New link in the top of page "IRC Chat".
|Register | Login|
| Active users
| Last Posts
| IRC Chat
| Online users
Ranks | FAQ | XPW | Stats | Color Chart | Photo album
|0 users currently in Debate Shrine.|
|No, treating the symptom is much quicker. Why get rid of your influenza virus when you could lower the fever that is bothering you instead? You know, the fever that is killing the virus?
Seriously though, the same could be said about many things in the US, from firearms to pharmaceuticals. People like the quick fix.
|You make a good point there, Vulkar. Considering that all of these mass shootings have been carried out by people suffering from various forms of depression or other mental illness it would make a lot of sense to actually work on improving treatment for these conditions and thus prevent them from getting to the point that they think mass homicide is the answer.
I believe that would fall under the category of "treating the problem"... which is something that we logically should be doing.
|Lord Vulkas Mormonus
|Since the thread has already been bumped, I'll throw in my two cents. Yeah, I'm conservative, yeah, I like my guns, and I want to keep them, but really I don't think that having or not having guns is where we need to be putting all of our focus. If someone wants to commit a murder, they will commit a murder. Don't forget that 9/11 was caused not by terrorists with guns, but with boxcutters. If you're determined, you can make it happen, no matter what laws are in place. As evidence of this, according to the great website of all knowledge and accurate information (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate) there are around 14,748 homocides in the US per year. However, calculating the numbers given here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate) only 1080 of these are committed using a firearm. That means only about 7.3% of murders are committed in the US by using a firearm.
That said, if we could prevent even a few deaths by banning firearms, it would be worth it. However, the argument we have is that guns can help protect and defend against violence.
Now, to be clear, I'm not a fan of the idea of giving teachers guns. That's dangerous, and if we have a poorly trained teacher who is given a weapon, they could be more of a liability in the event of a school shooting than a protection. A teacher who has been taught to shoot still will panic if it came to a real fight.
Trained security guards like Sorcha mentioned might be a good alternative, and it might be a better idea than armed teachers, but hiring security guards with the training we would need is expensive. Having them and a scan station at every school in the US could cost billions of dollars.
So what's the solution then? I think that it all comes down to this statistic right here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiology_of_depression
This right here states that the US is the most depressed country in the world. Coincidentally, we are also ranked #11 in homocide rates per 100,000 people. For me, I see this as related. To help the people of the United States of America be safer from others, the solution is not to treat the symptom. It's not to argue about whether we should arm our teachers or disarm or citizens, the solution is to find out what causes so much depression, and fix it.
Yeah, that's a lot harder to solve, but if we find the solution, America will be helped out in every aspect of its existence. In every way we could become better, smarter, safer, and more productive.
|You know there are a lot of arguments to this topic and to be quite honest. I'm against the banning of weapons because they have pistol grips.
After 3 attempts of people breaking into my house, I still don't have a gun. Mainly because I live next to a person who has like 6 AR 15s. That makes me feel safe lol and another chick next door is Rome, GA's number 1 911 operator so cops come by my house a lot to check on the neighbors.
However after much debate my husband and I agree that having a gun in the house would be an open option if these people were not my neighbors. I mean the assailants were trying to break into my daughter's room of all places.
So what I am getting at is I'm particularly trained in rifles. I've only had maybe 2 ranges with pistols. If I were to choose a weapon for my home, it would be the AR 15 considering that it's the closest thing to the M4. Don't tell me to get a shot gun. That is out of the question because I have shot these rifles. They kick you back and constantly bruise me.
Right now the only protection I have is a paintball gun and a bb pistol along with the neighbors and cops. Once I move to Atlanta, I'm sort of scared that I'll have to depend on something else if I live in an ungated community.
Another argument I have is the fact that banning guns is not going to help the problem. It's just going to make things worse because people are still going to find a way to have access to these weapons. Stricter policies maybe. I think I'm the only weirdo in my family who thinks that people who own weapons should go through some sort of mental examination to see if they are functioning civilians of society honestly.
I don't think arming teachers is really the solution. Sometimes yes if it's a bad area. I've seen armed guards and police at schools. There are even drills for gunners in schools these days that don't even save lives. "Armed Guards" at schools need to have requirements in order to really be hired on in my opinion. The thing is they need to have just about as much of a standard to hold within their group like the Marines. To be fair I don't think having a fat tard who just wants a job to stand around and do absolutely nothing but stand outside of a school all day is right. Someone more qualified and with a better background than OH I WAS A SECURITY GUARD AT THE MALL would work better.
I think schools should have a scan at the door system like many jobs these days do. I have to have a badge coming in and out of my building. It can encourage students to work at keeping up with badges. Yes you're going to have one of those kids who forgets their badge, BUT you can always have a teacher or faculty member walk them in the school and to their next class. It's not hard. If they forget it another time, give the kid ISS(this is coming from someone who had to do like a ten page essay on why you shouldn't leave you badge at your desk in Iraq.)
|I think you argued that very well, Katana. And yeah, it's really hard to talk to the nuts.
That said, this is my opinion on the various ideas mentioned:
1) Bans. I will flat out admit that I am in favor of a ban on assault weapons and high magazine clips. They are weapons of war with no other purpose than to kill people. You can't hunt with them, and using them on a burglar is just overkill. That said, I know that there are collectors out there who would want one just so they could have it in their collection. Perhaps something could be worked out where these collectors could have one, but it would have to be registered and assigned some kind of extra serial number or little tracking device so that if it ever is used in a crime the said collector would bear 100% responsibility.
2) Guns in schools. As a future teacher I have to say HELL FUCKING NO! First off, teachers shouldn't have to go through even more hoops before getting their credentials--and if we mandated that they had to carry weapons, they would have to go through gun training. Second, the psychological impact of a teacher having to actually use that weapon would be devastating both on themselves and their students (especially if they miss and hit a child). Third, they wouldn't be able to get to it in time for it to really be of any use before the gunman would shoot them and take the gun.
Armed guards in schools already exist in some areas and don't seem to have had any impact. Columbine had an armed guard, look how well that worked out. Adding more guards will do more harm than good, since it will make children feel that they are in a prison and their academic performance will suffer.
It's treating the symptoms and not the problem.
3) Gun safety courses. Yes! I actually think this would be a good thing to help people understand and respect guns. The problem would be funding to allow anyone to take it.
4) Background checks. We need to enforce them! It is a fact that 40% of gun sales don't go through a background check. That is unacceptable.
Also, our police and armed forces need to go through a psych evaluation before they give them a gun. Why don't normal citizens? Just flagging people that have been prescribed anti-depressants is not going to cut it anymore.
I will write more later, gotta run to work.
|Astrophel basically hit it on the nose for me. You too, LA, with your idea on gun safety and respect notion.
The purpose of the second amendment is a little outdated, if you ask me, and that's saying something considering our entire constitution is a good example of things that stand the test of time, agree with all of it or not. But the main purpose was to be able to form a militia against governmental oppressors. But technology has changed the relevancy of that idea. I saw it in a picture that was meant to be a sarcastic/funny meme, but its true! I'm pretty sure it'd be impossible to stand up to the US armed forces via militia now. That doesn't mean I don't support the second amendment for other reasons, but that is one that I'm pretty sure is irrelevant at this point in history.
Here in PA, we have Castle Law, which means you break in my house, try to harm me or my family, you're not getting out unscathed. I am somebody who has personally had to rely on that law three times. And by personally, I mean I was either the only one home(once) or was the only adult home(twice), otherwise, its happened more than three times in my own life experiences. But my family is also CRAZY big on the idea of respecting weapons and learning how to use them, like you two have talked about already. And like Astrophel expanded upon, we also don't believe on forcing the idea upon everyone else. Comparing it to a driver's license was pretty much dead on with how I was raised to think of it. But any who...we know how to make sure we're 100% positive a real threat is involved before squeezing the trigger.
Otherwise, schools should be gun free. As horrible as what happened recently is, the idea should be to prevent school VIOLENCE, not school "gun" violence. Rather than repeat any of the usual sentiments about teachers carrying and what parents may think/feel about that....I'd rather go with the other "usual" sentiments being that guns aren't the only way to terrorize schools. And it's HAPPENED, in recent history, and every day. Yes, I'm willing to bet that while some kids I just wanna smack upside the head and tell them to grow a pair, even going as "basic" as the bullying that goes on, is cause enough to make someone grow up and snap. And if they can't get a hold of a gun, they'll do something else.
See, I'm not a "gun nut" but I'm not anti-guns either. I don't think guns kill people, although using that line followed by "people do." as an argument is getting rather tiresome, because its used more or less as a one-liner thought to shut the opponent up, rather than to see the bigger picture. Again, I know I"m paraphrasing what's already been said. But we have other problems. The REASON for people to go apeshit with a weapon is a pretty big fucking deal to me, as I'm sure it is to you guys as well.
But what will be done? Nothing in the foreseeable future. I'm not even putting faith in much cosmetic changes being done. No one knows how to compromise in our government, and in my opinion, they should all be fired and replaced. The right won't let up because they can't seem to grasp that the left doesn't want to take away all guns and ignore the second amendment. I watched Obama's speech. At no point did he say "Second amendment? Fuck it." They also can't stand the idea of big government and this is a big deal for this country as a whole and something that in order to accomplish the bigger picture, MUST be done as a whole. But on the other side of the same coin, the left doesn't seem to understand that its not all big picture, there ARE smaller picture visions, and I believe that local government knows best.
Kind of off topic, but what I like telling the irrationals is to just learn how to count. That one comes before two, and if they want to whine to me about their second amendment rights being taken away, (which those are the people that I don't bother to explain to them that I'm pretty much on their side with protecting their amendment rights. And by "those people' I mean the irrationals out there. Total, batshit, irrational thinkers.) they had better hope that they're not going to tell me that religion should be a factor in social issues. Give me any intelligent reason other than religion, because the first amendment says we have a right to practice our own religious beliefs, but it also EXPLICITLY states that if religion is a reason for push for government action, the government can't give a shit about that. If they want to relent on THAT idea, then maybe their relentless cries of tyranny against the second amendment will be heeded. (It just seems hypocritical to me. First amendment: Keep the government involved in pushing our religious beliefs and keep the government involved in personal lives and blocking say, gay marriage. Second amendment: Get the government out of my right to weaponry. <---take my rants and assessments lightheartedly, just in case anyone gets insulted. I mean more in jest and lightheartedness rather than heated "I'm right and you're wrong because you're a stupid face." sort of discussion.)
Originally posted by Lord Alexandor
Which, in a grand bit of irony, tends to result in more deaths when crimes are committed, as any potential criminal will likely be of the variety that shoots first. It's not likely you'll have a weapon at the ready, but they will.
It's rather impressive then just how many more school shootings have happened in the US than in other countries, where schools are also gun-free zones.
As for the "assault weapon lie" line, let's set aside the previously-used definitions of the term. Why? Because it is meaningless, and as a result it is nothing more than a distraction. Let's base it instead on the functionality. What does a civilian need a thirty-round magazine for? Or a fully-automatic gun? Naturally, we can't completely get rid of the latter, for reasons you briefly covered in your second or third paragraph, but assuming we could.
Unfortunately, the second amendment is... well, unfortunately it exists, to be blunt. I'm not completely opposed to private gun ownership, but it's become a tool of the lobby for gun manufacturers more than anything else these days. It has the same problem as saying you have the right to any other material object. For example, if there was an amendment that said "every citizen has the right to a motor vehicle", there'd be a large number of people that wouldn't be satisfied with a mid-60s Beetle, they'd be demanding Ferraris and Vipers, once Ferrari or Dodge got some adequately-paid lobbyists to fire people up enough.
And many of them wouldn't want to have to go get a license before they could legally drive.
So, working within our current society, what should be done?
Your idea about mandatory gun safety courses isn't a bad one, but I'd make it... sort of voluntary. Like a driver's license, you need it to buy guns and ammunition, but otherwise it's not necessary. This is entirely a scheme to slip this past people that object to their children learning about guns. I was firing a bolt-action rifle at 9 or so, but some parents freak out, you know that.
Require all gun sales to go through a licensed broker and have background checks. Frankly, there's no reason not to do this; you can't buy a car out of someone's driveway and drive it home without a license, and they're a hell of a lot less dangerous.
And possibly most importantly, require all guns to be properly secured. Of course, you can't just go into someone's home to inspect at random, but if the gun is stolen and was not secured properly, that's a fine. If the gun was stolen, not secured properly, and used in a crime, that's an even bigger one.
This and the previous suggestion are entirely to curb the "but criminals will get them anyway" line, by cutting down the primary ways they get them currently. I imagine people will be a little less likely to sell a gun privately if they could get charged as an accessory to murder.
Now, more importantly than that, what will be done?
Nothing functional. Another cosmetic ban that does nothing but extend the career of politicians too scared to actually do anything.
|I was waiting for someone to make this topic...I didn't want to be the one to make the thread...
I think any sort of ban on firearms or restrictions (that are not already in place, which I'll touch on later) are in violation of the fundamental reason we have a second amendment. We have that amendment to allow citizens to defend themselves from a corrupt government, thieves, murderers, rapists, and anyone else that interferes with their rights and liberties.
Banning a gun or set of guns based solely on their appearance is just plain stupid and ignorant. The law makers and anti-gunners seem to think that a weapon that looks like a machine gun is a machine gun. This is a LIE. In 1986, the Federal government banned the sale or transfer of new machine guns to civilians. This means that if you want a full-auto gun, you have to find an older one that is for sale and have enough cash to buy it. Usually, functional fully automatic guns are very expensive for civilian purchase. For more information about the "Assault Weapon" lie, check out AssaultWeapon.info
On the subject of guns in schools and armed guards... I don't like having just armed guards. In fact, I'd rather the teachers of the schools be armed than have special guards. If anything, schools should not be gun-free zones. A "Gun-Free Zone" reads as "Come here and shoot anyone, because they are unarmed!" to a criminal or murderer. If every public school had guns in the hands of trained and responsible adults, we wouldn't have school shootings.
"But who says the teachers/guards/etc are trained or responsible?" The state or federal government should create VERY strict training and licensing for teachers (free of charge to the teacher for incentives!) that requires full training on gun safety, gun security, tactical situational awareness and assessment of threat, and marksmanship with their chosen firearm. They would have to show competency in all of these areas and be able to hit targets at a regular range. This qualification would need to be done anually to ensure that the holder is actually competent.
As for non-teachers, anyone with a Concealed Pistol License should be able to carry in a school. However, some people with a CPL are morons. We need to have stricter control on the license and make people actually learn their gun safety, not just put them in the class and then hand them a certificate. Practical demonstration should be required. Its damn scary to go to my local range now because of all the panic buyers "testing" their new guns and having no idea how to use them.
On that note, I believe gun safety should be incorporated into schooling at a fairly early age. Probably around the same age as sex education. If kids are curious about guns, teach them, show them, let them hold empty guns to see what it is like. Don't give them ammo, but let them be curious. At the same time, hammer in that safety is KEY. If a curious child improperly handles their training replica, snatch it away and treat it as a real safety concern. They'll learn quickly. Gun safety and respect are important in keeping kids safe around firearms.
(Extra Rant) I won't get into how respect is on the decline in American society, but that would need to be fixed at the same time to fully ensure safety. That, along with responsibility for your own offspring needs to change. If a child fails, its not the teacher's fault, the parents need to be part of the child's life. (/Extra Rant)
I heavily encourage you to go to your local gun range and ask to be taught to shoot a rifle or pistol if you have not done so already. Most ranges will do this for you for free, so long as you rent a gun from them. Also, check out Gunnit on Reddit for additional conversations and discussion. I'm a subscriber and I love some of the things on there.
I welcome questions and discussion, but please don't just say "Guns are bad!" Educated, logical discussion is great and I welcome it. As a responsible gun owner and CPL holder, I will try to answer any question (within reason) that I am able to.
|I figured we needed a good debate topic, so let's go for the most volatile one.
What is your opinion on what needs to be done? What are your thoughts on the proposed plans and do you think they will be effective. Why or why not?