Study confirms the idea that schools should have armed/trained security.

[Mormolyce]

Exactly, so then what's the point of having safes in the first place?

My actual opinion on gun control:

-Responsible gun owners who use safes etc aren't the problem.
-Vast proliferation of firearms and ease of acquisition either legally or illegally is.
-The two are related, lax regulation of legal guns fuels illegal ownership.
-The US needs strong gun regulation to reduce this (in US terms this is "gun control").
-It also needs a one-time buyback and destruction of a huge number of guns to reduce the amount already in the wild.
-This will likely require a Constitutional Amendment which is unlikely due to massive partisan gun lobbying and the split of public opinion.

--> Only solution is for the American people to change their mind. Failing that, well lie in the bed that they made.

[Prag]

Prohibition apparently taught people nothing. Banning something that already exists is giving criminals power, because only law-abiding citizens actually follow the laws.

Since we can't go back in time and un-invent them, our only choice is regulation and education. "Ween" the country off of them over the course of a few decades.

[Kapadons]

Alarms also come free of the risk of hurting someone in your family, and are more effective at scary away burglars than someone trudging through a dark house half asleep in their boxers with a loaded firearm.

They also work to protect your shit when you have to work.

They also help to keep your teenage kids from sneaking out past curfew.

[RicardoZ]

No, only people willing to invest in their own and others security deserve the luxury of keeping a lethal stupidity in their house.

However you want to dress it up, it would amount to only people who can afford to pay for all these extras being able to have weapons. The poor would be sitting ducks.

This actually sets up a pretty funny scenario in which the Democratic party might actually give subsidies to poor people for gun ownership.

[Kapadons]

However you want to dress it up, it would amount to only people who can afford to pay for all these extras being able to have weapons. The poor would be sitting ducks.

This actually sets up a pretty funny scenario in which the Democratic party might actually give subsidies to poor people for gun ownership.

Inb4 - Gun ownership is racist!

[Aeluron Lightsong]

Inb4 - Gun ownership is racist!

Nobody implied that.

[Filathorn]

However you want to dress it up, it would amount to only people who can afford to pay for all these extras being able to have weapons. The poor would be sitting ducks.

This actually sets up a pretty funny scenario in which the Democratic party might actually give subsidies to poor people for gun ownership.

"Sitting ducks"? It's like you believe you'll get shot the moment someone realizes you don't have a gun. As someone just said, subsidize buying a gun safe for all gun buyers, you could even subsidize all gun safes for all who actually care about their own and others safety.

Tbh, if it was up to me, I'd implement compulsory gun registration and having gun safes if you have a gun. Anyone with a non-registred gun gets severe punishment and the owner of a registred gun used in crime gets the same punishment. Include a ban on gun sales, cheaper alarm systems and faster police action in case of alarms, a massive "the state buys all guns" to get as many guns as possible out of civilian hands, and in a couple of decades you might actually realize you don't need the guns so damn much. After most guns were off the streets, I'd remove the ban, but make sure it's hard to get a gun (and you'd still have this weapon safe you'd need to keep your gun in).

[Kapadons]

Nobody implied that.

Anything that favors the rich or discourages the poor is inherently racist. Don't you know anything about politics?

[RicardoZ]

"Sitting ducks"? It's like you believe you'll get shot the moment someone realizes you don't have a gun.

Well if the reason you are buying a gun in the first place is to avoid certain perceived social ills, then I guess the term "sitting duck" could characterize those who are without one. Would you rather invent a more politically correct term like "the lesser protected"?

Tbh, if it was up to me, I'd implement compulsory gun registration and having gun safes if you have a gun. Anyone with a non-registred gun gets severe punishment and the owner of a registred gun used in crime gets the same punishment.

I wouldn't really have a problem with that. I'm not a gun owner and probably never will be, so it's easy for me to throw regulations and requirements on other people when I myself am not affected and couldn't care less. I think the potential for the guns to be stolen is still there and don't believe it will deter any school shootings, but if you would feel more comfortable with publicly funded gun safes in every home, then by all means.

[Mormolyce]

Prohibition apparently taught people nothing. Banning something that already exists is giving criminals power, because only law-abiding citizens actually follow the laws.

Since we can't go back in time and un-invent them, our only choice is regulation and education. "Ween" the country off of them over the course of a few decades.

We did exactly that here in Australia. Banned guns, rounded them up and destroyed them. Haven't had a mass shooting since the 90s when those laws came in.

Prohibition didn't work because it's insane to try to make something illegal that's perfectly normal for everyone to want to do. I think prohibition is a good example of why the war on drugs doesn't work (on a smaller scale than prohibition, which was just outright insanity). But not for gun control.

[Filathorn]

Well if the reason you are buying a gun in the first place is to avoid certain perceived social ills, then I guess the term "sitting duck" could characterize those who are without one. Would you rather invent a more politically correct term like "the lesser protected"?



I wouldn't really have a problem with that. I'm not a gun owner and probably never will be, so it's easy for me to throw regulations and requirements on other people when I myself am not affected and couldn't care less. I think the potential for the guns to be stolen is still there and don't believe it will deter any school shootings, but if you would feel more comfortable with publicly funded gun safes in every home, then by all means.

To me, guns are a luxury, not a right. I don't see why anyone would want or need one apart from hunting, and if you are ever to get one, you should make sure it's as secure as possible. Thus the gun safes. Compulsory Weapon Safes were implemented here in Norway back in 2010, I've heard absolutely no drama or fuzz about it, people either sold their weapons back to the state (at full price) or got their damn Weapon Safes, which pretty much makes certain you can't steal any legal weapons. It also severely reduces the chances of accidents happening (no children accidentally misfiring a weapon). We've had one incident with guns at school, and it was in 2009, so a year before the Compulsory Weapon safes, and if we had implemented that law a year earlier, we'd still have a pristine record on school shootings.

If you also make sure weapons aren't sold over disc illegally (aka making sure no weapon shops "accidentally" sells illegally), for instance by registring all buyers of weapons (and having the buyer send in their own copy of the registration and getting their copy back to their government listed adress, to avoid registering weapons to someone else), and not letting criminals buy weapons, you make it pretty much impossible for criminals to get a weapon without first committing a crime to get the weapon. Make obtaining illegal firearms or using firearms for crime an incredibly severe crime, and you suddenly made sure people don't want to use firearms for crime (because who wants to spend the rest of their life in prison doing hard manual labor?). Reduce access and reduce motive ==> reduce usage of firearms in crime.

EDIT:

"Lesser protected" are what those with 24h monitored security systems think of those that rely on guns.

^And that! So much. I didn't comment on it first because I didn't exactly know how to express exactly that.

[Rukentuts]

Well if the reason you are buying a gun in the first place is to avoid certain perceived social ills, then I guess the term "sitting duck" could characterize those who are without one. Would you rather invent a more politically correct term like "the lesser protected"?

"Lesser protected" are what those with 24h monitored security systems think of those that rely on guns.

[Funky Kong]

I like how the "study" you posted is some mysterious yahoo article.

Highly scientific for sure.

[Shiny212]

Now compare populations.

Really gonna do this? It is known fact that there are extremely many shootings, school shootings included, often resulting and bodily harm or death in the US. Many more than in any other civilized country. The only dispute is what the cause might be, logic dictates it be the presence of so many guns, however an opposing force, often with differing opinions to those who "believe in evolution" (as if it's something to believe in), has risen to say, no it's not the guns, it's videogames n stuff.

[Obtuse]

So I went to eat dinner and I see this discussion has really evolved over the last 15 pages. I have only one question.

@ Rich, what are you hiding in that house of yours? Because these mystical unicorn superman ultra ninjas with Star Trek spy gear and Italian Job safe cracking skills seem to really want it.

[Deleted]

I wouldn't want my child going to a school with armed men/women on every corner

Well that's too bad there are police at every corner armed with guns along the way to the school.

[Filathorn]

Really gonna do this? It is known fact that there are extremely many shootings, school shootings included, often resulting and bodily harm or death in the US. Many more than in any other civilized country. The only dispute is what the cause might be, logic dictates it be the presence of so many guns, however an opposing force, often with differing opinions to those who "believe in evolution" (as if it's something to believe in), has risen to say, no it's not the guns, it's videogames n stuff.

Do we really have to keep doing this? I think it has been mentioned at least once every second page. It's a comment from page 1, the thread is at page 25, I believe I already said once that 10 pages back is like 200 years in internet time, so 23 pages back is like 460 years ago. It's ancient, let it be

[Funky Kong]

I like how people want to solve gun problems with more guns.

Then more problems arise and their answer will be even more guns.

Talk about an arms race.

[satimy]

Don't get me wrong, the perpetrator still suffers the full extent of the law. With alcohol, we already punish people and bars who sell alcohol or even give alcohol, to those they are not supposed to. Be it too young or too drunk. Same thing with drugs, a person who sells the drug causing an overdose, is persecuted for manslaughter. Insurance companies for cars already determine how much you should pay, based on your drinking record.

Are you going to sue Bmw too? What about the manufacture of their air filters? Where does responsibility end?

[Cthulhu 2020]

There's absolutely zero way for you to know this. Making assumptions doesn't help your argument.

So a required-by law check would not be followed by a single person? Boy, you always were impressive at those mental gymnastics. Lots of things are illegal that are difficult to enforce, that doesn't mean it doesn't deter the behavior.

Except we have an entire organization of professional people called police whose sole job is to investigate and capture criminals. If you kill someone, they investigate the death, figure out who did it, and then put that person in prison.

Since you pretty consistently miss the point of every single thing you quote and just throw out a bunch of straw men to knock down, I'll just address this one. The point was that pretty much every single time a gun control law is proposed that really has no good counter argument against it, the fall back argument is "Well criminals won't follow the law, so why make laws anyway?"

So by that logic, why should we make laws period, if people are just going to break them anyway? You can't argue against a law because some people will break it. If you can't make an argument against the merits of a law other than "Some people will break it!" you don't have an argument at all.

I'm fully expecting for you to again completely miss the point and throw out another straw man. I mean you argued for several pages that knives were more deadly than guns FFS.