By livefromkyoto Go To PostI agree. Give me my gun.
By DY_nasty Go To PostClip size restrictions have no meaning whatsoever. It's the gun control version of facebook sending postcards to vet hackers.
Best case scenario is that it's a significant deterrent, and that's honestly not all that farfetched either.
The entire basis of mass casualty events revolves around finding the softest target and inflicting as much damage as quickly as possible. As much as people hate cops you'll almost never see a one man assault on a police station - you'll see those armed cops killed while unaware in police cars or a highly trained individual waging a complex war of some kind. Schools are easy as hell to hit. Let's be real. And part of that is because we really believe that it's security needs exist beyond the realm of everything else. "It's kids, who would hurt kids?" Shit happens - and here it happens a lot. I see no reason why a similar approach to hospital security can't be implemented.
I don't think its the best solution, but increasing security in some form is still a practical solution - and that's more that can be said about many if the arguments going forward. Doesn't require an amendment being put forward, degraded state powers, new responsibilities for those that shouldn't have them, etc.
It's still not an answer to the overall issue, but until people move past "ban guns" or "ban this particular gun" and get to "Fuck you, we should take all guns" then there's no committal imo
How is having guns a deterrent? They would just be the first targets. Go to the faculty room, take out at least 10 people. Progress I guess, this time it was only 10 adults instead of kids? Or maybe you think everyone is John Wick and will instantly turn around and 360 noscope the shooter after a shooter.
It’s usually a meme but you’re actually proposing more guns to solve our gun issue.
By Diego! Go To Post
Land of the free home of the brave
It's unseemly, but I'm all about massive security renovations taking place around the country. It's new, and its weird, but eventually it just becomes normal and kids will be more safe as a result.
By Diego! Go To Post10 miles away? Is that supposed to be close? lol wtf
Land of the free home of the brave
By DY_nastyI don't think its the best solution, but increasing security in some form is still a practical solution - and that's more that can be said about many if the arguments going forward. Doesn't require an amendment being put forward, degraded state powers, new responsibilities for those that shouldn't have them, etc.
It's still not an answer to the overall issue, but until people move past "ban guns" or "ban this particular gun" and get to "Fuck you, we should take all guns" then there's no committal imo
By Dark PhaZe Go To PostIt's unseemly, but I'm all about massive security renovations taking place around the country. It's new, and its weird, but eventually it just becomes normal and kids will be more safe as a result.I get what you're saying but I kinda don't like this line of thinking. "It'll be too hard to make the gun nuts back off so let's just live in a police surveillance state instead." That stuff has consequences, and you don't have to go all the way to hysterical takes about becoming Nazi Germany or the USSR to get there. Being watched constantly causes people to internalize the structures of power that are viewing them. It makes them self-police their thought in subconscious ways that carry out into their lives. It's easily abused by those at the reigns. It brings the state into a fabrication and amputation of self in an immanent way - and anybody who's not part of the dominant group in a society knows that what that means on an intimate level. I know some of that stuff might sound a bit distant or abstract, especially when weighed against the lives of the kids who might die this very day. But these notions are the underpinning of the modern study of the humanities over the past 40-50 years, it's really, really well researched.
By RobNBanks Go To PostHow is having guns a deterrent? They would just be the first targets. Go to the faculty room, take out at least 10 people. Progress I guess, this time it was only 10 adults instead of kids? Or maybe you think everyone is John Wick and will instantly turn around and 360 noscope the shooter after a shooter.the point of a mass cas is to take out as many people as possible, not to run into even the slightest opposing force. like... if you want to hold on to that particular perspective, ok - but i'm telling you how this type of thing works lol
It’s usually a meme but you’re actually proposing more guns to solve our gun issue.
every single mass casualty event with even the most marginal amount of planning takes the path of least of resistance. i'm not even suggesting that they actually put a shooter down. nothing of the sort. its a deterrent, and regarding security over damn near everything else, deterrents are consistently extremely viable. no one expects TSA or even mall cops guys to turn into liam, and shootings still happen, but there's no denying the effect. if you want to turn every shooter into john wick, that's on you. most of these guys are pussies.
hospitals don't get shot up like schools do - why is that? just a marginal police presence. it doesn't take much and like i said, i'm more in favor of police substations at or by schools anyways.
By livefromkyoto Go To PostI get what you're saying but I kinda don't like this line of thinking. "It'll be too hard to make the gun nuts back off so let's just live in a police surveillance state instead." That stuff has consequences, and you don't have to go all the way to hysterical takes about becoming Nazi Germany or the USSR to get there. Being watched constantly causes people to internalize the structures of power that are viewing them. It makes them self-police their thought in subconscious ways that carry out into their lives. It's easily abused by those at the reigns. It brings the state into a fabrication and amputation of self in an immanent way - and anybody who's not part of the dominant group in a society knows that what that means on an intimate level. I know some of that stuff might sound a bit distant or abstract, especially when weighed against the lives of the kids who might die this very day. But these notions are the underpinning of the modern study of the humanities over the past 40-50 years, it's really, really well researched.that is abstract imo
people say you shouldn't be able to get an semi-auto rifle at walmart when the problem is you can get the same thing on craigslist or backpages - which is the heart of the issue. guns are ridiculously accessible here because of decades of saturation. you're not going to be able to remove the entire market on any kind of state level or any kind of half-assed bandaid solution. if you want to reduce handgun deaths and the sort? it'd have an effect. a guy rolling up to a crowd of people with a plan? no - there's no stopping that unless you remove all the tools available and also install a watchdog system.
what does that translate into? i'm just not understanding how people can say "america is being bulldozed by brutal police, ICE assholes, ridiculous plans like fast & furious, and corrupt departments" then moments later beg for a ban on something as easy to find as a used microwave. how on earth do you plan to enforce an effective removal of weapons in america without knocking on doors and asking for them? you're acting like communities aren't built around weapons to protect one another. all it would take is a few incidents of that going bad to galvanize everyone with a gun who's NOT shooting up schools/parades and you've got a shitstorm.
now if you're willing to commit to prohibition level violence for a while to nip the shit in the bud for good, sure (i'm actually all for the fukkery lets bang it out), but suggesting that you can just shift the problems from one level to the next is a real solution for the mass shooting problem then you're not really looking for a solution at all.
I mentioned it here a while ago how there was an unusual number of cancer cases in a city on my island (the city where my mother, who died of cancer, was a teacher at) and how those cases have been linked with radiation contamination from a local US Air Base.
Today, RT opened one of their news reports with a piece about the case.
I know RT might not be the most reputable news source but everything they claim is true.
Today, RT opened one of their news reports with a piece about the case.
I know RT might not be the most reputable news source but everything they claim is true.
By DY_nasty Go To Postthe point of a mass cas is to take out as many people as possible, not to run into even the slightest opposing force. like… if you want to hold on to that particular perspective, ok - but i'm telling you how this type of thing works lol
every single mass casualty event with even the most marginal amount of planning takes the path of least of resistance. i'm not even suggesting that they actually put a shooter down. nothing of the sort. its a deterrent, and regarding security over damn near everything else, deterrents are consistently extremely viable. no one expects TSA or even mall cops guys to turn into liam, and shootings still happen, but there's no denying the effect. if you want to turn every shooter into john wick, that's on you. most of these guys are pussies.
hospitals don't get shot up like schools do - why is that? just a marginal police presence. it doesn't take much and like i said, i'm more in favor of police substations at or by schools anyway
Fort Hood had a shooting with dozen deaths and about 30 injuries and that’s a military base. This isn’t a math equation, guns don’t cancel out guns. If someone wants to shoot something up, they’re going to. Luckily for them, we’re more than happy to provide the means.
Hospitals don’t get shot up because why would they? “Fuck these doctors they save lives?” Nail salons don’t get shot up like schools either.
By RobNBanks Go To PostHospitals don’t get shot up because why would they? “Fuck these doctors they save lives?” Nail salons don’t get shot up like schools either.I don't understand your point with this paragraph.
By RobNBanks Go To PostFort Hood had a shooting with dozen deaths and about 30 injuries and that’s a military base. This isn’t a math equation, guns don’t cancel out guns.Military personnel aren't allowed to carry firearms on base. Civilian police were the first to respond, the fact that it was on a military base meant nothing. It might actually be the worst example of an argument you could make.
By RobNBanks Go To PostFort Hood had a shooting with dozen deaths and about 30 injuries and that’s a military base. This isn’t a math equation, guns don’t cancel out guns. If someone wants to shoot something up, they’re going to. Luckily for them, we’re more than happy to provide the means.i shouldn't have to explain how fort hood is different than a school. and even those crazy motherfuckers don't shoot up their schools.
Hospitals don’t get shot up because why would they? “Fuck these doctors they save lives?” Nail salons don’t get shot up like schools either.
hospitals get targeted because they don't save every life, and one of the most common tie-ins to shootings (domestic violence), typically involves people being at hospitals.
damn near every single immediate trigger to violence can be found in a hospital as well. money, addiction, mental health in general, domestic issues, etc. also issues there are tracked at length by hands-on social workers and police for the most part.
By DY_nasty Go To Postthat is abstract imo
people say you shouldn't be able to get an semi-auto rifle at walmart when the problem is you can get the same thing on craigslist or backpages - which is the heart of the issue. guns are ridiculously accessible here because of decades of saturation. you're not going to be able to remove the entire market on any kind of state level or any kind of half-assed bandaid solution. if you want to reduce handgun deaths and the sort? it'd have an effect. a guy rolling up to a crowd of people with a plan? no - there's no stopping that unless you remove all the tools available and also install a watchdog system.
what does that translate into? i'm just not understanding how people can say "america is being bulldozed by brutal police, ICE assholes, ridiculous plans like fast & furious, and corrupt departments" then moments later beg for a ban on something as easy to find as a used microwave. how on earth do you plan to enforce an effective removal of weapons in america without knocking on doors and asking for them? you're acting like communities aren't built around weapons to protect one another. all it would take is a few incidents of that going bad to galvanize everyone with a gun who's NOT shooting up schools/parades and you've got a shitstorm.
now if you're willing to commit to prohibition level violence for a while to nip the shit in the bud for good, sure (i'm actually all for the fukkery lets bang it out), but suggesting that you can just shift the problems from one level to the next is a real solution for the mass shooting problem then you're not really looking for a solution at all.
I wasn't speaking to the mechanics of removing guns, but rather the expansion of police presence in civilian institutions and the omnipresence of surveillance. The notion "I have to give up my toothpaste to get on this plane" is inevitably tied up in "because brown people can try to kill me at any time." Submitting to the former makes complicity with the latter (and you are not really given a choice), and on an emergent level plays a core part in the production of "therefore Trump needs be president and ban them from America." It's already been institutionalized, accepted as constitutional to the form of the state, and the state's role in enforcing the equivalency of skin colour and morality is reified. It's only arguments against this, or complications of it, that prevent it from becoming a totalizing ethos.
The same logic plays into "I need to be watched by authority at all times" being tied up in "because I can be harmed at any time by people with mental health issues." Or hispanic gangbangers. Or Middle Eastern terrorists. Or gay pedophiles. Or Black Lives Matter. Whoever the enforcement discourse paints outside the lines as the threat du jour. The presence of authority legitimates the threat as real and omnipresent. This not only drives wedges into society - or deepens those already there - harming those on the other end, caught up in things they had nothing to do with, it produces an unconscious chilling effect as this process of the constraint of power is internalized.
"I need to closely monitor my own behaviour at all times, authority can always see me."
"I do not have the right to exist in public without the view of authority."
"To act against this is to act in favour of those who wish to harm the innocent."
We've seen a billion versions of some variation of this since 9/11.
so he didn't want to play ball and is getting the full pipe now
probably better than being known as a rat though
probably better than being known as a rat though
An old article, but please enjoy.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/15/texas-gun-group-charlie-hebdo-paintball
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/15/texas-gun-group-charlie-hebdo-paintball
A pro-gun rights group in Texas re-enacted the Charlie Hebdo attacks with paintball rounds, in an attempt to see whether an “armed civilian” could have stopped the two gunmen who attacked the Paris office of the satirical magazine, killing 12. The civilian “died” in almost every scenario except immediate flight from the scene.
On the prime time news right now...
So the trained and armed resource officer, Scott Peterson, (that name 🤦🏻♂️) at the school heard the shots and did nothing, but the President wants algebra and English teachers to carry.
jlawokay.gif
So the trained and armed resource officer, Scott Peterson, (that name 🤦🏻♂️) at the school heard the shots and did nothing, but the President wants algebra and English teachers to carry.
jlawokay.gif
By GQman2121 Go To PostSo the trained and armed resource officer, Scott Peterson, (that name 🤦🏻♂️) at the school heard the shots and did nothing, but the President wants algebra and English teachers to carry.The argument for this is that they can't rely on the Police to stop it, you literally just presented more evidence for this, not against it.
jlawokay.gif
By Laboured Go To PostAn old article, but please enjoy.No fucking shit
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/15/texas-gun-group-charlie-hebdo-paintball
I’m sure DY will be here to school us and tell us how this is fake news though.
I think schools should resemble hospitals a bit more in how the public accesses them. Outer ring is basically open to it but the further in you get you need access from employees and they are basically able to lock shit down easy. I know it sucks and makes the schools more like shitty grey institutions but it should be a thing along with the gun shit. Even if we didn't have gun violence at schools, there are cases of abductions, typically by a parent or relative (short version: custody issues). This would thwart those a bit better too. I think about the schools I've walked into and how relatively easy it would be to do some harm or snatch someone especially as classes are emptying.
By Random Ass Username Go To PostI think schools should resemble hospitals a bit more in how the public accesses them. Outer ring is basically open to it but the further in you get you need access from employees and they are basically able to lock shit down easy. I know it sucks and makes the schools more like shitty grey institutions but it should be a thing along with the gun shit. Even if we didn't have gun violence at schools, there are cases of abductions, typically by a parent or relative (short version: custody issues). This would thwart those a bit better too. I think about the schools I've walked into and how relatively easy it would be to do some harm or snatch someone especially as classes are emptying.Universities too?
By RobNBanks Go To PostNo fucking shit1 civilian shooter is not going to be effective vs 2 trained shooters.
I’m sure DY will be here to school us and tell us how this is fake news though.
By RobNBanks Go To PostNo fucking shitwe're comparing highly armed and trained foreign figthers now?
I’m sure DY will be here to school us and tell us how this is fake news though.
geez dude lol
i don't even think you're getting that i'm actually pro gun control for the most part but in regards to mass shootings people don't even know what they want nor do they seem to care if they're even making a clear argument. What's wrong with hospital approach? What's wrong with deterrents?
comparing the charlie hebpo attacks, something that was a chase across cities and had fully armored professional goons, to a dweeb that wanted to a grab a gun and shoot as many people as possible as quickly as possible isn't doing anything other than making you look offbase
By diehard Go To Post1 shooter is not going to be effective vs 2 trained shooters.even more ironic because i'm the main person here arguing that we don't do nearly enough to track foreign fighters and people trained in-house
edit: also most of the fake news i yap about ends up being fake lmao. even fender will say as much
The selective evidence brought up by both sides is crazy. We have had real scenario's where people with concealed carry permits have stopped mass shootings, we don't need a simulation. On the other side, using those past examples isn't exactly great evidence that teachers should be armed.
IMO i would say teachers that have had proper training and background checks should have the definitely have the option to conceal carry (or maybe have a designated lockbox with a firearm, etc) in the classroom, but we shouldn't go out looking for teachers to carry.
IMO i would say teachers that have had proper training and background checks should have the definitely have the option to conceal carry (or maybe have a designated lockbox with a firearm, etc) in the classroom, but we shouldn't go out looking for teachers to carry.
By FortuneFaded Go To PostUniversities too?No, for a multitude of reasons including the campus structures of most of them being far too open for it. Elementary and high schools typically go out of their way to have a main entrance.
By diehard Go To PostThe selective evidence brought up by both sides is crazy. We have had real scenario's where people with concealed carry permits have stopped mass shootings, we don't need a simulation. On the other side, using those past examples isn't exactly great evidence that teachers should be armed.Yeah, I'd be okay with that. I don't think some old lady getting an extra 40 bucks a month to carry heat is a good idea either. Any kind of real, active security/deterrent is good though. I'd be much more in favor of the hospital approach to schools anyways - and I've felt that way for a while because 3rd party social works and police can do more about the obvious abuse issues that seep into schools (from peers and home life) easier that guidance counselors ever could.
IMO i would say teachers that have had proper training and background checks should have the definitely have the option to conceal carry (or maybe have a designated lockbox with a firearm, etc) in the classroom, but we shouldn't go out looking for teachers to carry.
You nip that in the bud, you stop a lot of the problems before they start. Shootings included.
All of this is easier, more versatile, and full of more growth potential than telling Walmart they can't sell certain weapons
By diehard Go To PostThe argument for this is that they can't rely on the Police to stop it, you literally just presented more evidence for this, not against it.I see that argument too, but conversely, if a trained professional is too chicken shit to run head on into danger, why should we expect or believe teachers would be able to?
It's all just a distraction from what the real correct answer to this problem is but no one in this country wants to admit it.
Framing gun control around stopping mass shootings is a loser because one psycho can always find a way to kill a lot of people. Gun control should be about the tens of thousands of other gun deaths per year.
That said, I still believe that restricted access to guns can reduce mass slaughters, because I'm convinced a good number of these idiots view themselves as action heroes in their own epics, and leaving a bomb somewhere just isn't the same.
That said, I still believe that restricted access to guns can reduce mass slaughters, because I'm convinced a good number of these idiots view themselves as action heroes in their own epics, and leaving a bomb somewhere just isn't the same.
By Randolph Freelander Go To PostFraming gun control around stopping mass shootings is a loser because one psycho can always find a way to kill a lit of people. Gun control should be about the tens of thousands of other gun deaths per year.but its not lol
That said, I still believe that restricted access to guns can reduce mass slaughters, because I'm convinced a good number of these idiots view themselves as action heroes in their own epics, and leaving a bomb somewhere just isn't the same.
the biggest blanket gun control talks occur after a mass shooting, rarely when little timmy blows his sister away after taking dad's gun. and then those reactions often request action that affects the entire gun control argument and not what's causing the particular discussion. if you're focused on DUIs, then you're not going to suddenly talk about people driving without insurance - that's always what this turns into. reducing gun deaths as a whole is a different talk than preventing or reducing mass shootings. americans generally don't give a fuck about gun control overall imo.
also, the bombing thing just isn't american tbh. you're not far off there. we don't glamorize sitting back and blowing people, we relish in shooting one guy who pissed us off, then the next guy, and the next guy, and hopefully dying in a blaze of glory. bombings are statement attacks for the most part, shootings are personal. people often say that the controls put in place to prevent the mass procurement of bomb materials are effective, but even then you can make bombs out of fucking anything these days... and its not a 'training' thing either. the amount of time they spend learning to operate a weapon or playing backyard militia would be just as effective if put into throwing together a IED. it just doesn't line up with the same line of thinking for most mass shooters in the US.
Posted?
Parkland school cop ‘never went in’ during the shooting. There were other failures, too.
Parkland school cop ‘never went in’ during the shooting. There were other failures, too.
A school campus cop heard the gunfire, rushed to the building but never went inside — instead waiting outside for another four agonizing minutes as Cruz continued the slaughter.http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/broward/article201636649.html
And long before Cruz embarked on the worst school shooting in Florida history, Broward Sheriff’s Office deputies had multiple warnings that the 19-year-old was a violent threat and a potential school shooter, according to records released Thursday.
In November, a tipster called BSO to say Cruz “could be a school shooter in the making” but deputies did not write up a report on that warning. It came just weeks after a relative called urging BSO to seize his weapons. Two years ago, according to a newly released timeline of interactions with Cruz’s family, a deputy investigated a report that Cruz “planned to shoot up the school” — intelligence that was forwarded to the school’s resource officer, with no apparent result.
By Randolph Freelander Go To PostFraming gun control around stopping mass shootings is a loser because one psycho can always find a way to kill a lot of people. Gun control should be about the tens of thousands of other gun deaths per year.
That said, I still believe that restricted access to guns can reduce mass slaughters, because I'm convinced a good number of these idiots view themselves as action heroes in their own epics, and leaving a bomb somewhere just isn't the same.
Making the same guns on the market marginally more difficult to purchase will save a lot of lives, but it won't stop these mass shootings from happening. If we want to stop these mass shootings it has to be on these terms.
It's why the gun debate goes nowhere because unless we're prepared to bring gun ownership down to levels equal to the rest of the world we can't stop these mass shootings from happening.
Banning semi-automatic rifles wouldn't have stopped Parkland but maybe instead of 17 dead it would be 8, or 6. That's the calculus we're doing now.
There are probably 100,000 schools in the USA and you probably need to arm and train at least say 5 teachers in each to be effective. So this means you are putting half a million guns in schools to stop mass school shootings that happen something like once every 3-4 years. The number of people killed by these guns by accident or because some teacher/student has a breakdown will be far greater than the number saved by preventing these sort of mass shootings. The reason trump wants to do this is because his mates sell half a million more guns and he gets another $30 million towards his next election campaign.
If arming teachers were to ever become a serious proposed solution to a problem over here, I think I'd emigrate.
geez guys, i'm not even saying arm teachers is a good fix. i'm saying that its better than the other non-solutions people talk about in that deterrents are better than nothing. its hardly an answer, but the only real fix is removing the supply. and i've yet to see any scenario where that's even remotely feasible. "ban guns" "how?" and the discussion becomes nothing but platitudes. people hate taking their shoes off at airports but shit, we got over it because that new posture had a huge effect not just here but internationally. you want to protect something, you get out and make a real effort. either go for increased security or change the discussion to reducing the amount of guns in the US by any means necessary.
if i'm convinced i need to shoot up a theater, i'm not gonna abandon my plans because i can't buy a weapon legally... moreover, people are realllllllly pick and choose about what scenarios are worth leveraging an argument over.
teachers aren't even legally allowed to break up fights in most states. the only likely middle ground in the specific teacher|guns thing is what someone else mentioned in that people who already have concealed carry bonuses get an extra 40 bucks a month or something. its dumb, and even then most states still wouldn't be able to afford it.
the hospital/police substation approach is many more levels preventative and nips several issues in the bud. but again, i'm not even seeing people talk about a taxpayer funded weapon buyback program, just that the NRA is the boogieman when no singular entity has eyes on the majority of weapons in the US.
i'm really open on this, but like.... have actual solutions or ideas for the mass shooting thing. i'd sell my two guns in a second if there wasn't a need for them anymore.
if i'm convinced i need to shoot up a theater, i'm not gonna abandon my plans because i can't buy a weapon legally... moreover, people are realllllllly pick and choose about what scenarios are worth leveraging an argument over.
teachers aren't even legally allowed to break up fights in most states. the only likely middle ground in the specific teacher|guns thing is what someone else mentioned in that people who already have concealed carry bonuses get an extra 40 bucks a month or something. its dumb, and even then most states still wouldn't be able to afford it.
the hospital/police substation approach is many more levels preventative and nips several issues in the bud. but again, i'm not even seeing people talk about a taxpayer funded weapon buyback program, just that the NRA is the boogieman when no singular entity has eyes on the majority of weapons in the US.
i'm really open on this, but like.... have actual solutions or ideas for the mass shooting thing. i'd sell my two guns in a second if there wasn't a need for them anymore.
By TheHunter Go To PostDayum. Shaggy Rojo brought the heat.