like 5-10 bullets.
there is no reason any civilian gun needs more than like 5-10 bullets.
Synth_floyd
Banned
Even the Murdock owned NY Post is criticizing the NRA:
CharlieDigital
Banned
Please, read up on the Sino-Japanese wars and World Wars.
The Japanese have a brutally violent history.
Not relevant.
Because it proves you wrong.
I don't think so. Just because the Japanese military fought a few brutal wars in the past doesn't mean present-day Japanese civilians are violent.
Their culture is very different from American culture.
Maybe Canada? I dunno. Comparisons are useful. I'm sure some countries are more similar. I'm just saying that a country like Japan isn't a good candidate.
LOOK, I'm just saying that correlation != causation
- Status