How to stop most school shootings 101 - Banning assault weapons does not solve the problem entirely

Hmmm..... wrote:

a man who knows wrote:

It's time to act. Mainstreaming potential killers is not going to work.

Punished no. Placed in a facility that can help them yes. In the meantime they can not harm anyone. that works for everyone, even them.

This is brilliant. But I do have one question. Once we identify the 5 of out 1000, when does the cycle start over? Do we do this excercise, once a year, once a semester, once a quarter, or once a week? I can see pros and cons of each.

Yeah... this is not brilliant... this is a violation of civil rights. Lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit.

I swear... this board is filled with morons who don't know how the education system works.

macdaddy wrote:

I swear... this board is filled with morons who don't know how the education system works.

That and people who can't identify sarcasm, but i guess they're morons too, so good point.

For those who want to ban guns, I have one question. How well has banning drugs worked?

Who is irrational? wrote:

The whole “fighting off a tyrannical government” angle totally falls apart when one thinks critically about how civil wars and revolutions have been fought throughout the world in the modern era. Any group of citizens fighting a well armed force like the US military would need outside arms from international sources to succeed. There is no way a bunch of people armed with AR-15s and bump stocks is going to be able to fend off the US military without outside support. To argue the contrary is to argue that we need to legalize private ownership of fully automatic weapons, tanks, fighter jets, attack helicopters, and heavy artillery right NOW—because those are the weapons needed to fight off a modern military and those are the weapons typically provided from outside sources in true revolutions.

You assume the military would remain intact. In small countries, this may be the case, but it's a stretch to think the US military wouldn't splinter in civil war. Citizens with their own guns would be a valuable commodity in that case.

Also, resistance fighters in Iraq and Afghanistan have been very effective at keeping our own military at bay with relatively small arms. Boots on the MF ground will always be the core of how wars are fought and won.

itsactuallykindofsad wrote:

It's hilarious to watch Americans come up with all these ridiculous an complicated ways of stopping school shootings... The solution is very obvious to anyone living outside the USA.

The rest of the civilized world has also figured out how to provide universal healthcare to their citizens at half of the cost of the US. This is also quite simple, but, you know, America is special.

Bobby1 wrote:

For those who want to ban guns, I have one question. How well has banning drugs worked?

Doesn't that slope slide both ways?

If buying heroine was as simple and mundane as buying an AR-15, you just might have a point.

Luv2Run,

I am singling you out because, although I strongly disagree with you, you seem to be the most rational of the 2nd amendment guys. I think my post would be wasted on John Utah and even he is much more reasonable then some of the other gun people. I intend to discuss this logically with you.

Let's start with a postulate of which we should both agree.

Society has an obligation to limit from general ownership certain items that present a significant danger to others and have no compensatory positive uses.

I think we both agree that we don't want dynamite, or certain poisons openly sold to anyone, right? Why because they are dangerous and don't have many positive mitigating aspects. We do allow some poisons with positive uses because they are used to kill insects or rodents. Are we both in agreement so far?

Assault style weapons are a danger to society. In the past 6 years 5 of the most deadly mass killings involved the use of the AR15. Those mass killings would not have been so deadly without the AR 15. Agreed? It is the weapon of choice for the mass killer because it is a very effective killing machine.

So what are the compensatory positive uses of the AR15 for private owners. Has one ever been used by private owner to save a life. Certainly people can practice with it but really when it is used for purpose by a private owner it's used to kill. Can you refute this?

So we have the weapon of choice by mass murders and it has no compensatory positive purpose.

Does society have an obligation to protect society and limit ownership of things dangerous to society such as certain poisons, dynamite, and assault like weapons (and that have no positive redeeming aspects)

The rational answer is yes. Agreed?

They had a system in place: Put an armed, trained, person in there to deter activity, and spring into action if something happens. That didn't exactly work due to the cowards hiding behind cars OUTSIDE while the 17 children were being shot.

Pigs are worthless, period. Put a fully trained security person in there who is not a loathsome ex-pig. Perhaps ex-military, or a top notch security person.

Foreign observer wrote:

itsactuallykindofsad wrote:

It's hilarious to watch Americans come up with all these ridiculous an complicated ways of stopping school shootings... The solution is very obvious to anyone living outside the USA.

The rest of the civilized world has also figured out how to provide universal healthcare to their citizens at half of the cost of the US. This is also quite simple, but, you know, America is special.

I can do without this sort of universal health care.

Okay, I knew I shouldn’t engage in a discussion of paranoid, tin foil hat thinking but since I already opened that can of worms...you do realize you just made my argument for me, right? Plus, your second paragraph contradicts the first.

In Regards to your first paragraph, if you believe the US military would splinter then this is all the more reason why privately owned firearms would not really be necessary to fight a “tyrannical government”—because anti government US Militrary forces would undoubtedly be able to arm the anti-government private citizens much better than we can currently arm ourselves. So, unless you are saying we need to legalize automatic weapons, tanks, and attack helicopters right now—there is no point in having access to relative pea-shooters since we would get way better arms from the US military in your delusional NRA wet dream war anyway.

Your second paragraph becomes irrelevant if the first is true—but even ingnoring the first paragraph—where do you think those fighters in Afghanistan and Iraq get those small arms? They get them from international sources bro—that’s the exact point I was making.

The whole “tyrannical government” angle that gun nuts use to justify the necessity for anything other than revolvers, bolt action rifles with limited magazine capacity, and limited load shotguns is completely irrational. You don’t need any guns other than those just listed and limiting private ownership to the the weapon types just listed 1) is consistent with the second amendment 2) allows for all the reasonable arguments for private gun ownership (hunting, self defense, home defense, sports shooting) 3) would decrease the scale and carnage of mass shootings by forcing the nut jobs that carry them out to have to reload so frequently that they would quickly be overwhelmed by Good Samaritans (note: shootings would not be eliminated but they never could be in a situation in which private gun ownership is allowed—the goal is to decrease body count, elimination is impossible but this latter fact is not justification for doing nothing at all).

Read the constitution. The 2nd amendment says you are wrong.

It ain't that hard to understand.

its not that hard wrote:

Read the constitution. The 2nd amendment says you are wrong.

It ain't that hard to understand.

Where can I buy weapons grade plutonium? I need to be able to match the government's weapons to defend my property.

Jeff Wigand wrote:

its not that hard wrote:

Read the constitution. The 2nd amendment says you are wrong.

It ain't that hard to understand.

Where can I buy weapons grade plutonium? I need to be able to match the government's weapons to defend my property.

Jeff is correct about this bruh. The court rulings involving the 2A have been pretty consistent about allowing laws for limiting what types or weapons can be sold and who (as in age, other factors like prior convictions or placement on a watch list) can be sold weapons. The 2A does not say that you can by any type of weapon you want. There is wiggle room. Technically, the actual word in the document is “arms” which could be interpreted in many different ways.

This, of course, does not mean that people will not sue if laws are put in place to specifically ban certain types or guns or limit gun sales to cerntain people but my guess is that laws limiting access by age will stand and I think laws restricting access to certain types of guns could also stand if they are crafted carefully.

Dorafrirlum wrote:

Foreign observer wrote:

The rest of the civilized world has also figured out how to provide universal healthcare to their citizens at half of the cost of the US. This is also quite simple, but, you know, America is special.

I can do without this sort of universal health care.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/6127514/Sentenced-to-death-on-the-NHS.html

yes nothing like that happens in the us

Every school building has a sign indicating "Gun Free Zone" or some such wording. The education system is broken if people can't read and follow directions.

LOL I love this story because folks have been talking about giving teachers guns for the past 2 weeks and then right on que this teacher starts shooting in a school.

My teachers were barely competent enough to teach the subject they were hired to teach. I can't image them also turning into The Punisher the second they hear gun fire.

Foreign observer wrote:

itsactuallykindofsad wrote:

It's hilarious to watch Americans come up with all these ridiculous an complicated ways of stopping school shootings... The solution is very obvious to anyone living outside the USA.

The rest of the civilized world has also figured out how to provide universal healthcare to their citizens at half of the cost of the US. This is also quite simple, but, you know, America is special.

So exactly what medical innovations has your foreign country contributed to the world in the last 10 years?