Gun Control Debate #1

Status
Not open for further replies.
Because it's working. How many hijackers have taken control of a US airliner since this program was started. Zero. Because they know they will get shot if they try.

It is illogical to suggest that a crazed, suicidal highjacker hasn't taken control of an airliner because he's afraid of getting shot. They truly don't care if they get shot. They will take that chance.

People have tried to beach the cockpit on a few occasions since 9/11. What's stopped them is one thing - the locked door.

Beyond that, we have strengthened security systems in our airports, looking for box cutters and flammable liquids. Looking for weaponry in baggage. We have body scanners and people trained to assess passengers for possible risks of terror activity.

That is what has stopped high jackers from taking over a plane again. Not a gun behind the cockpit door.
 
Yes I can. I know guns. He did not have the time it takes to use a weapon against the shooter. That takes a cool head on a person who is highly trained and much more reaction time than he had.
How much time?
 
Yes I can. I know guns. He did not have the time it takes to use a weapon against the shooter. That takes a cool head on a person who is highly trained and much more reaction time than he had.

What was his training? How do you know he didn't have a cool head?
 
Not really. Banning certain TYPES of guns- which the aussies did- isn't a violation of the second amendment.

But here's an Australian ambassador who echoes what I've been saying for years about why effective gun control legislation like in Australia would be super hard to effectively pass here:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/psmag.com/.amp/news/australia-ambassador-gun-laws

From your link:

Was the bulk of the opposition from your own party?

The right wing had previously lobbied fairly hard against changes to the gun laws. The National Rifle Association sent people and money to campaign in Australia.

Wow. IMO
 
This is bizarre but listening to these articulate, intelligent, fierce kids from Marjory Stoneman makes me think that this one could be the turning point. Even over Newtown.

I've posted many times that my years of study of U.S. culture and the place guns have in that culture and in our history make any real attempts at addressing guns as the issue- virtually impossible. So we have to look at other things we can do.

But these kids give me hope that 200 years of culture can be changed much more quickly than I thought.

I'm astounded by them. A bunch of super powerful anti-gun, anti-NRA advocates have just been created. And they're absolutely decimating the rhetoric of those who support unfettered firearms possession.

I think they're starting a movement. Just like the kids faced with the suicide mission of Vietnam did who decided to resist. These kids who actually daced
death, saw death and experienced loss, they're done.

It might just spread through a generation.

Kids today are very savvy. They have grown up in a completely different culture than any of us here can imagine. I think they see the ridiculousness of America’s gun loving mindset.

Yes 200 yrs of culture is changing in an instant.
 
What was his training? How do you know he didn't have a cool head?

If he is not trained LE or military he is unlikely to have a "cool head" when faced with a mass murderer with a semi-automatic. There is nothing to suggest he had any training whatsoever in armed combat, which is what this is.
 
Yeah arming teachers as a solution to this is nonsensical and insane IMO.

First, where is the firearm going to be stored so the teacher can access and use it immediately. If they can access and use it immediately, that means a student likely can too. Either by opening a drawer or overpowering the teacher. And are we really at the stage where we want students to have to be in a class with an armed teacher? With a gun in a holster? What does that tell our babies about the world we live in and how to survive it?

Second, people make mistakes on a daily basis with dangerous items like cars, chemicals, tools, fire. People also make deadly and dangerous mistakes with their firearms, daily, leading to him deaths. Now we want to throw millions more guns into the schools, at the hands of millions of teachers so that there are musslions of more oppruntities for someone to make a horrendous safety mistake with the firearm they brought to school for protection.

Third, you can't just shove a gun in an adult's hand and think they're prepared. To be able to use it properly requires a lot of training. Will training be mandated? What kind? Many of the 3.2 million public school teachers in our nation have never fired a gun. But we are going to arm them all?

Fourth, even if they are gun users and know how to shoot, unless you are a soldier with a loaded weapon cocked and ready to go, or LE with a loaded weapon aimed and going into a dangerous situation ready to shoot, the weapon in the safe or even in your holster may be of little use. I remember a terrifying situation I rolled up on, not expecting it, which involved a psychotic young homeless guy screaming the most blood-curdling scream and lunging toward me as I pulled up into my office drive late one night to grab a file. In shock I could barely get my car into reverse and then once I did, and this guy SLOWLY followed me into the street where I had reversed, I was shaking so bad it took me several tries to dial 911.

Being able to react quickly with a weapon is something only highly skilled soldiers and LE are able to do typically and even then, if you're not in battle mode and the bad guy comes in unsuspecting, as they usually do, it's too late by the time you can reach for your gun.

Fifth, like in tests of crowd shooting situations where others were armed and engaged the shooter, they mostly just shot each other on accident. As someone else said, adding guns in the hands of people who aren't professional gun users, even if they think they are, increases the possibility of casualties. It doesn't decrease it. And when first responders show up during the heat of a shooting, how can they know who the bad guy is and who the good guy is if everyone is armed? That's a fast intense, adrenaline-filled situation.

As a result of the fourth and fifth points above, despite armed people being in close proximity to the shooter during the Oregon community college shooting and the Fort Hood shooting some either did not use their weapons or did but unsuccessfully. Civilians have never successfully stopped a shooter from killing many people. Only one, who had a ton of reaction time, was able to use firearms to disable a mass murderer, but only after he already killed 26 people including 26 children:

According to a study of 62 mass shootings over 30 years conducted by Mother Jones, “not a single case includes evidence that the killer chose to target a place because it banned guns.” Many of those mass shootings took place in areas were guns where permitted, but not a single one was stopped by armed civilians.
Parker’s interview revealed the practical difficulties of armed civilians trying to stop a mass shooting. By the time he became aware of the shooting, a SWAT team had already responded. He was concerned that police would view him as a “bad guy” and target him, so he quickly retreated into the classroom.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/thinkp...-campus-at-time-of-massacre-1410b3cad225/amp/

Instead, it is non-civilians who have been the most effective at ending the carnage or stopping a shooter.

Finally, sixth, not every teacher across America is stable themselves. Some are actually suicidal, mentally ill, homicidal. And we want to arm them all?

This seems like a terrible plan and an ineffective means of protecting our kids. I would be scared to send my child to school with armed teachers.

Bbm: In addition to your excellent points, the cost to arm them all would be astronomical.

Schools Seeking to Arm Employees Hit Hurdle on Insurance
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/08/us/schools-seeking-to-arm-employees-hit-hurdle-on-insurance.html

---
And, who would pay for it?

NRA School Safety Report Recommends Arming Teachers, Loosening Gun Laws (UPDATE)
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/02/nra-school-safety-report_n_2999968.html
 
From your link:

Was the bulk of the opposition from your own party?

The right wing had previously lobbied fairly hard against changes to the gun laws. The National Rifle Association sent people and money to campaign in Australia.

Wow. IMO

I don't understand the question kimlynn!! Help me out.
 
I work in a school that has metal detectors and safety officers. For a school of aprox. 4k students, we have 18-20 officers not counting those who watch the security screens. One person with a gun on a sprawling campus with multiple buildings or two people is not enough. On a campus with multiple buildings, students would need to be scanned each time they enter the building. That would not stop a killer who would shoot as students are leaving buildings unless the perimeter is secured or canvassed with perimeter video. We have armed security officers that are outside of the building where deliveries occur and at any egress--walking or vehicular. Our area was impacted by Sandy Hook/Newtown. Can you tell?
 
I don't understand the question kimlynn!! Help me out.

I didn't really have a question. Just stunned that the NRA would go so far as to send people and money to try to stop stricter gun laws in Australia.
I don't know why I'm surprised but it stood out to me.
 
Just wtting here, and I have not read back yet. Wanted to post this, although it may already have been put here...?


https://www.npr.org/2018/02/17/5868...ooting-a-florida-gun-owner-gives-up-his-ar-57
[h=1]After Parkland Shooting, A Florida Gun Owner Gives Up His AR-57[/h]Dickmann turned in his AR-57 to the sheriff's office and asked them to destroy it. He posted about it on Facebook, and that post has now gone viral. It's been shared more than 100,000 times.

It's come after a lot of soul searching. Everybody always says - you know, it's the big argument right now - everybody's offering thoughts and prayers but nothing else. And I thought, well, this is something I can do that I think is right. And it's something I can do that might spark a change. You know, my whole goal was maybe to inspire one friend on my Facebook page to do the same thing. And maybe that friend would inspire one other person. And who knows? I totally didn't expect for this to go the way it did and as fast as it did.
 
Regarding people with serious mental illness being prohibited from buying or possessing firearms, we nullified the modest background check measures put in place by the last administration.

Is there a better alternative?

Without infringing on the civil rights of privacy, how do we determine who is mentally ill if they have not committed a felony crime?


Public Law No: 115-8 (02/28/2017)
This joint resolution nullifies the “Implementation of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007” rule finalized by the Social Security Administration on December 19, 2016. The rule implements a plan to provide to the National Instant Criminal History Background Check System the name of an individual who meets certain criteria, including that benefit payments are made through a representative payee because the individual is determined to be mentally incapable of managing them. (Current law prohibits firearm sale or transfer to and purchase or possession by a person who has been adjudicated as a mental defective.)

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-joint-resolution/40
 
Australia's Ambassador Says His Country's Gun Laws Can't Save America

BBM

The Second Amendment would prevent this from ever happening in the US. JMO


https://psmag.com/news/australia-ambassador-gun-laws

I have been in a few debates with gun loving Americans and this is where I always concede. America is past the point of no return as far as adopting policies that other much less gun violent nations have. There are 300 million+ guns in America. Far too many for any kind of buyback program or heaven forbid, confiscation.

As a Canadian, my skin in the game is those guns crossing the border. Traditionally, it is not easy to get a handgun in Canada, even for criminals. However the spillage from the USofA is changing that. And we do not want your damn guns!

Maybe we should build a wall on our southern border. A great big beautiful wall.
 
Well, this was a sobering read. Thanks for the link, Rose. ❤️

GUN MASSACRES
Is It Time To Bring Back The Assault Weapons Ban?

The death toll in the Parkland school shooting counts it among the deadliest gun massacres in U.S. history. It's the sixth school shooting incident already this year where students have been killed or wounded and it's the deadliest since the Sandy Hook massacre in 2012. After the Parkland shooting, it emerged that the perpetrator purchased his AR-15 assault rifle legally. That weapon and others like it were once banned under U.S. law and there are growing calls for a reintroduction of that legislation.

https://www.statista.com/chart/12943/is-it-time-to-bring-back-the-assault-weapons-ban/
View attachment 130409
 
Yes I can. I know guns. He did not have the time it takes to use a weapon against the shooter. That takes a cool head on a person who is highly trained and much more reaction time than he had.

I agree. The entire school was locked down, and staff’s main priority was getting kids to safety. They don’t need any more distractions.

Shootouts with high-powered firearms on a school grounds. Holy crap how terrifying.

The first person to accidentally hurt a kid in the crossfire will be hung out to dry. No. This isn’t a valid option. It’s not feasible or realistic.

More safety isn’t synonymous with more guns. Restricting access, in some cases, is how you protect people.

You can’t bring weapons into courthouses.

You can’t bring shampoo bottles larger than 3.4oz onto planes.

Safety measures protect everyone. They PRESERVE our rights.

At what point did this national discussion get so turned around?
 
Arming teachers with guns? Really the answer is more guns? What good would a hand gun do when a kid is firing an AR-15. I just don't understand why anyone needs to own assault weapons. I was asked on the other thread why is it Canada does not have this epidemic of mass shootings. Now I can say it here. We don't have easy access to hand guns. Law's are so strict. A person can purchase a hand gun, take course but the only time you can transport it is to/from the gun range. Assault weapons are illegal. IMO it's the one glaring difference. We have mental health issues here as well and waits can be long for treatment as well. I am relieved that somebody who wants to kill a large number of people here will not have easy access to do so. So glad your future voters are speaking out. Loudly. Will they be heard? Remains to be seen. I don't have much confidence in any change. Sadly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
184
Guests online
860
Total visitors
1,044

Forum statistics

Threads
625,962
Messages
18,517,105
Members
240,915
Latest member
CalvinJ
Back
Top