America's Gun Violence

rgambs said:

Gern Blansten said:

PJPOWER said:

Gern Blansten said:

PJPOWER said:

Gern Blansten said:

PJPOWER said:

Gern Blansten said:

PJPOWER said:

Gern Blansten said:

Working the GOP more gun theory further forward....at some point the police will not be able to determine who is good and who is bad.

This is a slippery slope.  

We will move forward with more school shootings, etc.  At some point though there will be a "good guy" that gets killed either by another "good guy" or police.  I'm sure it's happened already but the GOP drones need real life examples before they even begin to understand a problem.

Gern Blansten said:

Working the GOP more gun theory further forward....at some point the police will not be able to determine who is good and who is bad.

This is a slippery slope.  

We will move forward with more school shootings, etc.  At some point though there will be a "good guy" that gets killed either by another "good guy" or police.  I'm sure it's happened already but the GOP drones need real life examples before they even begin to understand a problem.

That’s why the schools that have implemented this work closely with law enforcement.  
You know, I could come up with plenty of anecdotal scenarios where this would work to meet all of yours that you keep throwing out arguing why it wouldn’t...
Hell, putting a sign up saying all teachers are armed and not actually having anyone armed would be better than nothing.  In my opinion, these people need deterrents.  There are plenty of deterrents that do not require politically unrealistic changed laws.  They would probably require a lot less funds than legislation as well...

No you can't....because the scenarios I laid out are going to happen.

It's as simple as looking at why the USA has these problems and no other country does.  You can argue your way out of that.

I can, easily. Here’s one:
Someone armed to the teeth goes up to a school, walks in and starts shooting.  Teacher pops out the door and shoots back...The shooter then either offs themseves or takes rounds and is immobilized.
or
Someone goes looking for a soft target and sees a sign saying that the school is armed...changes their mind.
or
Armed VOLUNTEERS at the school meet once a month with local law enforcement to go through exercises and work together on solutions together.  A situation starts to unfold and the teachers follow protocol and and training do not start shooting at each other...
See, anyone can come up with anecdotes...

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cops-teacher-left-gun-in-bathroom-elementary-kids-found-it/

Hey great idea PJPOWER!!!

Did anyone get shot?  I feel that the odds of a random occurrence like this happening are outweighed by the deterrent factor of someone coming in and shooting up those students.  Sounds like the teacher got dealt with accordingly...

LOL....unreal

As are your anecdotal “what ifs”.  
Here’s one, what if that teacher that shielded the students had been concealed carrying?  Would that have increased or decreased the odds of protecting his students?

What if the gunman would have been prevented from owning an assault rifle?

Shouldn't we be considering everything, including both of these solutions, simultaneously when it comes to protecting our kids??

PJPOWER said:

pjhawks said:

PJPOWER said:

pjhawks said:

personally I think you have to be a complete idiot to think the solution to mass shootings is more guns.  it really is an absurd premise.  

Do you feel the same way about armed security at sporting events and concerts?  Do you feel safer or less safe at a concert knowing there is armed security?

Most sporting events and arenas now have metal detectors and you get wanded going in.  You can never be 100% safe but I don't think you need 1000s of armed guards at sporting events and concerts.  and to be honest i've never gone into a game or concert and said to myself 'wow i'ms sure glad there are guards here, now i feel safe'. not once.   What's next guard towers on the top of schools?  on every block in every city?  get weapons made for war out the hands of citizens. it's really not complicated.

So let’s change it up, would you feel safer or less safe at a concert knowing that guards there were not allowed to be armed?  I’m all for metal detectors too, btw.  
And it IS that complicated...otherwise it would have already happened...after Newtown...after Vegas...it’s a highly complicated issue in the US.

PJPOWER said:

The Juggler said:

PJPOWER said:

rgambs said:

pjhawks said:

PJPOWER said:

pjhawks said:

personally I think you have to be a complete idiot to think the solution to mass shootings is more guns.  it really is an absurd premise.  

Do you feel the same way about armed security at sporting events and concerts?  Do you feel safer or less safe at a concert knowing there is armed security?

Most sporting events and arenas now have metal detectors and you get wanded going in.  You can never be 100% safe but I don't think you need 1000s of armed guards at sporting events and concerts.  and to be honest i've never gone into a game or concert and said to myself 'wow i'ms sure glad there are guards here, now i feel safe'. not once.   What's next guard towers on the top of schools?  on every block in every city?  get weapons made for war out the hands of citizens. it's really not complicated.

That slippery slope argument isn't any better than the pro-gun ones regarding gun confiscations.

Exactly...no one says “1000s of armed guards” or “guard towers”.  I believe it would only take a couple (depending on the size of the school) of armed individuals within the schools to thwart some of these things.  

Second Request:

Why do you think mass shootings only happen with this kind of frequency in the United States?

Please be very specific in your response. 

What does it matter what I think, how are you going to disband the lobbying groups and politicians that control the laws you want to change?  And realistically how long would that take?  10 years, 20 years, 100 years?  

It sounds like you know the reason, but are afraid to type it out...

If you vote out politicians who are owned by the NRA, it becomes easier to force change.

Gern Blansten said:

PJPOWER said:

Gern Blansten said:

PJPOWER said:

Gern Blansten said:

PJPOWER said:

Gern Blansten said:

PJPOWER said:

Gern Blansten said:

Working the GOP more gun theory further forward....at some point the police will not be able to determine who is good and who is bad.

This is a slippery slope.  

We will move forward with more school shootings, etc.  At some point though there will be a "good guy" that gets killed either by another "good guy" or police.  I'm sure it's happened already but the GOP drones need real life examples before they even begin to understand a problem.

Gern Blansten said:

Working the GOP more gun theory further forward....at some point the police will not be able to determine who is good and who is bad.

This is a slippery slope.  

We will move forward with more school shootings, etc.  At some point though there will be a "good guy" that gets killed either by another "good guy" or police.  I'm sure it's happened already but the GOP drones need real life examples before they even begin to understand a problem.

That’s why the schools that have implemented this work closely with law enforcement.  
You know, I could come up with plenty of anecdotal scenarios where this would work to meet all of yours that you keep throwing out arguing why it wouldn’t...
Hell, putting a sign up saying all teachers are armed and not actually having anyone armed would be better than nothing.  In my opinion, these people need deterrents.  There are plenty of deterrents that do not require politically unrealistic changed laws.  They would probably require a lot less funds than legislation as well...

No you can't....because the scenarios I laid out are going to happen.

It's as simple as looking at why the USA has these problems and no other country does.  You can argue your way out of that.

I can, easily. Here’s one:
Someone armed to the teeth goes up to a school, walks in and starts shooting.  Teacher pops out the door and shoots back...The shooter then either offs themseves or takes rounds and is immobilized.
or
Someone goes looking for a soft target and sees a sign saying that the school is armed...changes their mind.
or
Armed VOLUNTEERS at the school meet once a month with local law enforcement to go through exercises and work together on solutions together.  A situation starts to unfold and the teachers follow protocol and and training do not start shooting at each other...
See, anyone can come up with anecdotes...

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cops-teacher-left-gun-in-bathroom-elementary-kids-found-it/

Hey great idea PJPOWER!!!

Did anyone get shot?  I feel that the odds of a random occurrence like this happening are outweighed by the deterrent factor of someone coming in and shooting up those students.  Sounds like the teacher got dealt with accordingly...

LOL....unreal

As are your anecdotal “what ifs”.  
Here’s one, what if that teacher that shielded the students had been concealed carrying?  Would that have increased or decreased the odds of protecting his students?

What if the gunman would have been prevented from owning an assault rifle?

PJPOWER said:

Gern Blansten said:

Working the GOP more gun theory further forward....at some point the police will not be able to determine who is good and who is bad.

This is a slippery slope.  

We will move forward with more school shootings, etc.  At some point though there will be a "good guy" that gets killed either by another "good guy" or police.  I'm sure it's happened already but the GOP drones need real life examples before they even begin to understand a problem.

Gern Blansten said:

Working the GOP more gun theory further forward....at some point the police will not be able to determine who is good and who is bad.

This is a slippery slope.  

We will move forward with more school shootings, etc.  At some point though there will be a "good guy" that gets killed either by another "good guy" or police.  I'm sure it's happened already but the GOP drones need real life examples before they even begin to understand a problem.

That’s why the schools that have implemented this work closely with law enforcement.  
You know, I could come up with plenty of anecdotal scenarios where this would work to meet all of yours that you keep throwing out arguing why it wouldn’t...
Hell, putting a sign up saying all teachers are armed and not actually having anyone armed would be better than nothing.  In my opinion, these people need deterrents.  There are plenty of deterrents that do not require politically unrealistic changed laws.  They would probably require a lot less funds than legislation as well...

pjhawks said:

rgambs said:

pjhawks said:

rgambs said:

pjhawks said:

PJPOWER said:

pjhawks said:

personally I think you have to be a complete idiot to think the solution to mass shootings is more guns.  it really is an absurd premise.  

Do you feel the same way about armed security at sporting events and concerts?  Do you feel safer or less safe at a concert knowing there is armed security?

Most sporting events and arenas now have metal detectors and you get wanded going in.  You can never be 100% safe but I don't think you need 1000s of armed guards at sporting events and concerts.  and to be honest i've never gone into a game or concert and said to myself 'wow i'ms sure glad there are guards here, now i feel safe'. not once.   What's next guard towers on the top of schools?  on every block in every city?  get weapons made for war out the hands of citizens. it's really not complicated.

That slippery slope argument isn't any better than the pro-gun ones regarding gun confiscations.

how can adding more of the main thing causing the problem be the solution?  you don't throw gasoline on a fire. is this really hard to comprehend?

I didn't suggest that it was.
I generally agree, but things are getting pretty severe and my position is loosening.

Have you never heard of a controlled burn?
Have you ever been in a fist fight? 
Sometimes there's only one way out of a violent situation.

I don't think "more guns" is a solution, but Im beginning to think "more controlled access to guns in combination with the right people having emergency access to guns" is a solution.

But is giving someone a handgun going to prevent or stop an attack of someone with an assault rifle?  no, if they have an assault rifle and the desire there will be casualties. i don't know the exact numbers but how many rounds can be fired from an assault rifle before a handgun is pulled and fired?  Unless you are preventatively shooting people you aren't preventing or stopping an attack with no casualties with a handgun. there is one solution. stop people from having mass casualty weapons. period.

PJPOWER said:

The Juggler said:

PJPOWER said:

The Juggler said:

PJPOWER said:

rgambs said:

pjhawks said:

PJPOWER said:

pjhawks said:

personally I think you have to be a complete idiot to think the solution to mass shootings is more guns.  it really is an absurd premise.  

Do you feel the same way about armed security at sporting events and concerts?  Do you feel safer or less safe at a concert knowing there is armed security?

Most sporting events and arenas now have metal detectors and you get wanded going in.  You can never be 100% safe but I don't think you need 1000s of armed guards at sporting events and concerts.  and to be honest i've never gone into a game or concert and said to myself 'wow i'ms sure glad there are guards here, now i feel safe'. not once.   What's next guard towers on the top of schools?  on every block in every city?  get weapons made for war out the hands of citizens. it's really not complicated.

That slippery slope argument isn't any better than the pro-gun ones regarding gun confiscations.

Exactly...no one says “1000s of armed guards” or “guard towers”.  I believe it would only take a couple (depending on the size of the school) of armed individuals within the schools to thwart some of these things.  

Second Request:

Why do you think mass shootings only happen with this kind of frequency in the United States?

Please be very specific in your response. 

What does it matter what I think, how are you going to disband the lobbying groups and politicians that control the laws you want to change?  And realistically how long would that take?  10 years, 20 years, 100 years?  

It sounds like you know the reason, but are afraid to type it out...

If you vote out politicians who are owned by the NRA, it becomes easier to force change.

So your plan is to change the mind of millions of gun owners into not voting for Republicans.  I have voted against Republicans on numerous occasions...but you are going to have to change the minds of MILLIONS!  That’s why it doesn’t really matter what I think.  That is not a very efficient quick solution.  But maybe 100 years from now.

Gun owners are in the minority in this country. Sorry to disappoint you. They just own shitloads of guns.

There was an assault weapons ban from 94-04 that reduced the amounts of mass shootings quite substantially. Can you think of any other mass shooting off the top of your head other than Columbine in that timeframe? Me neither. How about since 2004? The ban worked. Bans in other countries work and they went even further. Look at Australia.

Ban assault weapons

Enforce stricter UNIVERSAL background checks....commit a crime or have mental issues--fuck you, you're not getting a gun.

I agree with more security at schools.

Make people have to pass a test to acquire a gun in the first place, similar to a drivers license that needs to be renewed every 5 years or so.

Better parenting

And if you want to get crafty, perhaps do cash for clunkers type of deal with those weapons similar to what happened, AND WORKED, in Australia.

Your solution seems to be throw your hands up in the air and say--lets just get more hands out in the general public! That is lazy and ridiculous. We are, supposedly, the greatest country on earth but cannot solve a problem with a solution that's worked all over the rest of the civilized world staring us directly in the face.

oftenreading said:

PJPOWER said:

Gern Blansten said:

Working the GOP more gun theory further forward....at some point the police will not be able to determine who is good and who is bad.

This is a slippery slope.  

We will move forward with more school shootings, etc.  At some point though there will be a "good guy" that gets killed either by another "good guy" or police.  I'm sure it's happened already but the GOP drones need real life examples before they even begin to understand a problem.

Gern Blansten said:

Working the GOP more gun theory further forward....at some point the police will not be able to determine who is good and who is bad.

This is a slippery slope.  

We will move forward with more school shootings, etc.  At some point though there will be a "good guy" that gets killed either by another "good guy" or police.  I'm sure it's happened already but the GOP drones need real life examples before they even begin to understand a problem.

That’s why the schools that have implemented this work closely with law enforcement.  
You know, I could come up with plenty of anecdotal scenarios where this would work to meet all of yours that you keep throwing out arguing why it wouldn’t...
Hell, putting a sign up saying all teachers are armed and not actually having anyone armed would be better than nothing.  In my opinion, these people need deterrents.  There are plenty of deterrents that do not require politically unrealistic changed laws.  They would probably require a lot less funds than legislation as well...

No. Since we’re talking about school shootings, which are different than other mass shootings, you need to consider that virtually all school shooters are current or former students. They know the school, they know who is armed and who isn’t, they would know the schedule and break times of the security guards, they would probably know how to get into the school to avoid detection, and they would plan around that. School shootings are not random and they are not a matter of someone just “looking for a soft target”.  

pjhawks said:

rgambs said:

pjhawks said:

rgambs said:

pjhawks said:

PJPOWER said:

pjhawks said:

personally I think you have to be a complete idiot to think the solution to mass shootings is more guns.  it really is an absurd premise.  

Do you feel the same way about armed security at sporting events and concerts?  Do you feel safer or less safe at a concert knowing there is armed security?

Most sporting events and arenas now have metal detectors and you get wanded going in.  You can never be 100% safe but I don't think you need 1000s of armed guards at sporting events and concerts.  and to be honest i've never gone into a game or concert and said to myself 'wow i'ms sure glad there are guards here, now i feel safe'. not once.   What's next guard towers on the top of schools?  on every block in every city?  get weapons made for war out the hands of citizens. it's really not complicated.

That slippery slope argument isn't any better than the pro-gun ones regarding gun confiscations.

how can adding more of the main thing causing the problem be the solution?  you don't throw gasoline on a fire. is this really hard to comprehend?

I didn't suggest that it was.
I generally agree, but things are getting pretty severe and my position is loosening.

Have you never heard of a controlled burn?
Have you ever been in a fist fight? 
Sometimes there's only one way out of a violent situation.

I don't think "more guns" is a solution, but Im beginning to think "more controlled access to guns in combination with the right people having emergency access to guns" is a solution.

But is giving someone a handgun going to prevent or stop an attack of someone with an assault rifle?  no, if they have an assault rifle and the desire there will be casualties. i don't know the exact numbers but how many rounds can be fired from an assault rifle before a handgun is pulled and fired?  Unless you are preventatively shooting people you aren't preventing or stopping an attack with no casualties with a handgun. there is one solution. stop people from having mass casualty weapons. period.