14 ms·

>Instead of controlling guns and inconveniencing those who would use them, we are rounding up and silencing a generation of schoolchildren, and terrifying those

• 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?
              • dllthomas 12y ago
                "usefully" to what purpose?
            • LyndsySimon 12y ago
  • 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.