Another mass shooting in America

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by fps, Dec 14, 2012.

  1. lurgar

    lurgar SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    659
    Likes Received:
    55
    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2008
    Location:
    Texas
    In response to the NRA talking about armed guards at every school, a person put up this on another forum I frequent:

    "I'm coming up with 138,925 public, private, and post-secondary schools in the United States. Assuming three guards to cover the full school day (buses start arriving around 6:30, you'll need at least two guards there during the day so that their is coverage during lunch breaks, bathroom breaks, etc., at least one guard during basketball and football games and other post-school activities), at the median security guard salary of $31,000 annually, plus the cost of benefits bringing the average cost per guard up to around $35,000, you're looking at $14,587,125,000 annually for security guards in each school.

    Given that the median cost for a child's health insurance is around $940 a year, you could insure every one of the 7 million uninsured children in the United States twice for this amount of money. This would prevent 850 child deaths a year, compared with the around ~50 child deaths due to school shootings annually.

    Given that it's children you're worried about and not your guns, I trust you'll support a universal healthcare program for every child under the age of 18? It will cost less than half the cost of hiring security guards for every school and save around 9 times more lives."

    Citations:
    Fast Facts
    Armed ...ty Officer Salary | Indeed.com
    http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/Publications/CRC/crc2011.pdf
    http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/hlth...highlights.html
    http://healthland.time.com/2009/10/...ildrens-deaths/
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ed_States#2010s
     
    flint757 likes this.
  2. synrgy

    synrgy Ya ya ya I am Lorde

    Messages:
    6,627
    Likes Received:
    1,332
    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    Location:
    Frederick, MD
    Got a link to the original quote/post? I'd like to share it elsewhere, if you wouldn't mind.
     
  3. Randy

    Randy ✝✝✝ Super Moderator

    Messages:
    23,657
    Likes Received:
    11,592
    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2006
    Location:
    The Electric City, NY
  4. lurgar

    lurgar SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    659
    Likes Received:
    55
    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2008
    Location:
    Texas
    Are you a member at the Somethingawful forums? If so I can link you to the exact post.
     
  5. synrgy

    synrgy Ya ya ya I am Lorde

    Messages:
    6,627
    Likes Received:
    1,332
    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    Location:
    Frederick, MD
    I am not. It hadn't occurred to me until you asked that this may be one of those 'if you're not a member, you can't see it' sort of things. I was just hoping to link to the post rather than copy/paste what you had copy/pasted. No worries, though. Life will go on. ;)
     
  6. ghostred7

    ghostred7 Banned

    Messages:
    1,877
    Likes Received:
    153
    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2011
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
  7. tacotiklah

    tacotiklah I am Denko (´・ω・`)

    Messages:
    6,601
    Likes Received:
    987
    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2009
    Location:
    Lancaster, CA
    I completely agree with this article:
    I Am Adam Lanza

    and especially this quote:
    "In the wake of another horrific national tragedy, it’s easy to talk about guns. But it’s time to talk about mental illness."

    Granted I don't believe this was solely the work of just mental illness, or just guns, but these are large pieces of a much greater and more disturbing whole.
     
  8. The Atomic Ass

    The Atomic Ass Redefining Sound

    Messages:
    2,988
    Likes Received:
    267
    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2007
    Location:
    Assland
    This caused me to laugh uncontrollably for over a minute. :yesway:
     
  9. The Atomic Ass

    The Atomic Ass Redefining Sound

    Messages:
    2,988
    Likes Received:
    267
    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2007
    Location:
    Assland
    First, I did not say physical, I said workUP.

    Just a little different from a workout.

    Now, I probably need to clarify my previous statement somewhat. If one goes to a physical doctor, and says, "my leg's broken", of course they treat that. But if you go to the doctor and say something vague like "I feel like crap", then the doctor is going to order a workup done, to see what might be going on.

    Same with the counseling bit. If you go in and say "my mom died and I'm depressed", then sure, you talk about it. But if you're just feeling depressed for no reason, then, the counselor should first check that there is not a dietary reason for that before proceeding.
     
  10. flint757

    flint757 SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    6,248
    Likes Received:
    197
    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2011
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    Uhhh, you should probably brush up on your history. The 10 amendments were not adjusted to mean everyone until the 14th amendment. That's 77 years before it included all men and even later before women.

    You can think the patriot act for the other related things. That being said, despite their ability to do so (I am against the patriot act) it is unlikely that any everyday person is going to be unlawfully detained. Even so it seems the supreme court has done a fair job of over turning these instances involving non-citizens and citizens. :shrug:

    I can't help, but want to say fuck you. I really feel compelled to do so. That is a very arrogant position to take. Your implication is that I am an imbecile and thus you are right. Since you're going there I refer back to the first section on why our founding fathers weren't always right and historical context is absolutely necessary. It has been said elsewhere in this thread as well and I'm not going to rehash or write it out. If you'd like a better understanding look online or through this thread.

    Just because our founding fathers gave a set of amendments a fancy name doesn't make it untouchable. We don't seem to have a problem fiddling with subsections of those 10 amendments (originally 12 and 2 were removed, blasphemy!!!) or any other amendment in the constitution; Only guns are the untouchable section,right? You'd think they were written by God given the context people give it. You respect the 'right' more than we do because you have something to lose. Your guns. Not because you respect the rights themselves it seems.

    The second amendment couldn't be more vague. We wouldn't be having this discussion if it weren't. To pretend it isn't because it fits your agenda is dishonest.



    Ohhh gee someone who owns guns and thinks the government is out to get them. What a surprise. :lol:

    Do tell how the government is fucking everything up and how we are the worst nation in the world as a consequence. We are a first world nation, rock solid status in the world economy and if you are using the internet much like I am then you are probably doing okay in your day-to-day life. If our government couldn't do anything right none of this would be the case, you wouldn't have an education, and we'd probably be worse off overall.

    [EDIT]

    Do you have any meaningful response to the rest of that post (everything you left out) or is that it???
     
  11. fps

    fps Kit

    Messages:
    3,549
    Likes Received:
    700
    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2005
    Location:
    London
    I think compulsory mental health screening is a far greater invasion of privacy than taking some simple steps to make it harder to get a gun.

    For instance, if you have a gun in your house every person in that house should have compulsory training and background checks, and if someone in the house doesn't have permission to own a gun then some kind of steps should be taken to make sure they cannot touch or get access to the gun at any point.
     
  12. Mordacain

    Mordacain Formerly 1-watt brigadier

    Messages:
    5,419
    Likes Received:
    424
    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2010
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    Not that I particularly like the idea of further invasions of privacy, there is no guarantee of privacy in the Unites States consitution.

    Personally, I'd willingly submit to mental health screening if the same rules would apply to politicians, CEO's and anyone else in a place of power; we keep the unstable away from guns and we keep the megalomaniacal and psychopathic out of positions of power.

    I'll just go on and keep dreaming:lol:
     
  13. fps

    fps Kit

    Messages:
    3,549
    Likes Received:
    700
    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2005
    Location:
    London
    Well this is the problem. Where do you draw the line once you start saying that mentally certain people aren't allowed guns? It's a very slippery slope. The law has clearly failed everyone in this instance, as the gunman was able easily to take a weapon in the house he lived in and use it against the owner. Even if mental health screenings were introduced, what would have been the answer to this conundrum?
     
  14. Grand Moff Tim

    Grand Moff Tim Some call me... Tim

    Messages:
    7,318
    Likes Received:
    1,493
    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2010
    Location:
    Cheongju, SK
    Wow, that's a really good point. Corporations and politicians affect far more people every day than guns ever will, so if people are willing to impose mental health screens for gun owners, then why not for CEOs and politicians, too? We may not be able to come to any sort of consensus on whether or not gun control should be more strict, but in our hurry to agree with eachother about the fact that mental health is also an issue, many of us seem to be glossing over the far-reaching consequences that any laws enacted with the goal of curtailing negative effects of mental instability on society might have, or where we'd even be able to begin to draw the line.
     
  15. Mordacain

    Mordacain Formerly 1-watt brigadier

    Messages:
    5,419
    Likes Received:
    424
    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2010
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    Well, I think additional regulations regarding gun ownership could help. Not necessarily ban certain types of weapons or extended magazines (though personally I don't see the 2nd Amendment as blanket right to any and all types of arms) but introduce some follow-up requirements. Here are some suggestions:


    • Require licenses similar to driver's license classifications. You would have to be certified and licensed from a qualified instructor for handguns, semi-automatic, clip-fed rifles & carbines, shotguns, bolt-action rifles, etc. I think imperative with that is that you would need to get recertified every year or so (similar to getting your driver's license renewed).
    • Any new gun purchaser also has to purchase an approved gun-safe with registered serial numbers. You would tie this to their weapon sales for aiding law-enforcement in tracking stolen weapons but also to confirm that the gun owner has a secure storage method. Personally, I'd go one step further and have the lock be finger-print based.
    • The biggest one for me would be to start having manufacturers place serial numbers on magazines and then restrict the number of magazines a single individual may own for any particular weapon. This could be in lieu of extended magazine ban. However, I should note that we have had certain extended magazines banned for decades before the most recent Assault Weapons Ban (94). The Thompson drum mag for instance, was banned a long time ago. People get up in arms about this sort of thing, but it's nothing new and statistically, the absence of extended mags in years passed has not hurt anyone.
    If any restrictions are passed on the sale and ownership of say assault rifles or extended ammo, I think it should be legal for gun stores / gun range owners be able to own those restricted items and that people be allowed to rent them for use at the rifle range on the premises, that way people that shoot these weapons for fun can continue to do so.

    /Edit - I should add that I view restrictions not as a way to prevent mass-shootings, but as a way of making it more difficult for anyone to just go at it willy-nilly. Making things more difficult not only serves as a deterrent for those not seriously committed to going full-on psycho, but makes it more likely they'll be caught while trying to bypass the laws to acquire the tools they'll need to commit mass-murder on the scale we are used to seeing.
     
  16. ghostred7

    ghostred7 Banned

    Messages:
    1,877
    Likes Received:
    153
    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2011
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    What failed in this instance is the firearm owner's lack of properly securing his/her weapon. A simple trigger lock or gun safe/cabinet would of prevented them from being taken. Hell....mine are in a biometric safe beside my bed. Only myself & my woman can get into them unless someone clones our fingerprints. It's not the law that failed, its the home the weapons came from.
     
  17. Captain_Awesome

    Captain_Awesome Cloudwalker

    Messages:
    205
    Likes Received:
    8
    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2011
    Location:
    England
    America will never see any serious change, these shootings are going to be something that you guys will have to live with. Prohibition is the most effective measure against gun violence but I would be absolutely laughing if America took such steps. In America's case you'd probably need to have a total handover of guns to make the law enforcible but that would be virtually impossible - people seem to love their guns as much as their life.
     
  18. Mordacain

    Mordacain Formerly 1-watt brigadier

    Messages:
    5,419
    Likes Received:
    424
    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2010
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    In this particular instance, I agree it was the owner's fault, which is why I think biometric safes should be required for gun ownership.

    Still, can't guarantee it will be used, but you can certainly decrease the chance of this particular situation happening again.
     
  19. flint757

    flint757 SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    6,248
    Likes Received:
    197
    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2011
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    All great ideas that I'd be more than willing to back and that's exactly the point.



    Something I'm surprised hasn't been brought up by gun rights supporters is how the '94 ban sounds like it was written by a bunch of elementary school kids (maybe someone has brought it up, I don't recall :lol:). They used no practical or by definition accurate methods to determine legality. The way the bill was written is basically, "Does the gun look scary? Banned." I only care because under that law some guns were defined illegal for very arbitrary reasons. The way it was defined there were plenty of still legal weapons that had just as large clip sizes and/or lethality and I take issue with the inconsistency. It felt more like an attempt at appeasing the base than actually trying to solve a problem.

    So lets hope whatever congress does this go around it isn't a bunch of gibberish. :yesway:
     
  20. Mordacain

    Mordacain Formerly 1-watt brigadier

    Messages:
    5,419
    Likes Received:
    424
    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2010
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    :agreed: the 94 ban was ludicrous on many levels.

    What's really ridiculous is it would be fairly simple to define what an "Assault Weapon" is. Here's my simple, vague gun-enthusiast definition:


    • Design based on one submitted for military contract (this gets around defining an assault weapon as one that is currently in service).
    • Designed around high-capacity, high cyclic rate of fire
    • Built on military standard ammunition for service rifles: 5.56, 7.62, 9mm
    • Modular design for stocks, barrels, upper & lower receivers, etc
    • Design is one that either offers a fully-automatic variant or can be easily modified for fully-automatic fire
     

Share This Page