planetf1.com

Mayhem wrote:

RaggedMan wrote:The whole "Well what are going to do? If they want to kill somebody they're going to do it." argument is lame as hell. Just because some people have murderous intent doesn't mean we have to make it easy for them to carry it out.

Sure, there is no way to make everyone, everywhere completely safe but there's no reason to leave easily secured avenues of protection open.

I don't think this kid could've gotten a car into the halls of the school to plow others down as they were leaving their classrooms. If he had been armed with a bladed weapon instead of a gun he could've done a lot of damage but not nearly as much.

Actually he could have since schools in Florida are multiple building structures outside. Not just one building. They are more like mini malls where you have to walk from builing to building.

A car was used as a weapon at a rally where it drove into a crowd of people with no space to evacuate and only one person was killed as a result.

Yes, a killer can get a car only school premises, but you can hide and evade a car a lot more easily than you can a gun. You can sneak a gun into a school, you can silently approach your victims, this is not possible with a car, not even an electric one. The noise and visible presence of a vehicle will allow people to react, and not just that, once you have gone through a doorway, unless they are chasing you with a tank then they can't pursue you.

The issue is down to guns, it is entirely down to guns, not just the fact people can own guns and use them for their intended purpose (which is to kill the thing it is pointed at when you pull the trigger) but the normalization of guns within American society. In countries where guns are heavily regulated, in theory this means that the 'bad guys' can have it easily because the 'good guys' won't have guns, so they'll be outmatched, but this is an incredibly dumb observation, as it plays to the incredibly stupid logic that world is made up of bad people who just do things that are bad for the sake of being bad like they are henchmen in a comic book movie.

The bad guys' motivations are not 'to have guns' - for the vast majority of criminal activity the bad guys' isn't even to kill or injure people. It's usually to steal, or appropriate something for their own advantage, whether it's mugging someone or robbing a bank/store. In societies where guns are outlawed, having a gun will immediately draw attention to you as in a society where in civilian life they aren't allowed, having a gun will immediately identity someone as being a criminal. Obscurity is the name of the game is vast, vast numbers of crimes.

It's not just that guns are legal in America, it's that they are just accepted. Obviously, this varies from state to state depending on their specific laws around carrying but ultimately even when people do start to break the rules it becomes a bit like seeing a speeding motorist. Unless they are doing 120mph in a built up area people are unlikely to call the police, and the same mental barrier applied about guns.

People say that if guns are banned people will just use knives, and they point to the UK and say "you don't have guns, but you have a big problem with knives"

It is true, the UK does have a much bigger problem with knife crime compared to its gun crime. But that shouldn't be surprising given that guns are essentially completely banned whereas knives aren't completely banned, and a knife will draw far less attention than a gun will.

However, what is also true, is that when if you subtract all of the gun murders in the US, and take only the non-gun murder rate for the USA - that rate is still higher than the entire UK murder rate (that is per 100,000 people, so it's scaled for population)

The UK and Australia both banned firearms following school shootings in the 1990s, and the result is that both countries had thousands of firearms handed in (under buy back programs) and neither country has seen a significant school shooting since (Australia had one university shooting in which two people died, and the only mass shooting the UK has had was a shooting in Yorkshire involving someone with a shotgun. (but no school shootings)

Guns and gun death is normalised in the US. US Police have shot dead 126 people in 2018 so far. In the first 50 days of the year. UK Police have shot dead 47 people since January 1st 2000 (17 years and 50 days) - and that's including the three terrorists last year, which is rate of less than 3 per year. In the whole 2015, UK police fired their guns 7 times. Standard UK Police officers are unarmed. Guns are abnormal.

A gun is a weapon and its purpose is to harm others, whether that's for crime or for defense, it doesn't change what it is for. It's not an item that belongs in a civilised country, and if you live in a civilised country you should never ever have a reason to use one. And if the argument is "but I need it in case I am attacked" then you are ultimately saying you don't live in a civilised country.

It's not to say I don't think I could be attacked in the UK, or that I don't look over my should when walking down a street late at night, but on the token I don't set bear traps in my driveway in case my house gets attacked by wild animals.

The arguments put forwards by Americans for keeping their guns (and I have American friends who I otherwise respect and they say it all the time) are ultimately said because they want to keep their guns. Gun ownership is a hobby for them, they love their guns. While getting rid of guns in America would be trickier than in the UK and Australia, because of the fragmented nature of American democracy between State and Federal level and the political weight of the NRA, there isn't actually a good reason for not doing so. Every developed nation on earth had some measure of gun control, and the countries with the strictest (Japan and the UK) are right at the bottom of the gun deaths league tables.

There were 26 gun murders in the UK in 2016. Scaled for population, it means US Police will have shot dead more Americans before February is over in 2018 alone.

There shouldn't be a debate about the facts in this issue. Gun control will significantly reduce not just "gun deaths" but all murder in the US. It's been tried and tested by so many other countries in the world, so the issue isn't about whether it will work (it definitely will) the issue is about whether Americans (as a country) want it to happen. That's a much more prickly subject and even after the moment gun control advocates seem to have taken following this most recent shooting, I still can't ever see it happening. America has too many political groups like the NRA, right wing news organisations and the Republican Party rallying against gun control for it to get properly implemented.

And then, ultimately, even if an indisputable proof was produced that no one could argue against that said gun control would stop all crime, you run up against the Second Amendment. Despite the fact it's an 'amendment' which in itself shows that laws and the constitution can be changed and updated - it seems to many to be a sacrilegious line that can never be crossed.

Ultimately, it's not my fight. I'm not an American. It's up to Americans to make their own choice as a country about what they want to do. But, it is now at the point that when the you see a headline saying "Shoot shooting in America" it's like seeing the headline "Car Bomb in Baghdad" or "Thousands die from poverty in Africa" - it's sad that people are dying, and I want it to stop. But it's not really news anymore. It's just what happens there.

I've heard numerous times Australia used as a success story when it comes to gun control, especially on US news programs who are pro gun control, and each time I hear it it irritates me no end. Australia isn't the US. Although we're both based on western values, we're different cultures with different histories and we're situated in different parts of the world. One nation was born out of peaceful evolution, the other from violent revolution . One has the largest weapons manufacturing industry on earth, the other barely has one. One is an island with a small population, one has porous contiguous borders and a huge population. One has had to stare at their fellow countrymen through gun sights to defend their political ideology, the other is one of the few countries that has not. One is the most powerful nation in the history of civilisation, the other is far from a militaristic powerhouse. We are different cultures with different priorities and different mindsets. What worked in Australia might not work in the US.

I also feel the argument that other items such as knives, cars etc can also be used as weapons is very weak and misleading. Almost any item, from a pencil, to a pillow, from hairspray to a piece of string can be used as a tool of murder. The difference is of course is that these other items are not designed primarily to be used as killing machines. The sole purpose of a gun is to be used as a life ending device. It was designed as a weapon of war. A tool to create violence & pain and nothing else. For those who say some knives were designed as killing implements, my reply to that is if the knife wielding person is more than a couple of metres away from me, then they're pretty much harmless. I've never heard of 50 people being killed by a knife carrying maniac hold up in a building 150 metres away.

If someone is determined to kill someone, they'll find a way to do it, gun or no gun, and while I can understand in some way that there's no easy solution to these issues, I can't for the life of me understand how a person living in the burbs of LA or NY can justify owning something like an AR-15 or a small arsenal of guns for any reason. I used to think the solution was simple, just ban guns, but, after listening to various arguments, I know changing a culture, a way of life, especially one that is supported by a powerful political lobby and the words of those who gave birth to what is now the most powerful nation in the history of all civilisation, is no simple task. In some US states you need a licence to use a car, but not to use a killing machine. In some states you can legally buy a semi automatic weapon before you can legally buy a beer. In Arizona you can own a gun before you can put $20 on black or put $5 on the favourite in race 6 at Pimlico. This by any measure is absolutely ludicrous and a sign of just how important gun ownership is in the US.

I do find disturbing the way some people are using this latest tragedy as a vehicle to attack the President and, it appears, attempt to lay the blame for this massacre at his feet directly. There we're over a dozen massacres under the Obama administration, including the heartbreak of Sandy Hook, and I can't remember anyone attacking him personally the way Trump has been attacked. Trump made no secret, rightly or wrongly, he was pro 2nd amendment during the election. Americans knew what they we're getting in that area and he was democratically elected after running on that platform and for people to literally scream at him to do something when this type of tragedy has been common place in the US for years smacks of opportunism and is disgustingly distasteful.

All very good points right up until the end.

True, there were mass shootings during the Obama era including the one that started this thread. The reason Trump gets so much more flack isn't because of the generic 2nd amendment support that he's stated or that is commonly associated with the Republican party. It's because he has handled everyone of the mass shootings since he took office poorly and this one particularly so by suggesting that local authorities and community did nothing about this kid in advance (they did) and that the reason the FBI didn't follow up on a lead they were given (which is true and an absolute failure) was because they were too focused on the Russia investigation. The fact is that his first point is disproven by the second.

But that all ignores the point that even if the whole thing had worked as intended once the person called the FBI tip line, there is no law currently on the books either in Florida or nationally that would've allowed them to take this kids guns away from him. There is no law currently on the books that would've kept him from buying the guns that he did despite the local authorities visiting his home and family close to 30 times in the years leading up to this and him having been expelled from the school he eventually shot up.

It's a very small number of people who advocate a complete prohibition on guns in this country but it beggars belief that the 2nd amendment advocates fight even the most common sense laws and regulations when it comes to how easy it is to get guns as long as you don't have a felony conviction and that's what drives most people insane.

As I've said before here I'm a gun owner, but not of any sort of gun that could be used on a spree like these, and my son is the lead in his store in the department that sells guns. Both of us have served in the military and while we agree that guns like this can be fun to shoot we disagree the average person has no need for semi-automatic, high capacity firearms just because they're fun to shoot. They are designed for a specific use which does not fall under the generally accepted uses of civilian gun use; hunting, self defense, target shooting. An AR-15 can be used for a lot of things but for everything practicle that it can do there's another gun that can do it better while not being capable of creating mass casualties in a short amount of time.

Jezza13 wrote:I also feel the argument that other items such as knives, cars etc can also be used as weapons is very weak and misleading. Almost any item, from a pencil, to a pillow, from hairspray to a piece of string can be used as a tool of murder. The difference is of course is that these other items are not designed primarily to be used as killing machines. The sole purpose of a gun is to be used as a life ending device. It was designed as a weapon of war. A tool to create violence & pain and nothing else. For those who say some knives were designed as killing implements, my reply to that is if the knife wielding person is more than a couple of metres away from me, then they're pretty much harmless. I've never heard of 50 people being killed by a knife carrying maniac hold up in a building 150 metres away...........

If someone is determined to kill someone, they'll find a way to do it, gun or no gun, and while I can understand in some way that there's no easy solution to these issues, I can't for the life of me understand how a person living in the burbs of LA or NY can justify owning something like an AR-15 or a small arsenal of guns for any reason. I used to think the solution was simple, just ban guns, but, after listening to various arguments, I know changing a culture, a way of life, especially one that is supported by a powerful political lobby and the words of those who gave birth to what is now the most powerful nation in the history of all civilisation, is no simple task. In some US states you need a licence to use a car, but not to use a killing machine. In some states you can legally buy a semi automatic weapon before you can legally buy a beer. In Arizona you can own a gun before you can put $20 on black or put $5 on the favourite in race 6 at Pimlico. This by any measure is absolutely ludicrous and a sign of just how important gun ownership is in the US.

For your first point i present you this news article about a massacre using just knives. wasn't a media frenzy because it wasn't a gun.

https://www.cnn.com/2014/03/01/world/as ... index.html

For your second point
I agree with most of it. If someone wants to do harm they will find a means to do what they want.

I also agree with the fact that there is too much disparity between state laws on gun control. Now every state has different rules and requirements for what they deem appropriate for that specific state and if you look at gun violence on a state by state demographic. States that are more relaxed on their gun legislature have a higher rate of gun crime vs states that have more stringent regulations. But then you also have states that have stringent gun control laws but in the top of the charts in murders. So the demographics do vary on many different levels.

RaggedMan wrote:All very good points right up until the end...........

It's a very small number of people who advocate a complete prohibition on guns in this country but it beggars belief that the 2nd amendment advocates fight even the most common sense laws and regulations when it comes to how easy it is to get guns as long as you don't have a felony conviction and that's what drives most people insane.

As I've said before here I'm a gun owner, but not of any sort of gun that could be used on a spree like these, and my son is the lead in his store in the department that sells guns. Both of us have served in the military and while we agree that guns like this can be fun to shoot we disagree the average person has no need for semi-automatic, high capacity firearms just because they're fun to shoot. They are designed for a specific use which does not fall under the generally accepted uses of civilian gun use; hunting, self defense, target shooting. An AR-15 can be used for a lot of things but for everything practicle that it can do there's another gun that can do it better while not being capable of creating mass casualties in a short amount of time.

From your statement above I wanted to ask you, Do you believe that a law biding citizen whom has no prior convictions, felonies what so ever be denied the ability to purchase a weapon? and if so why should it be harder for someone who is a good citizen (just wondering)

Mayhem wrote:

Jezza13 wrote:I also feel the argument that other items such as knives, cars etc can also be used as weapons is very weak and misleading. Almost any item, from a pencil, to a pillow, from hairspray to a piece of string can be used as a tool of murder. The difference is of course is that these other items are not designed primarily to be used as killing machines. The sole purpose of a gun is to be used as a life ending device. It was designed as a weapon of war. A tool to create violence & pain and nothing else. For those who say some knives were designed as killing implements, my reply to that is if the knife wielding person is more than a couple of metres away from me, then they're pretty much harmless. I've never heard of 50 people being killed by a knife carrying maniac hold up in a building 150 metres away...........

If someone is determined to kill someone, they'll find a way to do it, gun or no gun, and while I can understand in some way that there's no easy solution to these issues, I can't for the life of me understand how a person living in the burbs of LA or NY can justify owning something like an AR-15 or a small arsenal of guns for any reason. I used to think the solution was simple, just ban guns, but, after listening to various arguments, I know changing a culture, a way of life, especially one that is supported by a powerful political lobby and the words of those who gave birth to what is now the most powerful nation in the history of all civilisation, is no simple task. In some US states you need a licence to use a car, but not to use a killing machine. In some states you can legally buy a semi automatic weapon before you can legally buy a beer. In Arizona you can own a gun before you can put $20 on black or put $5 on the favourite in race 6 at Pimlico. This by any measure is absolutely ludicrous and a sign of just how important gun ownership is in the US.

For your first point i present you this news article about a massacre using just knives. wasn't a media frenzy because it wasn't a gun.

https://www.cnn.com/2014/03/01/world/as ... index.html

For your second point
I agree with most of it. If someone wants to do harm they will find a means to do what they want.

I also agree with the fact that there is too much disparity between state laws on gun control. Now every state has different rules and requirements for what they deem appropriate for that specific state and if you look at gun violence on a state by state demographic. States that are more relaxed on their gun legislature have a higher rate of gun crime vs states that have more stringent regulations. But then you also have states that have stringent gun control laws but in the top of the charts in murders. So the demographics do vary on many different levels.

That news story did receive a lot of press attention here in the UK as I remember reading about it at the time.

It's completely different to a school shooting, there were ten attackers with knives and it was at a crowded station. It was a co-ordinated terrorist attack by Islamic militants, not a single disturbed individual. This should be compared to the 2015 Paris attacks, where 9 people with guns killed 130 people critically injured 80-99 people with 443 people killed/injured in total (not including the 7 terrorists that got killed)

The knives killed less than 25% as many people, with 1 extra attacker.

Rather than weaken the case for gun control, this story only adds more reasons to introduce gun control, because it demonstrates how much more deadly guns are, and how much easier it makes it for people who do want to cause harm to be able to cause harm.

Alienturnedhuman wrote:There shouldn't be a debate about the facts in this issue. Gun control will significantly reduce not just "gun deaths" but all murder in the US. It's been tried and tested by so many other countries in the world, so the issue isn't about whether it will work (it definitely will) the issue is about whether Americans (as a country) want it to happen. That's a much more prickly subject and even after the moment gun control advocates seem to have taken following this most recent shooting, I still can't ever see it happening. America has too many political groups like the NRA, right wing news organisations and the Republican Party rallying against gun control for it to get properly implemented.

And then, ultimately, even if an indisputable proof was produced that no one could argue against that said gun control would stop all crime, you run up against the Second Amendment. Despite the fact it's an 'amendment' which in itself shows that laws and the constitution can be changed and updated - it seems to many to be a sacrilegious line that can never be crossed.

Ultimately, it's not my fight. I'm not an American. It's up to Americans to make their own choice as a country about what they want to do. But, it is now at the point that when the you see a headline saying "Shoot shooting in America" it's like seeing the headline "Car Bomb in Baghdad" or "Thousands die from poverty in Africa" - it's sad that people are dying, and I want it to stop. But it's not really news anymore. It's just what happens there. [/color]

I agree that the main issue is the politics behind the gun control and to regulate it. if all guns were banned in the usa it would reduce gun crimes without a doubt but the black market for weapons would still be an issue in the states. I don't see the government banning civilian weapons and still allowing police and government officials still having weapons. there are too many cases as it is in the usa with police killing UNARMED CIVILIANS. It happens often and most of the time (not always) the police officer is acquitted of the charges. its a vicious cycle of violence all around.

Amadou Diallo shot 41xs by police unarmed
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Amadou_Diallo

Eric garner chocked to death by police
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Eric_Garner

also every time there is a tragedy related to gun violence, gun sales in the usa go up by a significant amount. Its a way of life in the states. many people have different opinions on it and there will be no quick fix

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Mayhem wrote:

Jezza13 wrote:I also feel the argument that other items such as knives, cars etc can also be used as weapons is very weak and misleading. Almost any item, from a pencil, to a pillow, from hairspray to a piece of string can be used as a tool of murder. The difference is of course is that these other items are not designed primarily to be used as killing machines. The sole purpose of a gun is to be used as a life ending device. It was designed as a weapon of war. A tool to create violence & pain and nothing else. For those who say some knives were designed as killing implements, my reply to that is if the knife wielding person is more than a couple of metres away from me, then they're pretty much harmless. I've never heard of 50 people being killed by a knife carrying maniac hold up in a building 150 metres away...........

If someone is determined to kill someone, they'll find a way to do it, gun or no gun, and while I can understand in some way that there's no easy solution to these issues, I can't for the life of me understand how a person living in the burbs of LA or NY can justify owning something like an AR-15 or a small arsenal of guns for any reason. I used to think the solution was simple, just ban guns, but, after listening to various arguments, I know changing a culture, a way of life, especially one that is supported by a powerful political lobby and the words of those who gave birth to what is now the most powerful nation in the history of all civilisation, is no simple task. In some US states you need a licence to use a car, but not to use a killing machine. In some states you can legally buy a semi automatic weapon before you can legally buy a beer. In Arizona you can own a gun before you can put $20 on black or put $5 on the favourite in race 6 at Pimlico. This by any measure is absolutely ludicrous and a sign of just how important gun ownership is in the US.

For your first point i present you this news article about a massacre using just knives. wasn't a media frenzy because it wasn't a gun.

https://www.cnn.com/2014/03/01/world/as ... index.html

For your second point
I agree with most of it. If someone wants to do harm they will find a means to do what they want.

I also agree with the fact that there is too much disparity between state laws on gun control. Now every state has different rules and requirements for what they deem appropriate for that specific state and if you look at gun violence on a state by state demographic. States that are more relaxed on their gun legislature have a higher rate of gun crime vs states that have more stringent regulations. But then you also have states that have stringent gun control laws but in the top of the charts in murders. So the demographics do vary on many different levels.

That news story did receive a lot of press attention here in the UK as I remember reading about it at the time.

It's completely different to a school shooting, there were ten attackers with knives and it was at a crowded station. It was a co-ordinated terrorist attack by Islamic militants, not a single disturbed individual. This should be compared to the 2015 Paris attacks, where 9 people with guns killed 130 people critically injured 80-99 people with 443 people killed/injured in total (not including the 7 terrorists that got killed)

The knives killed less than 25% as many people, with 1 extra attacker.

Rather than weaken the case for gun control, this story only adds more reasons to introduce gun control, because it demonstrates how much more deadly guns are, and how much easier it makes it for people who do want to cause harm to be able to cause harm.

oh I wasn't comparing the two, just showing that it does happen since jezza said they hadn't heard of a story in that regard. if they had guns would have been much worse without a doubt but violence happens with or without guns

Mayhem wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Mayhem wrote:

Jezza13 wrote:I also feel the argument that other items such as knives, cars etc can also be used as weapons is very weak and misleading. Almost any item, from a pencil, to a pillow, from hairspray to a piece of string can be used as a tool of murder. The difference is of course is that these other items are not designed primarily to be used as killing machines. The sole purpose of a gun is to be used as a life ending device. It was designed as a weapon of war. A tool to create violence & pain and nothing else. For those who say some knives were designed as killing implements, my reply to that is if the knife wielding person is more than a couple of metres away from me, then they're pretty much harmless. I've never heard of 50 people being killed by a knife carrying maniac hold up in a building 150 metres away...........

If someone is determined to kill someone, they'll find a way to do it, gun or no gun, and while I can understand in some way that there's no easy solution to these issues, I can't for the life of me understand how a person living in the burbs of LA or NY can justify owning something like an AR-15 or a small arsenal of guns for any reason. I used to think the solution was simple, just ban guns, but, after listening to various arguments, I know changing a culture, a way of life, especially one that is supported by a powerful political lobby and the words of those who gave birth to what is now the most powerful nation in the history of all civilisation, is no simple task. In some US states you need a licence to use a car, but not to use a killing machine. In some states you can legally buy a semi automatic weapon before you can legally buy a beer. In Arizona you can own a gun before you can put $20 on black or put $5 on the favourite in race 6 at Pimlico. This by any measure is absolutely ludicrous and a sign of just how important gun ownership is in the US.

For your first point i present you this news article about a massacre using just knives. wasn't a media frenzy because it wasn't a gun.

https://www.cnn.com/2014/03/01/world/as ... index.html

For your second point
I agree with most of it. If someone wants to do harm they will find a means to do what they want.

I also agree with the fact that there is too much disparity between state laws on gun control. Now every state has different rules and requirements for what they deem appropriate for that specific state and if you look at gun violence on a state by state demographic. States that are more relaxed on their gun legislature have a higher rate of gun crime vs states that have more stringent regulations. But then you also have states that have stringent gun control laws but in the top of the charts in murders. So the demographics do vary on many different levels.

That news story did receive a lot of press attention here in the UK as I remember reading about it at the time.

It's completely different to a school shooting, there were ten attackers with knives and it was at a crowded station. It was a co-ordinated terrorist attack by Islamic militants, not a single disturbed individual. This should be compared to the 2015 Paris attacks, where 9 people with guns killed 130 people critically injured 80-99 people with 443 people killed/injured in total (not including the 7 terrorists that got killed)

The knives killed less than 25% as many people, with 1 extra attacker.

Rather than weaken the case for gun control, this story only adds more reasons to introduce gun control, because it demonstrates how much more deadly guns are, and how much easier it makes it for people who do want to cause harm to be able to cause harm.

oh I wasn't comparing the two, just showing that it does happen since jezza said they hadn't heard of a story in that regard. if they had guns would have been much worse without a doubt but violence happens with or without guns

But that's totally not what I said.

I quote " ........if the knife wielding person is more than a couple of metres away from me, then they're pretty much harmless. I've never heard of 50 people being killed by a knife carrying maniac hold up in a building 150 metres away

My point still stands. Anyone carrying a knife, standing more than a couple of metres away from me, is for all intents and purposes harmless (unless they throw the knife of course), and I'd hazard a guess and say that no-one has ever been killed by a knife wielding person standing 150m away from them let alone a massacre on the scale we see in the US every month or so.

For people to use the knives argument as a defence for gun ownership is erroneous and disingenuous.

Mayhem wrote:

RaggedMan wrote:All very good points right up until the end...........

It's a very small number of people who advocate a complete prohibition on guns in this country but it beggars belief that the 2nd amendment advocates fight even the most common sense laws and regulations when it comes to how easy it is to get guns as long as you don't have a felony conviction and that's what drives most people insane.

As I've said before here I'm a gun owner, but not of any sort of gun that could be used on a spree like these, and my son is the lead in his store in the department that sells guns. Both of us have served in the military and while we agree that guns like this can be fun to shoot we disagree the average person has no need for semi-automatic, high capacity firearms just because they're fun to shoot. They are designed for a specific use which does not fall under the generally accepted uses of civilian gun use; hunting, self defense, target shooting. An AR-15 can be used for a lot of things but for everything practicle that it can do there's another gun that can do it better while not being capable of creating mass casualties in a short amount of time.

From your statement above I wanted to ask you, Do you believe that a law biding citizen whom has no prior convictions, felonies what so ever be denied the ability to purchase a weapon? and if so why should it be harder for someone who is a good citizen (just wondering)

To put it simply, no. In that comment I was speaking more to the point that despite there being warning signs with the Florida shooter there was nothing that could've been done to stop him from making the purchases that he did because the laws as they stand don't take circumstances like his into account. And the fact that this is by design is what makes people like me who are all for responsible gun laws and ownership shake our heads.

Yes, there was a big mistake made by the FBI in this case but even if they had followed up on the lead they were given they couldn't have taken his guns under any standing law. The best we could hope for would be that the parents in the house he was living in removed them from the home after learning about his social media posts. But they believed that they had things under control and that the father had the only key to the safe so they might not have and had no obligation to remove the guns from the home.

It's like the argument that people on no-fly lists shouldn't be on the no-gun-buy list because sometimes people get put on the no-fly lists by accident. Or that someone who tells their therapist that they have thoughts of harming themselves or others can't be asked whether or not they have guns. These are the things that make no sense but are codified intentionally to make sure that everybody has access to arms purchases to ensure that no one is denied one.

Mayhem wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:There shouldn't be a debate about the facts in this issue. Gun control will significantly reduce not just "gun deaths" but all murder in the US. It's been tried and tested by so many other countries in the world, so the issue isn't about whether it will work (it definitely will) the issue is about whether Americans (as a country) want it to happen. That's a much more prickly subject and even after the moment gun control advocates seem to have taken following this most recent shooting, I still can't ever see it happening. America has too many political groups like the NRA, right wing news organisations and the Republican Party rallying against gun control for it to get properly implemented.

And then, ultimately, even if an indisputable proof was produced that no one could argue against that said gun control would stop all crime, you run up against the Second Amendment. Despite the fact it's an 'amendment' which in itself shows that laws and the constitution can be changed and updated - it seems to many to be a sacrilegious line that can never be crossed.

Ultimately, it's not my fight. I'm not an American. It's up to Americans to make their own choice as a country about what they want to do. But, it is now at the point that when the you see a headline saying "Shoot shooting in America" it's like seeing the headline "Car Bomb in Baghdad" or "Thousands die from poverty in Africa" - it's sad that people are dying, and I want it to stop. But it's not really news anymore. It's just what happens there. [/color]

I agree that the main issue is the politics behind the gun control and to regulate it. if all guns were banned in the usa it would reduce gun crimes without a doubt but the black market for weapons would still be an issue in the states. I don't see the government banning civilian weapons and still allowing police and government officials still having weapons. there are too many cases as it is in the usa with police killing UNARMED CIVILIANS. It happens often and most of the time (not always) the police officer is acquitted of the charges. its a vicious cycle of violence all around.

Amadou Diallo shot 41xs by police unarmed
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Amadou_Diallo

Eric garner chocked to death by police
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Eric_Garner

also every time there is a tragedy related to gun violence, gun sales in the usa go up by a significant amount. Its a way of life in the states. many people have different opinions on it and there will be no quick fix

This is weird for me. In Germany there have also been school shootings (even a hospital shooting) in the past 20 years. The police is also armed, much like in the States.

So looking at the (Wiki admittedly) stats, there have been 800+ deaths by police officers in the US, while in Germany there have been 2... Germany is not a small country either, at 80+ million people, it's about a quarter of the population in the US. But the difference between the numbers is huge. Not sure how many of them are unarmed, but how does this explain this difference? Are the police more trigger happy in the States or the German police more efficient?

Siao7 wrote:This is weird for me. In Germany there have also been school shootings (even a hospital shooting) in the past 20 years. The police is also armed, much like in the States.

So looking at the (Wiki admittedly) stats, there have been 800+ deaths by police officers in the US, while in Germany there have been 2... Germany is not a small country either, at 80+ million people, it's about a quarter of the population in the US. But the difference between the numbers is huge. Not sure how many of them are unarmed, but how does this explain this difference? Are the police more trigger happy in the States or the German police more efficient?

Police shootings are definitely something that needs to be addressed here. Part of the problem to finding a solution to it though is that it's not tracked in any meaningful way. There is no national database that every law enforcement agency has to report every officer involved shooting to so there is no easy way to study the what, why, when, and how of them to see where the problems lay. Without such a database we don't know how many are justified shootings where there was a tangible threat to the officer and how many were overreactions to a situation.

In my opinion part of the problem is that there is no baseline level of education and training. Most large city and state police forces have very vigorous training academies and have psychological batteries that need to be passed and many also require some college education. Federal agencies like ATF and FBI require 4 year degrees to even be considered. But many local and county sheriff type departments only require a basic background check and some training which varies from on the job training to having to go through the state police academy.

This has become exasperated since 9/11 as local authorities were drawn in to "The War on Terror" and given a greater remit to police things that fall outside of their expertise and given access to more surplus military equipment.

RaggedMan wrote:

Siao7 wrote:This is weird for me. In Germany there have also been school shootings (even a hospital shooting) in the past 20 years. The police is also armed, much like in the States.

So looking at the (Wiki admittedly) stats, there have been 800+ deaths by police officers in the US, while in Germany there have been 2... Germany is not a small country either, at 80+ million people, it's about a quarter of the population in the US. But the difference between the numbers is huge. Not sure how many of them are unarmed, but how does this explain this difference? Are the police more trigger happy in the States or the German police more efficient?

Police shootings are definitely something that needs to be addressed here. Part of the problem to finding a solution to it though is that it's not tracked in any meaningful way. There is no national database that every law enforcement agency has to report every officer involved shooting to so there is no easy way to study the what, why, when, and how of them to see where the problems lay. Without such a database we don't know how many are justified shootings where there was a tangible threat to the officer and how many were overreactions to a situation.

In my opinion part of the problem is that there is no baseline level of education and training. Most large city and state police forces have very vigorous training academies and have psychological batteries that need to be passed and many also require some college education. Federal agencies like ATF and FBI require 4 year degrees to even be considered. But many local and county sheriff type departments only require a basic background check and some training which varies from on the job training to having to go through the state police academy.

This has become exasperated since 9/11 as local authorities were drawn in to "The War on Terror" and given a greater remit to police things that fall outside of their expertise and given access to more surplus military equipment.

The last bit is very true. In London the most famous incident like that was the shooting (and killing) of an innocent guy in the tube by the police in the aftermath of the London bombings in 2005.

But would the police be so trigger happy if there were not afraid that the suspects have guns (since guns are so easily available)? It is a bit of a vicious circle I think

Siao7 wrote:

RaggedMan wrote:

Siao7 wrote:This is weird for me. In Germany there have also been school shootings (even a hospital shooting) in the past 20 years. The police is also armed, much like in the States.

So looking at the (Wiki admittedly) stats, there have been 800+ deaths by police officers in the US, while in Germany there have been 2... Germany is not a small country either, at 80+ million people, it's about a quarter of the population in the US. But the difference between the numbers is huge. Not sure how many of them are unarmed, but how does this explain this difference? Are the police more trigger happy in the States or the German police more efficient?

Police shootings are definitely something that needs to be addressed here. Part of the problem to finding a solution to it though is that it's not tracked in any meaningful way. There is no national database that every law enforcement agency has to report every officer involved shooting to so there is no easy way to study the what, why, when, and how of them to see where the problems lay. Without such a database we don't know how many are justified shootings where there was a tangible threat to the officer and how many were overreactions to a situation.

In my opinion part of the problem is that there is no baseline level of education and training. Most large city and state police forces have very vigorous training academies and have psychological batteries that need to be passed and many also require some college education. Federal agencies like ATF and FBI require 4 year degrees to even be considered. But many local and county sheriff type departments only require a basic background check and some training which varies from on the job training to having to go through the state police academy.

This has become exasperated since 9/11 as local authorities were drawn in to "The War on Terror" and given a greater remit to police things that fall outside of their expertise and given access to more surplus military equipment.

The last bit is very true. In London the most famous incident like that was the shooting (and killing) of an innocent guy in the tube by the police in the aftermath of the London bombings in 2005.

But would the police be so trigger happy if there were not afraid that the suspects have guns (since guns are so easily available)? It is a bit of a vicious circle I think

That last bit does play into it in my opinion. Over the last 10 years or so more people have started to keep guns in their vehicles whether they're legally allowed to or not.

But here's the thing. Although there's no hard number on how many people own guns in this country, due to the lack of a national registry, the highest estimate I've seen in a poll was 34% having a gun in their home which accounts for adults who haven't personally bought a gun but live with someone who has. So even though we do have a lot more people who have guns than elsewhere in the world it's nowhere close to being a majority and it's a matter of thinking that the threat is greater than it actually is.

Granted the above is based on polling data and won't account for illegal guns but I think that there is a mindset that perceives that threat is greater than it is. Which isn't to say that there isn't a threat to police, there was an officer killed in a near by county just today when dealing with a domestic dispute.

But then on the other hand an officer in West Virginia recently won a wrongful termination suit who said he was fired for not shooting someone who was threatening suicide because his girlfriend told them the gun was unloaded. The fired officer wouldn't shoot this armed man because he thought he was trying to commit suicide by cop (yes, sadly that is a thing) and instead tried to deescalate the situation. The man was eventually killed by another officer and it was found that the gun the man had in his hand was indeed unloaded. The county sheriff decided that the officers action put others in danger and fired him.

Just wanted to thank you guys for handling this topic so well. I'm involved in similar debates on forums where I'm not in a position of power and this thread is by far the most mature and reasoned I've seen.

P-F1 Mod wrote:Just wanted to thank you guys for handling this topic so well. I'm involved in similar debates on forums where I'm not in a position of power and this thread is by far the most mature and reasoned I've seen.

Never been thanked before by a Mod!

You're welcome, it is a very interesting thread indeed. And the fact that posters that are gun owners can give us their insights is also fascinating.

RaggedMan wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

RaggedMan wrote:

Siao7 wrote:This is weird for me. In Germany there have also been school shootings (even a hospital shooting) in the past 20 years. The police is also armed, much like in the States.

So looking at the (Wiki admittedly) stats, there have been 800+ deaths by police officers in the US, while in Germany there have been 2... Germany is not a small country either, at 80+ million people, it's about a quarter of the population in the US. But the difference between the numbers is huge. Not sure how many of them are unarmed, but how does this explain this difference? Are the police more trigger happy in the States or the German police more efficient?

Police shootings are definitely something that needs to be addressed here. Part of the problem to finding a solution to it though is that it's not tracked in any meaningful way. There is no national database that every law enforcement agency has to report every officer involved shooting to so there is no easy way to study the what, why, when, and how of them to see where the problems lay. Without such a database we don't know how many are justified shootings where there was a tangible threat to the officer and how many were overreactions to a situation.

In my opinion part of the problem is that there is no baseline level of education and training. Most large city and state police forces have very vigorous training academies and have psychological batteries that need to be passed and many also require some college education. Federal agencies like ATF and FBI require 4 year degrees to even be considered. But many local and county sheriff type departments only require a basic background check and some training which varies from on the job training to having to go through the state police academy.

This has become exasperated since 9/11 as local authorities were drawn in to "The War on Terror" and given a greater remit to police things that fall outside of their expertise and given access to more surplus military equipment.

The last bit is very true. In London the most famous incident like that was the shooting (and killing) of an innocent guy in the tube by the police in the aftermath of the London bombings in 2005.

But would the police be so trigger happy if there were not afraid that the suspects have guns (since guns are so easily available)? It is a bit of a vicious circle I think

That last bit does play into it in my opinion. Over the last 10 years or so more people have started to keep guns in their vehicles whether they're legally allowed to or not.

But here's the thing. Although there's no hard number on how many people own guns in this country, due to the lack of a national registry, the highest estimate I've seen in a poll was 34% having a gun in their home which accounts for adults who haven't personally bought a gun but live with someone who has. So even though we do have a lot more people who have guns than elsewhere in the world it's nowhere close to being a majority and it's a matter of thinking that the threat is greater than it actually is.

Granted the above is based on polling data and won't account for illegal guns but I think that there is a mindset that perceives that threat is greater than it is. Which isn't to say that there isn't a threat to police, there was an officer killed in a near by county just today when dealing with a domestic dispute.

But then on the other hand an officer in West Virginia recently won a wrongful termination suit who said he was fired for not shooting someone who was threatening suicide because his girlfriend told them the gun was unloaded. The fired officer wouldn't shoot this armed man because he thought he was trying to commit suicide by cop (yes, sadly that is a thing) and instead tried to deescalate the situation. The man was eventually killed by another officer and it was found that the gun the man had in his hand was indeed unloaded. The county sheriff decided that the officers action put others in danger and fired him.

Agreed, the police force don't really get the credit they deserve sometimes. And a few rotten apples always give a bad name. It is a difficult job, not for everyone, and I am not jealous that they have to take life-changing decisions in short times. They do give themselves a bad name very often though, ysome overzealous officers that use their power unnecessarily, as it happens in every industry.

I remember a chat with a crowd control officer during a football game and we were asking them why are they so aggressive and use so much violence sometimes. He certainly had his point of view: you have 200 officers "guarding" 5,000 drunken fans (can't remember the exact numbers now) from the train station to the football field, swearing and yelling at them, throwing bottles, the lot. If the officers don't show an aggressive "don't mess with us" face they will be overran easily and god knows what happens.

But I think we digressed, this is for a different topic maybe, the school shootings don't have to do much with the police force shooting unarmed people. It is rather the accessibility to guns that makes it feasible for an angry teenager to go from posting on youtube his angry views against "the school or the system" to actually go and do something despicable.

P-F1 Mod wrote:Just wanted to thank you guys for handling this topic so well. I'm involved in similar debates on forums where I'm not in a position of power and this thread is by far the most mature and reasoned I've seen.

Cheers.

Siao7 wrote:

RaggedMan wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

RaggedMan wrote:

Siao7 wrote:This is weird for me. In Germany there have also been school shootings (even a hospital shooting) in the past 20 years. The police is also armed, much like in the States.

So looking at the (Wiki admittedly) stats, there have been 800+ deaths by police officers in the US, while in Germany there have been 2... Germany is not a small country either, at 80+ million people, it's about a quarter of the population in the US. But the difference between the numbers is huge. Not sure how many of them are unarmed, but how does this explain this difference? Are the police more trigger happy in the States or the German police more efficient?

Police shootings are definitely something that needs to be addressed here. Part of the problem to finding a solution to it though is that it's not tracked in any meaningful way. There is no national database that every law enforcement agency has to report every officer involved shooting to so there is no easy way to study the what, why, when, and how of them to see where the problems lay. Without such a database we don't know how many are justified shootings where there was a tangible threat to the officer and how many were overreactions to a situation.

In my opinion part of the problem is that there is no baseline level of education and training. Most large city and state police forces have very vigorous training academies and have psychological batteries that need to be passed and many also require some college education. Federal agencies like ATF and FBI require 4 year degrees to even be considered. But many local and county sheriff type departments only require a basic background check and some training which varies from on the job training to having to go through the state police academy.

This has become exasperated since 9/11 as local authorities were drawn in to "The War on Terror" and given a greater remit to police things that fall outside of their expertise and given access to more surplus military equipment.

The last bit is very true. In London the most famous incident like that was the shooting (and killing) of an innocent guy in the tube by the police in the aftermath of the London bombings in 2005.

But would the police be so trigger happy if there were not afraid that the suspects have guns (since guns are so easily available)? It is a bit of a vicious circle I think

That last bit does play into it in my opinion. Over the last 10 years or so more people have started to keep guns in their vehicles whether they're legally allowed to or not.

But here's the thing. Although there's no hard number on how many people own guns in this country, due to the lack of a national registry, the highest estimate I've seen in a poll was 34% having a gun in their home which accounts for adults who haven't personally bought a gun but live with someone who has. So even though we do have a lot more people who have guns than elsewhere in the world it's nowhere close to being a majority and it's a matter of thinking that the threat is greater than it actually is.

Granted the above is based on polling data and won't account for illegal guns but I think that there is a mindset that perceives that threat is greater than it is. Which isn't to say that there isn't a threat to police, there was an officer killed in a near by county just today when dealing with a domestic dispute.

But then on the other hand an officer in West Virginia recently won a wrongful termination suit who said he was fired for not shooting someone who was threatening suicide because his girlfriend told them the gun was unloaded. The fired officer wouldn't shoot this armed man because he thought he was trying to commit suicide by cop (yes, sadly that is a thing) and instead tried to deescalate the situation. The man was eventually killed by another officer and it was found that the gun the man had in his hand was indeed unloaded. The county sheriff decided that the officers action put others in danger and fired him.

Agreed, the police force don't really get the credit they deserve sometimes. And a few rotten apples always give a bad name. It is a difficult job, not for everyone, and I am not jealous that they have to take life-changing decisions in short times. They do give themselves a bad name very often though, ysome overzealous officers that use their power unnecessarily, as it happens in every industry.

I remember a chat with a crowd control officer during a football game and we were asking them why are they so aggressive and use so much violence sometimes. He certainly had his point of view: you have 200 officers "guarding" 5,000 drunken fans (can't remember the exact numbers now) from the train station to the football field, swearing and yelling at them, throwing bottles, the lot. If the officers don't show an aggressive "don't mess with us" face they will be overran easily and god knows what happens.

But I think we digressed, this is for a different topic maybe, the school shootings don't have to do much with the police force shooting unarmed people. It is rather the accessibility to guns that makes it feasible for an angry teenager to go from posting on youtube his angry views against "the school or the system" to actually go and do something despicable.

Maybe veered off of school shootings but still within the gun debate so still related. Especially since gun advocates are pushing "more guns in schools" as the solution of choice which brings the law enforcement discussion right back to school shootings.

Back in the early-mid 80's I was stationed at the Marine Barracks in DC and while that unit's primary function is to stand around and look pretty for dignitaries and act as recruiting fodder there is also the secondary mission of crowd/riot control for the Capitol building. Things have to get pretty bad before they resort to literally calling in the Marines, the last time I think was in the late 60's-early 70's, but we did train extensively for the purpose with full riot gear and bayonets attached. Once while I was there we had to spend an entire weekend on standby ready to go when the Klan had a march planned. The turn out was much smaller than expected and the counter protesters were quiet so nothing ever came of it, thankfully.

You're welcome, it is a very interesting thread indeed. And the fact that posters that are gun owners can give us their insights is also fascinating.

Whenever these discussions come up here, whether it be gun control or politics, I try to leave my opinions out of my responses as much as possible (which can be hard at times) and answer the questions that are asked by the non-Americans by giving insight into the why or how of the topic. Often it goes well beyond simply addressing what seems to be a root issue (2nd amendment in this case) because the adjustments made there can have ripple effects and cause problems in other unrelated areas. Not that the ripple effect unique to the US I just try to provide info about why it works that way here.

Edit: I misquoted, or actually didn't complete my thought, a stat earlier when I said 34% having a gun in the home. I read through 2 surveys from Pew and one stated the 34% for households and the other 30% for gun owners with 64% saying there was one in the household. I haven't had the time to go back and reconcile those two stats yet because that's a pretty big difference.

RaggedMan wrote:

Siao7 wrote:This is weird for me. In Germany there have also been school shootings (even a hospital shooting) in the past 20 years. The police is also armed, much like in the States.

So looking at the (Wiki admittedly) stats, there have been 800+ deaths by police officers in the US, while in Germany there have been 2... Germany is not a small country either, at 80+ million people, it's about a quarter of the population in the US. But the difference between the numbers is huge. Not sure how many of them are unarmed, but how does this explain this difference? Are the police more trigger happy in the States or the German police more efficient?

Police shootings are definitely something that needs to be addressed here. Part of the problem to finding a solution to it though is that it's not tracked in any meaningful way. There is no national database that every law enforcement agency has to report every officer involved shooting to so there is no easy way to study the what, why, when, and how of them to see where the problems lay. Without such a database we don't know how many are justified shootings where there was a tangible threat to the officer and how many were overreactions to a situation.

In my opinion part of the problem is that there is no baseline level of education and training. Most large city and state police forces have very vigorous training academies and have psychological batteries that need to be passed and many also require some college education. Federal agencies like ATF and FBI require 4 year degrees to even be considered. But many local and county sheriff type departments only require a basic background check and some training which varies from on the job training to having to go through the state police academy.

This has become exasperated since 9/11 as local authorities were drawn in to "The War on Terror" and given a greater remit to police things that fall outside of their expertise and given access to more surplus military equipment.

As raggedman mentioned above all states have their own guidelines for police requirements. Some positions are tougher then others needing degrees and high levels of training while other states only require a H.s diploma....

As for the war on terror post 9/11 many major cities have "counter terrorism task forces" equiped with miltary weapons and gear that openly patrol

Just goes to show how nothing will change any time soon. Florida state house voted 71-36 against new gun bill (wouldnt even debate it) but declared pornography a health risk on the same day.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nat ... 359828002/

Mayhem wrote:Just goes to show how nothing will change any time soon. Florida state house voted 71-36 against new gun bill (wouldnt even debate it) but declared pornography a health risk on the same day.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nat ... 359828002/

Attitude towards gun isn't going to change anytime soon. You need couple of generations to change society. Unfortunately authorities in US aren't doing enough, so guns are there to stay forever.

It's an intriguing situation regarding the armed officer that was outside the school when the shooting took place. I'm not going to pass judgement until I have read as much as I can about it. However, it's sad so see that Trump has made him the scapegoat today - he needs someone to blame other than guns themselves - but even more worrying that it is reported that this officer is now having police officers guarding his house. In other words, the man who had a gun to try to defend a school is now having to have his house guarded by people with guns.

Yep, guns are clearly the answer!!!!!

Asphalt_World wrote:It's an intriguing situation regarding the armed officer that was outside the school when the shooting took place. I'm not going to pass judgement until I have read as much as I can about it. However, it's sad so see that Trump has made him the scapegoat today - he needs someone to blame other than guns themselves - but even more worrying that it is reported that this officer is now having police officers guarding his house. In other words, the man who had a gun to try to defend a school is now having to have his house guarded by people with guns.

Yep, guns are clearly the answer!!!!!

The plot now thickens, as the armed deputy officer who was assigned to the school and who's purpose of being there was to prevent such tragedies from happening froze when the time came for him to perform his job. The surveillance video hasn't been released yet but from the news report states that deputy scot Peterson took a position outside the building for at least 4 min while shooting was happening.

" Sheriff Scott Israel said Peterson’s decision to take cover during the shooting had left him feeling sick to his stomach. The deputy reportedly waited outside for “upwards of four minutes” while students and their teachers died inside."
https://www.yahoo.com/news/scot-peterso ... 03719.html

"“[Sheriff Scott Israel]You don’t wait for SWAT, you get in, and you push toward the shooter.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/21/us/p ... oting.html

So it turns out that this school had a counter measure in place but the man didn't do what he was expected to do. Yes he was out gunned but he was a trained officer in law enforcement for 32 years and didn't even try to go in at all. There are so many pieces to this story where the ball was dropped by many people. another article stated that the local sheriffs office had received 23 calls going back 10 years in reference to the shooter Nicholas cruz. it should have never happened and now the deputy who didn't confront the shooter will be used as the leading scapegoat for not stopping the shooting, all while this could have been stopped before it ever began.

do I think he should have gone in YES, he radioed in the incident at hand and should have gone inside to do whatever he could have done to stop the shooting. Would he have stopped the shooter? possibly, he was out gunned so it could have gone either way depending on positioning during confrontation so now as a result officers will carry ar15 rifles of their own to patrol schools
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/browa ... story.html

Asphalt_World wrote:It's an intriguing situation regarding the armed officer that was outside the school when the shooting took place. I'm not going to pass judgement until I have read as much as I can about it. However, it's sad so see that Trump has made him the scapegoat today - he needs someone to blame other than guns themselves - but even more worrying that it is reported that this officer is now having police officers guarding his house. In other words, the man who had a gun to try to defend a school is now having to have his house guarded by people with guns.

Yep, guns are clearly the answer!!!!!

Is Trump really trying to scapegoat him? Doesn't this go against the good guy with a gun theory and also raise some serious concerns about the effectiveness of arming teachers? Seems like it does more harm to the pro gun points than good.

I expected the usual video games and maybe films to be the scapegoats as they are the easy ones.

All very well debated above, however, there does seem to be a bit if point overlooking here.

Living in the UK I'm against firearms, however, it obvious that in the USA you missed the opportunity to do something about it about 80 years ago!

Surely the point is not about carrying a hand gun, but as one of the youngsters who spoke to Trump said, "Why can I still go out and buy a weapon of war?"

Automatic weapons could be banned without affecting your constitutional rights. The hunting argument doesn't apply as no-one goes shooting deer with an automatic weapon.

Finally I would be embarrassed if the leader of my country proposed that teaching staff carried concealed weapons, teachers teach because they have a vocation they want to develop children not kill them. I saw this as several of the shootings have been carried out by disenfranchised ex pupils. On a practical note could a teacher with a hand gun do much against an automatic weapon?

I don't mean to offend, I fully expect another school shooting within the year. Those currently in politics are too weak to lead America out of this mess. Only the children can change this, time will tell but don't hold your breath.

Option or Prime wrote:All very well debated above, however, there does seem to be a bit if point overlooking here.

Living in the UK I'm against firearms, however, it obvious that in the USA you missed the opportunity to do something about it about 80 years ago!

Surely the point is not about carrying a hand gun, but as one of the youngsters who spoke to Trump said, "Why can I still go out and buy a weapon of war?"

Automatic weapons could be banned without affecting your constitutional rights. The hunting argument doesn't apply as no-one goes shooting deer with an automatic weapon.

Finally I would be embarrassed if the leader of my country proposed that teaching staff carried concealed weapons, teachers teach because they have a vocation they want to develop children not kill them. I saw this as several of the shootings have been carried out by disenfranchised ex pupils. On a practical note could a teacher with a hand gun do much against an automatic weapon?

I don't mean to offend, I fully expect another school shooting within the year. Those currently in politics are too weak to lead America out of this mess. Only the children can change this, time will tell but don't hold your breath.

I think automatic weapons are already banned.

I just watched the town meeting on CNN and I was staggered to hear people wanting to install bullet proof windows, re-enforced walls, automatic doors, armed guards, metal detectors and armed teachers in school. I was like "Is this a friggin school or Prison"?

So much for the land of the free.

I can see a few problems with the armed guard / teachers scenario not the least being all of a sudden instead of bullets from 1 gun going everywhere, you've bullets from many guns going everywhere. Not what i'd call an adequate solution.

OK perhaps I mean semi automatic which get converted. But even in this mode there are several million of the AR 15 weapons which became the M16 used by the US Army.

Hard for me to understand why these should be readily available. I don't expect an explanation its just a comment.



Source NYTimes.com

I have tried not to get drawn into this so far. Not just here but every where, because its just one of those things you just can not win.

I will though ask 2 questions of those who say teachers should carry guns.

Will a 'normal' person shoot someone? ( when there is the option of not shooting, not a him-or-me )

Do you want someone who would shoot another human setting an example to your kids.



(Background, I have served in the military and seen combat. Soldiers are trained to shoot at people, but even then MOST don't. They fire in the general direction intending to miss or if worst case hit but not kill. Transfer this to a school or any public place. )

Black_Flag_11 wrote:

Asphalt_World wrote:It's an intriguing situation regarding the armed officer that was outside the school when the shooting took place. I'm not going to pass judgement until I have read as much as I can about it. However, it's sad so see that Trump has made him the scapegoat today - he needs someone to blame other than guns themselves - but even more worrying that it is reported that this officer is now having police officers guarding his house. In other words, the man who had a gun to try to defend a school is now having to have his house guarded by people with guns.

Yep, guns are clearly the answer!!!!!

Is Trump really trying to scapegoat him? Doesn't this go against the good guy with a gun theory and also raise some serious concerns about the effectiveness of arming teachers? Seems like it does more harm to the pro gun points than good.

I expected the usual video games and maybe films to be the scapegoats as they are the easy ones.

He's a scapegoat for Trump because Trump wants numerous people armed in all schools. As this school had an armed man but still lost so many lives, Trump has to blame the man guarding the school so that it doesn't look like having guns in school doesn't help.

RaggedMan wrote:

P-F1 Mod wrote:Just wanted to thank you guys for handling this topic so well. I'm involved in similar debates on forums where I'm not in a position of power and this thread is by far the most mature and reasoned I've seen.

Cheers.

I am very much in agreement with P-F1 Mod, and am impressed by so many who have discussed this situation in such a mature and conscientious way. In particular, you, Ragged. Much appreciation for your patience and well thought out posts on the subject. I personally am not a gun owner, nor have I ever allowed guns in my home, but I have many friends and relatives who are gun owners, and most of them I would trust greatly as they have had proper training in handling the weapons and have a level "head" on their shoulders (I think!). I too fear that we are well past the tipping point in this country to really change things, but.........as pointed out, there does seem to be a movement gaining speed in these kids, thank God. The NRA has seemingly, for now, been put very, very much on the defensive and has lost many corporate sponsors and partners.

Thanks again, everyone, for all the reasoned posts...

Asphalt_World wrote:

Black_Flag_11 wrote:

Asphalt_World wrote:It's an intriguing situation regarding the armed officer that was outside the school when the shooting took place. I'm not going to pass judgement until I have read as much as I can about it. However, it's sad so see that Trump has made him the scapegoat today - he needs someone to blame other than guns themselves - but even more worrying that it is reported that this officer is now having police officers guarding his house. In other words, the man who had a gun to try to defend a school is now having to have his house guarded by people with guns.

Yep, guns are clearly the answer!!!!!

Is Trump really trying to scapegoat him? Doesn't this go against the good guy with a gun theory and also raise some serious concerns about the effectiveness of arming teachers? Seems like it does more harm to the pro gun points than good.

I expected the usual video games and maybe films to be the scapegoats as they are the easy ones.

He's a scapegoat for Trump because Trump wants numerous people armed in all schools. As this school had an armed man but still lost so many lives, Trump has to blame the man guarding the school so that it doesn't look like having guns in school doesn't help.

It's horrible. He'll be branded a coward, and will have real struggles remaining to live where he lives at the moment.

The reality is its very difficult to know how we'll react to a situation like this. We've seen the reports from previous wars of people standing, in the line of fire, and PRETENDING to pull the trigger because they just couldn't do it. This is staring down a foreign enemy, in the line of fire, with your own life at risk, and many people's reaction was to just freeze. But we'll have loads of people who have never been in that situation passing judgement on the poor guy, and many people who have been in that situation but are lucky enough to have their brain programmed a certain way passing judgement on the guy as if he was making a 'conscious' choice to let students die.

Special forces are trained day in, day out to make shooting an instinct. They don't even think. They just do. The reason they do this is because they know that people revert to muscle memory under severe pressure, and most of our muscle memory doesn't encourage us to run face first in to a shooter. Even just giving someone 5 minutes to know hwat they're walking in to can help. But when it suddenly kicks off, and you're not expecting it? Sometimes it takes a seriously long amount of time for your brain to catch up.

Ennis wrote:

Asphalt_World wrote:

Black_Flag_11 wrote:

Asphalt_World wrote:It's an intriguing situation regarding the armed officer that was outside the school when the shooting took place. I'm not going to pass judgement until I have read as much as I can about it. However, it's sad so see that Trump has made him the scapegoat today - he needs someone to blame other than guns themselves - but even more worrying that it is reported that this officer is now having police officers guarding his house. In other words, the man who had a gun to try to defend a school is now having to have his house guarded by people with guns.

Yep, guns are clearly the answer!!!!!

Is Trump really trying to scapegoat him? Doesn't this go against the good guy with a gun theory and also raise some serious concerns about the effectiveness of arming teachers? Seems like it does more harm to the pro gun points than good.

I expected the usual video games and maybe films to be the scapegoats as they are the easy ones.

He's a scapegoat for Trump because Trump wants numerous people armed in all schools. As this school had an armed man but still lost so many lives, Trump has to blame the man guarding the school so that it doesn't look like having guns in school doesn't help.

It's horrible. He'll be branded a coward, and will have real struggles remaining to live where he lives at the moment.

The reality is its very difficult to know how we'll react to a situation like this. We've seen the reports from previous wars of people standing, in the line of fire, and PRETENDING to pull the trigger because they just couldn't do it. This is staring down a foreign enemy, in the line of fire, with your own life at risk, and many people's reaction was to just freeze. But we'll have loads of people who have never been in that situation passing judgement on the poor guy, and many people who have been in that situation but are lucky enough to have their brain programmed a certain way passing judgement on the guy as if he was making a 'conscious' choice to let students die.

Special forces are trained day in, day out to make shooting an instinct. They don't even think. They just do. The reason they do this is because they know that people revert to muscle memory under severe pressure, and most of our muscle memory doesn't encourage us to run face first in to a shooter. Even just giving someone 5 minutes to know hwat they're walking in to can help. But when it suddenly kicks off, and you're not expecting it? Sometimes it takes a seriously long amount of time for your brain to catch up.

BIB: We already have the Attny General of Florida and Trump saying that they'd have rushed in even if unarmed had they been there that day. While I can't definitively say that they wouldn't have, neither can they say that they definitely would have.

I've stated that I was in the military but I'm a veteran of the Cold War and never saw combat. I definitely trained to be able to carry out combat missions had my unit be called upon to do so. I can believe in my heart of hearts that I would act in the defense of the kids in that school had I been there that day, but I know that I can't claim it with any sort of certainty.

If you've never been in such a situation you can't say how you would react when the time came. Most people would like to think that they would behave in a "brave" manner but there's no guarantee that they would. Indeed a lot of people who think to themselves that there's no way that would rush into such a situation, when considering it in the abstract, might do just that if the situation arose.

Blake wrote:

RaggedMan wrote:

P-F1 Mod wrote:Just wanted to thank you guys for handling this topic so well. I'm involved in similar debates on forums where I'm not in a position of power and this thread is by far the most mature and reasoned I've seen.

Cheers.

I am very much in agreement with P-F1 Mod, and am impressed by so many who have discussed this situation in such a mature and conscientious way. In particular, you, Ragged. Much appreciation for your patience and well thought out posts on the subject. I personally am not a gun owner, nor have I ever allowed guns in my home, but I have many friends and relatives who are gun owners, and most of them I would trust greatly as they have had proper training in handling the weapons and have a level "head" on their shoulders (I think!). I too fear that we are well past the tipping point in this country to really change things, but.........as pointed out, there does seem to be a movement gaining speed in these kids, thank God. The NRA has seemingly, for now, been put very, very much on the defensive and has lost many corporate sponsors and partners.

Thanks again, everyone, for all the reasoned posts...

Cheers, Blake. Even though it's an unfortunate topic I've enjoyed the discussion.

What I'm hoping is that the larger population is realizing, since it's been published a lot more lately, is that the membership numbers for the NRA is ~5 million and therefore a much smaller number of people than most might have thought and realizing that the organization represents the gun manufacturers more than the sport shooting population.

moby wrote:I have tried not to get drawn into this so far. Not just here but every where, because its just one of those things you just can not win.

I will though ask 2 questions of those who say teachers should carry guns.

Will a 'normal' person shoot someone? ( when there is the option of not shooting, not a him-or-me )

Do you want someone who would shoot another human setting an example to your kids.



(Background, I have served in the military and seen combat. Soldiers are trained to shoot at people, but even then MOST don't. They fire in the general direction intending to miss or if worst case hit but not kill. Transfer this to a school or any public place. )

1: It's not normal for people to want to kill another person unless their own life, or others, are in peril.

2: I've already seen posts by teachers who say that since most school shooters attended the school they shoot up it would be almost impossible for them to fire on somebody they know.

Option or Prime wrote:OK perhaps I mean semi automatic which get converted. But even in this mode there are several million of the AR 15 weapons which became the M16 used by the US Army.

Hard for me to understand why these should be readily available. I don't expect an explanation its just a comment.



Source NYTimes.com

The whole automatic vs semi-automatic argument is senseless anyway. Even with the M-16A1 which still had a fully automatic mode, vs the 3 round burst with the M-16A2 and later models, unless you were the designated Automatic Rifleman in your fireteam you weren't supposed to go full auto unless you were about to be overrun. So even when using the military version of the rifle in a combat setting the preferred use was in the mode that the civilian model works in.

RaggedMan wrote:

Ennis wrote:

Asphalt_World wrote:

Black_Flag_11 wrote:

Asphalt_World wrote:It's an intriguing situation regarding the armed officer that was outside the school when the shooting took place. I'm not going to pass judgement until I have read as much as I can about it. However, it's sad so see that Trump has made him the scapegoat today - he needs someone to blame other than guns themselves - but even more worrying that it is reported that this officer is now having police officers guarding his house. In other words, the man who had a gun to try to defend a school is now having to have his house guarded by people with guns.

Yep, guns are clearly the answer!!!!!

Is Trump really trying to scapegoat him? Doesn't this go against the good guy with a gun theory and also raise some serious concerns about the effectiveness of arming teachers? Seems like it does more harm to the pro gun points than good.

I expected the usual video games and maybe films to be the scapegoats as they are the easy ones.

He's a scapegoat for Trump because Trump wants numerous people armed in all schools. As this school had an armed man but still lost so many lives, Trump has to blame the man guarding the school so that it doesn't look like having guns in school doesn't help.

It's horrible. He'll be branded a coward, and will have real struggles remaining to live where he lives at the moment.

The reality is its very difficult to know how we'll react to a situation like this. We've seen the reports from previous wars of people standing, in the line of fire, and PRETENDING to pull the trigger because they just couldn't do it. This is staring down a foreign enemy, in the line of fire, with your own life at risk, and many people's reaction was to just freeze. But we'll have loads of people who have never been in that situation passing judgement on the poor guy, and many people who have been in that situation but are lucky enough to have their brain programmed a certain way passing judgement on the guy as if he was making a 'conscious' choice to let students die.

Special forces are trained day in, day out to make shooting an instinct. They don't even think. They just do. The reason they do this is because they know that people revert to muscle memory under severe pressure, and most of our muscle memory doesn't encourage us to run face first in to a shooter. Even just giving someone 5 minutes to know hwat they're walking in to can help. But when it suddenly kicks off, and you're not expecting it? Sometimes it takes a seriously long amount of time for your brain to catch up.

BIB: We already have the Attny General of Florida and Trump saying that they'd have rushed in even if unarmed had they been there that day. While I can't definitively say that they wouldn't have, neither can they say that they definitely would have.

I've stated that I was in the military but I'm a veteran of the Cold War and never saw combat. I definitely trained to be able to carry out combat missions had my unit be called upon to do so. I can believe in my heart of hearts that I would act in the defense of the kids in that school had I been there that day, but I know that I can't claim it with any sort of certainty.

If you've never been in such a situation you can't say how you would react when the time came. Most people would like to think that they would behave in a "brave" manner but there's no guarantee that they would. Indeed a lot of people who think to themselves that there's no way that would rush into such a situation, when considering it in the abstract, might do just that if the situation arose.

If you asked people who know me who they'd rely on in a time of crisis, I think most of them would say me. I'm generally that 'cold logic' person, who stays calm under pressure, doesn't get too much of an adrenaline rush, handles stress well...

I was standing at a train station a few years ago, and completely unexpectedly a guy beside me just collapsed. I was still half asleep and reading my phone. By the time my brain even processed what was happening, people much further away were already at his aid and I was getting a lot of dirty looks. To the outsider, some guy right beside me just collapsed and I was standing still just reading my phone as if I didn't give a sh*t. The reality was my brain just hadn't processed what was even going on because it took me by surprise.

Now that is a situation where I'm in no immediate danger, no stress, and my brain at that moment was still a bit "eh?". I know I'm preaching to the choir on this one, but its a massive pet peeve how everyone assumes how they'll react. It isn't even just the person, its the timing. If I was more awake, would I have reacted differently? If I was more alert to my surroundings and taking everything in rather than reading my phone, would I have reacted differently? So many different inputs go in to what the reaction is, and people are arrogant enough to think they control their brain.

The one time I was in a car accident was when I was 12-13. My sister was driving when somebody decided to make a U-turn right in front of us and we T-boned them. My grandma was in the passenger seat, and my mom and I were in the back seat. I immediately jumped out of the car and then realized I didn't know what to do and was just standing there until my mom yelled at me to help my grandma, who was balled up in the footwell. (this was in the mid-70's so of course none of us were wearing seatbelts) Once out of my reverie I helped grandma out of the car and then ran the couple of miles to her house to get my uncle, all without thinking. (fortunately it was a fairly low speed accident and other than grandma getting nasty bump on her forearm nobody was really hurt)

So in a school shooting situation would I stand around knowing that something had to happen but not know what until I was told, or would I take action after a brief bit of reflection and go into an auto-pilot mode of action? I can't say.

RaggedMan wrote:

Ennis wrote:

Asphalt_World wrote:

Black_Flag_11 wrote:

Asphalt_World wrote:It's an intriguing situation regarding the armed officer that was outside the school when the shooting took place. I'm not going to pass judgement until I have read as much as I can about it. However, it's sad so see that Trump has made him the scapegoat today - he needs someone to blame other than guns themselves - but even more worrying that it is reported that this officer is now having police officers guarding his house. In other words, the man who had a gun to try to defend a school is now having to have his house guarded by people with guns.

Yep, guns are clearly the answer!!!!!

Is Trump really trying to scapegoat him? Doesn't this go against the good guy with a gun theory and also raise some serious concerns about the effectiveness of arming teachers? Seems like it does more harm to the pro gun points than good.

I expected the usual video games and maybe films to be the scapegoats as they are the easy ones.

He's a scapegoat for Trump because Trump wants numerous people armed in all schools. As this school had an armed man but still lost so many lives, Trump has to blame the man guarding the school so that it doesn't look like having guns in school doesn't help.

It's horrible. He'll be branded a coward, and will have real struggles remaining to live where he lives at the moment.

The reality is its very difficult to know how we'll react to a situation like this. We've seen the reports from previous wars of people standing, in the line of fire, and PRETENDING to pull the trigger because they just couldn't do it. This is staring down a foreign enemy, in the line of fire, with your own life at risk, and many people's reaction was to just freeze. But we'll have loads of people who have never been in that situation passing judgement on the poor guy, and many people who have been in that situation but are lucky enough to have their brain programmed a certain way passing judgement on the guy as if he was making a 'conscious' choice to let students die.

Special forces are trained day in, day out to make shooting an instinct. They don't even think. They just do. The reason they do this is because they know that people revert to muscle memory under severe pressure, and most of our muscle memory doesn't encourage us to run face first in to a shooter. Even just giving someone 5 minutes to know hwat they're walking in to can help. But when it suddenly kicks off, and you're not expecting it? Sometimes it takes a seriously long amount of time for your brain to catch up.

BIB: We already have the Attny General of Florida and Trump saying that they'd have rushed in even if unarmed had they been there that day. While I can't definitively say that they wouldn't have, neither can they say that they definitely would have.

I've stated that I was in the military but I'm a veteran of the Cold War and never saw combat. I definitely trained to be able to carry out combat missions had my unit be called upon to do so. I can believe in my heart of hearts that I would act in the defense of the kids in that school had I been there that day, but I know that I can't claim it with any sort of certainty.

If you've never been in such a situation you can't say how you would react when the time came. Most people would like to think that they would behave in a "brave" manner but there's no guarantee that they would. Indeed a lot of people who think to themselves that there's no way that would rush into such a situation, when considering it in the abstract, might do just that if the situation arose.

I agree that the average civilian cannot know how they will react in the face of a tragedy until it is presented to them. the problem here though is that Sherriff deputy scot Peterson isn't the average civilian

This is a man who has been in law enforcement for 32 years. A man who has had countless hours/ years of training for such a situation and he froze. This is a man whom has qualified with his personal firearm to be licensed / allowed to discharge his firearm is he deems the action is appropriate WHILE ON/OFF DUTY. A man who more then likely has un-holstered his firearm in the line of duty and more then likely has engaged previous threats in his tenure as a police officer for 3 decades. This man doesn't fall under the category of a civilian. He took an oath to serve and protect the public. A man who took a job to protect a school all while armed. He wasn't there with mace, a whistle and a flash light.so his excuse of "I secured the perimeter" is disgusting to say the least. He was on duty, he was the first responder to the scene and did nothing. His own boss said that scot Peterson did nothing but take cover outside while the people he was assigned to protect were killed. This man didn't do his job and flat out let people die because he failed to go inside.

So considering the above, is it a good idea to arm Teachers and rely on them to act 'as instructed'?
Do they spend a day a month at the range?
What if it is one of the teachers that does the shooting?

Going down this path is just stupidity. Even bringing in reliable 'guards' is a slippery slope. A guard worth his/her position is not going to work for peanuts, and is not going to be sharp without continued training. There are going to be better paid jobs for anyone trained and able to do this to the required standard so either the costs are huge or the standards are low or the turnover is so high as to be untenable.