planetf1.com

moby wrote: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.

I do not believe that arming the teachers should even be considered tbh. A teacher has an emotional connection with their students and would hesitiate to fire upon another person they know/love. There are alot of factors to consider. Cost of training (who would pay for this), how much training would "qualify" a teacher to certified for such a situation? What happens if a teacher opens fire on a threat but hits a innocent student? (I saw one news clip on the tv and a principle of a school was doing a training with a fire arm and he shot the wrong target. He was then asked what happens if that was a real innocent fatality and his reply was "the life of 1 innocent vs saving hundreds is worth taking the shot.") arming the teachers is a really bad idea imo.......

As for the deputy there is no one solution for this situation it can be debate many ways, For example

1) if sheriff deputy scot perterson received better training he would have perhaps had more confidence to take on the shooter and resolve the issue himself.

2) better gun laws would have prevented a 18yr old from owning an assault rifle.

3) if the countless warnings regarding the shooter Nicholas cruz were followed up in a more stringent manor this would have been prevented before it even started.

So many variables in this situation

Mayhem wrote:

moby wrote: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.

I do not believe that arming the teachers should even be considered tbh. A teacher has an emotional connection with their students and would hesitiate to fire upon another person they know/love. There are alot of factors to consider. Cost of training (who would pay for this), how much training would "qualify" a teacher to certified for such a situation? What happens if a teacher opens fire on a threat but hits a innocent student? (I saw one news clip on the tv and a principle of a school was doing a training with a fire arm and he shot the wrong target. He was then asked what happens if that was a real innocent fatality and his reply was "the life of 1 innocent vs saving hundreds is worth taking the shot.") arming the teachers is a really bad idea imo.......

As for the deputy there is no one solution for this situation it can be debate many ways, For example

1) if sheriff deputy scot perterson received better training he would have perhaps had more confidence to take on the shooter and resolve the issue himself.

2) better gun laws would have prevented a 18yr old from owning an assault rifle.

3) if the countless warnings regarding the shooter Nicholas cruz were followed up in a more stringent manor this would have been prevented before it even started.

So many variables in this situation

1), If he was better trained and more confident the odds are he would have moved on to a better paid job.

2&3) are the same. How do you keep the freely available item from the wrong people and who decides who are the wrong people.

It has to be stopped at source and NO ONE should be allowed to carry that sort of weapon in a ready state.
Having said that, 2 16 round hand guns could be reloaded in a second so...

moby wrote:

Mayhem wrote:

moby wrote: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.

I do not believe that arming the teachers should even be considered tbh. A teacher has an emotional connection with their students and would hesitiate to fire upon another person they know/love. There are alot of factors to consider. Cost of training (who would pay for this), how much training would "qualify" a teacher to certified for such a situation? What happens if a teacher opens fire on a threat but hits a innocent student? (I saw one news clip on the tv and a principle of a school was doing a training with a fire arm and he shot the wrong target. He was then asked what happens if that was a real innocent fatality and his reply was "the life of 1 innocent vs saving hundreds is worth taking the shot.") arming the teachers is a really bad idea imo.......

As for the deputy there is no one solution for this situation it can be debate many ways, For example

1) if sheriff deputy scot perterson received better training he would have perhaps had more confidence to take on the shooter and resolve the issue himself.

2) better gun laws would have prevented a 18yr old from owning an assault rifle.

3) if the countless warnings regarding the shooter Nicholas cruz were followed up in a more stringent manor this would have been prevented before it even started.

So many variables in this situation

1), If he was better trained and more confident the odds are he would have moved on to a better paid job.

2&3) are the same. How do you keep the freely available item from the wrong people and who decides who are the wrong people.

It has to be stopped at source and NO ONE should be allowed to carry that sort of weapon in a ready state.
Having said that, 2 16 round hand guns could be reloaded in a second so...

1) Not necessarily, but that is your opinion.

2) I agree on the fact that he should have been red flagged a long time ago and wasnt. As i stated previously alot of variables led to this. (Lack of follow up by many departments.)

But thats the whole debate on the constitution and how the regulations currently stand. People wanna have their cake and eat it too. A entire ban will not happen any time soon ( possibly never) As we witnessed just last week when the bill was brought to the florida senate. They wouldnt even debate it and they voted No by a huge margin.

Imo this is how it plays out new sanctions will be placed, age limits raised for assault rifles, magazine limitation placed nation wide, more stringent back round check searching for mental health (maybe even a doctor evalution/ sign off needed) and a waiting period will be placed on long guns.

Another tragedy will happen again and the cycle restarts.

Mayhem wrote: 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.

You seem to be wording this like he made a choice.

Your brain control yous. You do not control it.

During previous World Wars, we had thousands upon thousands of trained men who had taken an oath to serve their country and had an intentionally de-humanized enemy shooting at them. And they'd still stand there, pretending to pull a trigger or aiming at nothing. Add in the fact that this guy was not 'answering a call'. He wasn't sitting in his car, with time to mentally prepare himself for what was coming next. He was suddenly the one poor guy in a live shooter environment, on that precise day, and he was not expecting it in the slightest. Do you have the slightest idea how long it takes a normal brain to catch up with that kind of thing?

He was law enforcement, not special forces. It's a bad day if we want a key skill in law enforcement to be 'really good at shooting people'.

Mayhem wrote:

moby wrote:

Mayhem wrote:

moby wrote: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.

I do not believe that arming the teachers should even be considered tbh. A teacher has an emotional connection with their students and would hesitiate to fire upon another person they know/love. There are alot of factors to consider. Cost of training (who would pay for this), how much training would "qualify" a teacher to certified for such a situation? What happens if a teacher opens fire on a threat but hits a innocent student? (I saw one news clip on the tv and a principle of a school was doing a training with a fire arm and he shot the wrong target. He was then asked what happens if that was a real innocent fatality and his reply was "the life of 1 innocent vs saving hundreds is worth taking the shot.") arming the teachers is a really bad idea imo.......

As for the deputy there is no one solution for this situation it can be debate many ways, For example

1) if sheriff deputy scot perterson received better training he would have perhaps had more confidence to take on the shooter and resolve the issue himself.

2) better gun laws would have prevented a 18yr old from owning an assault rifle.

3) if the countless warnings regarding the shooter Nicholas cruz were followed up in a more stringent manor this would have been prevented before it even started.

So many variables in this situation

1), If he was better trained and more confident the odds are he would have moved on to a better paid job.

2&3) are the same. How do you keep the freely available item from the wrong people and who decides who are the wrong people.

It has to be stopped at source and NO ONE should be allowed to carry that sort of weapon in a ready state.
Having said that, 2 16 round hand guns could be reloaded in a second so...

1) Not necessarily, but that is your opinion.

2) I agree on the fact that he should have been red flagged a long time ago and wasnt. As i stated previously alot of variables led to this. (Lack of follow up by many departments.)

But thats the whole debate on the constitution and how the regulations currently stand. People wanna have their cake and eat it too. A entire ban will not happen any time soon ( possibly never) As we witnessed just last week when the bill was brought to the florida senate. They wouldnt even debate it and they voted No by a huge margin.

Imo this is how it plays out new sanctions will be placed, age limits raised for assault rifles, magazine limitation placed nation wide, more stringent back round check searching for mental health (maybe even a doctor evalution/ sign off needed) and a waiting period will be placed on long guns.

Another tragedy will happen again and the cycle restarts.

Time for me to butt back out now, I tried not to get involved in the first place, but I'm too gobby

It's easy. They should ban guns, problem solved.

f1madman wrote:It's easy. They should ban guns, problem solved.

lol, if only they thought like us!

An interesting read here by BBC

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41488081

Curious to know what the take is on this from our US forumites in particular.

Some crazy maths here mind. 88 guns per 100 people but only 40% people own a gun? Some people have a lot of guns....

It's not even 40% owning guns, it's 40% live in a household where there is a gun.

At one point I had 4 guns, but we're not talking about high velocity weapons with high capacity, removable magazines. I still have 2 which are the ones I've had since I was a teen. A .22 cal revolver, and a .22 cal rifle (semi-auto with a tube magazine). When I had more the others were black powder revolvers.

For some people it's a hobby and they will own different guns for different purposes. Hunters will have larger caliber rifle for deer, shotguns for fowl, a smaller caliber rifle or pistol for small game etc. Sport shooters will have different guns for each discipline that they compete in. There are the people who are collectors who just want to have several that are variations of something they like. And of course there are the fetishists who buy as much as they can, because they can.

The NRA has on outsized influence as most gun owners aren't members, and the lobbying they do is more on the behalf of gun makers than gun owners. Lots of people who own a single gun for home defense don't care about the NRA, and many other guns owners, myself included, disagree sharply with their ideas. But it's politics so money talks and the NRA has plenty of that.

RaggedMan wrote:It's not even 40% owning guns, it's 40% live in a household where there is a gun.

At one point I had 4 guns, but we're not talking about high velocity weapons with high capacity, removable magazines. I still have 2 which are the ones I've had since I was a teen. A .22 cal revolver, and a .22 cal rifle (semi-auto with a tube magazine). When I had more the others were black powder revolvers.

For some people it's a hobby and they will own different guns for different purposes. Hunters will have larger caliber rifle for deer, shotguns for fowl, a smaller caliber rifle or pistol for small game etc. Sport shooters will have different guns for each discipline that they compete in. There are the people who are collectors who just want to have several that are variations of something they like. And of course there are the fetishists who buy as much as they can, because they can.

The NRA has on outsized influence as most gun owners aren't members, and the lobbying they do is more on the behalf of gun makers than gun owners. Lots of people who own a single gun for home defense don't care about the NRA, and many other guns owners, myself included, disagree sharply with their ideas. But it's politics so money talks and the NRA has plenty of that.

all too true...


However, it is paying off nicely for the NRA, as you say, they don't have any money issues, no matter wherever, or even what country, they get it from.

RaggedMan wrote: The NRA has on outsized influence as most gun owners aren't members, and the lobbying they do is more on the behalf of gun makers than gun owners. Lots of people who own a single gun for home defense don't care about the NRA, and many other guns owners, myself included, disagree sharply with their ideas. But it's politics so money talks and the NRA has plenty of that.

It's not purely a money thing, it's also an issue thing.

They have a sizeable membership, and likely others outside of that membership, who will vote on a single issue. Try to mess with their guns and they will not vote for you, they will be mobilised to vote against you, and they will spend their entire day finding ways to screw you over.

On the other side you have people who are more pro gun control, but aren't angry enough for them to vote on this single issue anyway.

I see a similar situation with the Conservaties, Theresa May, and Brexit. Most people did not vote for hard Brexit. The Tories know they'll lose the hard Brexiters if they don't follow their lead, but they wouldn't lose the soft Brexiters by going hard.

I long for the day politicians act in the name of morals, what is just, and what is generally accepted as the right thing to do.

Another school shooting reported in Santa Fe 5' ago...

So very sad

Ennis wrote:

RaggedMan wrote: The NRA has on outsized influence as most gun owners aren't members, and the lobbying they do is more on the behalf of gun makers than gun owners. Lots of people who own a single gun for home defense don't care about the NRA, and many other guns owners, myself included, disagree sharply with their ideas. But it's politics so money talks and the NRA has plenty of that.

It's not purely a money thing, it's also an issue thing.

They have a sizeable membership, and likely others outside of that membership, who will vote on a single issue. Try to mess with their guns and they will not vote for you, they will be mobilised to vote against you, and they will spend their entire day finding ways to screw you over.

On the other side you have people who are more pro gun control, but aren't angry enough for them to vote on this single issue anyway.

I see a similar situation with the Conservaties, Theresa May, and Brexit. Most people did not vote for hard Brexit. The Tories know they'll lose the hard Brexiters if they don't follow their lead, but they wouldn't lose the soft Brexiters by going hard.

I long for the day politicians act in the name of morals, what is just, and what is generally accepted as the right thing to do.

The NRA seldom if ever publish their membership numbers, and with no national registry of gun owners there's no hard number for that either. So it's hard to get a firm handle on how many gun owners are NRA members but generally it's considered to be 10% or less.

Polls and other studies show that most gun owners don't agree with the NRA's stances on a lot of issues so their influence is indeed larger than it should be.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... periences/

Politicians aren't as concerned with the votes of the hard line gun owners in their constituencies as much as they are the money that they won't get from the NRA and the money that the NRA will spend on ads against them.

RaggedMan wrote:

Ennis wrote:

RaggedMan wrote: The NRA has on outsized influence as most gun owners aren't members, and the lobbying they do is more on the behalf of gun makers than gun owners. Lots of people who own a single gun for home defense don't care about the NRA, and many other guns owners, myself included, disagree sharply with their ideas. But it's politics so money talks and the NRA has plenty of that.

It's not purely a money thing, it's also an issue thing.

They have a sizeable membership, and likely others outside of that membership, who will vote on a single issue. Try to mess with their guns and they will not vote for you, they will be mobilised to vote against you, and they will spend their entire day finding ways to screw you over.

On the other side you have people who are more pro gun control, but aren't angry enough for them to vote on this single issue anyway.

I see a similar situation with the Conservaties, Theresa May, and Brexit. Most people did not vote for hard Brexit. The Tories know they'll lose the hard Brexiters if they don't follow their lead, but they wouldn't lose the soft Brexiters by going hard.

I long for the day politicians act in the name of morals, what is just, and what is generally accepted as the right thing to do.

The NRA seldom if ever publish their membership numbers, and with no national registry of gun owners there's no hard number for that either. So it's hard to get a firm handle on how many gun owners are NRA members but generally it's considered to be 10% or less.

Polls and other studies show that most gun owners don't agree with the NRA's stances on a lot of issues so their influence is indeed larger than it should be.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... periences/

Politicians aren't as concerned with the votes of the hard line gun owners in their constituencies as much as they are the money that they won't get from the NRA and the money that the NRA will spend on ads against them.

I agree, by sizeable membership I didn't mean its a high proportion of the overall population. But its a big enough chunk of single-issue voters that politicians won't want to gherkin them off, and there's not enough single-issue voters with the opposite view to really swing politicians in that direction.

Agree on the ads against them, but again I think this comes down to a very hardcore group of supporters who only care about one thing. You'd expect to be able to raise similar funds for more gun-control, but there's simply not enough people who are aggressive about caring about that and that alone.

And another.... What is it going to take for you to wake up to the reality here USA?

I've read up on the history, read the arguments from both sides as objectively as I can, analysed countless (mostly useless) stats, but I'm just still left thinking....how can you not get this? How can you as a collective think this is an acceptable price to pay?

It used to be a morbid exaggeration to say these mass shootings were happening monthly or weekly. It really does feel like it's rare to go more than a short while without one of these attacks.


Now, not sidestepping the issue but isn't there advice from psychologists that not advertising these shootings, not plastering the name and photo of the perpetrator and not giving the death toll as a bar to match is considered wise? Yet, all of this is readily available in the two articles I have read on the subject.

mac_d wrote:It used to be a morbid exaggeration to say these mass shootings were happening monthly or weekly. It really does feel like it's rare to go more than a short while without one of these attacks.


Now, not sidestepping the issue but isn't there advice from psychologists that not advertising these shootings, not plastering the name and photo of the perpetrator and not giving the death toll as a bar to matchis considered wise? Yet, all of this is readily available in the two articles I have read on the subject.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2 ... 75b300fe6f

Gun control would obviously help regards massacres but even so there's a wider issue with violence that needs to be dealt with. Not convinced a gun ban would actually do much for overall murder rates while this kind of mentality exists :\

An officer shot and killed in the UK. Reading some of the articles one line jumped out:
"since the beginning of the 20th Century 73 police officers have been shot and killed by criminals in the UK, excluding all deaths in Northern Ireland.

The majority of those deaths - more than 50 - have occurred since 1945."

73 officers in 120 years. The US have been averaging @ 50/year for the last 10 years.

DOLOMITE wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 27, 2020 7:51 pm

An officer shot and killed in the UK. Reading some of the articles one line jumped out:
"since the beginning of the 20th Century 73 police officers have been shot and killed by criminals in the UK, excluding all deaths in Northern Ireland.

The majority of those deaths - more than 50 - have occurred since 1945."

73 officers in 120 years. The US have been averaging @ 50/year for the last 10 years.

There are many differences between the two countries though, population is five time bigger in the US and also they are carrying guns, while here in the UK there is stricter gun control (I read about a survey from 2007 that is showed in the States something like 89 guns owned per 100 people while in the UK the same number was 6). It is a stark difference in numbers though, I was also surprised when I read it.

Siao7 wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 28, 2020 10:03 am

DOLOMITE wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 27, 2020 7:51 pm

An officer shot and killed in the UK. Reading some of the articles one line jumped out:
"since the beginning of the 20th Century 73 police officers have been shot and killed by criminals in the UK, excluding all deaths in Northern Ireland.

The majority of those deaths - more than 50 - have occurred since 1945."

73 officers in 120 years. The US have been averaging @ 50/year for the last 10 years.

There are many differences between the two countries though, population is five time bigger in the US and also they are carrying guns, while here in the UK there is stricter gun control (I read about a survey from 2007 that is showed in the States something like 89 guns owned per 100 people while in the UK the same number was 6). It is a stark difference in numbers though, I was also surprised when I read it.

Another statistic: each year in the US there are more deaths as a result of firearms, than have ever been recorded in total in the UK (including during The Troubles in NI)

Siao7 wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 28, 2020 10:03 am

DOLOMITE wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 27, 2020 7:51 pm

An officer shot and killed in the UK. Reading some of the articles one line jumped out:
"since the beginning of the 20th Century 73 police officers have been shot and killed by criminals in the UK, excluding all deaths in Northern Ireland.

The majority of those deaths - more than 50 - have occurred since 1945."

73 officers in 120 years. The US have been averaging @ 50/year for the last 10 years.

There are many differences between the two countries though, population is five time bigger in the US and also they are carrying guns, while here in the UK there is stricter gun control (I read about a survey from 2007 that is showed in the States something like 89 guns owned per 100 people while in the UK the same number was 6). It is a stark difference in numbers though, I was also surprised when I read it.

Kinda makes you think, maybe banning guns would help the USA

DOLOMITE wrote: ↑

Thu Nov 08, 2018 9:42 pm

And another.... What is it going to take for you to wake up to the reality here USA?

I've read up on the history, read the arguments from both sides as objectively as I can, analysed countless (mostly useless) stats, but I'm just still left thinking....how can you not get this? How can you as a collective think this is an acceptable price to pay?

Its weird isn't it? It's like rationale can't win. It's weird that's its mainly right wing groups that fall for these themes:

• Pro guns
  Anti abortion
  Anti vaccines
  Anti covid restrictions
  Pro trump
  Pro brexit/frexit
  Gullible to what's app group propaganda and other obviously fake articles and news....

And now another incident 21 dead including 19 kids aged 7-10.

7-10.

Honestly I don't know anyone involved but as a parent I'm thinking of the parents of these kids and how on earth do you move on not just from the loss but the sheer sense of anger, outrage and injustice.

How do you deal with the fact that your child was murdered at school, by an 18 year old in body armour with a semi-automatic rifle. How do you make any sense of life in the years that remain?

It's such a shame. A waste of life for what? How Americans can't see that they need to increase their gun control laws to stop these massacres is beyond me.

Each time I come back to this Jim Jefferies sketch.

https://youtu.be/0rR9IaXH1M0

I was just reading about it and saw this:

"There were 249 shootings on school grounds last year – more than any other year since at least 1970 – and 137 so far this year, said David Riedman, lead researcher at the K-12 School Shooting Database at the Naval Postgraduate School's Center for Homeland Defense and Security."

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... 910214002/


Truly unbelievable. Are they going to blame video games again I wonder?

As a grandparent of 3.9 children under 5 the grief and anger that the parents of the victims must feel can only be imagined.

The perpetrator of this heinous crime apparently killed his grandmother just minutes before entering the school. No doubt, more information regarding him, his background and his state of mind will enter the public domain in the next few days.

It's very different circumstances but I'd just like to point out that when Tony Bliar, against the advice of experts and in the full knowledge of what would happen, actually implemented his pre election political stunt pledge to bring in a hand gun ban in the UK, the first year following the ban saw hand gun related incidents QUADRUPLE, it took 20 years before the numbers returned to the pre-ban level.

I'd also point out that the country with the highest gun access in the world is Switzerland where every able bodied male citizen between the ages of 20 & 30 is reuired to undergo military service and are issued with a military owned gun, usually automatic, which they are required to keep in their home. On reaching 30 every serving male is offered the opportunity to buy their service weapon after conversion to semi-automatic. Actual gun ownership is around 40% of the population, close to 90% of males.

Switzerland also has the lowest gun related homicide rate of any western democracy!!!

IMO, these shootings are the worst & most visible symptom of a disease which we as a society are too reluctant to even discuss, let alone tackle.

Inappropriate behaviour by people of all forms is a symptom, the disease is inappropriate people becoming parents, until we stop trying to treat the symptoms and and start a debate on how to treat the disease we'll all go on wringing our hands over appalling tragedies such as battered babies, child stabbings, gang violence, etc. as well as these headline grabbing appalling incidents.

Remember, outside pretty much every school at the end of the day are bus lines containing dozens of children, it's just as easy for a deranged person to drive a truck through that line as it is to shoot them. What is society going to do next, ban personal transport!

Society needs to deal with the disease, whinging about the symptoms is an excuse to avoid exercising personal responsibility, something that it appears every politician is allergic to.

The morning after the shooting, I walked into my classroom of 28 children, all aged 9, 10 and 11. The thought of 19 of them being shot dead by an intruder was simply horrifying. During registration, whilst they were all sitting quietly reading books or working on other things, I imagined it happening for a few seconds. I have no words to explain how I truly felt. Yet there are some people in the US who believe the way to stop this is to arm the teachers, Again, I have no words for that.

The fact so many feel a very old amendment, one created when America was so very very different, is more important to protect than the lives of children, is beyond comprehension for me.

Asphalt_World wrote: ↑

Sat May 28, 2022 7:33 am

The morning after the shooting, I walked into my classroom of 28 children, all aged 9, 10 and 11. The thought of 19 of them being shot dead by an intruder was simply horrifying. During registration, whilst they were all sitting quietly reading books or working on other things, I imagined it happening for a few seconds. I have no words to explain how I truly felt. Yet there are some people in the US who believe the way to stop this is to arm the teachers, Again, I have no words for that.

The fact so many feel a very old amendment, one created when America was so very very different, is more important to protect than the lives of children, is beyond comprehension for me.

Not only America was different, but the guns were powder single shot guns with ramrod...
They can say whatever they want at the NRA, but war guns are made for assaulting and killing. If you own one, comes a moment when you want to use it for what it's designed.
If the only problem was the one owning the weapon and using it, we should see a good proportion of people owning kitchen knives (starting with butchers...) committing mass murders cutting throats and drilling livers here and there. I mean more than once a day, as there are even more kitchen knives circulating than assault rifles.

https://youtu.be/fB7MwvqCtlk

13 yr old boy getting refused beer, cigarettes and lottery tickets but being allowed the gun.

IDFD wrote: ↑

Tue May 31, 2022 10:27 am

https://youtu.be/fB7MwvqCtlk

13 yr old boy getting refused beer, cigarettes and lottery tickets but being allowed the gun.

This is ridiculous... There is legal and there is ethical. It may be legal (I wonder how, but hey ho), but would you find it ethical yourself to sell a gun to a 13 year old? It is bonkers, beggars belief...

Siao7 wrote: ↑

Tue May 31, 2022 2:05 pm

IDFD wrote: ↑

Tue May 31, 2022 10:27 am

https://youtu.be/fB7MwvqCtlk

13 yr old boy getting refused beer, cigarettes and lottery tickets but being allowed the gun.

This is ridiculous... There is legal and there is ethical. It may be legal (I wonder how, but hey ho), but would you find it ethical yourself to sell a gun to a 13 year old? It is bonkers, beggars belief...

At least he'll have to wait being 21 to bring his gun into a bar...

Battle Far wrote: ↑

Wed May 25, 2022 12:42 pm

As a grandparent of 3.9 children under 5 the grief and anger that the parents of the victims must feel can only be imagined.

The perpetrator of this heinous crime apparently killed his grandmother just minutes before entering the school. No doubt, more information regarding him, his background and his state of mind will enter the public domain in the next few days.

It's very different circumstances but I'd just like to point out that when Tony Bliar, against the advice of experts and in the full knowledge of what would happen, actually implemented his pre election political stunt pledge to bring in a hand gun ban in the UK, the first year following the ban saw hand gun related incidents QUADRUPLE, it took 20 years before the numbers returned to the pre-ban level.

I'd also point out that the country with the highest gun access in the world is Switzerland where every able bodied male citizen between the ages of 20 & 30 is reuired to undergo military service and are issued with a military owned gun, usually automatic, which they are required to keep in their home. On reaching 30 every serving male is offered the opportunity to buy their service weapon after conversion to semi-automatic. Actual gun ownership is around 40% of the population, close to 90% of males.

Switzerland also has the lowest gun related homicide rate of any western democracy!!!

IMO, these shootings are the worst & most visible symptom of a disease which we as a society are too reluctant to even discuss, let alone tackle.

Inappropriate behaviour by people of all forms is a symptom, the disease is inappropriate people becoming parents, until we stop trying to treat the symptoms and and start a debate on how to treat the disease we'll all go on wringing our hands over appalling tragedies such as battered babies, child stabbings, gang violence, etc. as well as these headline grabbing appalling incidents.

Remember, outside pretty much every school at the end of the day are bus lines containing dozens of children, it's just as easy for a deranged person to drive a truck through that line as it is to shoot them. What is society going to do next, ban personal transport!

Society needs to deal with the disease, whinging about the symptoms is an excuse to avoid exercising personal responsibility, something that it appears every politician is allergic to.

Saying that he could have run them down in a truck is one of the more bizarre arguments against gun control I’ve seen. I’d prefer to take my chances against a lunatic in a truck over a lunatic with a gun any day of the week. Not to mention the fact that vehicles are act necessary for modern life, whereas guns are only used to fight people with other guns.

For what it's worth, which is apparently very little, most Americans want more gun control than we have. But our political system is badly messed up and bought by the NRA, so it's almost certainly not going to happen. It didn't happen after the last several times a bunch of kids were shot, so I don't expect it to happen this time, either. It's extremely frustrating, to say the least.

Personally I'd prefer a near-total ban with only legitimate hunting rifles allowed, with strict background checks and training requirements for those (there are places in America where one really does need to hunt for food and does need to protect oneself/one's farm from dangerous wildlife, but you don't need anything like the guns available to do that). People having less guns is also probably the only way we'll ever be able to walk back the militarization of the police force, too, which is a huge problem here.

Banana Man wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 01, 2022 1:41 pm

Saying that he could have run them down in a truck is one of the more bizarre arguments against gun control I’ve seen. I’d prefer to take my chances against a lunatic in a truck over a lunatic with a gun any day of the week. Not to mention the fact that vehicles are act necessary for modern life, whereas guns are only used to fight people with other guns.

And it's much harder to get a driver's license or own a car here than it is to get a gun, even though we have some of the looser requirements to get a license.

Yes, some people will use any weapon available to them. You can't stop that. Most anything can be used as an improvised weapon, and even if you somehow were to take all of those options away, people still have their own bodies. But the entire purpose of guns is to kill people, and a lot of people, easily. You simply cannot kill as effectively with any other weapon. I see the "but people would use knives!" argument a lot, and... yeah, some of them probably would, but you can run away from a knife. You can fight someone with a knife. It's not even on the same level.

For those not from the UK, our mass killings tend to be single figures, knife orientated and years between. That's still nothing to brag about but as a comparison we had a terrorist attack near London Bridge which resulted in the deaths of two innocent people and was subdued by a chef smacking him with a narwhal tusk and a convicted murderer on day release gassing him in the face with a fire extinguisher. It could almost have been one of the darker Monty Python sketches.

Luckily, from my time in the North, I do have a narwhal tusk. I also have a couple of fire extinguishers and several firearms. I am hoping to make it to my three-score years and ten so I think I've got all the bases covered and we don't have too many terrorists in Quebec but they are not unknown here either.

Another day, another incident.. 28 year old female this time, has that happened before? 3 staff and 3 kids dead .

hmm. More recent reports state the shooter was a biological female who used male pro-nouns, and "identified" as transgender. So a female then. She had 2 assault rifles. More weapons found at her house including 2 shotguns.

The three kids were aged 9. This is apparently the 12th school shooting to result on a death, and the 129th "mass shooting" in the US this year.

DOLOMITE wrote: ↑

Tue Mar 28, 2023 2:05 pm

hmm. More recent reports state the shooter was a biological female who used male pro-nouns, and "identified" as transgender. So a female then. She had 2 assault rifles. More weapons found at her house including 2 shotguns.

The three kids were aged 9. This is apparently the 12th school shooting to result on a death, and the 129th "mass shooting" in the US this year.

129 this year???

Like, after 3 months? This is insane by any kind of measure