What do you think could have been done to prevent the Shootings at Sandy Hook?

[Dr. Javelin]

what's there to say? i already said i was in favor of more regulation, right?

but on the other hand if we have more people who are licensed to kill carry firearms, wouldn't there be a lower crime rate?

I'm looking at Germany, who has one of the lowest homicide rates worldwide. But their guns are still available, just harder to get. It's still possible for any citizen to carry around their weapon, though, which is why I don't understand the logic of preventing concealed carry.

Also, the regulation still doesn't stop truly determined shooters in Germany.

 

[Pokemon DP]

Thank Christ you finally responded, I've been trying to get you and Banjo's attention for yonks now. Given that Germany still has some pretty harsh regulation on gun ownership, it seem we're thankfully both in agreement; the current state of gun politics in America is stupidly archaic and too fixated on self-defense and responsive measures, rather than preventative measures to reduce the chances of these disasters happening in the first place (the obvious tighter gun control and better mental health care options, first and foremost), and that desperately needs to change ASAP.

 

[Stooben]

whoa there

Just because I was taking your post in a humorous way doesn't mean I'm being antagonistic. Or at least not intentionally. Am I?

I didn't take it as antagonistic, I took it as you not taking the argument seriously. I don't think it helped that you ignored the rest of my points by providing a single possible exception.

And personally, I'd rather do something than simply run away. Living with the guilt that I might have done something for the rest of my life would be horrible. You might be different, and that's fine - I'm just saying that I'm willing to risk or sacrifice my life for that of others - which in your scenario would be those who are still pinned down my the shooter.

At this point in my life, I'd be willing to sacrifice myself to save the lives of others. I'm only 20, have no wife or family (aside from my two parents who I think could take care of themselves), haven't really done anything productive with my life... I have nothing to lose, my family doesn't have much to lose, and the captives have everything to gain.

But if I were a single parent, if I had a family to support and my wife was disabled (i.e unable to provide for the family), or even if I had a pregnant wife/girlfriend, I would prioritize my responsibility to them over others. Maybe that makes me a bad person. But would I just outright abandon the people trapped? No. Some would, and I think it's a reasonable reaction, but I would -- at the very least -- call the authorities.

Honestly, I don't think I could bring myself to leave the scene without knowing the captives were safe or that the cops/FBI were there to do their job. But that doesn't mean I'm going to risk my life in hopes of taking down the gunman, if I have people who depend on me[specifically] on a daily basis.

And about how he took down the trained security guard and how I wouldn't be able to take him out? It's all about something called element of surprise. Training isn't worth anything if you aren't expecting anything to happen, and a guard can't remain on high alert for all eternity. Neither can the gunman.

I suppose that's a fair point, but the element of surprise doesn't last for all eternity either. The gunman is going to find out you're there, whether it's by hearing/seeing you himself, or even from one of the captives indicating that they saw you (sudden change in a person's body language would be hard to ignore unless the gunman simply wasn't paying attention). You'd have to act quickly and hope that the surroundings don't put you at a disadvantage. (Again, like with the shooter being near a crowd or just a single person.)

If I had the benefit of knowing that the gunman was unaware of my location or that I was even there, I would personally be trying to find a safe way for the captives to escape (fire exit, back door, basement/garage, alternate passage, I think you get the idea) without the gunman noticing. But note that I would only do so if the situation allowed for it to be done without the captives getting hurt -- this obviously isn't going to work in small locations, but it would in larger ones where the gunman can't keep an eye on everything. To me, it seems about as likely to work as your scenario where you can pop off a shot and take down the gunman with no one else getting hurt in the process.

But all of this is based on ifs and variables, and is starting to turn into a Gun Control 2.0 thread. I digress.

 

[KPH2293]

I don't have any problem with doing more to prevent convicted criminals or the mentally ill from acquiring a firearm (as long as it does not restrict law-abiding citizens from exercising their Constitutional right, which is difficult to do). The reasoning behind my suggestion was that it usually takes more than legislation to stop a person who's determined to commit a heinous act (such as this one), and it helps to be prepared.

 

[Dr. Javelin]

Thank Christ you finally responded, I've been trying to get you and Banjo's attention for yonks now.

it's nice to know you guys apparently consider us serious enough to remember us by name >_>

 

[2257]

I'm just saying that I'm willing to risk or sacrifice my life for that of others

no

you're willing to claim you're willing to do those things

on the internet

are you dealing with life threatening situations on a daily basis?? if not, you don't know how you'd actually respond to one

 

[Stooben]

That's actually a fair point that I'm guilty of too



But I've been around gunfire before, so I'm certain I'd at least have the composure to call the police for help.

 

[Pokemon DP]

it's nice to know you guys apparently consider us serious enough to remember us by name >_>

My logic was that if I mention it enough, I'd annoy you blokes into responding.

 

[Zae]

I'm just saying that I'm willing to risk or sacrifice my life for that of others

no

you're willing to claim you're willing to do those things

on the internet

are you dealing with life threatening situations on a daily basis?? if not, you don't know how you'd actually respond to one

Doesn't mean he won't do it out of reaction either, however.

 

[User4042]

Restrictions

 

[Dr. Javelin]

I'm just saying that I'm willing to risk or sacrifice my life for that of others

no

you're willing to claim you're willing to do those things

on the internet

are you dealing with life threatening situations on a daily basis?? if not, you don't know how you'd actually respond to one

are you dealing with life threatening situations on a daily basis??

Also, I've seriously considered (and I still might) going into the military, which is exactly what I'm talking about with risk and sacrifice.

 

[Garlic Man]

Children having more Self-Defense training

lol

no kindergartener trained in self defense is going to take down an adult with a firearm


by the way, just getting rid of guns is not the correct answer. all 3 of those first options have to happen to prevent stuff like this

 

[2257]

Doesn't mean he won't do it out of reaction either, however.

pardon?

are you dealing with life threatening situations on a daily basis??

do you really think this is an argument.

"the same thing you said, but backwards!"

no. IM not the one making assertions about how id react in a life threatening situation, and i dont HAVE to have been in a life threatening situation to point out that if YOU HAVENT, you dont know what its like

Also, I've seriously considered (and I still might) going into the military, which is exactly what I'm talking about with risk and sacrifice.

thinking about enlisting in the military is utterly divorced from both the question i asked and the topic at hand

 

[Xluidi]

not do this
http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2013/01/poster-bullies_for_gun_transpa.html

 

[Zae]

Doesn't mean he won't do it out of reaction either, however.

pardon?

Some people risk their lives for people out of reaction. Although rare it is still possible.

But I guess that's irrelevant since you never know what you'll do when in life threatening situations(which you said earlier).

 

[Crypt Raider]

voted because i want to watch children disarm and disable an attacker

 

[Dr. Javelin]

are you dealing with life threatening situations on a daily basis??

do you really think this is an argument.

"the same thing you said, but backwards!"

no. IM not the one making assertions about how id react in a life threatening situation, and i dont HAVE to have been in a life threatening situation to point out that if YOU HAVENT, you dont know what its like

the point was kinda to ask you the same question to see how you responded, just because i was personally curious, but apparently this discussion is SERIOUS BUSINESS AND I'M NOT ALLOWED TO DIGRESS

Also, I've seriously considered (and I still might) going into the military, which is exactly what I'm talking about with risk and sacrifice.

thinking about enlisting in the military is utterly divorced from both the question i asked and the topic at hand

No, it's completely relevant. It's the exact same thing - being willing to risk or sacrifice your life for that of others.

 

[2257]

the point was kinda to ask you the same question to see how you responded, just because i was personally curious, but apparently this discussion is SERIOUS BUSINESS AND I'M NOT ALLOWED TO DIGRESS

um, ok

the answer is "no"

did you expect me to???

one time i poisoned myself. i lived, though

No, it's completely relevant. It's the exact same thing - being willing to risk or sacrifice your life for that of others.

it's not

enlisting in the military is a decision you make far away from danger, when your head is still clear enough to make important decisions like that. by the time you're actually in real danger, you have an enormous chain of command behind you that takes much of the decision making power away, and presumably enough training to know how best to deal with the kinds of decisions individual soldiers actually do have to make during a war. and additionally, you probably know pretty much what you're fighting

also, you don't actually have the option to run away

in a situation where an armed gunman is walking around a civilian environment, shooting up people at random, it's completely different. you have to make all the decisions, faced with the immediate reality of death, with little to no actual information about what's going on. and you'll know that nobody would blame you for running and hiding. you really think you'll decide to be a hero? honestly?

 

[Dr. Javelin]

yes, i do

perhaps you don't, and you wouldn't, and that's okay

but personally, i honestly do believe i would stand up and do something

 

[Guiliant]

voted because i want to watch children disarm and disable an attacker

i'm 95% certain that choice in the poll was put in as a joke

 

[Xluidi]

voted because i want to watch children disarm and disable an attacker

i'm 95% certain that choice in the poll was put in as a joke

there are actually people who think like that though

 

[Daniel Dyce]

voted because i want to watch children disarm and disable an attacker

i'm 95% certain that choice in the poll was put in as a joke

there are actually people who think like that though

and they are idiots

 

[Post-Damage Invincibility]

It's funny how most people have voted "restrict assault guns" when there is no such fucking thing. If assault rifle is what they mean, ANYTHING semi-automatic only is NOT an assault rifle. The AR-15, and semi-automatic AK-47s you can commonly buy, are NOT assault rifles. In order for them to truly be so, they must be select-fire. Which means there must be a switch that allows you to fire semi-auto (which is all you want to ban can do) or fully automatic, in other words, it must be not only a rifle, but also, A MACHINE GUN! It must fire continuously with one pull of the trigger as long as the trigger stays depressed.

You can get a real assault rifle, although they are heavily restricted since 1934, and you must pay a 200 dollar tax and get fingerprinted. And by the way, they are thousands of dollars due to low supply. But machine guns being banned for the most part is unconstitutional and makes no sense because a spree-killing can be done much easier with semi-auto because when you fire like a machine gun you use up bullets SUPER fast, 600 rounds per minute or more, so your ammo is depleted in seconds, and you can't use the sights. With semi-automatic, you have 30+ rounds of deliberate aimed fire. Which is much more deadly if someone is a mass killer. Therefore, machine guns should not be practically illegal since they have no reason to be.

Like I said, if you it in not select-fire, in other words, cannot be fired like a machine gun, it is NOT an assault rifle. Therefore, "assault rifle" is a just a political-jargon term the anti-gun media and politicians made up to scare people. An AR-15 canNOT be considered any more dangerous than ANY rifle that can take a detachable magazine, which is semi-automatic. And semi-auto is a technology that has been around for over 100 years, so you ban that, you ban practically every gun. A Glock has the SAME rate of fire as an AR-15. They both shoot as fast as you pull the trigger. Therefore, they are both as dangerous. But banning handguns is not even on the table because they know they'd lose. But the fact that people are voting for "restrict assault guns" when there is no such thing as an "assault gun", and assault rifles are already VERY rare and VERY heavily restricted in the first place, demonstrates they have NO IDEA what the fuck they're talking about.

 

[2257]

ok

maybe you will

and maybe you'll even be able to, against all odds, have an actually positive impact on the situation

still, i would prefer to just prevent the situation where you'd need to do something like that from existing. even if you were completely successful, someone would die. and that's intolerable

 

[Scarecrow von Steuben]

Two people voted 'children having self-defense training.'


YES, THAT'S WHAT WE NEEDED, IF ONLY TINY CHILDREN KNEW HOW TO OPERATE A GUN AND USE MARTIAL ARTS, WE'D HAVE BEEN ALL RIGHT

Living with the guilt that I might have done something for the rest of my life would be horrible. You might be different, and that's fine - I'm just saying that I'm willing to risk or sacrifice my life for that of others

So, based on the things you've said in earlier political discussions, you'd die to save someone else's life, but not pay slightly higher taxes.



Or maybe you would pay higher taxes...

your taxes would skyrocket in order to pay for these officers, including their wages, training, supplies, planning at the school, etc.

...except instead of going to people who need healthcare, the money would go to useless guards who have never, ever prevented a school shooting and never will.

But maybe you're right! Maybe banning guns based on a few people who abuse them is ridiculous! Why, almost as ridiculous as getting rid of welfare because some people abuse it...! And we know that nobody who supports gun rights wants welfare to be gotten rid of.

Personally, I would like to see school security improved by having police officers stationed on the premises at all times, or something of that nature. Had police been there from the start, they could have stopped the perpetrator before he had harmed anyone. It may have even discouraged him from trying this altogether if he knew that he was immediately going to be met with resistance.

Yes, because what stressed, depressed high schoolers really need for their mental health is to live in a miniature police state-slash-airport security station every day. That'll do wonders.

The only downside with an assault weapons regulation is that it cuts down on the people's ability to keep the government in check.

You're assuming that the people rebelling against the government would be right. Why do you do that? Have you not noticed that the people who talk about uprisings against the government are usually totally fucking crazy? You know, the secessionists, the white supremacists, the Timothy McVeighs of the world. Yes! Let's arm them! That's an amazing idea.

I don't have any problem with doing more to prevent convicted criminals or the mentally ill from acquiring a firearm

so noble of you

school security is actually worth it, unlike many of the other things that the government currently spends tax-payers money on (such as our welfare system that's too easily exploited)

Do you know what's even easier to exploit than a welfare system? Why, guns! The primary difference is that the welfare system keeps people alive. By valuing easily-exploitable deadly weapons over an easily-exploitable system that stops people from starving in the street, you are implicitly valuing your right to shoot bits of hot lead from a metal tube over a poor person's right to live.




sorry if this rant was kinda excessive