zlacker

[parent] [thread] 13 comments
1. bstewa+(OP)[view] [source] 2012-12-14 18:41:40
Gun control cant and wont solve these problems. These are societal problems. Anyone insane and evil enough to kill children would get guns on the black market or use some other weapon such as a bomb. Schools need to able to have armed guards and better locked/secured entries IMO.
replies(8): >>lostlo+v >>potato+V >>myname+61 >>twerqu+c1 >>mtgx+F1 >>chimer+X1 >>purple+Z1 >>joseph+b2
2. lostlo+v[view] [source] 2012-12-14 18:46:49
>>bstewa+(OP)
Then why is this problem more prevalent in America? I know this sounds like baiting, it isn't. Surely gun laws come into it, even if they aren't the root cause (they aren't IMHO).
replies(3): >>bstewa+01 >>short_+j2 >>joseph+Q7
3. potato+V[view] [source] 2012-12-14 18:50:18
>>bstewa+(OP)
> "Schools need to able to have armed guards and better locked/secured entries IMO."

Then they will find some other means to do their thing. School buses? Malls? Day cares? The list is endless. Not to mention school shootings are far from the only form of mass murder - movie theaters recently too.

Unless you are ready to sign up for a fortified, bunkered America in all facets, "security" is not a solution to this problem. The vulnerable surface area is all public spaces.

I'd be much, much more concerned about the state of mental health care in this country. No one in their right mind goes and shoots children, nor a theater full of movie-goers - these aren't crimes of opportunity, they are indicative of severe mental disturbance.

Inevitably when tragedies like this come up we get into a big fight about gun control and then forget it ever happened. So rarely do we see any real discussion about preventing someone from seeking out the gun in the first place.

◧◩
4. bstewa+01[view] [source] [discussion] 2012-12-14 18:50:36
>>lostlo+v
I don't know. Is it in fact more prevalent in America? I don't know just asking. It is a societal and cultural problem IMO.
5. myname+61[view] [source] 2012-12-14 18:50:56
>>bstewa+(OP)
The kind of guards who are actually capable of armed defense cost 200K/year and work for blackwater.

As for gun control, it's really not possible as you suggest. There are almost 300 million guns in the country. I wouldn't want to be the guy rounding them up.

6. twerqu+c1[view] [source] 2012-12-14 18:51:33
>>bstewa+(OP)
Why put locks on your house when someone can just break the window? Why wear a seatbelt when the dash of your car will collapse your skull anyway?
7. mtgx+F1[view] [source] 2012-12-14 18:55:28
>>bstewa+(OP)
But why is it this such a problem or the potential for such a problem so big in US, though? It it because US basically has 10x the population of most European countries, and therefore there ought to be at least one person like this once in a while? Or does this happen because, while some people may be crazy, having crazy with easy access to weapons makes the danger that much greater? I mean I can't say I've heard about many such stories in Europe.

And what about that story that in 2011 there have been 85 bullets shot during the whole year by the police, while in US the police has shot one person alone with that many bullets. Surely the easy access to guns, and to automated guns for the police, has made this that much more possible? And that it also created a culture where if someone just pisses you off enough, you're then very likely to just go and shoot them?

8. chimer+X1[view] [source] 2012-12-14 18:57:43
>>bstewa+(OP)
> Schools need to able to have armed guards and better locked/secured entries IMO.

Yes, treating our schools like we treat our prisons is a great paradigm to adopt for our educational system.

9. purple+Z1[view] [source] 2012-12-14 18:57:58
>>bstewa+(OP)
You make the logical fallacy that just because they CAN still get a gun, that it's equally likely that they will get a gun. It's not. Having to go through hoops to find a gun will result in fewer insane people having guns, it's that simple. It won't prevent all shootings, and certainly wouldn't work very well in the US, since you guys have been flooding the country with guns for a century. In other countries it works quite well though.
replies(1): >>jarcoa+E3
10. joseph+b2[view] [source] 2012-12-14 18:59:32
>>bstewa+(OP)
Actually it might in many cases be a knife that is used when guns are not easily obtainable. There has certainly been at least one case like that in the UK. Still horrific but very likely to be fewer people killed and injured.

Schools don't need armed guards. That is kind of ridiculous for every school and a person on a mass murder mission with the element of surprise is very likely to be able to take out a single armed guard before moving on to anybody else. Two or more armed guards is a massive expense especially for small schools. Plus if you put tens (hundreds?) of thousands of armed guards into schools across the country that is likely to bring its own problems too.

Absolutely locked down perimeters have their own problems and still don't help when someone is buzzed in on pretext - "I've got a package to deliver..."

Edit to add: Was very tempted to vote you down for idiocy/wrongness but managed to resist as this is HN and wrongness is not the proper criteria for downvotes.

◧◩
11. short_+j2[view] [source] [discussion] 2012-12-14 19:00:38
>>lostlo+v
I can't say for sure but I suspect the problem in the US stems from a number of factors not at all related to gun laws. Just a short list (for overall gun violence):

1) The way our prison system works. It makes people worse. It makes them better criminals. It removes much of their opportunity to get better (try getting a decent job as a felon). It creates desperation. 2) the way we treat mental illness. By that I mean it is demonized and ignored. Does health insurance even cover mental health exams or treatments? Probably not basic coverage 3) Disparity of wealth. In the town I live in there are people living in absolute poverty and people driving around in lamborghinis and million dollar churches. The cost of that car could feed 50 people for a year.

In thiscase there is no telling what the root cause was yet. I suspect a case of someone just losing it.

◧◩
12. jarcoa+E3[view] [source] [discussion] 2012-12-14 19:12:12
>>purple+Z1
Couldn't agree with this more, but I'm not sure it's a valid argument in most people's eyes.

The Clackamas shooting was a perfect example of an incident that gun control likely would've prevented. It was not premeditated, it was a bad kid on a very bad day that found a gun easily. If he didn't find it, I think it's safe to wager he wouldn't have done it.

replies(1): >>purple+h9
◧◩
13. joseph+Q7[view] [source] [discussion] 2012-12-14 19:52:26
>>lostlo+v
Britain [not counting Northern Ireland] (about 1/6 the population of the US) and with really quite tight gun controls has had three murder sprees since 1987 that killed more than 10 people (all of which used guns). The worst of these (in 1987) led to a significant tightening of gun controls. Additional gun controls were also brought in after the 1996 attack on primary school in Scotland.

http://www.murderuk.com/mass_murderers.html

Other attacks have occurred at schools without guns including this one with a machete that resulted in injuries but no deaths: http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/8/news....

I would suggest that perhaps there is also a societal issue in the US compared to Britain causing these things (in addition to the affect of the larger population) but the most important aspect may be the greater availability of firearms that gives opportunity to people that may not carry out the act if they need time and preparation AND it greatly increases the lethality of attacks that do take place.

Note this excludes terrorism where numerous incidents have had a bigger death toll but those planned coordinated attacks and I think a different category from the sort of incident today.

◧◩◪
14. purple+h9[view] [source] [discussion] 2012-12-14 20:05:36
>>jarcoa+E3
Yes, obviously people like Anders Breivik can not be stopped by gun control, but I don't think it's worth flooding the world with guns to try (and probably fail) to protect ourselves from people like him.
[go to top]