Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Mongrel]

All these reports of the mom loving guns makes me wonder if the reason the kid had access was that the mother thought she was helping out a troubled son by getting stuff he loved. It's possible that devotion to a son with mental issues blinded her to what might've ordinarily been blaringly obvious warning signs. Jesus, how horrible would that be?

I mean the reports from friends etc. do state that she was a legitimate gun lover and not shy about it, but maybe that just makes blindness easier.

[Mongrel]

You still have to pass a background check at the federal level, but the federal background checks suck and they don't pick up on huge red flags like 'a history of mental illness' unless they've been institutionalized. It's ridiculous. Oklahoma's the same way, but now we have open carry on top of all that, so not only do we have crazy people with guns, we have crazy people with guns walking around in public like it's the fucking wild west.

I'm not the biggest gun control guy and even I can sort of understand the logic behind stuff like concealed carry. But places that allow open carry are among the most unbelievably batshit insane of things to me.

[Shinra]

You still have to pass a background check at the federal level, but the federal background checks suck and they don't pick up on huge red flags like 'a history of mental illness' unless they've been institutionalized. It's ridiculous. Oklahoma's the same way, but now we have open carry on top of all that, so not only do we have crazy people with guns, we have crazy people with guns walking around in public like it's the fucking wild west.

I'm not the biggest gun control guy and even I can sort of understand the logic behind stuff like concealed carry. But places that allow open carry are among the most unbelievably batshit insane of things to me.

on paper open carry sounds great. Crooks know you're armed, so you get deterrence without having to fire a shot. The practice is, of course, some idiot with a short fuse has a gun at arm's reach when he's pissed off/easily scared (see: zimmerman) or you have no way to separate the guy who is about to rob the fucking bank from the guy who is just there to deposit his paycheck. The mugger is just going to be more careful about approaching his mark, and as luck would have it, the gun on your hip is worth more than anything you're carrying in your fucking wallet.

[Thad]

I sit next to a libertarian at work, and she kept talking about "soft targets" and vaguely implying that maybe if they'd had a cop or the teachers had been armed this never would have happened.

Er, didn't the guns BELONG to the teacher?

I know there's been a bit of confusion on who the shooter actually was, but...my understanding is that the guns belonged to the teacher.

So the answer to the question, "What would have happened if the teacher had a gun?" was...this.  The thing that actually happened.

[Brentai]

When you're sixteen, you take your drivers ed, you take your firearms ed, you get your combined driver's/carrier's license.  If your eyes are shitty or you're too insane/incompetent to do these things safely then you get a restricted license.  You can opt not to get licensed or opt not to drive or opt not to carry but you fucking well take the courses designed to teach you how to safely and responsibly deal with these unavoidable aspects of the modern world.

The only reason this is so hard is because:

1. Liberals act like if people aren't educated about these things they won't at all become interested in them and end up doing it unsafely.
2. Conservatives know liberals act like that and are afraid to call them out on it because they're too busy acting like that about other things.

(Not sure if it's relevant, but I did take rifle training via ROTC when I was sixteen.)

[Shinra]

I sit next to a libertarian at work, and she kept talking about "soft targets" and vaguely implying that maybe if they'd had a cop or the teachers had been armed this never would have happened.

Er, didn't the guns BELONG to the teacher?

I know there's been a bit of confusion on who the shooter actually was, but...my understanding is that the guns belonged to the teacher.

So the answer to the question, "What would have happened if the teacher had a gun?" was...this.  The thing that actually happened.

The idea was more that ALL the teachers should have been actively armed when the shooter entered the building.

When you're sixteen, you take your drivers ed, you take your firearms ed, you get your combined driver's/carrier's license.  If your eyes are shitty or you're too insane/incompetent to do these things safely then you get a restricted license.  You can opt not to get licensed or opt not to drive or opt not to carry but you fucking well take the courses designed to teach you how to safely and responsibly deal with these unavoidable aspects of the modern world.

The only reason this is so hard is because:

1. Liberals act like if people aren't educated about these things they won't at all become interested in them and end up doing it unsafely.
2. Conservatives know liberals act like that and are afraid to call them out on it because they're too busy acting like that about other things.

Apparently we came pretty close to doing this at one point, and then somebody made a movie called Red Dawn and the argument was forever tossed in the garbage. It's perfectly sensible and it's an awesome compromise between the 'we have a right to own guns responsibly' people and the 'we want to not have to deal with people owning guns' people. It also wouldn't have the side effect of putting tens of thousands of people out of work and bankrupting the economy of every firearm producing or sports tourism state.

[Brentai]

The idea was more that ALL the teachers should have been actively armed when the shooter entered the building.

Spare the bullet, spoil the child.

Apparently we came pretty close to doing this at one point, and then somebody made a movie called Red Dawn and the argument was forever tossed in the garbage.

...which they just remade, using North Koreans.

For fuck's sakes.

[Disposable Ninja]

So... when, uh, when exactly is one of these well-armed, responsible gun owning American citizens going to thwart of these crazed gunmen with 'illegally' acquired weapons? Taking bets? Anyone?

Anyone?

[Thad]

When you're sixteen, you take your drivers ed, you take your firearms ed, you get your combined driver's/carrier's license.  If your eyes are shitty or you're too insane/incompetent to do these things safely then you get a restricted license.  You can opt not to get licensed or opt not to drive or opt not to carry but you fucking well take the courses designed to teach you how to safely and responsibly deal with these unavoidable aspects of the modern world.

I'm...really not sure how that's pertinent to the situation at hand.  While I agree firearm safety training should be mandatory prior to actually owning a firearm, I don't think the problem here is that the guns were owned by someone with a lack of training.

It's not like this was a careless accident.  I don't see how taking a class on not murdering a bunch of kindergartners is going to make somebody less likely to murder a bunch of kindergartners.

You're overstating things when you say guns are "unavoidable aspects of the modern world".  This is not a situation that arises for the vast majority of people.

Even driving, depending on your location, may be perfectly avoidable.  You can live an entire lifetime in New York City without ever having to learn how to drive a car.

I'm all for tougher standards on gun ownership and, for that matter, driving.  But I don't see why people should be forced to participate in training if they've already decided they're going to opt out.

And while I understand that talking about licensing tends to invite comparisons to a driver's license, I do tend to chafe at the frequent comparison between guns and cars.  A car's primary purpose is transportation; its ability to harm or kill is a negative byproduct of that purpose.  A gun's primary purpose is to harm or kill.  And while certainly there are cases where guns, like cars, harm or kill as the result of a careless accident by an untrained operator, this is most assuredly not one of those times.

[Büge]

I sit next to a libertarian at work, and she kept talking about "soft targets" and vaguely implying that maybe if they'd had a cop or the teachers had been armed this never would have happened.

Er, didn't the guns BELONG to the teacher?

I know there's been a bit of confusion on who the shooter actually was, but...my understanding is that the guns belonged to the teacher.

So the answer to the question, "What would have happened if the teacher had a gun?" was...this.  The thing that actually happened.

The idea was more that ALL the teachers should have been actively armed when the shooter entered the building.

Sure. A group of underpaid, overworked people who often have to deal with undisciplined mobs of young and unruly human beings, budget cuts and angry parents are perfectly capable of responsibly handling deadly weapons on a regular basis.

[Brentai]

When you're sixteen, you take your drivers ed, you take your firearms ed, you get your combined driver's/carrier's license.  If your eyes are shitty or you're too insane/incompetent to do these things safely then you get a restricted license.  You can opt not to get licensed or opt not to drive or opt not to carry but you fucking well take the courses designed to teach you how to safely and responsibly deal with these unavoidable aspects of the modern world.

I'm...really not sure how that's pertinent to the situation at hand.

Yeah, I figured it wouldn't be obvious at a glance.  The pertinent line is highlighted.  It's important to note that licensing individuals opens up the possibility of restricting or negating that person's license (as should have happened in this instance) which is the other point where the pro-firearm faction starts to chafe, at which point they put themselves in the tenuous position of arguing against being held responsible for what they do with their firearms.

These sorts of changes have to happen on a cultural awareness level rather than at a kneejerk reaction to the current situation level, because you honestly only really have two solutions to this situation: Add more security, which as everyone's pointed out is a terrible idea, or try to ban possession, at which point you run into the inconvenient fact that 'ban possession' has never fucking worked for anything in this country.

[TA]

And while I understand that talking about licensing tends to invite comparisons to a driver's license, I do tend to chafe at the frequent comparison between guns and cars.  A car's primary purpose is transportation; its ability to harm or kill is a negative byproduct of that purpose.  A gun's primary purpose is to harm or kill.  And while certainly there are cases where guns, like cars, harm or kill as the result of a careless accident by an untrained operator, this is most assuredly not one of those times.

As I see it, the purpose of that comparison is not to equate guns to cars, because they're obviously not the same.  The purpose is to try to get gun ownership and use to be at least as tightly controlled as car ownership and use, as a stepping point to a more sane state of being more tightly controlled.  Because they are significantly less regulated than cars, with massive lobbies trying to get rid of what regulation exists.

[Brentai]

I didn't want to draw a comparison to guns and cars at all, but the implementation of the licensing system would almost necessarily marry the two.  We could have a separate gun-ed/licensing system in place but you're just introducing redundant paperwork to an already too bureaucratic society.

Also I should point out that I consider a complete firearms training to include both sides of the barrel.  That is to say, every American over 16 should know how to escape or avoid fire and, in extreme situations, safely disarm a person.  Which I'll admit is disgustingly irrelevant to the current situation, but again, not a whole lot you can do directly about the current situation.

[Shinra]

I sit next to a libertarian at work, and she kept talking about "soft targets" and vaguely implying that maybe if they'd had a cop or the teachers had been armed this never would have happened.

Er, didn't the guns BELONG to the teacher?

I know there's been a bit of confusion on who the shooter actually was, but...my understanding is that the guns belonged to the teacher.

So the answer to the question, "What would have happened if the teacher had a gun?" was...this.  The thing that actually happened.

The idea was more that ALL the teachers should have been actively armed when the shooter entered the building.

Sure. A group of underpaid, overworked people who often have to deal with undisciplined mobs of young and unruly human beings, budget cuts and angry parents are perfectly capable of responsibly handling deadly weapons on a regular basis.

I can't tell if you think that was my own statement or if I was clarifying the wrong thing my cubicle neighbor believes. FTR, I don't think arming elementary school teachers is sane or the correct thing to do.

re: relevance to the current situation: there is no law short of a total gun ban that would have prevented this tragedy from happening. If we banned handguns and assault rifles he probably would have just brought in a semi-automatic hunting rifle and managed to accomplish the same body count. It's fucking horrifying, but what we really need to be pointing the finger at in this situation is a person who was dangerously irresponsible enough to have a mentally unstable adult child and assault weapons in the same house. If he wasn't getting help or wasn't institutionalized because of an expense issue, that comes back to our awful health care system.

[DestyNova]

So... when, uh, when exactly is one of these well-armed, responsible gun owning American citizens going to thwart of these crazed gunmen with 'illegally' acquired weapons? Taking bets? Anyone?

Anyone?

Of course this is where things once again break down. I really believe the thought process of the 'They should have been armed' goes like this..

1.Shooter enters through door with gun.
2.Teacher snap-shots shooter and calls the janitor.

Take the shooting at the Batman movie as an example, you are there with your carry-permitted .45 in a place that is,

1.Dark, with you looking right at a bright screen filled with things flying around.
2.Noisy.
3.Crowded to some degree. Especially if it is opening night.

 You hear a *Click* next to your ear, turn your head and see the buisness end of a shot gun at your face. Do you?

1.Freeze, trying to think 'WTF?' before your head explodes.
2.Thrust upwards with your arm, forcing the gun to the ceiling and then performing an armlock to subdue the shooter.

It becomes Occurance at Owl's Creek Bridge

[Brentai]

Getting actual cases of firearms being used to stop or prevent a crime is tricky because such cases tend to be heavily embellished by both sides.  Most of these stories tend to fall into the categories of:

* The firearm user was a licensed professional.
* The firearm was used in a situation where there was not a clear and present danger.
* The firearm was used to disarm another legal firearm carrier.
* The firearm was used in self defense in a potentially lethal situation, but the situation only turned potentially lethal when the firearm was introduced.
* The firearm was used within the owner's residence.

There may be a handful of legitimate use stories (the fifth category is a legitimate use but is very different from public carry) but they get kind of lost in the sea of the first four and other such cases where there's no clear "this was a good thing".  When you get right down to it, the number of possible scenarios where the most responsible course of action would be to make use of a firearm in public is very low.

[Mongrel]

I was hearing some hardcore pro-gun fellow list events where someone being armed has supposedly averted bloodshed (or, greater bloodshed anyway). The argument being that those events aren't newsworthy because they're not massacres.

I wish I could remember some of them, because I'd love to have fact-checked that list.

[TA]

I was hearing some hardcore pro-gun fellow list events where someone being armed has supposedly averted bloodshed (or, greater bloodshed anyway). The argument being that those events aren't newsworthy because they're not massacres.

I wish I could remember some of them, because I'd love to have fact-checked that list.

Bullshit.  The hardcore pro-gun people would be linking that shit constantly.

[Mongrel]

Well, they weren't saying that the events didn't make the news at all, just nothing close to the scale of the Connecticut shooting.

[A²]

Man opens fire in Alabama hospital. Wounds 3, security officers return fire and kill shooter.
OK Boy planned to shoot up (and blow up?) school Friday, plan thwarted entirely