26 dead in Connecticut

[Heartless Angel]

1. Even if all guns were COMPLETELY illegal doesn't make them magically vanish. You can easily access guns no matter the law. A trained knife/sword user could be just as dangerous to a class of kindergartners as a dude with a gun.

Especially if all the guns DID magically vanish, because then law enforcement is gonna have to catch the guy with knives and swords themselves. It doesn't really matter what the level of armament it is, if your criminals have better equipment than law abiding citizens, you have a problem.

3. The last thing you need are children caught in the crossfire of a shoot out with teachers and some gunmen.

I dunno, personally I'd rather be a kid in the middle of a fight than a kid at the receiving end of a massacre. At least in the middle of a shootout, I have a fighting chance.

Going after one weapon is just moronic, it's basically an excuse to look like some action is being taken. As I've stated before, there are PLENTY of weapons less and more dangerous than guns. Some being illegal, yet incredibly easy to make. Please explain to me how a homicidal/suicidal mentally ill person is going to be persuaded to make a bomb or whatever because it's a nono? I believe that gun control is a good thing, we shouldn't just hand them the **** out, and that's not at all "TAKIN' ERR SECUND AMERNDMEN' RAHTS!" but it's not going to stop CRIMINALS.

Exactly. Gun control is one thing. Trying to ban weapons is another. Control to an extent is going to prevent some people who shouldn't have guns from getting them. Outlawing is not going to prevent it all, and is going to leave the law abiding citizens without an adequate defense against the serious criminals who are going to have their guns either way. We shouldn't be out handing guns to everything with two legs and a heartbeat, but at the same time, we can't make it so difficult for a rational law abiding citizen to obtain and operate a firearm that they're at a disadvantage when the time comes that they DO need to defend themselves from a criminal. There's a happy medium here somewhere.

[Lacquer Head]

I dunno, personally I'd rather be a kid in the middle of a fight than a kid at the receiving end of a massacre. At least in the middle of a shootout, I have a fighting chance.

Idk, they could spend some money on classroom bunkers and shit. Some one breaks in, put the school on lockdown alert, lock up the class room doors and jump in a bulletproof panic room thingy...or just make the doors stronger. Our school had a pretty good lock down system, if the slightest thing happen, the alert went out and we locked up. I'm not sure how hard it would have been to break the doors down though, but they were pretty solid. Get some good bolt locks and there's not too much that can be done. Though, there might be some issues for recess or gym, but it's still a hell of a lot safer than causing a shoot out with a bunch of kids in the middle.

[Tiffany]

You can't compare guns to knives though. Especially not the kind of guns that were used in the CT shootings. A knife completely depends on the person using it, skill etc. Take into account the guns that were used in this particular instance:

Sig Sauer: Fires up to 5 bullets a second at a velocity of 1,200 feet per second
Glock: Same. Fires up to 5 bullets a second at a velocity of 1,200 feet per second
Bushmaster .223 Caliber Assault Rifle: Has a 30 round magazine

There's no freaking way that you can compare the violence between a single person wielding a knife to a single person firing even ONE of these weapons. In the time that it took buddy with the knife to hurt (HURT. Not kill) those poor kids in China the dude in CT could have mowed through the entire school. Obviously there is always the oweness on the person.

But if we're going to use the scenario of a teacher/attacker dueling it out hell YES I'd rather them be going at it with knives instead of guns. There is such a high chance of being shot and killed with stray bullets from them batteling it out, you wouldn't have that with knives.

I don't think removing guns completely is the answer, but it seems silly to me to say that MORE guns are the answer. Clearly whatever it is the States are doing with their gun laws isn't working. How many mass shootings has there been in such a short time? Whatever the way it goes (more guns, less guns) something obviously needs to be done. Buddy got his guns from his mother's own collection, there's no law that would have prevented him from obtaining them. But really? Lets have a gun shootout in a class full of children? How is that the answer?

[Heartless Angel]

You can't compare guns to knives though. Especially not the kind of guns that were used in the CT shootings. A knife completely depends on the person using it, skill etc. Take into account the guns that were used in this particular instance:

Sig Sauer: Fires up to 5 bullets a second at a velocity of 1,200 feet per second
Glock: Same. Fires up to 5 bullets a second at a velocity of 1,200 feet per second
Bushmaster .223 Caliber Assault Rifle: Has a 30 round magazine

There's no freaking way that you can compare the violence between a single person wielding a knife to a single person firing even ONE of these weapons. In the time that it took buddy with the knife to hurt (HURT. Not kill) those poor kids in China the dude in CT could have mowed through the entire school. Obviously there is always the oweness on the person.

But if we're going to use the scenario of a teacher/attacker dueling it out hell YES I'd rather them be going at it with knives instead of guns. There is such a high chance of being shot and killed with stray bullets from them batteling it out, you wouldn't have that with knives.

It's not like a SWAT team is gonna be there to take the guy out in 20 seconds or less. If someone's in a school full of defenseless children and teachers with any kind of weapon, they're more than capable of racking up casualties. A knife is one things, it's got a short blade, you've got to know a thing or two about human anatomy to ensure a fatal blow, a knife is not an optimal combat weapon, its primary advantage as a melee weapon is being concealable. Concealability is important when law enforcers have firearms. With no firearms, it becomes less of an issue if you know the criminal is armed before he makes his first kill. You no longer need a concealable pocket knife, you can come in with an axe, a sword, a club, take projectile weaponry out of the equation, and these all become effective, plausible weapons again. Yeah, it might take the nutcase a little while longer to kill a room full of defenseless children, it's also going to take longer for law enforcement to stop him. And even without considering melee weaponry, what about home made bombs? I could make something in my garage that would effectively neutralize anyone in a classroom before they knew what the Hell had happened. Now were in a really ugly situation. Bombs don't discriminate between friend or foe, criminal or civilian. If I'm packing bombs, law enforcement can't fight me on fair terms, because they can't risk killing innocents, as a criminal I don't have that disadvantage. As a criminal making bombs to kill people, not only is that NOT a disadvantage, it's a tremendous advantage. You wanna talk about the time it takes to cause destruction, in the time it takes asshat with a rifle to load his weapon, I can take out half the building with a bomb. The weapon in use is nowhere near the issue here. Changing the rules of engagement does not change the fact that this is war. In war, if you hope to come out victorious, you need to be prepared to use the same weapons as your enemies. This is possible with guns. Take those away, these guys start making bombs, you're not going to be able to fight them on their level. If you don't have some sort of precision projectile weapon, you are going to lose to somebody willing and able to indiscriminately attack large areas at a distance. Guns are a necessary evil. You can't remove them selectively. If they exist, criminals will obtain them. If they do not exist, criminals will use something else. It's a lot less feasible for civilians to carry around swords and learn to use them against criminals who know how, or to find some other way to combat explosives. Firearms are the middle ground armament that makes fighting criminals plausible.

I don't think removing guns completely is the answer, but it seems silly to me to say that MORE guns are the answer. Clearly whatever it is the States are doing with their gun laws isn't working. How many mass shootings has there been in such a short time? Whatever the way it goes (more guns, less guns) something obviously needs to be done. Buddy got his guns from his mother's own collection, there's no law that would have prevented him from obtaining them. But really? Lets have a gun shootout in a class full of children? How is that the answer?

Gun control is not only not the answer, it isn't even the issue. What needs to be addressed is not the MEANS of stupid killings. What needs to be addressed, is the CAUSE of stupid killings.

Just thought I'd share this, someone posted this on FB.

"Morgan Freeman's brilliant take on what happened yesterday :

"You want to know why. This may sound cynical, but here's why.

It's because of the way the media reports it. Flip on the news and watch how we treat the Batman theater shooter and the Oregon mall shooter like celebrities. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris are household names, but do you know the name of a single *victim* of Columbine? Disturbed
people who would otherwise just off themselves in their basements see the news and want to top it by doing something worse, and going out in a memorable way. Why a grade school? Why children? Because he'll be remembered as a horrible monster, instead of a sad nobody.

CNN's article says that if the body count "holds up", this will rank as the second deadliest shooting behind Virginia Tech, as if statistics somehow make one shooting worse than another. Then they post a video interview of third-graders for all the details of what they saw and heard while the shootings were happening. Fox News has plastered the killer's face on all their reports for hours. Any articles or news stories yet that focus on the victims and ignore the killer's identity? None that I've seen yet. Because they don't sell. So congratulations, sensationalist media, you've just lit the fire for someone to top this and knock off a day care center or a maternity ward next.

You can help by forgetting you ever read this man's name, and remembering the name of at least one victim. You can help by donating to mental health research instead of pointing to gun control as the problem. You can help by turning off the news.""

[Tiffany]

I shared that exact thing on FB actually, although I think they've established that Morgan Freeman didn't actually write that, they used his name to give it a bit more credentials.

I agree, violence by any means isn't the answer at all. I just look at the difference between what happened in China versus what happened in CT. Both had douchebags attack children in a school. The glaring difference is that the kids in China will live. The kids in CT are dead. Both are horrific as I personally feel that any attack on children (be it guns, knives, bombs, axes, whatever) is atrocious... but a gun will kill far more than a knife will. Absolutely, a well placed stab wound will kill for sure and if you've studied how to do it, makes it that much more lethal.

With a gun you can just aim in a general direction and if there's a group of people chances are you are going to hit them.

I don't think that removing guns is the answer either. Like I mentioned before, this guy in CT got his guns from his mother who obtained them legally. There's no law that would have stopped him from doing this, or prevent him from going on a killing spree. All I was stating that if we're going to get into Teachers and Attackers deuling it out, I'd far rather it be with knives than guns.

[Lacquer Head]

Guns aren't that dangerous if the person isn't trained. A bullet is a lot smaller than a knife. One event versus another isn't a case what so ever. If the chinese dude was a trained martial artist or some shit, the death count would have been sky high. There's no way to remove guns from criminals, gun control is a completely moot point. It wouldn't have made the SLIGHTEST bit of difference. If some one wants a high death count and they can't get a gun, they're going to google "how to make a bomb". There are plenty of other effective weapons. This is all in some magical fantasy land where guns are unobtainable.

Also, I'm glad that it wasn't Morgan Freeman that said that, because I can now respect him again. That quote is so damn stupid it's unbelievable.

EDIT: At least 7 reportedly injured in shooting at suburban Milwaukee spa - Los Angeles Times

Here's an example of a gun not being a perfect killing weapon. Hell, think of all the people that get shot...or shot AT in gang shootings and such that survive. This guy was trained to shoot by his mom, he knew wtf he was doing.

[Tiffany]

But the fact of the matter is that not every sociopath out there is a trained lethal assassin.

Of course there will be exceptions to every rule and maybe one day there will be some commando-assassin type of dude who will go about knifing people with precise stabs and kill 22 people before officials stop them. But you don't need to be a trained shot to do damage. I went to a gun range 2 years ago and I'm a horrible, horrible shot. I shot a Glock and a Sig Sauer and I was still able to hit the target (which ironically is in the shape of a human torso) with accuracy.

Maybe this guy in CT was trained in how to shoot, but there have been lots of other places where people just open fire into crowds who don't have the background in guns. They do it for the efficiency. Its a cowards weapon really, chances are buddy didn't even have to go into the rooms in order to massacre people, he could have easily done it from the door way. At least with a knife you have a chance to outrun the guy. The two staff who first ran out didn't stand a chance against him with a gun, had it been a knife, chances are they could have overtaken him.

Of course, this is all surmising. What happened has happened and it wasn't a knife, it was a gun. Again, I bring up the kids in China. Same situtation but those kids are all alive. You can't tell me that a knife is of the same scope as a gun. That's like comparing a Molotov cocktail to high powered explosives. Both can be deadly, but one is a far greater impact.

[Heartless Angel]

I shared that exact thing on FB actually, although I think they've established that Morgan Freeman didn't actually write that, they used his name to give it a bit more credentials.

The name didn't matter to me in any case, I just don't like quoting things out of context. It actually makes a great deal of sense LH. While not every criminal is out for attention, there are a lot of murder suicides performed by attention seeking idiots, and we just keep telling them it's working.

I agree, violence by any means isn't the answer at all. I just look at the difference between what happened in China versus what happened in CT. Both had douchebags attack children in a school. The glaring difference is that the kids in China will live. The kids in CT are dead. Both are horrific as I personally feel that any attack on children (be it guns, knives, bombs, axes, whatever) is atrocious... but a gun will kill far more than a knife will. Absolutely, a well placed stab wound will kill for sure and if you've studied how to do it, makes it that much more lethal.

Not all gun injuries are fatal. People survive gunshots all the time. It's purely a matter of placement. A shot or stab to the arm is gonna hurt like a bitch, but it probably won't kill you. Take a hit in the liver, I don't care if it's a bullet or a blade, you're boned. Spraying bullets randomly versus flailing around with a knife at random, yeah, the gun has a greater probability of killing. Somebody even remotely knowledgeable about human anatomy can be equally deadly with either. Most failed knife attacks fail because idiots use slashing blows, which coming from a short blade, are seldom deep enough to cause fatal injuries. Just being smart enough to use stabbing attacks greatly increases the odds of fatality, even if only by bleeding to death. Stab wound to the abdominal area, odds are fairly high you're going to hit something important. Slash a throat, you can rest assured your target won't be getting up. It takes very little knowledge to be lethal with a knife. In this particular scenario, the attacker just happened to be an idiot.

With a gun you can just aim in a general direction and if there's a group of people chances are you are going to hit them.

With a blade, you'd have to suck pretty hard at life to miss. Also, if melee weaponry became popular again, knives wouldn't be the problem.



You can strike at any angle at just about any point you like with something like this, the target isn't going to survive. Long bladed weapons are almost always going to be fatal.

All I was stating that if we're going to get into Teachers and Attackers deuling it out, I'd far rather it be with knives than guns.

Well of course, that's the type of confrontation that minimizes collateral damage. For that very reason, a criminal is not going to play by these rules. Somebody planning on going in and racking up kills is going to opt for the method that causes as much collateral damage as possible. If everybody has knives, they'll want swords. If everyone has swords, they'll want bombs. They're going to do whatever it takes to gain an advantage over law abiding citizens. Putting a weapon of equal ease of use and effectiveness into the hands of law abiding citizens takes away the criminal's ability to easily gain that advantage.

Maybe this guy in CT was trained in how to shoot, but there have been lots of other places where people just open fire into crowds who don't have the background in guns. They do it for the efficiency. Its a cowards weapon really, chances are buddy didn't even have to go into the rooms in order to massacre people, he could have easily done it from the door way. At least with a knife you have a chance to outrun the guy. The two staff who first ran out didn't stand a chance against him with a gun, had it been a knife, chances are they could have overtaken him.

The solution isn't setting the stage to optimize people's ability to flee in terror and hope only a few of the slower victims die, but to remove the need for them to flee. If those two teachers had guns in their pockets an had taken a self defense course and knew how to use them, a confrontation would've consisted of one of them getting shot while the other drilled the dumbass and dropped him. We now have 1 innocent casualty instead of 20. Assuming our offender even got off the first shot, though that is likely.

[Tiffany]

But everything you are going on is off the chance that the teacher would be a good shot. If you are going to say that knives are far deadlier and more accurate than guns... then maybe the teachers should have knives? I'm gonna have to agree to disagree on you because I for the life of me can't get where you are coming from. Other than that part about "Morgan Freeman" posting that blurb. I don't like misquoting either, but the article has some damn good points. More focus should be on helping people who are mentally ill.

[Heartless Angel]

But everything you are going on is off the chance that the teacher would be a good shot.

When you get a licence to conceal and carry you take some basic shooting courses, learn to operate the weapon, get some practice time. It really isn't difficult to be a decent shot. And it isn't really necessary. Two guys putting rounds into a guys body as fast as they can fire, odds are somebody's gonna hit something.

If you are going to say that knives are far deadlier and more accurate than guns... then maybe the teachers should have knives? I'm gonna have to agree to disagree on you because I for the life of me can't get where you are coming from.

That isn't at all what I said. A gun is definitely more deadly than a knife in gun vs. knife combat. A gun and knife are equally deadly in an armed attacker vs. unarmed victim confrontation. What I'm getting at, is that the bad guys are always going to be armed. It doesn't matter what weapons they have access to, aw abiding citizens need the same armaments to properly defend themselves. When you're equally well equipped, you rob the criminal of his advantage, and it becomes a matter of numbers. Several armed law abiding citizens willing and able to neutralize a criminal versus one equally armed criminal, the criminal is going to lose. One armed criminal against a dozen unarmed civilians, the criminal is going to win. The criminals aren't picking weapons that minimize collateral damage, to fight them on even terms, the law abiding citizens need to be using the same weapons. Not only is it important for a law abiding citizen to OWN a self defensive weapon, but to become intimately familiar with its use, so that in the event of an armed criminal attack, they can be ready and capable of stopping them. Going unarmed when there are people like this in the world is not only unsafe, it's irresponsible. Keeping guns out of law abiding hands to make stupid people 'feel safe' is just idiotic. For all the safe feelings those kids may have had for being in a school where teacher didn't have guns, they're dead now. Those safe feelings didn't do a damned thing for them. A gun in a trained hand could have saved their lives.

[Tiffany]

I guess its hard for me to understand. The laws are in place to protect me, so I don't feel the need to arm myself on the chance that someone may or may not try to do me harm.

Of course, there's always going to be some disturbed little shit who's going to do stuff and obviously I hope that I'm not one of them... but I dunno, I don't feel like I need to carry a weapon to defend myself. Just my point of view.

[Rowan]

I guess its hard for me to understand. The laws are in place to protect me, so I don't feel the need to arm myself on the chance that someone may or may not try to do me harm.

Of course, there's always going to be some disturbed little shit who's going to do stuff and obviously I hope that I'm not one of them... but I dunno, I don't feel like I need to carry a weapon to defend myself. Just my point of view.

Great. Wonder how those laws and logic protected those children?

[Tiffany]

Hard to say, I'm in Canada where our laws are different. Maybe if CT had our laws this wouldn't have happened? Who knows?

[Rowan]

Hard to say, I'm in Canada where our laws are different. Maybe if CT had our laws this wouldn't have happened? Who knows?

Im sure its illegal to kill people in both Canada and CT.

[Tiffany]

Bahahaha, of course. But the laws to get a gun and how to store it are completely different here.

[Lacquer Head]

Are teachers going to have the gun in their hand at all time? No. They'd have to keep it locked up to prevent a STUDENT from stealing it. This is all assuming every teacher is going to accept that they have to be a trained killer. They're generally thinkers, not fighters. I plan to get a teaching degree and I would NEVER keep a gun in a classroom near children. Most teachers wouldn't either. We already have a shortage of teachers and shit, we can't afford to make it even worse.

Not to mention by your logic, if the teachers have guns, the killer is going to come strapped with a bomb or take a hostage or something. There's just too many risks and dangers in this situation.

EDIT: As we've already established, these gun laws don't affect CRIMINALS.

[Tiffany]

Not my logic, was more responding to the "teachers need to arm themselves". How you posted is what I would hope teachers would say.

[Rowan]

Suppose Ill chime in then. I’m cynical. I believe that by placing restrictions on guns, or banning them all together would only result in honest people from not having them. Hand guns are illegal in Australia (unless you're an officer or guard), yet there are shootings and 100 percent of the time, guess what? they are from the bad guys. The answer does not lie within gun control. I don’t think the answer lies within mental health funding either. What makes you think these people want to be helped? What makes you think they can be helped? You think some therapy will turn someone from “I think I’m going to kill of a bunch of people today” to “I’m going to enrol as a kindergarten teacher”. Honestly, I wouldn’t want someone with a psychopathic mentality working in a public place while they try and suppress their violent behaviour/nature.

And yet, there will be no justice for these children, instead a funeral picketed by a bigoted people who for some reason, are allowed to do so protected under law. Keeping in mind other worthwhile protests are being beaten and pepper sprayed. Where is your justice? Where is your god? Everyone is expecting some sort of answer for this, some sort of reaction or preventative measure. We will weigh up the options and try to determine a way that we think will work, but instead end up arguing with each other and end up infringing on people’s rights in the process of trying to figure this out.

What do I think needs to happen? Well I don’t believe these things can ever be prevented to the point where we can stop someone from doing what they are thinking. What we always have the power to do though, is react. He was only 1 man. If he had tried to attack a military compound or a police station, he would have been dropped very quickly. Instead this cowardly prick decided to kill children. Short of putting security guards in a school or giving teachers weapons, there’s nothing an unarmed person can do to stop a homicidal/suicidal maniac. What age are we living in, when teachers need to be armed to protect children from gunmen in elementary schools?

[Tiffany]

Fair enough.

But how do you weed out the ones who would do this? I wouldn't want anyone like this being my kids teacher either... but until he actually did this no one would expected it.

There are no easy answers for sure.

[Lacquer Head]

I don’t think the answer lies within mental health funding either. What makes you think these people want to be helped?

If they're a threat to society, they wont have a choice.

What makes you think they can be helped? You think some therapy will turn someone from “I think I’m going to kill of a bunch of people today” to “I’m going to enrol as a kindergarten teacher”. Honestly, I wouldn’t want someone with a psychopathic mentality working in a public place while they try and suppress their violent behaviour/nature.

Yes, yes I do think that. There are plenty of methods already to do SOME help with some mental disorders. There's no way to prevent something like a political or religion motivated attack, but this is a far cry from a misguided but rational act. If the signs can be spotted early in life, they can get help before they snap.

[Rowan]

Fair enough.

But how do you weed out the ones who would do this? I wouldn't want anyone like this being my kids teacher either... but until he actually did this no one would expected it.

There are no easy answers for sure.

Thats exactly what I'm saying. You dont weed them out. Noone is a killer until they have killed. Observing psychopathic behaviours is great, but only if the person seeks your council. I doubt the worst people in history gave a shit about their behaviour enough to want to seek help. If someone is going to kill, you need to be prepared to defend yourself. Thats all. No prevention. The world isn't a happy place.

[Heartless Angel]

Are teachers going to have the gun in their hand at all time? No. They'd have to keep it locked up to prevent a STUDENT from stealing it. This is all assuming every teacher is going to accept that they have to be a trained killer. They're generally thinkers, not fighters. I plan to get a teaching degree and I would NEVER keep a gun in a classroom near children. Most teachers wouldn't either. We already have a shortage of teachers and shit, we can't afford to make it even worse.

I'm a thinker, not a fighter. I own firearms, I am practiced in their use, and if I were ever confronted with a situation requiring usage of a firearm, I would use one without hesitation. One doesn't have to become a hardened assassin to be prepared to defend one's self. You keep a concealed firearm on your person, safety on, not sitting on a counter or some shit where kids are going to play with it. A school is responsible for the safety of its students. Neglecting the ability to defend one's self and other to maintain some foolish air of ethical superiority is selfish and irresponsible. If you go down, you go down. Better to go down fighting, than cowering, hiding, or running and hoping you're one of the few who survives an unopposed massacre.

Not to mention by your logic, if the teachers have guns, the killer is going to come strapped with a bomb or take a hostage or something. There's just too many risks and dangers in this situation.

What logic would there be in taking a hostage if you came to kill people? "Stop right there, drop your weapons! If you don't let me kill everyone in this room without a fight, I'll kill this individual!", really, how much sense does that make? As for bombs, this is why guns are such wonderful weapons. Due to ease of use, range of effectiveness, and relatively high killing power, one stands a reasonable change of taking out somebody using a bigger weapon. So, the comparison is this. Law abiding citizen with a gun versus criminal with a home made bomb, you might lose, you might die. OR, unarmed civilian versus criminal with a firearm; You WILL lose, you WILL die. In the case of this massacre what would a teacher have had to lose? They were all MURDERED. What else could they possibly have to lose here? You're comparing risking your life, to surrendering your life without a fight.

What do I think needs to happen? Well I don’t believe these things can ever be prevented to the point where we can stop someone from doing what they are thinking. What we always have the power to do though, is react. He was only 1 man. If he had tried to attack a military compound or a police station, he would have been dropped very quickly. Instead this cowardly prick decided to kill children. Short of putting security guards in a school or giving teachers weapons, there’s nothing that can be done to stop a homicidal/suicidal maniac. What age are we living in, when teachers need to be armed to protect children from gunmen in elementary schools?

This. You're not going to stop laws from being broken with different laws. Disarming the planet is unreasonable, and not feasible. Expecting everybody to learn to love each other and play nice is naive if not outright moronic. Your options are react, or don't react, fight, or don't fight, risk death, or guarantee death. The world is in a bad way. Ignoring the problem doesn't fix it.

[Lacquer Head]

Thats exactly what I'm saying. You dont weed them out. Noone is a killer until they have killed. Observing psychopathic behaviours is great, but only if the person seeks your council. I doubt the worst people in history gave a shit about their behaviour enough to want to seek help. If someone is going to kill, you need to be prepared to defend yourself. Thats all. No prevention. The world isn't a happy place.

Mandatory psychological evaluation to enroll in public school perhaps? Maybe if more people were aware...parents or siblings could spot warning signs if they some how passed such evaluations. Of course this doesn't work for people that have something develop in life, but there are plenty of chances to do so.

I'm a thinker, not a fighter. I own firearms, I am practiced in their use, and if I were ever confronted with a situation requiring usage of a firearm, I would use one without hesitation. One doesn't have to become a hardened assassin to be prepared to defend one's self. You keep a concealed firearm on your person, safety on, not sitting on a counter or some shit where kids are going to play with it.

Not everyone WANTS to carry a gun, nor should they have to. If you want to, good for you, don't try to force it on others.

A school is responsible for the safety of its students. Neglecting the ability to defend one's self and other to maintain some foolish air of ethical superiority is selfish and irresponsible. If you go down, you go down. Better to go down fighting, than cowering, hiding, or running and hoping you're one of the few who survives an unopposed massacre.

So you want police officers to be teachers, got it. Responsible safety doesn't include any of this. Not many people are going to enroll their kids in schools with everyone packing heat, at least I would HOPE not.

What logic would there be in taking a hostage if you came to kill people? "Stop right there, drop your weapons! If you don't let me kill everyone in this room without a fight, I'll kill this individual!", really, how much sense does that make?

"Give me your gun or I'll kill him." *Drops gun* BANG. As we've been discussing, these people don't always play fair.

As for bombs, this is why guns are such wonderful weapons. Due to ease of use, range of effectiveness, and relatively high killing power, one stands a reasonable change of taking out somebody using a bigger weapon. So, the comparison is this. Law abiding citizen with a gun versus criminal with a home made bomb, you might lose, you might die. OR, unarmed civilian versus criminal with a firearm; You WILL lose, you WILL die. In the case of this massacre what would a teacher have had to lose? They were all MURDERED. What else could they possibly have to lose here? You're comparing risking your life, to surrendering your life without a fight.

I'm just saying that giving everyone guns solves NOTHING. Actions should be taken to keep guns out of the school completely. A metal detector isn't a bad idea, nor is having to be buzzed in, keeping classroom doors locked (and secure) and so on. There's not much protection you can give for a bomb, obviously, but preventing gun violence is not.

This. You're not going to stop laws from being broken with different laws. Disarming the planet is unreasonable, and not feasible. Expecting everybody to learn to love each other and play nice is naive if not outright moronic. Your options are react, or don't react, fight, or don't fight, risk death, or guarantee death. The world is in a bad way. Ignoring the problem doesn't fix it.

Disarming isn't the solution, arming isn't either.

[Heartless Angel]

Mandatory psychological evaluation to enroll in public school perhaps? Maybe if more people were aware...parents or siblings could spot warning signs if they some how passed such evaluations. Of course this doesn't work for people that have something develop in life, but there are plenty of chances to do so.

It's not easy to diagnose a mental illness all the time. Sometimes it's obvious, sometimes it runs deeper, and nobody sees it until it's too late. And really, there are a lot of people with recognizable diagnosis mental disorders that can function perfectly fine in society. Often problems that have always been there don't surface and become problematic until an experience triggers it. Long story short, no reliable way to accomplish this on a large scale while actually finding any of the problems.

Not everyone WANTS to carry a gun, nor should they have to. If you want to, good for you, don't try to force it on others.

I'm not the one forcing people to take action. It's the criminals (well, not really, if they were forcing people to take action, people would, you know, be taking action, but they kinda, well, aren't). They make the world an unsafe place. Carrying a firearm makes it a whole hell of a lot safer for you. If you prefer to opt NOT to be capable of defending yourself, you forfeit your right to be upset when a criminal has you or somebody else at a disadvantage, because you CHOOSE to let them have that advantage.

So you want police officers to be teachers, got it. Responsible safety doesn't include any of this. Not many people are going to enroll their kids in schools with everyone packing heat, at least I would HOPE not.

Once again, no, having a gun does not make you a policeman, it does not make you an assassin, it does not make you a homicidal maniac. A firearm is a piece of metal. It has no moral alignment, it has no thoughts or free will. It does nothing unless you use it. You don't need to be a cop, a soldier, or a trained killer to defend yourself or others.

"Give me your gun or I'll kill him." *Drops gun* BANG. As we've been discussing, these people don't always play fair.

Alright, so what exactly would somebody be holding elementary school hostages in an elementary for, it's not like there's a register to rob. If someone is in a school with a firearm, they have intent to cause somebody harm. If they've got their gun up to a child's head, you're well past the point of talking him down. Of course a criminal isn't going to play fair, that's what makes him a criminal. A hostage is only a viable option when you have a goal OTHER than killing people. In a school, during the day when it's full of people, it's pretty damned obvious you're not there for monetary gain. And furthermore, killing a hostage that you're holding right in front of somebody is suicide, you lose your shield and bargaining chip, you threaten to do this if the opponent does not surrender... if you follow through, it means the opponent has NOT surrendered, you now have an opponent, still armed, now pissed off, survival has been threatened, fight or flight instincts override any sense of morality that kept that trigger from being pulled this long, and your bargaining chip is gone. That's checkmate any way you look at it. If your criminal was that stupid, you weren't getting out of this without casualties anyways. You now have one casualty instead of 20. Not terribly comforting to the parents of that one casualty, sure, but one casualty is better than 20 any way you look at it.

Where would you feel your children are more safe?

School A, we have armed, but responsible, intelligent, and trustwrothy adults working here, they have taken classes in self defense, if somebody seeks to do harm to this school and its students, our faculty are equipped to handle the situation and protect as many as possible...

Or, school B. We have a sign that says no firearms. So far it's worked on all our employees and our elementary students, none of them have guns, so we'll be fine.

Personally, I've got more faith in the gun.

I'm just saying that giving everyone guns solves NOTHING. Actions should be taken to keep guns out of the school completely. A metal detector isn't a bad idea, nor is having to be buzzed in, keeping classroom doors locked (and secure) and so on. There's not much protection you can give for a bomb, obviously, but preventing gun violence is not.

Oh dear, the metal detector has gone off. The unarmed security guard has asked me politely to leave, and not blow his head off with the sawed off shotgun in my pants then proceeding to break in and do as I please. Clearly I have been bested and have no chance of victory here, I'll be on my way then.

...Right. Security measures aren't perfect. If somebody wants in, they're getting in unless you have the power to stop them. When we've got Star Trek transporters that can filter out weapons before the re-materialization process, then maybe you can keep them out of places, until then, good luck with that.

Disarming isn't the solution, arming isn't either.

There is no magical solution that's going to avert every single crime anybody would ever have an intent to commit. Arming isn't gong to stop crimes from happening, but it's going to enable victims to fight back. After a few stories on the news about gas station robbers and other lowlifes getting their brains blown out when they try to hold somebody at gunpoint, some of them are going to begin to consider gun crimes a less appealing option for personal gain. It's not a solution, it's damage control.

[Lacquer Head]

It's not easy to diagnose a mental illness all the time. Sometimes it's obvious, sometimes it runs deeper, and nobody sees it until it's too late. And really, there are a lot of people with recognizable diagnosis mental disorders that can function perfectly fine in society. Often problems that have always been there don't surface and become problematic until an experience triggers it. Long story short, no reliable way to accomplish this on a large scale while actually finding any of the problems.

Which is why I said we should invest money in proper research.

I'm not the one forcing people to take action. It's the criminals (well, not really, if they were forcing people to take action, people would, you know, be taking action, but they kinda, well, aren't). They make the world an unsafe place. Carrying a firearm makes it a whole hell of a lot safer for you. If you prefer to opt NOT to be capable of defending yourself, you forfeit your right to be upset when a criminal has you or somebody else at a disadvantage, because you CHOOSE to let them have that advantage.

I know it's a disadvantage, but it's not worth taking a life, at least to me.

Once again, no, having a gun does not make you a policeman, it does not make you an assassin, it does not make you a homicidal maniac. A firearm is a piece of metal. It has no moral alignment, it has no thoughts or free will. It does nothing unless you use it. You don't need to be a cop, a soldier, or a trained killer to defend yourself or others.

A teachers job isn't to be an armed guard.

Alright, so what exactly would somebody be holding elementary school hostages in an elementary for, it's not like there's a register to rob. If someone is in a school with a firearm, they have intent to cause somebody harm. If they've got their gun up to a child's head, you're well past the point of talking him down. Of course a criminal isn't going to play fair, that's what makes him a criminal. A hostage is only a viable option when you have a goal OTHER than killing people. In a school, during the day when it's full of people, it's pretty damned obvious you're not there for monetary gain. And furthermore, killing a hostage that you're holding right in front of somebody is suicide, you lose your shield and bargaining chip, you threaten to do this if the opponent does not surrender... if you follow through, it means the opponent has NOT surrendered, you now have an opponent, still armed, now pissed off, survival has been threatened, fight or flight instincts override any sense of morality that kept that trigger from being pulled this long, and your bargaining chip is gone. That's checkmate any way you look at it. If your criminal was that stupid, you weren't getting out of this without casualties anyways. You now have one casualty instead of 20. Not terribly comforting to the parents of that one casualty, sure, but one casualty is better than 20 any way you look at it.

1. Political/terror reasons. They could do it to bargain some shit.

2. Did you miss the part where I said "put the gun down"? If they toss the gun aside...they are most definitely NOT armed.

3. No amount of casualties is EVER an acceptable amount. This reminds me a great deal of that infamous scene from Dr Strangelove. Bomb the Russians and we'll come out with only 5 million casualties.

Where would you feel your children are more safe?

School A, we have armed, but responsible, intelligent, and trustwrothy adults working here, they have taken classes in self defense, if somebody seeks to do harm to this school and its students, our faculty are equipped to handle the situation and protect as many as possible...

Or, school B. We have a sign that says no firearms. So far it's worked on all our employees and our elementary students, none of them have guns, so we'll be fine.

School C: No guns allowed on the premise, all visitors must be rung in, walked through a metal detector and signed in. Doors locked and secure at all times with safe zones to flee to in a worst case scenario.

Personally, it seems a lot more viable of a solution regardless. Instead of a few casualties, we have none, barring bombs and shit.

Oh dear, the metal detector has gone off. The unarmed security guard has asked me politely to leave, and not blow his head off with the sawed off shotgun in my pants then proceeding to break in and do as I please. Clearly I have been bested and have no chance of victory here, I'll be on my way then.

Yes, because they could be behind bulletproof glass with said metal detector outside the door. "Please slide drop all metal objects in the flippy metal thing." Kinda like a bank.

...Right. Security measures aren't perfect. If somebody wants in, they're getting in unless you have the power to stop them. When we've got Star Trek transporters that can filter out weapons before the re-materialization process, then maybe you can keep them out of places, until then, good luck with that.

See my above statement.

There is no magical solution that's going to avert every single crime anybody would ever have an intent to commit. Arming isn't gong to stop crimes from happening, but it's going to enable victims to fight back. After a few stories on the news about gas station robbers and other lowlifes getting their brains blown out when they try to hold somebody at gunpoint, some of them are going to begin to consider gun crimes a less appealing option for personal gain. It's not a solution, it's damage control.

And said criminal MIGHT just ask no questions and shoot the cashiers as soon as they walk in. "Hello, how may I hel-". They can adapt to dangers just as well as the rest of us.

[Heartless Angel]

Which is why I said we should invest money in proper research.

There isn't enough money in existence to invest in everything we need to make the perfect world you want. The world is not perfect, we do not have the means of making it perfect, so we have to pick and choose what improvement we can realistically make.

I know it's a disadvantage, but it's not worth taking a life, at least to me.

Take a life, or lose a life. Someone dies either way, would you rather it be an innocent, or the criminal? I know we'd all love to have every situation with a readily available win-win nobody gets hurt everyone walks away happy outcome, but in reality, quite often we are faced with no-win situations. When faced with one, one must be ready and willing to calculate the least severe loss and settle for it.

A teachers job isn't to be an armed guard.

A teacher's job isn't to be a sentient ballistics dummy for criminals to practice their aim on either, but things don't always go as planned, ask the murdered teachers from CT. I'm not saying we need the teachers to work in shifts while we have a few patrolling the perimeter with assault rifles or practicing their aim in the school firing range. It's a simple matter of sticking a handgun that 99.99% of them will never have to fire in their pocket. Again, being armed does not make you a soldier, it does not make you a cop, it does not make you a guard. It makes you a citizen with the ability to stand up to a criminal should the need arise. Until such a situation arises, you live your life as though that gun doesn't even exist.

1. Political/terror reasons. They could do it to bargain some shit.

And how often do we actually have to capitulate to terrorists? Somebody sends in a strike team to take the guy out, there's almost always a firefight, someone almost always gets hurt or killed. This happens very infrequently. The odds are overwhelmingly in favor of it being a simple massacre. You do not surrender to an armed psychopath with clear intent to cause harm.

2. Did you miss the part where I said "put the gun down"? If they toss the gun aside...they are most definitely NOT armed.

Right, that part of my post was working within a hypothetical scenario in which the victim is NOT stupid and does not NOT surrender because it is clear that the criminal does NOT intend to leave without hurting somebody. If the law abiding citizen does not disarm at the criminal's request, it is not logical for the criminal to carry out his threat, because that leaves him without his shield and bargaining chip. A hostage does not give this person an advantage unless you are stupid enough to do as he says. Losing 1 hostage in every hostage scenario, versus gambling that the criminal does not intend to do harm and have half of them result in a massacre. The death toll is much less when accepting the possibility of one hostage being killed in each case, an refusing to submit to the attacker.

3. No amount of casualties is EVER an acceptable amount. This reminds me a great deal of that infamous scene from Dr Strangelove. Bomb the Russians and we'll come out with only 5 million casualties.

That is a terribly naive state of mind. People die by the thousands every day. Death can not be prevented. There is no perfect world in which nobody ever gets hurt. Our choices are limited to lots of casualties, or few casualties. That neither is perfect does not mean that one choice is not clearly more logical than the other.

School C: No guns allowed on the premise, all visitors must be rung in, walked through a metal detector and signed in. Doors locked and secure at all times with safe zones to flee to in a worst case scenario.

See my first response. Money is finite, limited. There isn't enough of it to implement White House level security in every building on the planet. It is not feasible, it is not reasonable. Even in this case, there isn't an armed guard to monitor every building and fight would be criminals, there are still ways in.

Personally, it seems a lot more viable of a solution regardless. Instead of a few casualties, we have none, barring bombs and shit.

So, it stops everything except for the things it doesn't stop. That analysis could be applied to literally ANYTHING. That is a much less viable solution, a much more costly solution, and an equally imperfect solution. All you've accomplished is turning the difficulty up, and wasting untold money and resources to do it. So even in your perfect world where we never have to resort to hurting somebody, you still can't completely solve the problem. You still have no real 'solution', just a different method of damage control.

Yes, because they could be behind bulletproof glass with said metal detector outside the door. "Please slide drop all metal objects in the flippy metal thing." Kinda like a bank.

Bulletproof glass, metal detectors, security having to buzz everyone in... And I was accused of making schools sound like a prison by suggesting that personal have concealed firearms that 99.99% of people never even have to see? Also, I've never been checked at the door of a bank. People walk right into em through the front door. People rob banks all the time. Again, you're working in some hypothetical universe in which resources and money are unlimited, and all security measures are flawless. We don't live in that universe, we're stuck in this one.

And said criminal MIGHT just ask no questions and shoot the cashiers as soon as they walk in. "Hello, how may I hel-". They can adapt to dangers just as well as the rest of us.

And that works just fine in a hypothetical scenario in which the only two human beings in the building are the cashier and the attacker. There was a rather amusing incident that was put on 1000 Ways to Die. Guy walks in to a gun store with a gun and tries to rob it. He got his ass wasted by at least 6 different people before he fired a single shot. The one thing they can't adapt to, is the fact that they are one person. A building full of equally armed law abiding citizens watching out for each other has the advantage. Again, there is no perfect world in which you never face a no-win situation. All you can do is try to minimize them.

[Rowan]

Ive gotta side with HA on this one. I dont think bulletproof glass and metal detectors on every single entry/exit point on the school is a more viable solution. You're still trying to think of a way to prevent someone from doing this. Its about how to react. The only measure you can take is to try and kill the perpatrator or disarm him. Perhaps the school should install giant magnets in its walls which activate at the press of a button and have the gun fly from the perps hands?

[Lacquer Head]

There isn't enough money in existence to invest in everything we need to make the perfect world you want. The world is not perfect, we do not have the means of making it perfect, so we have to pick and choose what improvement we can realistically make.

Did I say everything? There's plenty of money being wasted on failed policies, instead of investing all this money for the "war on drugs", we could invest it into mental health research. If a girl can be cured of leukemia, surely doctors can DIAGNOSE a mental illness.

Take a life, or lose a life. Someone dies either way, would you rather it be an innocent, or the criminal? I know we'd all love to have every situation with a readily available win-win nobody gets hurt everyone walks away happy outcome, but in reality, quite often we are faced with no-win situations. When faced with one, one must be ready and willing to calculate the least severe loss and settle for it.

I don't view anyone as more important than anyone else, so I'd prefer neither.

A teacher's job isn't to be a sentient ballistics dummy for criminals to practice their aim on either, but things don't always go as planned, ask the murdered teachers from CT.

Yes, because criminals murdering people is just like completely changing a persons job.

I'm not saying we need the teachers to work in shifts while we have a few patrolling the perimeter with assault rifles or practicing their aim in the school firing range. It's a simple matter of sticking a handgun that 99.99% of them will never have to fire in their pocket. Again, being armed does not make you a soldier, it does not make you a cop, it does not make you a guard. It makes you a citizen with the ability to stand up to a criminal should the need arise. Until such a situation arises, you live your life as though that gun doesn't even exist.

1. Is an army private not a soldier til he's been in the shit?

2. If we're going on such rare statistics, how bout we make all teachers be basic geologists and meteorologists to prevent natural disasters. We could also force them to get bitten by radioactive spiders to develop spidey sense awesomeface.jpg

And how often do we actually have to capitulate to terrorists? Somebody sends in a strike team to take the guy out, there's almost always a firefight, someone almost always gets hurt or killed. This happens very infrequently. The odds are overwhelmingly in favor of it being a simple massacre. You do not surrender to an armed psychopath with clear intent to cause harm.

No, actually you do. If they haven't killed anyone, you try to appease them to prevent the hostages from being harmed. But if you think a childs life should be forfeit because a gunman might kill some one...

Right, that part of my post was working within a hypothetical scenario in which the victim is NOT stupid and does not NOT surrender because it is clear that the criminal does NOT intend to leave without hurting somebody. If the law abiding citizen does not disarm at the criminal's request, it is not logical for the criminal to carry out his threat, because that leaves him without his shield and bargaining chip. A hostage does not give this person an advantage unless you are stupid enough to do as he says. Losing 1 hostage in every hostage scenario, versus gambling that the criminal does not intend to do harm and have half of them result in a massacre. The death toll is much less when accepting the possibility of one hostage being killed in each case, an refusing to submit to the attacker.

You say it's stupid and a clear choice, and I disagree. You never accept ANY deaths. That is never acceptable. You say a few deaths are acceptable, I say none, along with most people.

That is a terribly naive state of mind. People die by the thousands every day. Death can not be prevented. There is no perfect world in which nobody ever gets hurt. Our choices are limited to lots of casualties, or few casualties. That neither is perfect does not mean that one choice is not clearly more logical than the other.

Because thousands of people die, it makes it ok? Death CAN be prevented, easily.

See my first response. Money is finite, limited. There isn't enough of it to implement White House level security in every building on the planet. It is not feasible, it is not reasonable. Even in this case, there isn't an armed guard to monitor every building and fight would be criminals, there are still ways in.

There are plenty of other buildings that can afford it vOv there are already schools that have such security methods in place. If you school is a fortress, you don't NEED armed guards. If you can hold them off til the police make it there. you're doing pretty good.

So, it stops everything except for the things it doesn't stop. That analysis could be applied to literally ANYTHING. That is a much less viable solution, a much more costly solution, and an equally imperfect solution. All you've accomplished is turning the difficulty up, and wasting untold money and resources to do it. So even in your perfect world where we never have to resort to hurting somebody, you still can't completely solve the problem. You still have no real 'solution', just a different method of damage control.

Seems like a viable solution to me. But once again, there are our opinions \o\ \o/ /o/

Bulletproof glass, metal detectors, security having to buzz everyone in... And I was accused of making schools sound like a prison by suggesting that personal have concealed firearms that 99.99% of people never even have to see? Also, I've never been checked at the door of a bank. People walk right into em through the front door. People rob banks all the time. Again, you're working in some hypothetical universe in which resources and money are unlimited, and all security measures are flawless. We don't live in that universe, we're stuck in this one.

Pretty much every Cash Land has bulletproof glass and a door that only opens when the tellers buzzes them in. So yes, yes we do live in that universe. I've seen in many times.

And that works just fine in a hypothetical scenario in which the only two human beings in the building are the cashier and the attacker. There was a rather amusing incident that was put on 1000 Ways to Die. Guy walks in to a gun store with a gun and tries to rob it. He got his ass wasted by at least 6 different people before he fired a single shot. The one thing they can't adapt to, is the fact that they are one person. A building full of equally armed law abiding citizens watching out for each other has the advantage. Again, there is no perfect world in which you never face a no-win situation. All you can do is try to minimize them.

Funny, I work at a gas station and I know that we tend to have 1-2 people working at anytime. We don't hide in a monitoring room either. If the criminal busts in, shoots one person and holds you up, there's not much you can do. That's to say they don't take you both by surprise. Unless the cashiers have a gun in their hand, there's no way they could react in time.

Ive gotta side with HA on this one. I dont think bulletproof glass and metal detectors on every single entry/exit point on the school is a more viable solution. You're still trying to think of a way to prevent someone from doing this. Its about how to react. The only measure you can take is to try and kill the perpatrator or disarm him. Perhaps the school should install giant magnets in its walls which activate at the press of a button and have the gun fly from the perps hands?

I didn't say every entry point. I said keep doors LOCKED. You have one entrance for visitors and shit. Depending on the school size, if they wanna put their students through the shit as well, it would be more difficult perhaps, but it's still viable and already happening in some places. 2 large doors would be fine.

I find it kind of funny that I promised not to get involved with a gun debate like a typical stereotype...yet here I am...

[Rowan]

I didn't say every entry point. I said keep doors LOCKED. You have one entrance for visitors and shit. Depending on the school size, if they wanna put their students through the shit as well, it would be more difficult perhaps, but it's still viable and already happening in some places. 2 large doors would be fine.

I find it kind of funny that I promised not to get involved with a gun debate like a typical stereotype...yet here I am...

Rule #1 in case of armed maniac invading. Lock your doors:







Rule#2 when theres a volcanic eruption:
Duck and cover.

[the_savior21]

I have been to a lot of different banks over the years and never once have a been buzzed in by a teller. I have went through drive thru style banks but never had to be buzzed to enter a bank thats the most ridiculous thing i have ever heard. And we do not live in a perfect world year everything can go exactly as you plan it. Shit is gonna happen people are going to die everyday the only thing we can do as people is limit the number of deaths when it comes to a tragedy like this or any other for that matter. Its ridiculous to say that we shouldn't have to accept death and that all death is easily avoided. How you think that is a logical response of any kind is just crazy.