8 ms·

A pre-K teacher on the trouble with lockdown drills

24 points by johnny99 12y ago

voltagex_ 12y ago
>Instead of controlling guns and inconveniencing those who would use them, we are rounding up and silencing a generation of schoolchildren, and terrifying those who care for them. We are giving away precious time to teach and learn while we cower in fear. It's time to have a serious chat about gun control, America. Is the NRA really that powerful that all sensible debate is quelled?
- duncan_bayne 12y ago
  Indeed. It's beyond ridiculous; teachers are being put in charge of classrooms of minors, while being denied the right to carry arms to protect them effectively. (Perhaps you and I might have different points to make during that conversation).
  - anigbrowl 12y ago
    I couldn't help noticing that in the first week of school several teachers who do have concealed carry permits managed to accidentally discharge their firearms in school, although I think the only casualty was the one who was injured by flying porcelain when the gun went off in the restroom and destroyed a toilet bowl.
    - voltagex_ 12y ago
      http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-12/us-teacher-shoots-herself-in-the-leg-with-concealed-weapon/5739122 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-12/us-teacher-shoots-hers...
  - Goronmon 12y ago
    It's beyond ridiculous; teachers are being put in charge of classrooms of minors, while being denied the right to carry arms to protect them effectively. It literally boggles my mind that people make this suggestion with any sincerity.
    - duncan_bayne 12y ago
      What does a mind look like when it's literally boggling? :) Seriously though, either: - school shootings are a statistically significant threat, in which case, arming teachers who wish to be armed seems reasonable or - school shootings aren't statistically significant, in which case, enough with the fear-mongering already
      - adamnemecek 12y ago
        It really is too bad that there are only those two options. /s
        duncan_bayne 12y ago
        How long would you say it'd take to disarm America? To a point that had an effect on school shootings? What do you plan to do in the intervening, say, century or so? You can't point to other countries with no guns and just wish it were like that where you are. It isn't, it won't be for a very long time, and to pretend otherwise is just wishful thinking.
        adamnemecek 12y ago
        Why would it take a century? Idk, 2-3 years? Like 5 tops.
        duncan_bayne 12y ago
        Really? You genuinely believe that you could usefully reduce the number of guns in the US in 5 years?
  - viraptor 12y ago
    Stats are not supporting your side very much. Random link with source description chosen from "school shootings by country" search - they all say the same: http://qz.com/37015/how-school-killings-in-the-us-stack-up-against-36-other-countries-put-together/ http://qz.com/37015/how-school-killings-in-the-us-stack-up-a...
    - duncan_bayne 12y ago
      'My side' probably isn't the side you think it is. Your stats actually back my position up quite nicely, which is: if you're going to have an armed society, then probably the worst thing you can do is gather large numbers of children together under the care of people who are themselves unarmed. Personally, I think that it's reasonable to be allowed to go armed in public; especially for the old, infirm, and physically weak a weapon is a great equaliser. The problem comes when you have an armed society, with pockets of disarmed (as opposed to unarmed) prospective victims. It's a have-your-cake-and-eat-it situation. Either you disarm the population (wearing the cost to those incapable of physically defending themselves, and also, best of luck with that) or you arm the teachers who wish to be armed. Any other position is wishful thinking.
      - viraptor 12y ago
        I agree with one option only - disarming. The other idea will fall as soon as it's the teacher that starts the shooting the next time. And that's going to happen sooner or later. What will people propose then - arm kids so they can defend themselves from the teacher?
        duncan_bayne 12y ago
        That's what I mean by wishful thinking. Disarming is not possible in anything like a useful timeframe, at least not by a Government you'd like to have around after the disarming finished.
        viraptor 12y ago
  - demallien 12y ago
    Yes, let's arm the teachers. And when we're reading, a few years later about the tragic shooting in Hunt County a High School, where the Chemistry teacher went nuts and shot 51 students, we will once again lay fault at the feet of the lack of guns. Maybe the kids should have guns too, to protect them from the armed teachers? Or, maybe just maybe, it might lead to less deaths by shooting if there were less guns floating around to do the shooting with?
- yzzxy 12y ago
  Warning: contains generalizations and hyperbole. When people say America is an oligarchy, this is what they mean. Your congressperson almost always does not represent you, they represent groups like the NRA. Sensible debate is not "quelled," Congress just does not want to have the debate at all. It is totally sensible for Congresspeople to not have what you would consider a real debate on gun control, because doing so would directly affect their chances of reelection. Instead they avoid the topic or engage in a sort of theater debate while the proverbial smoke-filled room dealmaking happens. On top of this, many people do not grep the 2nd Amendment and truly believe that it protects all gun rights. In a sense it does, because that's how most people today interpret the Constitution: loosely. So public opinion is often with the NRA more than you might think, especially if you live in a blue state. See also: the exclusion of a public option from Senate healthcare debates as a topic. It's a perfect example of this phenomenon.
- fiatmoney 12y ago
  The total known number of civilian firearms in the USA is roughly 1 per person (my guess is the number is actually higher; guns will last ~100 years if not abused). The vast, vast majority of those will never be fired in anger. Unless you plan on a non-miniature civil war to confiscate them, you would be better off addressing the mental health aspects of the problem of spree killers, rather than focusing on the particular implements. As a bonus, the latter approach has a shot in hell, so to speak, of working. Otherwise it rather looks like, oh, say, screaming about scary terrorists using encryption as an excuse to ensure insecurity for the rest of us.
  - ubernostrum 12y ago
    And here you buy into the false dichotomy; turns out there is middle ground between "no gun control at all" and "no guns at all". The fact that a comment like yours always appears is a large part of why we can't ever have discussions about reasonable regulations. Hell, where I live there are people who literally argue that property owners should not be able to decide whether to permit what are essentially armed trespassers, since that might infringe on someone's "right" to be armed on your property.
    - fiatmoney 12y ago
      Except for that "reasonable restrictions" are rather like abortion regulations; they're obviously driven by ideologues with no technical expertise, specifically to make the exercise of a right more burdensome, like "waiting periods" for existing gun owners, restricting or permitting models by name, or regulating cosmetic features (oh no, a scary telescoping stock!). If they can be intentionally unclear, so much the better (for instance, what is a "secure container" for the purposes of firearms transport? Is a magazine that fits 10 of one caliber and 11 of another forbidden? Is a magazine "fixed" if it requires a tool to detach, but can be detached in under 5 seconds? What does it mean to be "ballistically similar" to a banned model of bullet?). The lack of good faith by restrictionists and their explicit attempts to de-normalize lawful firearm ownership understandably makes some reluctant to engage with them.
      - 12y ago
- mynameishere 12y ago
  So, here's the "chat" that has happened thus far: Government: Give me your guns. The People: No. By a "serious" "chat" you mean one in which The People surrender the law and their rights to the current government. In fact, that's not serious. That's juvenile.
  - ubernostrum 12y ago
    No, the "chat" consists of: People: Maybe we could figure out something that helps to keep known violent or mentally ill people from being able to go on killing sprees. The NRA: LIBERAL OBUMMER FARTBONGO WANTS TO CONFISCATE EVERY GUN IN THE WORLD BUY ALL THE AMMO YOU CAN GET COLD DEAD HANDS COLD DEAD HANDS COLD DEAD HANDS It is unfortunate that the very worst thing I can wish on you is to have to live in the society that results from implementing your views.
    - Crito 12y ago
      This comment, particularly how you have characterized pro-gun advocates, is a perfect example of juvenile behaviour.
      - ubernostrum 12y ago
        It's a perfectly accurate characterization. The NRA's entire schtick since 2008 has been, well, um, pretty much what I said. Plenty of analyses running around of ammunition prices/shortages and their relationship to the frankly vicious campaigns run by the NRA and other even less reputable organizations on its side of the issue. What is juvenile is continuing to act -- and see this thread for examples -- as if reasonable gun policies are being held back by extreme gun-confiscation advocates who can't be trusted to know what they're talking about. Meanwhile, people die.
        LyndsySimon 12y ago
        It is not an accurate characterization. I am a gun rights advocate, and I most certainly do not use slurs to talk about Obama or anyone else. Meanwhile, politicians who are leading figures in the gun control movement in Congress show a lack of basic knowledge, to the point that they often don't even understand the impact of their own bills.
- Natsu 12y ago
  Given that it's relatively simple to craft a gun (3D printing, metalworking, etc.), how would you propose to implement the bans given that there's a relatively large subset of the population hell-bent on staying armed? Honest question--I've never owned a gun and I don't intend to.
Guthur 12y ago
The real questions that need ask is what motivates someone to undertake in a premeditated fashion the mass murder of young people. The firearm is just the means, the motivation is the real question.
ck2 12y ago
It's not just about gun control. It's about people in this country treating guns like their favorite playtoy. Every freaking thing glorifies guns and what used to be people just committing suicide is now "hell I'll take a dozen people with me because it is so easy". It's a mental illness and we absolutely refuse to deal with mental illness in this country.
willvarfar 12y ago
In Italy its socially unacceptable to be publicly drunk. Think how nice your country would be if that were so where you live too. In Switzerland - where most men have a proper army rifle at home - when there's a break those men don't think "where's my gun?" to go get it and use it but rather to hope that the thief doesn't find it. (Just picking countries I have actually spent time in; if you can pick out other local norms that you think would make the world a nicer, safer place please share; there's bound to be loads more!) Social norms will police society. Who wants to live in a bigger society where people seem to buy guns with the explicit intention of actually having the ability to use them on others? The US doesn't need laws it needs a change in the definition of acceptability. Let guns be the defining acquisition of low-life scum and let the idea that respectable people would arm themselves against the scum be ludicrous and giving in to letting the scum terrorize. I know everyone is going to downvote everyone in this whole thread based on whether they are pro or con guns, which is a shame; better if we used the votes to promote a meaningful debate regardless of which side we personally shoot for?
- duncan_bayne 12y ago
  If you lived in a high crime area, would you deliberately choose to be unarmed, despite knowing that statistically speaking you'd be safer armed? Just to make a political or cultural point?
  - willvarfar 12y ago
    Absolutely. Which was the thrust of my argument. Culture can change.
    - duncan_bayne 12y ago
      Interesting. What if you had dependents? Would you expose them to higher risk in order to (hopefully) facilitate long-term cultural change?
      - willvarfar 12y ago
rdtsc 12y ago
Guns are pretty funny in this country. It is a very polarizing issue. I don't really get it. Why people care so much to either have them or not have them. Maybe they should be worried more about road safety, heart disease, diabetes, wars so many more pressing issues. I hear all this talk about "well it is in the Constitution". Let's talk about Constitution. It is a not a scroll passed down from God, contrarry to what many believe. Founding Fathers are not Moses and Abraham. It was a piece of paper written hudreds of years ago, when arms meant rifles and pistols. Some things in it cannot be taken literally anymore. What was the purpose of letting people have arms? Presumably not just to hunt rabbits, but mostly to protect against government abuse and to be able to overthrow it. Except arms doesn't mean rifles anymore. It means ICMBs, sattelites, fighter jets, shaped charges, IEDs, EMPs, aircraft carriers. Climbing on the roof of your house with a rifle will do jack shit to being able to oppose or protect against "government abuse". It is pointless and stupid. I've seen people go to Startbucks with their AR-15 slung over the shoulder. Really? This is a grown up toddler walking around showing their toy off. Maybe it should be one of those thing if someone really really wants a gun, they shouldn't be allowed to have it, because they are a little too obsessed with it. On the other side, I don't get the "lets ban the guns" crowd either. So what if some people want to go to gun ranges and shoot soda cans. Or even be idiots and show off their AR-15 at Startbucks. They won't overthrow the government because they'll start shooting each other first. Criminals will find ways to get access to guns anyway. Want to save the children. Best way is to put more money into education, healthcare, social care, after school programms, assist parents and so on.
- ars 12y ago
  > Except arms doesn't mean rifles anymore. It means ICMBs, sattelites, fighter jets, shaped charges, IEDs, EMPs, aircraft carriers. Climbing on the roof of your house with a rifle will do jack shit to being able to oppose or protect against "government abuse". You are actually quite wrong. All those weapons you mention are useless for dealing with small groups of people. Those weapons are for taking out huge installations and entire countries. Even the most oppressive government you can imagine does not kill its citizens in mass, they do it in small numbers. And rifles work perfectly fine to protect against that. They might not help if the government decided to take out an entire city - but the government can't do that very often before having no one to govern. Look at Syria and ISIS. What weapons are they using against the established government of the area? (Not making moral judgments here by saying "established", just using them as an example.) They are using small arms, not fighter jets.
r0h1n 12y ago
By this time I know better than to waste my effort trying to make Americans see why guns really are a problem, and one that can be identified, analyzed and solved far easily than trying to address the "motivations" that turn people into mass killers. Because guns are freedom; guns don't kill people; we need our guns to protect against criminal's guns; blah blah. I've realized many Americans will never see high-caliber/high-capacity assault rifles as an easier problem to solve than mental health or psychopathic triggers. It is also not an XOR, because you can try to solve both in parallel. The rest of us non-Americans are just glad our psychopaths and murderers are nowhere near as effective as American ones. And that our children can go to school without having to practice hiding under their desks to avoid being slaughtered mercilessly by some random guy. With a gun.
- Crito 12y ago
  > "By this time I know better than to waste my effort trying to make Americans see why guns really are a problem," > "assault rifles" Maybe part of your problem is that you are not particularly informed when it comes to gun laws and crimes committed with guns in the US. Americans, who are familiar with both, immediately notice your ignorance and tune out whatever you are saying. Assault rifles in the US are heavily regulated at the federal level (as are all other automatic weapons). Since 1934, there have only been two murders with legally owned automatic weapons. One was in 1988 (the murderer was a cop^), the other was in 1992. In neither case was the machine gun an assault rifle (both were machine pistols). To put this in perspective, there are hundreds of thousands of legally owned machine guns in the US. Legally owned assault rifles simply are not a problem for America. ^ Worth noting since law enforcement are are still allowed to purchase new automatic weapons, while other American civilians are not.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
zaroth 12y ago
It was a really great essay on the absurdity of the drill, all up until the last two paragraphs. Next they'll be ducking and covering, and the teacher can conclude by quoting the model numbers of some Russian ICBMs. You know, the cold war seems to be amping up again after all... My daughter was in JK ("Pre-K") last year. If the school pulled a stunt like this, she wouldn't be attending it anymore. It's offensive and pathetic... I really thought I was fully jaded enough with the public school system that nothing could surprise me anymore, but well I guess I was wrong. Is this is some sort of Orwellian conditioning process to prepare these young minds for the friendly Homeland Security Officers that will be riding armored tanks around town in the not-to-distant future? Do people think these drills are reasonable, proportionate, and beneficial? It's sounds completely toxic to me. There are innumerable ways you could help increase K-12 students likelihood of surviving a multitude of common disasters, or fatal accidents. Let's talk about what to do if you see a downed electric wire. Or how to recognize a stroke. Or teach them the the Heimlich maneuver. Or how to find people to talk to if you're feeling depressed. Or not to drink the shit under the kitchen sink, or eat anything in the medicine cabinet. Or how to safely cut with a kitchen knife. Or how to make a disaster readiness plan with your family. You know, shit that actually maims or kills more than 1 in 10,000,000. Practicing hiding in the closet because a killer is roaming the halls with an assualt rifle... Either this is an "agenda" or someone needs to get a fucking clue. I guess in that sense, the last two paragraphs of the article clarified it for me.
- willvarfar 12y ago
  > Let's talk about what to do if you see a downed electric wire [etc] Absolutely! Isn't that taught? > If the school pulled a stunt like this, she wouldn't be attending it anymore. That's kind of throwing the baby out with the bathwater? Would you really make such a binary choice about such a small part of the school? And what school would you choose instead? > Either this is an "agenda" or someone needs to get a fucking clue. Surely its a combination of small factors such as people being genuinely scared that their school will be next or that its dictated from above the school level?
  - zaroth 12y ago
Elrac 12y ago
I enjoy this article: http://www.theonion.com/articles/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this,36131/ http://www.theonion.com/articles/no-way-to-prevent-this-says... Yes, it's satire.

24 points by johnny99 12y ago

>Instead of controlling guns and inconveniencing those who would use them, we are rounding up and silencing a generation of schoolchildren, and terrifying those who care for them. We are giving away precious time to teach and learn while we cower in fear. It's time to have a serious chat about gun control, America. Is the NRA really that powerful that all sensible debate is quelled?

duncan_bayne 12y ago
Indeed. It's beyond ridiculous; teachers are being put in charge of classrooms of minors, while being denied the right to carry arms to protect them effectively. (Perhaps you and I might have different points to make during that conversation).
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  I couldn't help noticing that in the first week of school several teachers who do have concealed carry permits managed to accidentally discharge their firearms in school, although I think the only casualty was the one who was injured by flying porcelain when the gun went off in the restroom and destroyed a toilet bowl.
  - voltagex_ 12y ago
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-12/us-teacher-shoots-herself-in-the-leg-with-concealed-weapon/5739122 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-12/us-teacher-shoots-hers...
- Goronmon 12y ago
  It's beyond ridiculous; teachers are being put in charge of classrooms of minors, while being denied the right to carry arms to protect them effectively. It literally boggles my mind that people make this suggestion with any sincerity.
  - duncan_bayne 12y ago
    What does a mind look like when it's literally boggling? :) Seriously though, either: - school shootings are a statistically significant threat, in which case, arming teachers who wish to be armed seems reasonable or - school shootings aren't statistically significant, in which case, enough with the fear-mongering already
    - adamnemecek 12y ago
      It really is too bad that there are only those two options. /s
      - duncan_bayne 12y ago
        How long would you say it'd take to disarm America? To a point that had an effect on school shootings? What do you plan to do in the intervening, say, century or so? You can't point to other countries with no guns and just wish it were like that where you are. It isn't, it won't be for a very long time, and to pretend otherwise is just wishful thinking.
        adamnemecek 12y ago
        Why would it take a century? Idk, 2-3 years? Like 5 tops.
        duncan_bayne 12y ago
        Really? You genuinely believe that you could usefully reduce the number of guns in the US in 5 years?
- viraptor 12y ago
  Stats are not supporting your side very much. Random link with source description chosen from "school shootings by country" search - they all say the same: http://qz.com/37015/how-school-killings-in-the-us-stack-up-against-36-other-countries-put-together/ http://qz.com/37015/how-school-killings-in-the-us-stack-up-a...
  - duncan_bayne 12y ago
    'My side' probably isn't the side you think it is. Your stats actually back my position up quite nicely, which is: if you're going to have an armed society, then probably the worst thing you can do is gather large numbers of children together under the care of people who are themselves unarmed. Personally, I think that it's reasonable to be allowed to go armed in public; especially for the old, infirm, and physically weak a weapon is a great equaliser. The problem comes when you have an armed society, with pockets of disarmed (as opposed to unarmed) prospective victims. It's a have-your-cake-and-eat-it situation. Either you disarm the population (wearing the cost to those incapable of physically defending themselves, and also, best of luck with that) or you arm the teachers who wish to be armed. Any other position is wishful thinking.
    - viraptor 12y ago
      I agree with one option only - disarming. The other idea will fall as soon as it's the teacher that starts the shooting the next time. And that's going to happen sooner or later. What will people propose then - arm kids so they can defend themselves from the teacher?
      - duncan_bayne 12y ago
        That's what I mean by wishful thinking. Disarming is not possible in anything like a useful timeframe, at least not by a Government you'd like to have around after the disarming finished.
        viraptor 12y ago
- demallien 12y ago
  Yes, let's arm the teachers. And when we're reading, a few years later about the tragic shooting in Hunt County a High School, where the Chemistry teacher went nuts and shot 51 students, we will once again lay fault at the feet of the lack of guns. Maybe the kids should have guns too, to protect them from the armed teachers? Or, maybe just maybe, it might lead to less deaths by shooting if there were less guns floating around to do the shooting with?
yzzxy 12y ago
Warning: contains generalizations and hyperbole. When people say America is an oligarchy, this is what they mean. Your congressperson almost always does not represent you, they represent groups like the NRA. Sensible debate is not "quelled," Congress just does not want to have the debate at all. It is totally sensible for Congresspeople to not have what you would consider a real debate on gun control, because doing so would directly affect their chances of reelection. Instead they avoid the topic or engage in a sort of theater debate while the proverbial smoke-filled room dealmaking happens. On top of this, many people do not grep the 2nd Amendment and truly believe that it protects all gun rights. In a sense it does, because that's how most people today interpret the Constitution: loosely. So public opinion is often with the NRA more than you might think, especially if you live in a blue state. See also: the exclusion of a public option from Senate healthcare debates as a topic. It's a perfect example of this phenomenon.
fiatmoney 12y ago
The total known number of civilian firearms in the USA is roughly 1 per person (my guess is the number is actually higher; guns will last ~100 years if not abused). The vast, vast majority of those will never be fired in anger. Unless you plan on a non-miniature civil war to confiscate them, you would be better off addressing the mental health aspects of the problem of spree killers, rather than focusing on the particular implements. As a bonus, the latter approach has a shot in hell, so to speak, of working. Otherwise it rather looks like, oh, say, screaming about scary terrorists using encryption as an excuse to ensure insecurity for the rest of us.
- ubernostrum 12y ago
  And here you buy into the false dichotomy; turns out there is middle ground between "no gun control at all" and "no guns at all". The fact that a comment like yours always appears is a large part of why we can't ever have discussions about reasonable regulations. Hell, where I live there are people who literally argue that property owners should not be able to decide whether to permit what are essentially armed trespassers, since that might infringe on someone's "right" to be armed on your property.
  - fiatmoney 12y ago
    Except for that "reasonable restrictions" are rather like abortion regulations; they're obviously driven by ideologues with no technical expertise, specifically to make the exercise of a right more burdensome, like "waiting periods" for existing gun owners, restricting or permitting models by name, or regulating cosmetic features (oh no, a scary telescoping stock!). If they can be intentionally unclear, so much the better (for instance, what is a "secure container" for the purposes of firearms transport? Is a magazine that fits 10 of one caliber and 11 of another forbidden? Is a magazine "fixed" if it requires a tool to detach, but can be detached in under 5 seconds? What does it mean to be "ballistically similar" to a banned model of bullet?). The lack of good faith by restrictionists and their explicit attempts to de-normalize lawful firearm ownership understandably makes some reluctant to engage with them.
    - 12y ago
mynameishere 12y ago
So, here's the "chat" that has happened thus far: Government: Give me your guns. The People: No. By a "serious" "chat" you mean one in which The People surrender the law and their rights to the current government. In fact, that's not serious. That's juvenile.
- ubernostrum 12y ago
  No, the "chat" consists of: People: Maybe we could figure out something that helps to keep known violent or mentally ill people from being able to go on killing sprees. The NRA: LIBERAL OBUMMER FARTBONGO WANTS TO CONFISCATE EVERY GUN IN THE WORLD BUY ALL THE AMMO YOU CAN GET COLD DEAD HANDS COLD DEAD HANDS COLD DEAD HANDS It is unfortunate that the very worst thing I can wish on you is to have to live in the society that results from implementing your views.
  - Crito 12y ago
    This comment, particularly how you have characterized pro-gun advocates, is a perfect example of juvenile behaviour.
    - ubernostrum 12y ago
      It's a perfectly accurate characterization. The NRA's entire schtick since 2008 has been, well, um, pretty much what I said. Plenty of analyses running around of ammunition prices/shortages and their relationship to the frankly vicious campaigns run by the NRA and other even less reputable organizations on its side of the issue. What is juvenile is continuing to act -- and see this thread for examples -- as if reasonable gun policies are being held back by extreme gun-confiscation advocates who can't be trusted to know what they're talking about. Meanwhile, people die.
      - LyndsySimon 12y ago
        It is not an accurate characterization. I am a gun rights advocate, and I most certainly do not use slurs to talk about Obama or anyone else. Meanwhile, politicians who are leading figures in the gun control movement in Congress show a lack of basic knowledge, to the point that they often don't even understand the impact of their own bills.
Natsu 12y ago
Given that it's relatively simple to craft a gun (3D printing, metalworking, etc.), how would you propose to implement the bans given that there's a relatively large subset of the population hell-bent on staying armed? Honest question--I've never owned a gun and I don't intend to.

Guthur 12y ago

The real questions that need ask is what motivates someone to undertake in a premeditated fashion the mass murder of young people. The firearm is just the means, the motivation is the real question.

ck2 12y ago

It's not just about gun control. It's about people in this country treating guns like their favorite playtoy. Every freaking thing glorifies guns and what used to be people just committing suicide is now "hell I'll take a dozen people with me because it is so easy". It's a mental illness and we absolutely refuse to deal with mental illness in this country.

willvarfar 12y ago

In Italy its socially unacceptable to be publicly drunk. Think how nice your country would be if that were so where you live too. In Switzerland - where most men have a proper army rifle at home - when there's a break those men don't think "where's my gun?" to go get it and use it but rather to hope that the thief doesn't find it. (Just picking countries I have actually spent time in; if you can pick out other local norms that you think would make the world a nicer, safer place please share; there's bound to be loads more!) Social norms will police society. Who wants to live in a bigger society where people seem to buy guns with the explicit intention of actually having the ability to use them on others? The US doesn't need laws it needs a change in the definition of acceptability. Let guns be the defining acquisition of low-life scum and let the idea that respectable people would arm themselves against the scum be ludicrous and giving in to letting the scum terrorize. I know everyone is going to downvote everyone in this whole thread based on whether they are pro or con guns, which is a shame; better if we used the votes to promote a meaningful debate regardless of which side we personally shoot for?

duncan_bayne 12y ago
If you lived in a high crime area, would you deliberately choose to be unarmed, despite knowing that statistically speaking you'd be safer armed? Just to make a political or cultural point?
- willvarfar 12y ago
  Absolutely. Which was the thrust of my argument. Culture can change.
  - duncan_bayne 12y ago
    Interesting. What if you had dependents? Would you expose them to higher risk in order to (hopefully) facilitate long-term cultural change?
    - willvarfar 12y ago

rdtsc 12y ago

Guns are pretty funny in this country. It is a very polarizing issue. I don't really get it. Why people care so much to either have them or not have them. Maybe they should be worried more about road safety, heart disease, diabetes, wars so many more pressing issues. I hear all this talk about "well it is in the Constitution". Let's talk about Constitution. It is a not a scroll passed down from God, contrarry to what many believe. Founding Fathers are not Moses and Abraham. It was a piece of paper written hudreds of years ago, when arms meant rifles and pistols. Some things in it cannot be taken literally anymore. What was the purpose of letting people have arms? Presumably not just to hunt rabbits, but mostly to protect against government abuse and to be able to overthrow it. Except arms doesn't mean rifles anymore. It means ICMBs, sattelites, fighter jets, shaped charges, IEDs, EMPs, aircraft carriers. Climbing on the roof of your house with a rifle will do jack shit to being able to oppose or protect against "government abuse". It is pointless and stupid. I've seen people go to Startbucks with their AR-15 slung over the shoulder. Really? This is a grown up toddler walking around showing their toy off. Maybe it should be one of those thing if someone really really wants a gun, they shouldn't be allowed to have it, because they are a little too obsessed with it. On the other side, I don't get the "lets ban the guns" crowd either. So what if some people want to go to gun ranges and shoot soda cans. Or even be idiots and show off their AR-15 at Startbucks. They won't overthrow the government because they'll start shooting each other first. Criminals will find ways to get access to guns anyway. Want to save the children. Best way is to put more money into education, healthcare, social care, after school programms, assist parents and so on.

ars 12y ago
> Except arms doesn't mean rifles anymore. It means ICMBs, sattelites, fighter jets, shaped charges, IEDs, EMPs, aircraft carriers. Climbing on the roof of your house with a rifle will do jack shit to being able to oppose or protect against "government abuse". You are actually quite wrong. All those weapons you mention are useless for dealing with small groups of people. Those weapons are for taking out huge installations and entire countries. Even the most oppressive government you can imagine does not kill its citizens in mass, they do it in small numbers. And rifles work perfectly fine to protect against that. They might not help if the government decided to take out an entire city - but the government can't do that very often before having no one to govern. Look at Syria and ISIS. What weapons are they using against the established government of the area? (Not making moral judgments here by saying "established", just using them as an example.) They are using small arms, not fighter jets.

r0h1n 12y ago

By this time I know better than to waste my effort trying to make Americans see why guns really are a problem, and one that can be identified, analyzed and solved far easily than trying to address the "motivations" that turn people into mass killers. Because guns are freedom; guns don't kill people; we need our guns to protect against criminal's guns; blah blah. I've realized many Americans will never see high-caliber/high-capacity assault rifles as an easier problem to solve than mental health or psychopathic triggers. It is also not an XOR, because you can try to solve both in parallel. The rest of us non-Americans are just glad our psychopaths and murderers are nowhere near as effective as American ones. And that our children can go to school without having to practice hiding under their desks to avoid being slaughtered mercilessly by some random guy. With a gun.

Crito 12y ago
> "By this time I know better than to waste my effort trying to make Americans see why guns really are a problem," > "assault rifles" Maybe part of your problem is that you are not particularly informed when it comes to gun laws and crimes committed with guns in the US. Americans, who are familiar with both, immediately notice your ignorance and tune out whatever you are saying. Assault rifles in the US are heavily regulated at the federal level (as are all other automatic weapons). Since 1934, there have only been two murders with legally owned automatic weapons. One was in 1988 (the murderer was a cop^), the other was in 1992. In neither case was the machine gun an assault rifle (both were machine pistols). To put this in perspective, there are hundreds of thousands of legally owned machine guns in the US. Legally owned assault rifles simply are not a problem for America. ^ Worth noting since law enforcement are are still allowed to purchase new automatic weapons, while other American civilians are not.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

zaroth 12y ago

It was a really great essay on the absurdity of the drill, all up until the last two paragraphs. Next they'll be ducking and covering, and the teacher can conclude by quoting the model numbers of some Russian ICBMs. You know, the cold war seems to be amping up again after all... My daughter was in JK ("Pre-K") last year. If the school pulled a stunt like this, she wouldn't be attending it anymore. It's offensive and pathetic... I really thought I was fully jaded enough with the public school system that nothing could surprise me anymore, but well I guess I was wrong. Is this is some sort of Orwellian conditioning process to prepare these young minds for the friendly Homeland Security Officers that will be riding armored tanks around town in the not-to-distant future? Do people think these drills are reasonable, proportionate, and beneficial? It's sounds completely toxic to me. There are innumerable ways you could help increase K-12 students likelihood of surviving a multitude of common disasters, or fatal accidents. Let's talk about what to do if you see a downed electric wire. Or how to recognize a stroke. Or teach them the the Heimlich maneuver. Or how to find people to talk to if you're feeling depressed. Or not to drink the shit under the kitchen sink, or eat anything in the medicine cabinet. Or how to safely cut with a kitchen knife. Or how to make a disaster readiness plan with your family. You know, shit that actually maims or kills more than 1 in 10,000,000. Practicing hiding in the closet because a killer is roaming the halls with an assualt rifle... Either this is an "agenda" or someone needs to get a fucking clue. I guess in that sense, the last two paragraphs of the article clarified it for me.

willvarfar 12y ago
> Let's talk about what to do if you see a downed electric wire [etc] Absolutely! Isn't that taught? > If the school pulled a stunt like this, she wouldn't be attending it anymore. That's kind of throwing the baby out with the bathwater? Would you really make such a binary choice about such a small part of the school? And what school would you choose instead? > Either this is an "agenda" or someone needs to get a fucking clue. Surely its a combination of small factors such as people being genuinely scared that their school will be next or that its dictated from above the school level?
- zaroth 12y ago

Elrac 12y ago

I enjoy this article: http://www.theonion.com/articles/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this,36131/ http://www.theonion.com/articles/no-way-to-prevent-this-says... Yes, it's satire.