Guns. Good or Bad?
- Thread starter NaffNaffBobFace
- Start date
- Status
/https%3A%2F%2Fblueprint-api-production.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fuploads%2Fcard%2Fimage%2F238104%2FGettyImages-566354725.jpg)
bedoinitusa
Space Marshal
My thought of it is that the family as a whole anymore is not like it was 50's-70's when that all get together at the supper table said grace,ate and talked about the day. Now its home, tv, whatever they do now. This causes no morals or how to make correct decisions harder for the people growing up now.
Bigcracker
Space Marshal
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
http://www.wrcbtv.com/story/37613905/update-teacher-in-custody-after-shots-fired-call-at-dalton-high-school-dpd-says
I guess the kid that gets A's in every class needs to get a gun to watch the teacher now.. Or we can just set up snipers through out our cities...
http://www.wrcbtv.com/story/37613905/update-teacher-in-custody-after-shots-fired-call-at-dalton-high-school-dpd-says
I guess the kid that gets A's in every class needs to get a gun to watch the teacher now.. Or we can just set up snipers through out our cities...
Han Burgundy
Space Marshal
Problem: Mass shootings that are allowed to continue for quite some time before a response can be mobilized
Solution: Kamikaze Drone swarms armed with Bear mace bombs. A system called Boomerang paired with intelligent Drone swarm technology could quickly detect a threat and dispatch a nonlethal response immediately. The drones would hone in on the gunshots (while fully capable of both indoor and outdoor flight) and identify the shooter using a series of sensors such as thermal imaging on a central mother-drone (to identify the heat of the freshly fired weapon) Once pinpointed, the swarm will descend on the shooter and burst their onboard bear mace packets (Similar tech to the dye packs used for bank robbers) to effectively end the assaulter's ability to utilize his weapon with any sort of accuracy. Once blinded, the suspect would be safer to apprehend by officers on the ground.
Does it end the problem? No, but its a good start. Shooting up a crowd of people would be a whole lot less romantic to crazies if they knew they would survive to face the music.
/$0.02
Solution: Kamikaze Drone swarms armed with Bear mace bombs. A system called Boomerang paired with intelligent Drone swarm technology could quickly detect a threat and dispatch a nonlethal response immediately. The drones would hone in on the gunshots (while fully capable of both indoor and outdoor flight) and identify the shooter using a series of sensors such as thermal imaging on a central mother-drone (to identify the heat of the freshly fired weapon) Once pinpointed, the swarm will descend on the shooter and burst their onboard bear mace packets (Similar tech to the dye packs used for bank robbers) to effectively end the assaulter's ability to utilize his weapon with any sort of accuracy. Once blinded, the suspect would be safer to apprehend by officers on the ground.
Does it end the problem? No, but its a good start. Shooting up a crowd of people would be a whole lot less romantic to crazies if they knew they would survive to face the music.
/$0.02
Devil Dog Hog
Space Marshal
I vote for RESPONSIBLE gun ownership. But that's like saying "Now that you can drive, don't speed" to a teenager. People make the decision if they will use something for good or bad, and if its something that needs to be regulated and to what degree. I am a gun owner, but I'm also well trained on the use of my guns, the responsibility of owning them, when and when not to employ them, and which gun to use for the environment I will be in or when not to even have a gun. I strongly believe in our 2nd amendment rights, but I also think it requires training, regulation, and screening, because some people shouldn't have access to a gun, just like you wouldn't serve beer to someone under 21 or give a drivers license to a blind person. What the limits and stipulations of the restrictions should be I think we should vote on as a nation, but I think it definitely is a conversation that needs to happen and a step towards reducing the number of gun victims and deaths. I sure don't want to wonder "Will my kids die at school today."
I've been thinking about how to arm teachers while minimising the risk of them killing their pupils if the kids aren't behaving, and have come up with this plan of action:
The setup:
Every classroom has a safe, out of reach of the students in a store cupboard or stationary room only the teacher has access to (there is always a store cupboard in a classroom, and if not a floor safe in a corner will be fine). The Safes contain 1x hand gun and ammunition. The ammo is limited, I propose only 6 rounds. The ammo and guns will be in a very strange, rare caliber like (making a number up) 7.12mm or in a strange shape like hexagonal bullets (they have existed before) and that caliber of gun will not be permitted to be manufactured except for the schools system to keep it rare and uncommon, and that caliber/shape of ammunition will not be on sale, anywhere, it will only be distributed in the schools system and kept in the safes.
The Explanation:
The teachers DON'T have access to the safe code. It is locked and stays locked. The teachers have a Beeper or something similar. (yes, high technology) If a shooter enters the building and the alarm is raised, the code is sent out to the beepers and suddenly you have a school full of armed staff where moments earlier it was totally unarmed. Failing that the P.A. system could be used to call out a master code.
The limited ammo is to stop a mass killing spree if a teacher or a student breaks the safe open - the limited rounds may sound counter productive but if you have 1 shooter with 50 bullets and 10 staff with a total of 60 bullets between them it evens out, and it should only really take 1 bullet to stop a shooter... The strange caliber/shape bullet for a pistol is to stop a shooter from using the ammo present in the school for their own weapons, like if they come in with a bunch of 9mm semi's the (pulling a number from thin air) 7.12mm hexagonal pistol rounds are going to mean less than nothing to them.
The guns themselves would be maintained checked and cleaned by specialist staff outside the schools system, and only on weekends and in the holidays when there are no targets around.
So...
If America has to arm teachers they also have to protect the kids. I feel the above way might just be the compromise both sides of the argument can live with.
What do you think?
The setup:
Every classroom has a safe, out of reach of the students in a store cupboard or stationary room only the teacher has access to (there is always a store cupboard in a classroom, and if not a floor safe in a corner will be fine). The Safes contain 1x hand gun and ammunition. The ammo is limited, I propose only 6 rounds. The ammo and guns will be in a very strange, rare caliber like (making a number up) 7.12mm or in a strange shape like hexagonal bullets (they have existed before) and that caliber of gun will not be permitted to be manufactured except for the schools system to keep it rare and uncommon, and that caliber/shape of ammunition will not be on sale, anywhere, it will only be distributed in the schools system and kept in the safes.
The Explanation:
The teachers DON'T have access to the safe code. It is locked and stays locked. The teachers have a Beeper or something similar. (yes, high technology) If a shooter enters the building and the alarm is raised, the code is sent out to the beepers and suddenly you have a school full of armed staff where moments earlier it was totally unarmed. Failing that the P.A. system could be used to call out a master code.
The limited ammo is to stop a mass killing spree if a teacher or a student breaks the safe open - the limited rounds may sound counter productive but if you have 1 shooter with 50 bullets and 10 staff with a total of 60 bullets between them it evens out, and it should only really take 1 bullet to stop a shooter... The strange caliber/shape bullet for a pistol is to stop a shooter from using the ammo present in the school for their own weapons, like if they come in with a bunch of 9mm semi's the (pulling a number from thin air) 7.12mm hexagonal pistol rounds are going to mean less than nothing to them.
The guns themselves would be maintained checked and cleaned by specialist staff outside the schools system, and only on weekends and in the holidays when there are no targets around.
So...
If America has to arm teachers they also have to protect the kids. I feel the above way might just be the compromise both sides of the argument can live with.
What do you think?
Last edited:
News report on my side of the pond today: In drafts released there is no sign of the raising of the age to 21 to buy a rifle that had previously been tabled by president Trump... Apparently this was after a meeting with the NRA who advised it was "unconstitutional"...
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
I was wondering about this. In the 1700's when this was written you'd be way more likely have a knife/sword/club than a gun, so does the above claim that it goes against it really stack up if under 21's are still allowed to bear those alternate arms? It says, "bear arms", not "bear fire arms"... As long as they are still allowed to keep and bear a cudgel that vital second amendment right would not have been infringed, surely?
Adding this to the fact it says "A well regulated militia", suggesting regulation was originally intended, sort of go hand in hand.
I am happy to suggest a compromise right away: it'd have to be handled delicately, perhaps not even a total block on under 21's buying guns, just limiting them to lower caliber ammunition like a .22 with perhaps lower power cartridges manufactured especially for the under 21's market?
It could help keep the gun makers and NRA happy too, as it basically creates a starter market that sits below the main one, and everyone growing up would have to pass through it to get to the over 21's weapons. You've just doubled the market overnight.
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
I was wondering about this. In the 1700's when this was written you'd be way more likely have a knife/sword/club than a gun, so does the above claim that it goes against it really stack up if under 21's are still allowed to bear those alternate arms? It says, "bear arms", not "bear fire arms"... As long as they are still allowed to keep and bear a cudgel that vital second amendment right would not have been infringed, surely?
Adding this to the fact it says "A well regulated militia", suggesting regulation was originally intended, sort of go hand in hand.
I am happy to suggest a compromise right away: it'd have to be handled delicately, perhaps not even a total block on under 21's buying guns, just limiting them to lower caliber ammunition like a .22 with perhaps lower power cartridges manufactured especially for the under 21's market?
It could help keep the gun makers and NRA happy too, as it basically creates a starter market that sits below the main one, and everyone growing up would have to pass through it to get to the over 21's weapons. You've just doubled the market overnight.
Radegast74
Space Marshal
This made it to the TV news on my side of the Atlantic:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43526413
I've noticed some members of the discussion have chosen to bow-out.
I respect your decision to cease discussions, but without your input we can't find a solution that suits both sides of the issue, mine and yours.
In this long meandering thread we have come to two clear conclusions:
1) Following the Nevada mass concert shooting, we discussed and came to the conclusion America is never going to go without guns, and hey thats okay - no one wants to take that off you.
2) Following the Florida School Mass shooting we came to the conclusion doing nothing hasn't worked, isn't working and won't work in future. Doing something, anything, is the way forward.
I don't believe we have finished discussing this, and I don't want us to have to wait for the next pile of corpses to discuss and come to conclusion number 3. Lets keep talking, because if those who support uninfringed arms ownership clam up and stay silent it risks your voice not being present when it comes time to do something.
I'm not aiming to "win" and argument here, one side of the issue working alone can't win this. I am aiming to discuss and come to some conclusions which can be a compromise acceptable to both sides. Only by working together and both compromising can we reach a solution which makes the world a safer place while retaining basic rights and freedoms.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43526413
I've noticed some members of the discussion have chosen to bow-out.
I respect your decision to cease discussions, but without your input we can't find a solution that suits both sides of the issue, mine and yours.
In this long meandering thread we have come to two clear conclusions:
1) Following the Nevada mass concert shooting, we discussed and came to the conclusion America is never going to go without guns, and hey thats okay - no one wants to take that off you.
2) Following the Florida School Mass shooting we came to the conclusion doing nothing hasn't worked, isn't working and won't work in future. Doing something, anything, is the way forward.
I don't believe we have finished discussing this, and I don't want us to have to wait for the next pile of corpses to discuss and come to conclusion number 3. Lets keep talking, because if those who support uninfringed arms ownership clam up and stay silent it risks your voice not being present when it comes time to do something.
I'm not aiming to "win" and argument here, one side of the issue working alone can't win this. I am aiming to discuss and come to some conclusions which can be a compromise acceptable to both sides. Only by working together and both compromising can we reach a solution which makes the world a safer place while retaining basic rights and freedoms.
Last edited:
Ok, I will take the bait. I will attempt to show why gun owning, law-abiding, citizens of America have really got fed up with this "conversation".
1: Vilification: We as a group are being vilified as evil people. Don't believe me?
(^ this one was in the town I live in.)
(she says she is going to do the Vice President next!)
Oh and YES they want to ban semi-autos (literally 90% of all firearms)
https://www.dailywire.com/news/27432/watch-cnn-crowd-wildly-cheers-full-gun-ban-daily-wire
I could go on and on, but for my own sanity, I will not if you want to see how bad it is you can go do the research. But let us just say that a lot of people think it is ok to attack or threaten attacks against people they politically disagree with. If you agree with the NRA or not, they are not a terrorist group, and us members are not terrorists. We simply believe the best way to defend against evil people is with tools that are capable of deterring or killing the perpetrators.
2: FACTS!
Did you Know MOST mass shootings happen in Gun-Free Zones?
3: The highest Murter rates (per capita) in the nation are in the strictest gun control cities.
St. Louis
Baltimore
Detroit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_crime_rate
Kent State shooting,
Sutherland Springs church shooting,
Great Mills Maryland school shooting,
And many more, not get covered because they do not fit the narrative and the agenda, Kent State being where the US military shot up a school in the 70s. The other two were the gunman was stopped by an NRA member and the school resource officer. Ever hear of KYLE KASHUV? no, because he is a kid that survived Southerland Spring and is now pushing 2A rights.
4: Europe and other nations:
"BUT AUSTRALIA!!!"-you "BUT SWITZERLAND!!!"-me
Australia only lost about 30% of their guns max.
"BUT UK! FRANCE!"-you
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/knife-gun-crime-stats-latest-england-wales-rise-increase-a8177161.html
Ya, I will pass,
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-43478925
Make that a HARD PASS
MAKE THAT A SUPER HARD PASS.
And France? does 13-14 November 2015 ring any bells? HARD FUCKING PASS.
BUT you had 9/11 how can you say anything about Nov 2015? Ah yes, 9/11 were a bunch of terrorists went to gun free zones, hijacked gun free airplane, and crashed them into building. I think you just made my case for me. And that brings me to my next point
5: GOVERNMENT IS THE ANSWER!!
REALLY? REALLY????
THE OFFICERS ON SITE FOR THE SOUTHERLAND SPRINGS SHOOTING RAN AWAY!! THE COPS WERE CALLED TO THE HOUSE OVER 30 TIMES!! THE FBI GOT TIPS!!! THE SHOOTER POSTED ON YOUTUBE SAYING "I AM GOING TO BE A PROFESSIONAL SCHOOL SHOOTER" UNDER HIS REAL NAME!!! THIS WAS REPORTED TO THE FBI. GOVERNMENT DOES NOT SOLVE PROBLEMS UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE!
6: US and gun stats:
7: Left hypocrisy:
Let's run down the "stories" that the left has been pushing on us for the last few years.
2016 Cops are all racists bigots
2017 Trump=Hitler
2018 Trump need to take away our gun and the cops and military the monopoly on them.
confused yet?
Long story short, I will protect myself because no one else will and if you think the government is you are fooling yourself. The evilest nation and dictatorships in the last 100+ years have made gun control a key point in gaining power over people. My right to life is more important than your misguided, though well-meaning, attempts to subvert my rights.
And extra nerd point: just remember when you see a ton of people chanting and cheering for taking away power from the people.
1: Vilification: We as a group are being vilified as evil people. Don't believe me?
(^ this one was in the town I live in.)
Oh and YES they want to ban semi-autos (literally 90% of all firearms)
https://www.dailywire.com/news/27432/watch-cnn-crowd-wildly-cheers-full-gun-ban-daily-wire
I could go on and on, but for my own sanity, I will not if you want to see how bad it is you can go do the research. But let us just say that a lot of people think it is ok to attack or threaten attacks against people they politically disagree with. If you agree with the NRA or not, they are not a terrorist group, and us members are not terrorists. We simply believe the best way to defend against evil people is with tools that are capable of deterring or killing the perpetrators.
2: FACTS!
Did you Know MOST mass shootings happen in Gun-Free Zones?
3: The highest Murter rates (per capita) in the nation are in the strictest gun control cities.
St. Louis
Baltimore
Detroit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_crime_rate
Kent State shooting,
Sutherland Springs church shooting,
Great Mills Maryland school shooting,
And many more, not get covered because they do not fit the narrative and the agenda, Kent State being where the US military shot up a school in the 70s. The other two were the gunman was stopped by an NRA member and the school resource officer. Ever hear of KYLE KASHUV? no, because he is a kid that survived Southerland Spring and is now pushing 2A rights.
4: Europe and other nations:
"BUT AUSTRALIA!!!"-you "BUT SWITZERLAND!!!"-me
Australia only lost about 30% of their guns max.
"BUT UK! FRANCE!"-you
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/knife-gun-crime-stats-latest-england-wales-rise-increase-a8177161.html
Ya, I will pass,
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-43478925
Make that a HARD PASS
MAKE THAT A SUPER HARD PASS.
And France? does 13-14 November 2015 ring any bells? HARD FUCKING PASS.
BUT you had 9/11 how can you say anything about Nov 2015? Ah yes, 9/11 were a bunch of terrorists went to gun free zones, hijacked gun free airplane, and crashed them into building. I think you just made my case for me. And that brings me to my next point
5: GOVERNMENT IS THE ANSWER!!
REALLY? REALLY????
THE OFFICERS ON SITE FOR THE SOUTHERLAND SPRINGS SHOOTING RAN AWAY!! THE COPS WERE CALLED TO THE HOUSE OVER 30 TIMES!! THE FBI GOT TIPS!!! THE SHOOTER POSTED ON YOUTUBE SAYING "I AM GOING TO BE A PROFESSIONAL SCHOOL SHOOTER" UNDER HIS REAL NAME!!! THIS WAS REPORTED TO THE FBI. GOVERNMENT DOES NOT SOLVE PROBLEMS UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE!
6: US and gun stats:
7: Left hypocrisy:
Let's run down the "stories" that the left has been pushing on us for the last few years.
2016 Cops are all racists bigots
2017 Trump=Hitler
2018 Trump need to take away our gun and the cops and military the monopoly on them.
confused yet?
Long story short, I will protect myself because no one else will and if you think the government is you are fooling yourself. The evilest nation and dictatorships in the last 100+ years have made gun control a key point in gaining power over people. My right to life is more important than your misguided, though well-meaning, attempts to subvert my rights.
And extra nerd point: just remember when you see a ton of people chanting and cheering for taking away power from the people.
Last edited:
Some of the bowing out is due to what needed to be said has been said.
And while events like Florida School shooting and the Nevada Concert shooting are tragic on their own they are but small isolated events that become talking points of a narrative that avoids addressing the heart of the issue.
Which is why it was written into the constitution second only to freedom of speech and association.
And while events like Florida School shooting and the Nevada Concert shooting are tragic on their own they are but small isolated events that become talking points of a narrative that avoids addressing the heart of the issue.
- The Police suck at preventing anything. As much as we like to think the Police live up to their motto of protect and serve they are more often left to clean up and serve warrants. The Department of Justice states that the best response time is 4 minutes and the worst is over an hour. According to American Police Beat, the average response time for an emergency call is 10 minutes. The average interaction time between a criminal and their victim is 90 seconds. This translate to the Police showing up after the crime has happened and the criminal has gone away. And as the case Castle Rock vs Gonzales proves the Police cannot be sued for failing to enforce restraining orders as they are not personal body guards.
- Even with out guns people have been inflecting pain and murder upon each other for all of written history. While guns do make mistakes far more lethal they also even out the playing field in that size, strength and training do not give a significant advantage over another. A grandmother with a handgun is not at that much of a disadvantage against a military trained solider.
- It is impossible to put guns back in the box. In fact with such tools as 3D metal printing its even easier to make ones own gun.
- The removal of guns from society has lead to the government seizing power away from the people most recently Venezuela. South Africa is having a huge issue with crime and violence against farm workers. Iran went through a similar transition in the 1970's.
- In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
- In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
- Germany established gun control in 1938. From 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jewishjewish people and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
- China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
- Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
- Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
- Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million ‘educated’ people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
- And the list goes on. In fact you can look at the Americas as the native people unable to defend themselves from firearms were rounded up and exterminated/relocated.
- In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
- Laws do not prevent people from doing what they want to do.
- How many in the USA under the age of 21 drink alcoholic beverages?
- How many drive while intoxicated. http://blog.driversed.com/driving-under-the-influence-do-strict-dui-laws-really-work/ An almost equal amount of individuals are killed by drunk drivers as are murdered by guns.
- Ban on drugs has not prevented people from using drugs.
Which is why it was written into the constitution second only to freedom of speech and association.
Last edited:
Thank you for both joining back in, much appreciated.
So given all that has been said and all the data provided in favor of retaining with absolutely no changes and all that has been said about mass shootings being unacceptable and the only thing we should stop doing is doing nothing, how can we progress to a positive outcome without escalating the situation?
By escalating, I in part refer to this incident where shortly after it was suggested arming teachers was an option, a teacher fired a gun in a classroom and was arrested. That made the news here in the UK, 3000 miles away over the sea. I would say that demonstrated an escalation, but only time will tell.
So how can we make this work for both sides, and how can we reach compromises that can help everyone feel it's okay?
Earlier in the thread someone said they feared gun reform as they had been diagnosed with a condition that made them believe their right to bear arms would be taken away from them should reform happen... So how can we compromise without taking second amendment rights away?
Other than ensuring the right people are persecuted and the innocent are not with correct background checks, anyone that diagnosed as having a "mental condition" deemed serious enough is assumed innocent until proven guilty. If someone has been labeled with a condition, but has no prior background of, say, searching for horrific images on-line, making threatening posts on social media, beating their wife etc etc etc can probably keep hold of their pistols with no consequences... There is a risk mental health becomes the scapegoat for gun control and the steps are only applied to a small section of society rather than as a whole...
But if it is to start with a small section and roll out further, a compromise suggestion: (Re-reading it, it's not perfect so discussion would be appreciated):
Anyone diagnosed as having a "condition" are allowed to retain firearms in accordance with the second amendment as long as they keep them responsibly locked up at home and have a second set of weapons at a local gun range which are not allowed out of that setting. The guns at the range mean they will be able to use a gun any time they like in a safe regulated setting without persecution. The box at home would be provided by the state and the lock would send a message to law enforcement every time it was opened. This means the gun owner gets to keep their gun and use it for self defense, and even better if they felt so threatened they had to open the box to grab a gun they'd probably need police assistance anyway, and the police would then be able to attend because they'd know it had been opened - They'd also know what type of gun and ammo had been in the box, so what to expect. The gun owner would have easy and open access to it without necessarily being able to use it to harm people without immediate attendance by the police, and this restriction could be lifted on certain calibers as the state was able to trust the gun owner more and more over time until it could be lifted entirely them having proved they were trustworthy and not a threat to society. This would have no effect on the citizens right to bear any other type of non-firearms.
We are players of Star Citizen. considering how long the game has been in production we are master theorycrafters. Lets theorycraft us a solution that everyone can say "Yes" to.
So given all that has been said and all the data provided in favor of retaining with absolutely no changes and all that has been said about mass shootings being unacceptable and the only thing we should stop doing is doing nothing, how can we progress to a positive outcome without escalating the situation?
By escalating, I in part refer to this incident where shortly after it was suggested arming teachers was an option, a teacher fired a gun in a classroom and was arrested. That made the news here in the UK, 3000 miles away over the sea. I would say that demonstrated an escalation, but only time will tell.
So how can we make this work for both sides, and how can we reach compromises that can help everyone feel it's okay?
Earlier in the thread someone said they feared gun reform as they had been diagnosed with a condition that made them believe their right to bear arms would be taken away from them should reform happen... So how can we compromise without taking second amendment rights away?
Other than ensuring the right people are persecuted and the innocent are not with correct background checks, anyone that diagnosed as having a "mental condition" deemed serious enough is assumed innocent until proven guilty. If someone has been labeled with a condition, but has no prior background of, say, searching for horrific images on-line, making threatening posts on social media, beating their wife etc etc etc can probably keep hold of their pistols with no consequences... There is a risk mental health becomes the scapegoat for gun control and the steps are only applied to a small section of society rather than as a whole...
But if it is to start with a small section and roll out further, a compromise suggestion: (Re-reading it, it's not perfect so discussion would be appreciated):
Anyone diagnosed as having a "condition" are allowed to retain firearms in accordance with the second amendment as long as they keep them responsibly locked up at home and have a second set of weapons at a local gun range which are not allowed out of that setting. The guns at the range mean they will be able to use a gun any time they like in a safe regulated setting without persecution. The box at home would be provided by the state and the lock would send a message to law enforcement every time it was opened. This means the gun owner gets to keep their gun and use it for self defense, and even better if they felt so threatened they had to open the box to grab a gun they'd probably need police assistance anyway, and the police would then be able to attend because they'd know it had been opened - They'd also know what type of gun and ammo had been in the box, so what to expect. The gun owner would have easy and open access to it without necessarily being able to use it to harm people without immediate attendance by the police, and this restriction could be lifted on certain calibers as the state was able to trust the gun owner more and more over time until it could be lifted entirely them having proved they were trustworthy and not a threat to society. This would have no effect on the citizens right to bear any other type of non-firearms.
We are players of Star Citizen. considering how long the game has been in production we are master theorycrafters. Lets theorycraft us a solution that everyone can say "Yes" to.
It's amazing you literally ignored every point.
Yes, I am a little-pissed off right now because of you. I pointed out above why all of this DOES NOT WORK! and has been repeatedly proven TO NOT WORK. SO LET'S GO WITH THE FACTS (*GASP*) WHAT WE KNOW WILL WORK AND FUCKING TRY THAT.
yes not every teacher should have a gun, those that are not dumb enough to shoot a gun by accident should be allowed to carry if the parents want to let them, "but that is escalation," no it is the ability to defend yourself, yet again the Texas Chruch and Maryland school shooting were stopped by a good guy with a gun, according to the FB fucking I 98% of mass shooters go to gun free zones. So no it's not escalation, its common sense, its way all the fucking rich and powerful have armed guards, it's way banks have armed guards. if you think to guard your kids like they are worth something either stop guarding banks or protect the kids.
how about this, you want to send your kid to a gun free school, fine, but let my kid go to a school with armed, trained staff, and we will see were the next mass shooter goes.
YAY that way the tyrannical government can come take our guns from the range! oh boy, I hope they don't start killing their people next.... oh too late there they go. YAY, we are all dead!
ya because the AR-15 is not only one of the most common hunting rifles or anything. Also YAY the government get involved! just what we need, MORE GOVERNMENT!!! Oh and also so the cops show up once a month when you take it out for cleaning? also-also, YA putting gun owners on a list! that is usually the first step to a full ban because then the government knows what you have, and says you got to turn them in, and if you don't we come knocking down your door and look at that TRYANNY AGAIN!! JUST WHAT WE WANTED!
I got a better idea, let's look a the fucking facts! (see my last post, and this time read it!) let's make the states report to the buro for background checks (like they are don't but should do) that way everyone that has a criminal past shows up on the background checks! let us also make massive sentencing for an illegal position, like the GOP tried to do under Obama, but Obama said "it would hurt minorities too much." what a load of BS, IF A CRIMINAL ILLEGALLY GET A GUN, AND IS CAUGHT LOCK THEM UP!
Yes, I am a little-pissed off right now because of you. I pointed out above why all of this DOES NOT WORK! and has been repeatedly proven TO NOT WORK. SO LET'S GO WITH THE FACTS (*GASP*) WHAT WE KNOW WILL WORK AND FUCKING TRY THAT.
Sorry, I didn't make my point clear in my previous message: It is now clear to me from over these last 21 pages that Both sides of the argument are right - You can't win when you are both winners, you can only argue, it goes nowhere. So I am attempting to move the discussion on to what we are going to do about it that everyone can agree with.
Wasting more time arguing the facts leaves more and more time for more and more deaths. Lets stop distracting ourselves.
Great ideas, loads of potential. So, how about other things?
Limiting those under the age of 17 to lower caliber weapons?
Arming the teachers - okay why not, how are we going to do that with minimal risk to the students and the teachers themselves? I suggested the following:
Are there any other options?
Any other suggestions?
Last edited:
Get at the heart of the matter. Address what reasons individuals and institutions use to take others or their own lives and you will reduce the need for guns naturally. Disarming only a small set that follows the law will only reduce their capacity to defend themselves as they are the same individuals who don't typically break the other laws like murdering others.
I think this discussion is far too politically charged and divisive for this kind of forum. There is no headway to be made by having this discussion here.
Excellent, I can agree with this - more care in the community can help those who require it and who are willing to be assisted... It does raise a question... how can we get to the root of the matter in cases such as Brenda Ann Spencer where, in her own words: "There was no reason for it, and it was just a lot of fun”. Obviously an unhinged child but with no previous case history of unhinged behavior how can society pick this up before it becomes an incident where children are gunned down by someone who in this case is essentially a child? With nothing to be suspicious of the first they knew about her intention was when she opened fire...
You may be right - It has been flying in the face of the Forum Rules (no politics) for 21 pages, if any Mods wish to close the thread citing said forum rules, please do I have no qualms with that.
Before it's closed, though, a final word from myself as the previously impartial overseer: the reason I have been reporting news casts from a country 3000 miles away is gun violence in America is not just Americas problem - If it was it would be reported in America and America alone. The reason it is reported in every country on earth when it happens to such degrees as the Navada incident, Sandy Hook, Columbine, the recent Florida school shooting, is because it is a humanitarian crisis and for far too long next to nothing has been done to even remotely tackle it.
I, obviously, don't have any practical answers. I wish those on both sides of the discussion luck in getting what they want, as long as it gets results.
It really is a humanitarian crisis and when you remove the focus from small isolated cases, while dramatic like a shark attack and allows for political motivated talking points does nothing to address the root cause and in fact can lead to a far more horrific situation. Venezuela in 2012 is the most recent country to follow this course of action by addressing the rise in violent crime passed a law to ban private gun ownership. And instead of fixing the issue homicide rates went from 73 per 100,000 to over 90 per 100,000 as of 2015. On top of that Venezuela has gone from a democracy to a dictatorship with Nicolas Maduro returning guns to militia members who support him, against those who he calls imperialist aggression. Its the same story that has played out through out history when ever a political or faction gains dominant power over others with in their community.
So no guns are neither good nor bad they are simply tools to multiple the force and intentions of those wielding them. A populous without guns is a populous with out a voice or a means for self preservation.
And while we focus on these small isolated situations while ignoring the far bigger picture of humans acting horrific against each other. We ignore the 92 deaths a day from hand guns, or deaths by bombing, poison, or drunk driving.
The bigger picture might simply show that bad things happens and that people can be horrible to each other. And while guns do allow the possibility of increase killing power against unarmed individuals. They also allow for a more balanced interaction as they reduce the effects of training and strength when being the aggressor or defender.
Don't need to discuss this matter any further, we've all said what we have to say. Just note this has not gone away.
On my TV Evening News right now: Santa Fe High School shooting. I am 4,811 miles away:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44173954
"Little is known about the suspect, who is reported to be a 17-year-old boy."
On my TV Evening News right now: Santa Fe High School shooting. I am 4,811 miles away:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44173954
"Little is known about the suspect, who is reported to be a 17-year-old boy."
- Status