Gun issues in the States are not going to be fixed until their political system is fixed. So long as politicians are allowed to accept many millions of pounds from lobbying groups like the NRA the issue will not be fixed.
Fix the lobbying issue first, and allow gun control to follow
For those advocating the “good guy” theory, how much formal weapons handling have you actually had?
The amount required to actually be “good” is staggering & I’m not talking about your average squaddie.
You want to put an armed teacher into a room full of unarmed students, then add the highly unstable element of a shooter with greater firepower..
Ok, let me tell you a little about how that works. You’re going to end up with a crossfire. That normally ends up with a higher number of casualties. You think you can handle the pressure of unarmed & innocent, terrified, screaming bodies running across your line of fire while the guy on the other side has no scruples about such concerns & he’s just pulling that trigger as fast as he can while all around all hell is breaking lose....& then you’ve got one chance to take a shot...one....& not kill any innocents in the process? You think that level of skill & physical control can be achieved over a few wks? The best in the World spend months & months drilling this skill set - that’s good, that’s the level of skill you need. Not some p/t John Wayne wannabe whose only experience is rounds down the range at static targets...
A couple of good guys? **** off - that’s the best way to fill more body bags.
You gun nuts don’t know what the F you’re talking about.
Yes, some very very isolated incidents over the years due to some very good gun laws
Other examples available
Studies on the effects of Australia's gun laws generally show that they have been extremely effective at stopping mass shootings, and may have been causal in reductions in suicides and armed crime. Polling shows strong support for gun legislation in Australia with around 85% of people wanting the same or greater level of restrictions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Australia
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. All that is promising to do is to turn schools and classrooms into potential warzones, an arms race to the bottom where the only winners are the firearms manufacturers and gun fetishists like the NRA members and some of the saddos on here who value stroking themselves over killing machines* ahead of the lives of children.
I would add that I like shooting. Small bore target, rifle and pistol, and shotgun, clays only and without boasting I like to think I'm pretty good. I don't however think that weapons should be freely available to anyone without stringent background checks. Military grade equipment should be for the military or at the very least restricted to extremely restricted availability, i.e. fully licensed gun club where the weapons are kept.
.
.
*cars are not killing machines. They are meant for transport and generally only harm people when the human in control makes a mistake.
The NRA Facebook feed is terrifying. It is full of statements like ;Wake up, they are coming after us' as if they liberal left are going to come and rape their children and 'The Government can't keep you safe'. Their members love this stuff. The comments section is a whole new world, it is like Daily Mail on meth.
The NRA may be abhorrent but you can't deny that they are very very good at what they do.
A couple of good guys? **** off – that’s the best way to fill more body bags.
You gun nuts don’t know what the F you’re talking about.
I'm not a gun nut. I abhor the situation over there and the underlying causes to it. But I'm looking at this holistically, and that situation will not get fixed overnight if it is indeed fixable full stop, given the culture.
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?
Because once that is accepted then we're just reduced to arguing about what 'good' entails. Again I reiterate - that good guy has to be substantially more skilled and capable than a teacher who's been on a course or a Mitty from the NRA. They need to be firearms response team level of skill, which is a huge investment of time and money, and of course having them sitting around in schools, hopefully permanently doing 'nothing' other than act as a deterrent is probably untenable. So we're back to armed response teams who we know can't get there before much of the damage is done, so we're back to preventing the bad guys getting the guns again, so we're back where we started in that it won't happen any time soon. So what do we do in the meantime? Because just accepting that it's statistically rare, and that most guns deaths in the US aren't mass shootings and are probably suicides and 'simple' murders doesn't give much comfort.
Because just accepting that it’s statistically rare, and that most guns deaths in the US aren’t mass shootings and are probably suicides and ‘simple’ murders doesn’t give much comfort.
it’s what they do though. They don’t want to change enough to do anything about it. Because if they did want to change it, then they would.
If they’re happy to roll their dice and take a chance with the relatively low staitisticsl risk, then let them. While sympathetic with those who are losing their lives on an individual level, I’ve run out of sympathy for them on a macro level. If the will to change exists and they can’t harness that to effect that change then they can go swivel. And until they realise that school shoot-ups don’t play out like a TV show where the good guy accurately takes out multiple bad guys all with one shot each time, nothing will change.
Anyone see the interview on Newsnight with the author of "More Guns Less Crime" ( http://amzn.eu/943qXC8)
I had to turn it off - these people are so blinkered. He seemed exasperated that the interviewer was asking common sense questions. To me, whose admittedly only experience of guns is what I've seen on TV and films, things mentioned above, like cross fire, skill levels, etc. are obvious, but to them they don't even factor in their argument.
"They need to be firearms response team level of skill, which is a huge investment of time and money, and of course having them sitting around in schools, hopefully permanently doing ‘nothing’ other than act as a deterrent is probably untenable. "
& now you understand why it's a non-starter.
It's not just the initial training, it's the ongoing practice - when's the teacher going to squeeze that in? Between lessons & detentions? At the w/e between marking sessions? Before breakfast & walking the dog? Taking his/her kids to the park? The SAS et al spend a huge amount of their time training for these instances - it's their job. Leave it to them- don't give the responsibility to a Geography teacher FFS. If you knew anything about firearms training you'd realise how bad an idea this is.
America has a problem & the answer is as clear as day - but there are too many invested interests who are too intent on lining their pockets & couldn't care less about the innocent.
Armed teachers are a chronically, poorly, terribly thought out concept - particularly when the answer is staring you in the face.
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?
There was a good guy with a gun. He froze thereby having no effect on the situation at all. Now, imagine in a parallel universe that the same thing happened and the armed guard had gone running into the school. There are people running and screaming, gunshots and general chaos. A pupil comes running out of a classroom, the guard mistakenly thinks that he is carrying and opens fire. The student is killed. Some shots miss and ricochet. Another student is killed and one injured.
More guns is not the answer!
#edit - America is so f***** up at the moment in this respect (see the STW Facebook page for evidence) that there is no immediate solution, it's too far gone.
Ok, let me tell you a little about how that works. You’re going to end up with a crossfire. That normally ends up with a higher number of casualties.
Exactly this. Bad guy pulls gun and starts shooting.
Good Guy 1 pulls gun, starts shooting back (in amongst the screaming/running innocents caught in the middle).
Good Guy 2 arrives on scene, sees two people shooting, pulls his own gun and starts firing - he's now got a choice of 2 targets in a crowded, chaotic scene.
Good Guy 3 arrives - repeat until you've got half a dozen "good guys" all thinking they're engaging the Bad Guy, crossfire and ricochets going everywhere.
It's not even like an SAS team storming a building where they know the score, they know each other, they have the necessary intel on how many bad guys/hostages/victims there are, they have radio comms etc. This is half a dozxen random good guys all acting alone, more or less untrained in all of this.
How anyone can think this is a good idea is beyond me. It was the same argument at that movie theatre shooting "oh well if the audience had all been armed..." Utter madness.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04yn5d4
Ben Wheatly who made free fire, spent a bit of time researching shoot outs, an interesting watch (and follow it up with the film) the TLDR version lots of bullets none hitting anything they were meant to except by luck or accident
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.
Highly relevant Jim Jeffries bit that is quite famous by now. (watch both parts, covers most points in this thread...!)
22 years next month since Dunblane and no mass or school shootings since.
There weren't any in the 100 years before either. I can't think why banning a particular configuration of gun has any relevance.
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.