The Gun Lobby Proposes To Equip Students

[Guest Prosis]

All I can say is ;)

 

Although I can't say I'm surprised. Does anyone realize how fucking stupid that solution is.

 

What is it with Americans and guns anyway?

[Sparq 1]

It's not neccessarily stupid, just risky and complicated. Given the track record of things like this, I have no doubt that they'd find a way to screw it up. But under the right circumstances, and properly executed, it could be a good thing.

Edited April 18, 2007 by Sparq

[Guest Prosis]

It cannot be a good thing man come on...give everyone guns? so one guy comes into a class and shoots one person and you've got 30 students getting their guns out to shoot the shooter...you end up with a fucking huge bloodbath.

 

No human being is smart enough to have a firearm in a time of panic.

[Sparq 1]

I agree that most are not, and also that it would be extremely difficult to make that system work. It would likely involve a number of very serious accidents before the bugs worked out. I'm not saying it's a good idea, or that they should actually attempt to implement it...but it's not flat-out idiotic either. A sprinkling of law-abiding, trained shooters in the population could have a positive effect. The problem is that it would be extremely dangerous, probably deadly, to actually test the system.

Edited April 18, 2007 by Sparq

[Moonlight_Graham 38]

It's not neccessarily stupid, just risky and complicated. Given the track record of things like this, I have no doubt that they'd find a way to screw it up. But under the right circumstances, and properly executed, it could be a good thing.

No its pretty stupid. Especially considering these people are young (& often drunk), not 40 y/o.

 

What they need is better campus security. Security guards are the only guys who should have guns. And there's a debate whether the police handled this situation properly.

 

This kid certainly had severe mental illness & the warning signs were blaring all over the place. The teachers knew he was depressed & suicidal. Security, getting this kid help, and keeping a gun out of his hands i think are the keys to preventing things like this.

[Sparq 1]

Then propose a better solution. Campus security, certainly. But there's going to be uproar over that as well if they're allowed to carry more than a flashlight or some pepper spray. What's to stopa security guard from opening fire on the unarmed masses? Nothing more than what stopped the guy who carried out this shooting. Like I said, no easy solutions.

Edited April 19, 2007 by Sparq

[marx marvelous 0]

I'd rather see 30 students killed every 5 years in a random occurrence like what happened at VA Tech than hear about some drunk kid killing his friend every week if this "solution" were applied.

[Sparq 1]

Hence 'responsible'. Which should, of course, include NOT carrying one's weapon while intoxicated. Just like driving. Again, hard to regulate. But in states which allow concealed carry, or in cases where people do it illegally, I don't believe there is a huge number of 'got drunk and shot his friend' situations.

 

There's the core issure, right? The system is based on some degree of reason, empathy, and common sense. None of which are actually common.

Edited April 19, 2007 by Sparq

[marx marvelous 0]

I don't trust 90% of university students to own guns. Didn't the shooter leave for a pretty extended amount of time after the first shooting before returning again? The school's response after the first shooting should've been a lot quicker and more decisive.

[Sparq 1]

No doubt about the school dropping the ball there. And you're right, I wouldn't trust the majority of people I know with firearms either. Sort of an all-or-nothing issue, and it's not something that could be implemented overnight.

Edited April 19, 2007 by Sparq

[Guest Prosis]

Well the solution would be first of all to stop fucking selling power guns to anyone. How come this dude had a 15 bullet a second gun in his hands? Who needs that besides maybe the army? The death toll would have been way lower if he had a handgun for example.

 

Second, saying that more guns is the solution is like saying "hey this guy's got aids. Let give him aids so the aids can fight the aids". Usually when there's a problem with something, you take it out not put more in. If you have a two fish that fight all the time, are you going to buy another fish and create a coalition? The whole thing is as ridiculous.

 

Other than that, I don't have a perfect solution because human madness is difficult to stop. But one thing I know, if you lessen the number of tools to execute this madness, the problem would be lessened.

[Sparq 1]

The AIDS thing isn't exactly a fair example. It's not the guns, it's the people who use them. Consider the 'good guys' to be an antibody as opposed to just more of the same disease, and it starts to make more sense.

 

As for the "15 bullet a second gun" ...I haven't heard anything about that. Got a link? If it was an automatic Glock, then he should not have been able to buy it without a special permit for automatic weapons. But if it was just an illegally modified semi-automatic...well, that's criminal behaviour for you. And I agree - aside from screwing around on a range or collectors, there is really no reason for any civilian to have a fully automatic weapon.

 

And finally, lessening the number of tools - There's the big problem. It's like the 'genie in the lamp' metaphor so often applied to nuclear proliferation. It's out now, and the powers that be have proven almost totally impotent when it comes to stopping the trade of weapons on the street. You make them unavailable legally (even if companies like Smith & Wesson, Savage Arms, and Federal Ammunition would allow it) and you're just going to drive it underground. You CAN NOT get rid of the weapons which are already out there and will continue to flow.

Edited April 19, 2007 by Sparq

[Guest Prosis]

I unfortunately don't have a link and this may be untrue as it was said on the radio on monday and thus remains very early info. But it's been confirmed that he had a Walther P22 which is a semi-automatic weapon.

 

But the point remains, why would Mr. or Mrs everybody need a fucking semi-automatic weapon? Seriously?

 

And as far as underground sales, what do you suggest, we can't stop it so let's just sit back and embrace it. The legal control of weapons isn't worth shit right now. If we have this sort of frame of mind, these kind of tragedies will end up being a "ah well, we can't stop people from having guns". Because a gun is a weapon, a weapon is for killing and this the people in this school were killed by guns...is there something not clear about this formula?

 

I'm sorry but I'm not one to accept that we can't do anything about underground weapon sales. I think that's too easy an answer. I think if politicians just stopped saying stuff like that and tried to find a proper solution we could find one.

 

Ok the aids thing wasn't really appropriate for this situation, but the fish tank was.

[supercanuk 0]

I'd just like to step in here and make a brief comment.

What Dan is essentially calling for is a blanket ban on most weapons, am I right? Or is it just hand-guns that are semi-automatic?

 

If I have your argument straight, then you're calling for a pretty large infringement on people's liberty to own a weapon for personal protection.

There's problems with this, do you think that people should be able to own a weapon in their homes for self-protection? What if they live in a sketchy neighborhood?

The police certainly cannot be everywhere at once, and their response time ain't the greatest in many districts. And more police on the streets isn't an answer either, that's proven by the U.S. who have tons of police and far higher crime rates (generally speaking) then we do, so clearly that doesn't work.

I think there needs to be a lot more common sense being thrown into the arguments for and against gun's.

I'd like to know (I think its Switzerland?) the country in Europe where everyone has to have a gun in their house (because everybody has to spend a year in military service there i believe) - i'd like to know their crime rates with hand guns. It would make for an interesting case study into gun control.

Again, what I believe Colin is saying here is that with the training needed for it, it can be a benefit to security if people were armed and trained because the few who did go insane would be.. "neutralized" so to speak before they could do much harm.

I don't whole-heartedly agree with him either but it's not a rediculous argument.

[Guest Prosis]

Nope I believe we shouldn't own guns. Not for protection not for recreative shooting at a range...except if you're a hunter (and I'm against hunting, but that's a whole other debate and even then, hunters should have their guns really really hard to reach). The fact that it's a right doesn't make it OK or dangerless. I have never owned a gun, I know no one who does and I will never own one. If people think that I'm irresponsible and not protecting me and my family enough (against what I'm not sure) well so be it. The number of people who get broken into is very small and it's proven that you are more inclined of shooting a loved one than a bad guy.

 

Take away the guns for everyone...what's left? No more shootings. Period. It's a simple equation. Find a solution for illegal gun sales. Leave the guns only to the military and the police and this country would have less situations like this one.

 

Now Colin, one thing has grabbed my attention:

 

"What's to stopa security guard from opening fire on the unarmed masses?"

 

I don't see how the solution to this is more guns. Please explain.

[supercanuk 0]

Nope I believe we shouldn't own guns. Not for protection not for recreative shooting at a range...except if you're a hunter (and I'm against hunting, but that's a whole other debate and even then, hunters should have their guns really really hard to reach). The fact that it's a right doesn't make it OK or dangerless. I have never owned a gun, I know no one who does and I will never own one. If people think that I'm irresponsible and not protecting me and my family enough (against what I'm not sure) well so be it. The number of people who get broken into is very small and it's proven that you are more inclined of shooting a loved one than a bad guy.

 

Take away the guns for everyone...what's left? No more shootings. Period. It's a simple equation. Find a solution for illegal gun sales. Leave the guns only to the military and the police and this country would have less situations like this one.

 

Now Colin, one thing has grabbed my attention:

 

"What's to stopa security guard from opening fire on the unarmed masses?"

 

I don't see how the solution to this is more guns. Please explain.

So a blanket ban on guns so only the authorities have them? Well your correct in saying that your more likely to shoot a family member then a "bad guy". However, with this logic, we should be then locking up one in five males for beating their spouses, whether they do or not, that's the statistic and family violence is just as bad as gun violence. See statistics tend to leave out common sense, sure your more likely to shoot a family member, obviously a terrible consequence of what is a violent tool. However, if only the police had the guns, or "authorities" then the citizens of a country can never defend themselves from the government itself. Which i am completely opposed to, i think that citizens have to have the right and ability to take back their government, by force if need be. I know this isn't like the 1700's but let's be realistic, it's harder to quell a population of semi-armed layman, then to quell a completely defenceless population entirely. I think we like to believe that we are safe from fascist governments but its a false sense of security. Germany was at the height of western civilization when Hitler came to power, sure the people were desperate because of the war sanctions put on them, but it didn't make them all idiots. They got caught up in something that went out of control and a lot of people in the resistance to Hitler were killed.

Now if nobody had guns where would be the resistance?

This is really hypothetical but its just an example of why guns are not always bad, and why a blanket ban cannot ever really be useful to protecting people from violence.

 

Let's just say we banned guns, what next? Will people just stab one another? Theres no way to completely stop people from killing and hurting each other, you can bring it down obviously, but it won't dramatically stop criminal behavior, there are other more horrific ways to hurt people.

Finding a solution to illegal gun sale is no simple matter by the way, i think you might be too hasty on that point.

Take the illegal drug trade as an example, they've had a "war on drugs" for decades and it has done nothing, hardly a dent in the drug trade. If guns were made illegal i can bet that same scenario would come to fruition.

[Sparq 1]

Now Colin, one thing has grabbed my attention:

 

"What's to stopa security guard from opening fire on the unarmed masses?"

 

I don't see how the solution to this is more guns.

Edited April 19, 2007 by Sparq

[bishopx 2]

Note to self: Change the constitution from "The right to bear arms" to the right to "arm morons"

[Moonlight_Graham 38]

ok dont ban guns, ban the bullets.

 

(thank u Chris Rock for that one).

[bishopx 2]

Perfection...

 

I say we send the NRA gun nuts to Iraq, and let them deal with it and bring the troops home...

[TheSteve 0]

Found this thread doing a random google search for a Walther P22. Thought it might be fun to bring it back from the dead.

 

I'd like to see Canada adopt the right to bear arms, I also support proper licensing and background checks.

Society as a whole needs to adopt more personal responsibility and to stop being so afraid of everything.

 

btw, I own a Walther P22.

[Computer 4]

sorry about your penis bro

[sodamntired 3]

High School students can be trusted to carry loaded Weapons.

It's in the constitution, isn't it?

What, You don't love the constitution?

You don't love America?

I cannot wait to be out of this country and back in Canada.

[LonelyWreckage 1]

I've got to say, I found the response from the Gun Lobby after the massacre funny as fuck. What ? A maniac has used a gun to devastating effect ? Oh, right, well we'll EQUIP EVERYBODY ! Guns in your lockers now please, students.

 

I think as long as it's written in the constitution and there's overwhelming support for guns, there's little you can do, really.

 

Then propose a better solution. Campus security, certainly. But there's going to be uproar over that as well if they're allowed to carry more than a flashlight or some pepper spray.

The whole point of them would be to stop any potential massacres, so having a firearm is sort of necessary ! I don't see how the thought of these few security guards carrying guns to protect students is any less worrying than the thought of every student carrying a gun. In fact I'd say this is much safer, and reassuring alternative.

 

What's to stopa security guard from opening fire on the unarmed masses? Nothing more than what stopped the guy who carried out this shooting. Like I said, no easy solutions.

Their sanity ? From what I've seen the people who go on school massacres, are nearly always students who've been driven to it by bullying/isolation whilst attending, so their prime motivation for the killings are revenge on those students. Even then, it's like 1 nutter in thousands - what's the likelihood of that occurring in the dozen or so security guards ?

 

There's problems with this, do you think that people should be able to own a weapon in their homes for self-protection? What if they live in a sketchy neighborhood?

I dunno, I think it's a bit of a logical fallacy to believe guns will make you any safer if it's the norm - if everyone's equipped with a gun to defend their home, won't the invader just bring one along with him anyway ? Now, you may have a larger and more powerful gun than the attacker's handgun, but it'll make very little difference when one bullet is more than enough to see you off, no matter what the gun.

 

However, if only the police had the guns, or "authorities" then the citizens of a country can never defend themselves from the government itself. Which i am completely opposed to, i think that citizens have to have the right and ability to take back their government, by force if need be. I know this isn't like the 1700's but let's be realistic, it's harder to quell a population of semi-armed layman, then to quell a completely defenceless population entirely.

I think such a lack of trust in government is a little paranoid. Even if it were to turn into Fascist Canada overnight - forgetting that you're a democratic nation and if it ever does get like that, it'll need plenty of support - you think a rifle's going to help you defend your home against your government and the majority ? You'd be outnumbered and unequipped to fight - unless your average Canadian has anti-tank weaponry ? ;)

 

Germany was at the height of western civilization when Hitler came to power, sure the people were desperate because of the war sanctions put on them, but it didn't make them all idiots. They got caught up in something that went out of control and a lot of people in the resistance to Hitler were killed.

Height of civilization ? From what I've seen/read they it was a country on its knees, demoralized by the Versailles Treaty, bankrupt and broken. Hitler and the National Socialists were seen as a saviour from the ever-growing tide of unemployment - you can trace his support from the very same unemployed: the people suffering most from the depression. These people cherished bread far more than they did democracy, and were far more susceptible to their far-right populist drivel. So basically, if you're citing this as an example for when your everyday Western country has turned to fascism, I've got to say that it's a bit inaccurate.

 

Let's just say we banned guns, what next? Will people just stab one another? Theres no way to completely stop people from killing and hurting each other, you can bring it down obviously, but it won't dramatically stop criminal behavior, there are other more horrific ways to hurt people.

Very true, but I'd just point out guns make it far easier to kill someone. Of course you can't stop a determined killer from killing someone, no matter what weapon you take away, but one pull of the trigger, from a distance is far more enabling than physically having to go up and stab someone/beat them to death, and this, I feel would be enough to dissuade some would-be killers. It's also impossible to go on the rampage with a knife.

 

ok dont ban guns, ban the bullets.

The only realistic solution, if America decides to ammend its constitution, as there's no way in hell people will be volunteering up their existing stock.

 

I'd like to see Canada adopt the right to bear arms, I also support proper licensing and background checks.

I wouldn't - I personally think the 'right to bear arms' is one of the worst rights in existence as long as we're giving our personal opinions.

 

Society as a whole needs to adopt more personal responsibility and to stop being so afraid of everything.

They're not afraid of everything, they're afraid of guns - with good reason, might I add - they're incredibly deadly, don't you know ?

Edited September 20, 2009 by LonelyWreckage

[Sparq 1]

btw, I own a Walther P22.

 

Nice. 3.4" or 5"? I've been looking in to getting my restricted license on and off for years, here. I really should pull the trigger, as it were, on that one.