MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
There was an armed officer there on duty. He didn’t respond in the way that he should. I don’t know why, maybe he just froze, maybe when faced with semi automatic fire he thought of his own family and couldn’t go in. We’ll find out in due course but I would be loathe to condemn him. We’d all like to think cometh the hour, cometh the man yada, yada, yada but none of us knows exactly how we would react.
What is does do is pour cold water on the ludicrous idea of arming teachers.
From the NRA's point of view it doesn't, just highlights the need to get more good guys with guns ready to respond. More guns! More safety!
ah ninfan back with the everything looks like a nail when you only have a hammer response, armed guard not enough, more guns, teacher in the toilet give the kid near the door a gun, better give one to someone at the back too, maybe a sniper in the bushes, probably best have some land mines in the hall too.
& now you understand why it’s a non-starter.
I always understood, don't lump me in with those that suggest random arming is a solution.
There was a good guy with a gun. He froze
He's not the right sort of 'good guy' then, and as i said the only disagreement we're really having is what actually 'good guy' means. BECAUSE IT'S NOT A SCHOOL TEACHER WITH A 3 DAY COURSE AND A CERTIFICATE OR AN NRA MITTY.
Teachers with guns....
I had a teacher at school who gave the entire class (except one) detention because she forgot to set some homework so nobody did it. One girl did some questions because she loved whatever subject it was, so the teacher convinced herself she must have set the homework and the whole class was accused of being lazy and lying, so we all got in trouble.
A music teacher ran out of a classroom crying because of teasing from some of the kids.
Anther music teacher nearly had a breakdown after a particularly trying lesson, including an incident where a kid got trapped between the soundproof double doors in the 'studio' for the best part of an hour. He was squashed in too tightly to move to knock the door or get to the handle, and the soundproofing meant we couldn't hear him calling for help she only noticed when she did the register right at the end of the lesson and asked where he was. She went to look for him and he fell, gasping, out of the door when she opened it.
Then we had a lesson where we were doing something electronics related with those powerpacks that you plug in to the mains and then you set the volts and amps. They had apparently all been set to a very low voltage for the experiment we were meant to be doing. I told the teacher that mine was about 100 times higher than it should have been. Got told to be quiet, they were all set correctly. So I did as I was told and turned it on. The thing it was connected to went bang and I got a bollocking for changing it.
We locked a maths teacher out of the classroom, that might have been during an ofsted inspection.
In DT a kid snuck off and had a go with the vacuum forming machine, ruined a whole years worth of plastic before the teacher realised he wasn't where he should have been.
This was all at a 'respectable', well rated school in a safe, middle class suburb.
My gf went to a school where (at least) one of the teachers was an alcoholic. All the kids knew it, they also knew where he kept his 'secret' bottle of scotch in the store cupboard and would steal it.
I wouldn't trust teachers any more than builders or accountants or shelf stackers to be effective in being the 'good guy with a gun' and to make the right decision in the most stressful situation of their lives. I also wouldn't trust them to be able to keep the guns away from the kids for the 99.9999% of the time that there isn't an active shooter prowling the corridors.
As theotherjonv says, any changes,even training and arming teachers, will take time to make any difference. And how much difference would it really make? Would suicide-by-teacher become a thing?
If people are saying that the big, structural changes would make a difference in the long term then that's a reason to start them now, not a reason to not make those changes. It might take ten years to make any difference, but if you don't start it now then it's always ten years away. In the meantime why not fit reinforced security doors and an external door to all classrooms. Probably about the same cost as training hundreds of thousands (millions?!) of teachers and giving them all a gun and ammo. That keeps a barrier between the shooter and the kids, and lets people escape if the door is 'breached'.
you need to rely on the people already there, in danger, to resolve it, with what they have available.
He's obviously right. Anyone who agrees with the genius of Trump has got to be right.
When I hear stuff like this. And the guy on Newsnight and see Trump's Tweets, I just think **** em. They get what they ask for. Discussing it is getting nowhere.
So, the guard didn’t help – you’ve proved it, you can’t rely on people running in to danger to solve the problem – you need to rely on the people already there, in danger, to resolve it, with what they have available.
You are either beyond help or trolling. Of course when faced with an armed assailant, a semi-trained civilian is coolly going to draw their weapon and with pinpoint accuracy take out the bad guys. Emotion will not be a factor, collateral damage will not be a by product.
Out of interest, do you have any military combat experience?
Put another way – set aside how they ‘become’ bad or how they get the gun – Does anyone disagree that a potential solution to the IMMEDIATE threat of a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun; and if you do disagree then what is the solution to that IMMEDIATE threat?
Yes, for all the reasons set out above it's impossible to get good guys with guns who aren't actually likely to make things worse. So if the only alternatives are thoughts and prayers or arming teachers then it's better off sticking with thoughts and prayers. The only solution is to start the process of gun control - until that starts to make a difference then they'll just have to live with the shit situation they have, because there is no other possible way of making it better.
There weren’t any in the 100 years before either
Hungerford?
So, the guard didn’t help – you’ve proved it, you can’t rely on people running in to danger to solve the problem – you need to rely on the people already there, in danger, to resolve it, with what they have available.
Troll or gun nut, ninfan? Please give me an answer, because you're going way beyond the usual call of duty in defending the indefensible here, and I want to know the best way to take the piss out of you.
He’s not the right sort of ‘good guy’ then, and as i said the only disagreement we’re really having is what actually ‘good guy’ means.
Most roles of that sort of nature (security guard, event first aider or marshal - a few steps below front line police, paramedic etc where they are trained but basically spend most of their day "stood to" but not actually doing a lot) are incredibly dull.
Dull, dull, dull, [something happens], oh shit PANIC.
Most people, in spite of what their inner Walter Mitty would like to think, go completely to pieces in any sort of emergency. It's not even as simple as witnessing a car crash where there's a very short-lived moment of chaos and then (relative) calm where there's time to evaluate the situation, call the emergency sevrices etc. A gun attack is an ongoing insanely dangerous situation that's incredibly loud and confusing and traumatic and the idea of doing anything other than running like **** is completely alien to pretty much everyone except trained fighting forces.
And even they won't go blindly in without having some idea of the threat.
As theotherjonv says, any changes,even training and arming teachers, will take time to make any difference. And how much difference would it really make? Would suicide-by-teacher become a thing?
Again, I'm not advocating arming teachers, the solution is clearly to ban guns; it's that that will take years / generations to accomplish if indeed there is any will for it to happen. In the meantime arming teachers still isn't the solution, for all the reasons above. If you have 'armed response' capability - wherever that is, schools, airports, concerts - it has to be proper capability; half baked has the clear potential to be worse than nothing at all.
Off the wall (and not bringing back to cars, but..) - speed cameras 'work' whether they have film or not because you can't risk it. Put armed response police in schools but only actually arm the fully trained ones. Give the others blanks. But the other guy doesn't know and so the school is no longer a soft target. Deterrent rather than solution.
Hungerford?
That wasn't a school shooting.
After Hungerford we banned a different configuration of gun. Dunblane didn't feature that particular configuration of gun.
And of course there have been (non-school) mass shootings since Dunblane, and many non-gun mass killings.
it’s impossible to get good guys with guns who aren’t actually likely to make things worse.
again, read on. The only disagreement is what a 'good guy' really means. If that statement is true then we should do away with all armed response officers.
I'm not arguing to arm teachers or civilians, but if there is to be an armed response, and sorry, but I see that as a perfectly viable solution to a guy with a gun, that armed response has to be appropriate, not half arsed.
It's not impossible but it's highly impractical.
There was an armed officer there on duty. He didn’t respond in the way that he should. I don’t know why
I reckon I could speculate. A highly trained police marksman doesn't get a job sitting on his arse in a school all day looking important on the off-chance that some kid brings a Swiss Army Knife into school. It's the sort of role you'd fall into after retiring from the force. North of £50k for a low-risk security guard in a quiet school, where do I sign? Tackling some pillock waving semi-automatic weaponry about, not in my job description pal. Not everyone is born a hero no matter what Hollywood would have us believe.
Does anyone disagree that a potential solution to the IMMEDIATE threat of a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun; and if you do disagree then what is the solution to that IMMEDIATE threat?
It's a potential solution, sure. Is it the only one?
And of course there have been (non-school) mass shootings since Dunblane, and many non-gun mass killings.
How are we doing compared to the US?
That wasn’t a school shooting.
Eh? I’m sorry what difference does that make?
Dunblane didn’t feature that particular configuration of gun.
Handguns which they changed the law on afterwards.
It’s not impossible but it’s highly impractical.
Well there you go, it's not a real potential solution.
Eh? I’m sorry what difference does that make?
I don't know, you'll have to ask novaswift, but I guess he came up with his rather contrived stat as this thread is inspired by a school shooting.
Handguns which they changed the law on afterwards
Hungerford featured self loading rifles which were then banned. Handguns were not, and they featured in Dunblane.
For shooting fish in a barrel the particular configuration of the gun is utterly irrelevant.
I lived in Florida, 70’s through late 80’s, and my Father had a gun. An IT nerd who’d run away from confrontation quicker than a Saturn 5 launching..
I found it once, in a shoebox under their bed. It wasn’t loaded, cos I pulled the trigger.. aged 10.
Never understood the need for guns, we lived in a very quiet and beautiful area. A place where I can’t remember locking any doors and certainly not on any cars we owned, it was like in the movies where the keys were in the drivers sun visor...
Anyway, after shooting the gun I took it out to play. Sort of a reenactment of the Vietnam War, charging around the dykes and scrubland aiming and firing away. I got home and placed it on the table in the living room and Mom found it.
It was an interesting evening that followed.
We were taught in school to be prepared, arm yourself with a weapon so you could use it. I remember classes of “duck and cover” and even target practice with broom handles. It was an odd era back then.
We were an enclave of EXPats in our own “Hill Valley” with our own school and a lot of English Teachers, even they took part in our excersises.
The point I make is this, if I a UK kid was taught this where I was I’m pretty sure more extreme versions of the same doctrine were taught elsewhere.
And now, well I’m in my early 50’s and those early days are still with me. I’m pretty damn sure my peers and those underneath still remember those days, perhaps they are supporters of the NRA I don’t know. But I think it’s deeply ingrained in the culture and too far gone now to change. So I’m resigned to just accepting that some Americans like killing other Americans.
As for us, well my Mother threw the gun away in a bayou behind the house and never told my Father she’d gotten rid of it. I got a wholloping of epic proportions.
It’s a potential solution, sure. Is it the only one?
I don't know, but I'm struggling to find one, in honesty, without resorting to sci-fi (guns with inbuilt taser that can't be disabled and which a policeman can activate from a central command centre so as a shooting starts anyone holding a gun gets tasered. Sure, a few people enjoying a day on the range in the vicinity get tasered accidentally every now and then but if you want a gun that badly, surely you'd live with that risk every now and then?)
Hence why i asked - if you don't think it's a solution, then what is? How do you stop an armed bad guy?
Hence why i controversially kind of agree with the NRA guy - the way to stop him, is with a good guy with a gun. Not just 'anyone' with a gun though.
"He’s not the right sort of ‘good guy’ then"
What is then?
Because if he's not a SEAL, DELTA, SAS or a similar level of ability he's under qualified & a fing liability.
For shooting fish in a barrel the particular configuration of the gun is utterly irrelevant.
Not irrelevant at all. There’s a huge difference between a rapid fire rifle, a handgun and double barrled shotgun. All can kill but the first 2 kill more a lot quicker, with handguns it’s easier to carry more than one.
and given the number of entry points to a school how many of these people do we need? What about the road to the school? Or the sports ground, what about uni campus?
And the guy on Newsnight and see Trump’s Tweets, I just think **** em. They get what they ask for.
"They" don't include schoolchildren, since they can't vote.
Not irrelevant at all. There’s a huge difference between a rapid fire rifle, a handgun and double barrled shotgun. All can kill but the first 2 kill more a lot quicker, with handguns it’s easier to carry more than one.
Nonsense. That **** at dunblane would have killed as many kids using a shotgun as a handgun.
Mass shootings are so rare in this country because it's not what we do. The type of gun available to the mass shooter is irrelevant.
The type of gun available to the mass shooter is irrelevant.
Wrong. Factor in range, ricochet, speed of fire, potential damage to target and you'll see why.
Same question as to ninfan. Have you any military combat experience.
The type of gun available to the mass shooter is irrelevant.
You keep believing that.
I think it takes a normal person about 10 seconds to realise that giving some teachers the responsibility to carry concealed guns in all schools is just the stupidest idea. But it doesn't need to be realistic, as the point of raising it is to move the debate on from banning or reducing or restricting weapons. The NRA just wants to sell guns; it wants to make it as easy to buy a gun as it is to buy a bicycle, that's the point of the organisation.
All of the Americans I've met are not gun nuts, most shake their heads in bemusement at their own gun laws. I think something like 3% of the population own 90% of the guns or something mad like that. There will come a time when the political mood will change.
There will come a time when the political mood will change.
President Oprah will change everything. #Oprah2020 #Oprahpotus
Never understood the need for guns, we lived in a very quiet and beautiful area.
I have a friend in the US who carries a gun for protection at work.
She's an accountant.
Wrong. Factor in range, ricochet, speed of fire, damage to target and you’ll see why.
So, you've locked yourself in classroom of primary school children and you think that "range, ricochet (!), speed of fire, damage to target" would have any bearing on the outcome? That fella in dunblane killed them all without needing a machine gun.
"The type of gun available to the mass shooter is irrelevant."
Hmm.
No.
Lethal range of a 12 bore? 50 to 100m depending on load. That's not going to penetrate a brick wall.
Assault rifle, say AR 15? 500m & that will penetrate a brick wall. Easilly.
& thats ignoring magazine capacity & rate of fire.....
I'm out of this "discussion", reason & common sense has left the building...far too many here who don't have the faintest idea what they are talking about.
Some of you need to sign out of COD & get out into the real World where there's no reset, no cheats, & you don't get 3 lives.
Dunblane. Revolver - 17 dead.
Florida. Assault rifle - 17 dead.
Shooting fish in a barrel. It makes no odds.
What is then?
Because if he’s not a SEAL, DELTA, SAS or a similar level of ability he’s under qualified & a fing liability.
We don't disagree. I said 'armed response level of capability' - (which I'll clarify in case not clear, but I mean the kind of teams currently deployed to these occurrences), you said special forces, but we're splitting hairs over terminology.
IT'S DEFINITELY, ABSOLUTELY, NEVER IN A MILLION YEARS, A TEACHER WHO'S BEEN ON A 3 DAY COURSE OR AN NRA MITTY.
Dunblane - Closed school srea
[s]Florida - Shooting from a hotel window across the road.[/s]
Yeah you’ve no idea at all.
Ooops! Sorry wrong mass shooting too many in America so I got confused.
They’re both rapid fire weapons with high penetration, as mentioned above.
The type of gun available to the mass shooter is irrelevant.
Must be why we they all use muskets that take 2 minutes to reload
We don’t disagree. I said ‘armed response level of capability’ – (which I’ll clarify in case not clear, but I mean the kind of teams currently deployed to these occurrences), you said special forces, but we’re splitting hairs over terminology.
So now you want SF in class rooms?? Because that's the level of skill required.
Have you had any formal weapons training??
Dunblane – Closed school sreaFlorida – Shooting from a hotel window across the road.
Yeah you’ve no idea at all.
This isn't hard. The objective is to kill a load of people. The tool used dictates how its done. The end result is much the same. Ban self loading rifles and they'll use handguns, ban handguns and they'll use shotguns. Method changes, result doesn't.
Why the (!) after ricochet? A rapid fire assault weapon will result in bullets ricocheting thereby going in random directions and hitting people not in the original trajectory. These bullets can also go through other barriers as MrLebowski says. A double barrel shot gun does not have the same capacity for carnage.
You quote stats for Dunblane (Revolver). He was carrying 4 handguns and a significant amount of ammunition.
I'd be interested to hear of mass shootings where a double barrel shotgun was the weapon of choice. I may be wrong but I'm not the one making the argument for lack of gun control.
Again, have you any military combat experience?
Ban self loading rifles and they’ll use handguns, ban handguns and they’ll use shotguns. Method changes, result doesn’t.
Not sure anyone is arguing that part but the results are far more catasphroic with ‘right’ weapon.
IT’S DEFINITELY, ABSOLUTELY, NEVER IN A MILLION YEARS, A TEACHER WHO’S BEEN ON A 3 DAY COURSE OR AN NRA MITTY.
What if your teacher is an ex-Navy SEAL?
http://www.tdtnews.com/news/article_d701c8ca-f6c5-11e4-8151-cb3478d0dc80.html
Do they teach cooking?
Get him to balance a ball on his nose as a diversion tactic?
Lebowski - the otherjonv isn't saying he wants SF in classrooms. He's saying that is the level of training / skill you would need to be effective if you are to have armed people in schools. Anything short of this level of training isn't going to be any use whatsoever therefore the idea of arming anyone in a school is a complete non starter. He's making the same point you are in a slightly different way.
Thanks drac, interesting reading.
Ah, ninfan's back. Are you approaching this argument from a position of military combat experience?
Pretty sure my high school biology teacher used to be a walrus.
I’d be interested to hear of mass shootings where a double barrel shotgun was the weapon of choice. I may be wrong but I’m not the one making the argument for lack of gun control.
Weapon of choice is interesting. I'm saying it doesn't matter what you choose. Do you really think that when confronted with a classroom full of 8 year olds you need the latest military hardware? Does it matter that you take 5 minutes rather than 3? Does it matter than you can't shoot 500 yards?
The only odds the weapon makes is how you'd go about it. You don't sit in a clock tower with a shotgun. You lock yourself in a room. End result is the same.
Again, have you any military combat experience?
Do you really think that executing children has anything to do with the military? It's not like they're shooting back. Which is, again, my point.
Not sure anyone is arguing that part but the results are far more catasphroic with ‘right’ weapon.
Dumblane. Revolver. 17
Florida. Assault rifle. 17
If you really want to kill a lot use a lorry. Nice. 86.
Since Coyote seems determined to establish the entire forums level of military combat experience.....
I once got into a snowball fight with some Army cadets.
You weren't there, man!... YOU WEREN'T THERE!
What if your teacher is an ex-Navy SEAL?
What if your teacher is a squirrel - oh look, there's one!
Do they teach cooking?
Well played
So now you want SF in class rooms??
I want them to ban guns, and to deal with the socio-political reasons (including mental health and terrorism) that make Americans so scared that they feel they need to be armed for self protection. But that isn't happening and isn't going to any time soon.
I'm approaching this from the PoV of what the NRA guy said about the way to stop a bad guy with a gun. And putting SF level of trained people into schools is A potential solution. But not a particularly workable one for any number of reasons. And again, just because it isn't workable does not therefore follow that arming civilians or teachers instead is a suitable alternative.
So there, and I'll say it one last time - if (as the NRA guy said) the 'short term' solution to a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun, then the only real disagreement i have with him is the definition of good guys.
Ah, ninfan’s back. Are you approaching this argument from a position of military combat experience?
Four handguns at Dunblane holding 38 rounds of ammunition.
Good luck carrying 19 shotguns.
If you really want to kill a lot use a lorry. Nice. 86.
Or assault rifles, Stephen Paddock fired over 1000 rounds, killed 68 and injured over 500 more...
Ah, ninfan’s back. Are you approaching this argument from a position of military combat experience?
Level 5 warlock, aced CoD twice in easy mode and 680/1000 on JFK reloaded
I’ve also shot and owned guns for some years without ever once feeling tempted to shoot innocent bystanders or murder a classroom full of kids
You?
do you have to resist and fight your deepest feelings of inner rage and inadequacy all the time? Is that why you think other people can’t be trusted with guns? Because you feel like you couldn’t trust yourself?
Type of gun aside, why did the shooter do this?
What if your teacher is an ex-Navy SEAL?
What if they're not?
Still a not particularly good troll then ninfan?
MODS!!! The Trump thread is leaking bellends!
why did the shooter do this?
I believe the silicon chip inside his head switched to overload
"And putting SF level of trained people into schools is A potential solution."
F me.
You're serious.
"What if your teacher is an ex-Navy SEAL?"
If he's not practising on a regular basis, then he's sub-par..
"Lebowski – the otherjonv isn’t saying he wants SF in classrooms. He’s saying that is the level of training / skill you would need to be effective if you are to have armed people in schools. Anything short of this level of training isn’t going to be any use whatsoever therefore the idea of arming anyone in a school is a complete non starter. He’s making the same point you are in a slightly different way."
We really aren't.
It's a cosmically bad idea - armed guards in your 8 yr olds home ec course? WTF??? Where are you going to find these highly trained & motivated individuals? Pulling them off SF duty to stag on in the playroom isn't going to wash.
The point is you need SF level competency to not be a liability in this given scenario & if you can't provide that, then you shouldn't start down that road. It's really that simple.
The problem is a piece of piss to sort - problem is that course of action requires too much moral fibre & self-analysis for the average gun toting American to muster, what the solution is I don't know but I'm pretty darned sure more guns isn't it!
Since Coyote seems determined to establish the entire forums level of military combat experience…..
Not at all PP. I'm just interested how much experience those who are pro gun have on the other end of the barrel and my thoughts were correct.
What I find odd in this whole debate is the pro-death advocates are actually admitting there's a problem by saying school teachers should be armed, but they are using it as a smokescreen to cover up the fact they aren't willing to do anything about the problem they admit is there.
That is the very definition of extreme negligence and/or corruption.
Why the hell should school teachers be armed? Why the hell should they have Navy Seals stationed in schools? That's not life, that's war. War is useful to control populations and make them feel as if you are keeping them safe when, in fact, you are doing nothing at all.
It's complete madness.
do you have to resist and fight your deepest feelings of inner rage and inadequacy all the time?
in fact, they are doing nothing at all.
They're not. They're promoting the culture of fear that will sell even more guns. Who do you think funds the NRA? Weapons manufacturers, maybe?
Not at all PP. I’m just interested how much experience those who are pro gun have on the other end of the barrel and my thoughts were correct.
My mistake. I was erroneously reading an implied subtext which was "Please ask ME how much military combat experience I have. I used to be a highly trained government assassin but I don't really like to talk about. It's classified" 😉
@ mrlebowski
F me. You don't listen do you?
I agree, it's a dumb, unworkable idea. I'm not suggesting it, the NRA guy was, but it's an idea and if it were to be workable then it would need people with "SF" (your words, i said armed response) levels of training. Not pulling SF guys off what they are doing so they can stag on in the playroom, but providing that to the people they recruit to do this. No you wouldn't find them, you couldn't afford it, and so on. I didn't say it was a good idea I said if it was to work this is what you'd need.
OK, I'm out.
They’re not. They’re promoting the culture of fear that will sell even more guns. Who do you think funds the NRA? Weapons manufacturers, maybe?
Hmm odd that you should take that sentence out of context as you have completely misunderstood my point.
"I heard the NRA guy’s speech on the radio on the way home. And sadly – he’s right. The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun currently, is to have a good guy with a gun nearby"
&
"There is no single answer, and sadly the NRA guy is actually right in part of it, even if it is just as a stopgap while the real issue is fixed."
@theotherjonv - your words..
& your right, I did say SF because that's what you need. I know, from experience. What's your experience?
So if only 20% of teacher are armed how do mum and dad (sorry mom and pop) make sure their kids get into their classes?
otherjonv
I think we might, maybe, on the same page - but the bottom line what the NRA guy was suggesting & you give the impression of endorsing is fundamentally flawed on so many levels it’s unworkable.
A better solution must be found.
I think we are too. And FWIW, my only relevant experience in this matter, was being a parent watching an incident unfold live on TV while my daughter was potentially in the middle of it. It wasn't a school, it was the HofP / Westminster Bridge incident actually; my daughter's class was there in the morning and the plan was to walk back over the bridge to the coach at the London Eye for a picnic lunch on the grass there, but where the weather was shit the coach had collected them early and by the time it happened they were on the way home. But we didn't know, had no means to contact them, the teachers on the coach had no idea what was happening behind them and so no reason to inform anyone they were safe ........ and at that point I was watching on the internet and I was all for armed officers having the capability to put a stop to it.
I'm guessing your experience is more relevant, and I'll defer to you in terms of what the situation needs in terms of skill set.
So no, I'm not advocating putting guns / arming teachers in schools, all I'm agreeing with the NRA guy about is that (once we are past the fact that people in the US have access to guns way beyond appropriate / need), i can't (sci-fi aside) see a way to stop a bad guy with a gun other than by a good guy with a gun.
And that good guy needs to be an expert in what he does in that situation. You with your experience say SF, i say armed response and let's not split hairs over what in the end i think we agree on. It's someone with the level of training needed to deal with it, and you don't get it on a 3 day teacher course.
I didn't say it was workable. Only that it was theoretically possible. However difficult that theoretical is.
why did the shooter do this?
I believe the silicon chip inside his head switched to overload
Why did he target the school? Why did he go on a shooting spree instead of just killing himself?
he’s right. The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun currently, is to have a good guy with a gun nearby
Let's see how that's working out for them.
The school resource officer on Feb. 14 took up a position viewing the western entrance of that building for more than four minutes after the shooting started, but "he never went in," Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel said at a news conference. The shooting lasted about six minutes.
we know.......
Now go back and read about why if that is to be a solution it needs 'good guys' with a huge level of training and expertise, why that is impractical in the real world, and hence why it in the end isn't a solution and if done half arsed actually makes the situation worse.
Not a teacher (unless obviously, an ex Navy SEAL one who's managed to keep his expertise up since becoming a Home Ec teacher), and not an NRA fantasist who'd shit his pants the moment something actually happened.
all I’m agreeing with the NRA guy about is that (once we are past the fact that people in the US have access to guns way beyond appropriate / need), i can’t (sci-fi aside) see a way to stop a bad guy with a gun other than by a good guy with a gun.
In doing so, you are falling into a trap. The NRA wants the debate to be framed in the context that there will always be bad guys with guns, and moreover that there will be some bad guys with guns who will commit atrocities like this, and that because the possibility of that cannot be completely eliminated with so many guns already in circulation, the only solutions to be discussed are those which do not involve any form of gun control. It's childish logic, and a council of despair for the parents of children in US schools.
Just because it is impossible to prevent every potential bad guy getting hold of a gun, that does not mean that gun controls would not inexorably - over time - reduce the number and frequency of such massacres.
If people were faced with a clear realistic choice between the status quo (or the reality of the sheer impracticality of the solutions involving arming teachers, more guards etc.) vs. a level of gun controls which reduced the deaths to, say, the equivalent of one Sandy Hook every ten or fifteen years, they might very well support such controls. The NRA will do everything it can to avoid discussing the potential numbers of lives that would be saved by gun controls, and to prevent that being debated by american society and politicians.
Put crudely, if gun controls were likely to save the lives of, say, a hundred children over the next ten years, the NRA's view is that it is better to sacrifice the children.
To any normal person and government the banning of guns is the answer. We did it, Australia did it while Germany has incredibly strict gun laws. The fact that so many kids have been killed and nothing gets done should tell you how stupid the Americans are.
To any normal person and government the banning of guns is the answer. We did it, Australia did it while Germany has incredibly strict gun laws. The fact that so many kids have been killed and nothing gets done should tell you how stupid the Americans are.
It would be interesting to see what the gun ownership statistics for the UK or Australia were pre and post legislation change to see if they were in any way comparable to the US. On the surface it seems a logical comparison and a valid argument but I get the feeling the size, culture and political situation in America might make it moot.
"Coyote:
<div class="bbp-reply-content">
You are either beyond help or trolling."
</div>
Why not both?
In doing so, you are falling into a trap.
I'm not sure I (specifically, me) am, although I see what you mean. .
Really really bad guys will always have guns. Or hire vans, or home made bombs or whatever. That's a different matter. And it'll always need someone with the ultimate capability to stop them.
Actually the issue is 'mildly disgruntled' guys who have far too easy access to the means to do something truly bad with it.
Remove the easy access and it becomes a major (criminal) task to get the guns and the ammo, in which time you can either be more readily spotted and stopped, or frankly you calm down again.
But that isn't happening and hence in the meantime whether a devout terrorist or a kid who's just got a bad test mark, they can basically achieve the same but one's almost on a whim in terms of the level of planning needed.
As long as bad guys have guns, good guys will also need them. But we have to understand what we mean by 'good guys', and my belief in that does not extrapolate to 'everyone needs one'. In fact the opposite, because of the potential problems caused by well meaning but incapable my belief is that with the obvious exception of those properly trained to carry and use them, good guys should give up their guns, because then the derogation is far easier to spot - if he's got a gun, he's the bad guy.
But like we said, a 'right to bear arms' fanatic will refuse to see that, so it ain't happening any time soon, and in the meantime........
I once stopped a bad guy with a gun with the hypnotic art of morris dance.