Another mass shooting in America

[lurgar]

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

 

[synrgy]

In response to the NRA talking about armed guards at every school, a person put up this on another forum I frequent:

Got a link to the original quote/post? I'd like to share it elsewhere, if you wouldn't mind.

 

[Randy]

Also:

Columbine High School Had Armed Guards During Massacre In 1999

 

[lurgar]

Got a link to the original quote/post? I'd like to share it elsewhere, if you wouldn't mind.

Are you a member at the Somethingawful forums? If so I can link you to the exact post.

 

[synrgy]

Are you a member at the Somethingawful forums? If so I can link you to the exact post.

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.

 

[ghostred7]

Also:

Columbine High School Had Armed Guards During Massacre In 1999

Seemingly untrained and irresponsible ones at that. Attempting to hit someone at 60yd w/a handgun.....i'm surprised one of these so-called security guards didn't kill an innocent themselves.

 

[tacotiklah]

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.

 

[The Atomic Ass]

The government is not evil or out to get anyone (in the general sense) and does in fact do some things pretty well.

This caused me to laugh uncontrollably for over a minute.

 

[The Atomic Ass]

So, counseling (which is almost entirely voluntary at this point), should require a person to also volunteer to undertake a physical workout and a diet? If we were talking about people rational enough to submit to those kind of things, we probably wouldn't have anything to worry about in the first place...?

Unless somebody here is seriously prescribing involuntary committal, I'm still missing how this makes a single bit of difference?

First, I did not say physical, I said workUP.

workup work·up (wûrk'ŭp')
n.
A thorough medical examination for diagnostic purposes.

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.

 

[flint757]

The first 10 amendments count for all man. Black, white and everyone in between. Those are the original 10 amendments. I caution anyone that saying any of those rights are not equally important to eachother. Free speech due process are other big rights given to us. I notice how many people complain on here about people's Due process being violated. Take away one right and we can take away others. Whether they take away the others is arelavent. The point is if that now they know they can take away your rights. Now they can wrongfully detain you. When I say "they" I mean anyform of our government, (local,state,federal).

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.

I also believe that the 2nd amendment is not vague at all. It means what it says but people in power have chosen how to interpret it. I also hope that FLlint someday changes his mentality over our rights in the bill of rights but I think it's save to say it may be to late. Don't worry guys they will pass bans on guns. They will eventually ban all guns. Just know that when they do, they have taken away one of your rights whether you use it or not. Excuse any grammar errors I am little late for work. Best wishes to everyone. Gun owners are not evil people we just respect that right more than people who don't own guns.

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.

vague
/vāg/

Adjective

Of uncertain, indefinite, or unclear character or meaning: "patients with vague symptoms".

Thinking or communicating in an unfocused or imprecise way: "he had been vague about his activities".

Synonyms

hazy - indistinct - obscure - nebulous - dim - indefinite

in·def·i·nite
/inˈdefənit/

Adjective

Lasting for an unknown length of time: "indefinite detention".

Not clearly expressed or defined; vague: "their status remains indefinite".

Synonyms

vague - indeterminate - uncertain - indistinct

This caused me to laugh uncontrollably for over a minute.

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

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???

 

[fps]

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.

 

[Mordacain]

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.

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

 

[fps]

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

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?

 

[Grand Moff Tim]

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.

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.

 

[Mordacain]

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?

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.

 

[ghostred7]

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.

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.

 

[Captain_Awesome]

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.

 

[Mordacain]

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.

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.

 

[flint757]

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.

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 ). 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.

 

[Mordacain]

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 ). 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.

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