Another School Shooting, Taft Cali.

[Hotwire]

Then only the criminals would have them....wow, now theres a thought.

So, in the UK, where only the criminals have guns, their murder rate is roughly 1/3 ours. Weird.

 

[Badger]

I'm more than relaxed. Just being clear.

As far as the sword thing goes, we're not debating two people having a fight: one with a sword and one with a knife. There's a saying for that.

As for your second point. I agree. I think there needs to be security on school grounds. Carrying real firearms.

Anyway, out of interest I was reading up on the different types of guns this morning. Way ahead of ya.

Still, I don't see how you can tout for assault rifles like that and claim such superiority for them, and then want to ban them from someone who wants protection. Seems pretty contradicting with all due respect.

Good deal, by the way, I do agree with your Mental Health view. Can't remember if I've stated that or not. Seems like we are getting stuck on one issue of a much larger problem. Though I good healthy debate of beliefs and view never hurt anyone.

I don't tout Assault Rifles, other than explaining what they are capable of. I don't own any, nor would I ever have the need to. I can safely and securely protect my home with the handgun(s) I have, plus the other measures that I have in place (like an alarm system).

Only certain people have the need for those guns, they're called Soldiers and/or SWAT Members. They are a superior gun, in respects to other legal to the public guns, that's why superior personnel should be the ones that carry and operate them.

 

[Gotham Knight]

So, in the UK, where only the criminals have guns, their murder rate is roughly 1/3 ours. Weird.

Gee, because that couldn't be a damning fact against our violent culture and be a reflection of just how poor of shape our own country is in right now.

 

[Gotham Knight]

Good deal, by the way, I do agree with your Mental Health view. Can't remember if I've stated that or not. Seems like we are getting stuck on one issue of a much larger problem. Though I good healthy debate of beliefs and view never hurt anyone.

I don't tout Assault Rifles, other than explaining what they are capable of. I don't own any, nor would I ever have the need to. I can safely and securely protect my home with the handgun(s) I have, plus the other measures that I have in place (like an alarm system).

Only certain people have the need for those guns, they're called Soldiers and/or SWAT Members. They are a superior gun, in respects to other legal to the public guns, that's why superior personnel should be the ones that carry and operate them.

Oh of course. I keep trying to make it clear that I'm not trying to be condescending or anything. That's not my goal.

Still, I'm not necessarily against banning assault rifles. It's just the idea that a lot of people are trying to claim that even as superior as they may be, if we get rid of them, then we might save a few lives the next time someone attacks a school. As if somehow slightly lowering the percentage of deaths and injuries, is more important than preventing them at all.

In the end, we're at risk any time we step out on to the street. If some nutball pulls out a pistol and tries to shoot me for no meaningful reason whatsoever on the sidewalk, then the whole "percentage" deal would be a non-factor. But no one thinks of it like that. I'm just not OK with the idea of weighing lives.

If we don't get better security and these schools and public businesses stay at risk, then it doesn't really matter if it's a rifle, sniper rifle, assault rifle, shotgun etc. We need to prevent any kind of pointless attack like that from happening in the first place.

 

[Badger]

Oh of course. I keep trying to make it clear that I'm not trying to be condescending or anything. That's not my goal.

Still, I'm not necessarily against banning assault rifles. It's just the idea that a lot of people are trying to claim that even as superior as they may be, if we get rid of them, then we might save a few lives the next time someone attacks a school. As if somehow slightly lowering the percentage of deaths and injuries, is more important than preventing them at all.

In the end, we're at risk any time we step out on to the street. If some nutball pulls out a pistol and tries to shoot me for no meaningful reason whatsoever on the sidewalk, then the whole "percentage" deal would be a non-factor. But no one thinks of it like that. I'm just not OK with the idea of weighing lives.

If we don't get better security and these schools and public businesses stay at risk, then it doesn't really matter if it's a rifle, sniper rifle, assault rifle, shotgun etc. We need to prevent any kind of pointless attack like that from happening in the first place.

Every little bit helps. Yeah, it's an uncomfortable why to look at something. Weighing lives, as you said. But it's an honest way and to be clear, this is one piece of the puzzle.

If there was a sure fire way to make certain these never happened again, than everybody would want that. However there isn't. There is no one thing, it's a combination of many things and gun control is one of those many things.

You have to look into things that might keep somebody from going over the edge, most important. Like better health care for the mentally ill and removing the stigma that's attached to it. People that need help, can't be afraid to receive it. That's probably the biggest hurdle and a problem that doesn't have a quick solution. Nobody should be afraid to get help.

Then you have to look at ways to lessen the impact if they do. Better security at schools, for sure. Not just armed security, but better training and procedures for administration, teachers and students. That's what schools can do, to better protect themselves.

The rest of us, have to be willing to sacrifice a small bit of our rights to help protect our children. Does it suck that we live in a world where that's necessary? Absolutely! But that is the world we live in. Does banning Assault Rifles and High Capacity Clips/Magazines guarantee no more children will die, no. But it guarantees less will and if less means just one child is saved, than to me it's worth it.

 

[Gotham Knight]

First of all, 100% agree with you on the mental health aspect.

It's not that I think we can prevent it from ever happening again. That would be about as bad as believing in fairy tales. But shooting up elementary schools is major level crazy. It's not something that should be this common, and you can point at specific countries as an example of how well we can prevent the attacks themselves, if we live up to the standards we could/should have.

Honestly, I think I have some really good ideas. But I'm not really in a position to make them happen. Actually, I don't even know if there's a precedent for something like that. But I wish I could bring awareness to the real issues.

I think we pretty much agree though. The only thing we sort of disagree on is the assault rifle deal. Which I was sort of trying to point at with the walking down the sidewalk scenario I gave you. It's not that I don't believe saving an extra life is important. But if it's gonna happen, it's gonna happen. The important thing is cutting down the incidents themselves.

It's also that I don't necessarily believe or rather I'm not 100% convinced that assault rifles are not a reasonable/useful means of protection.

I have a question for you though. Let's say someone with a pistol tries to shoot up an elementary school, where no children have protection. Let's say he walks in through the classroom door and stands in front of it. He's trained with using the weapon. Are we really to believe that someone is going to be a hero other than maybe a teacher?

 

[Badger]

First of all, 100% agree with you on the mental health aspect.

It's not that I think we can prevent it from ever happening again. That would be about as bad as believing in fairy tales. But shooting up elementary schools is major level crazy. It's not something that should be this common, and you can point at specific countries as an example of how well we can prevent the attacks themselves, if we live up to the standards we could/should have.

Honestly, I think I have some really good ideas. But I'm not really in a position to make them happen. Actually, I don't even know if there's a precedent for something like that. But I wish I could bring awareness to the real issues.

I think we pretty much agree though. The only thing we sort of disagree on is the assault rifle deal. Which I was sort of trying to point at with the walking down the sidewalk scenario I gave you. It's not that I don't believe saving an extra life is important. But if it's gonna happen, it's gonna happen. The important thing is cutting down the incidents themselves.

It's also that I don't necessarily believe or rather I'm not 100% convinced that assault rifles are not a reasonable/useful means of protection.

I have a question for you though. Let's say someone with a pistol tries to shoot up an elementary school, where no children have protection. Let's say he walks in through the classroom door and stands in front of it. He's trained with using the weapon. Are we really to believe that someone is going to be a hero other than maybe a teacher?

So if it's gonna happen, wouldn't you want mitigate the damage? I think we can agree that there are certain jobs and tools for those jobs that should only be done and handled by professionals. In my opinion Assault Rifles are on of those things.

They are a reasonable means of protection, though (again) in the right qualified hands. My analogy of the Semi is pretty apt in my opinion. The difference between operating a handgun and Assault Rifle is the same as the differences between a car and a Semi. All deadly if used improperly, but the Semi/Assault Rifle can do a hell of a lot more damage.

Be a Hero? No more/less likely than with any type of gun. Somebody with that kind of stones will try regardless of the gun/weapon. More likely to succeed, if they try? Probably, simply because of clip size. Smaller clip size equal more reloads, which equals more opportunity to over take shooter if that's their only means of escape. I think that's a safe assumption, giving the variables in your question.