It’s a small price to pay. One armed guard for every 5 children, or so. Something reasonable.
I don’t think there needs to be any security in many (most) schools at all. I guess I can see high schools, perhaps some middle schools, but that is to police the students, not outside threats.
When it comes to school shootings let’s actually look at the fact that they are incredibly rare. When there is a shooting or an assault, it usually is gang related, not something like Columbine or Newton.
9/11 was horrible as well, but can one really look at the TSA and claim that 1) we are any safer or 2) that the BILLIONS spent have actually done anything?
3 Likes
Perhaps we can bring back funding for the arts in schools by issuing Kevlar craft smocks.
3 Likes
You know, this debate is tough. I shot competitively in high school, got a chestful of medals in ROTC for it, and have spent a lot of time in progressive politics. Firearms seem to engage people’s emotions without a lot of rational discussion - hunter-protector reactions, either to get the bad guys by using guns or protect people from the bad guys with guns.
There’s data that shows gun ownership makes you safer, and there’s data that shows guns lead to more accidental deaths and domestic violence. Both are compelling. Both sides are also unwilling to budge, since we’re not really dealing with it rationally. We react to people who disagree as if they are threatening us and those we care about with their actions, and the cycle of asshattery continues.
For some reason, in the late 20th and 21st centuries, American leftists got really squeamish about the idea of armed rebellion. That used to be a standard thing. Don’t know why - maybe it’s a better understanding of political dynamics. Maybe it’s burned fingers from supporting the Bolsheviks. Maybe it’s psyops to neuter a class-based conciousness.
The fundamental fact is, too many people have an unreasoning fear of weapons, and too many people act like jackasses with firearms. Combine the two, and you have this embarrassment.
8 Likes
He’s still holding it in a manner which I would consider “brandishing”- Meaning that a bystander may be legally justified in shooting him preemptively.
This is not a safe and responsible way to exert one’s rights.
3 Likes
Yeah, gotta say that I would normally disagree on the principle there, but that’s a pretty hard example to argue against.
Do you have any stories that are less than 23 years old to demonstrate your point?
With regards to your last point, I think you have it backwards. No one is saying that everyone with a concealed carry permit is a gun happy idiot. My point (I don’t know if anyone shares it) is that it only takes one. They don’t even have to be an idiot, just maybe overconfident.
With regards to your wish for having as many “John Q. Gunhavers” in place as possible, you’re assuming that John Q has the training and experience to calmly assess the situation, identify the target, and take the target out without collateral damage. I don’t really trust that most cops have that kind of experience. Where’s John Q going to get it?
Pick your situation:
- A room full of people where only the psychopath has a gun
- A room full of people where two people have guns, one is a psychopath, the other knows how to handle the situation
- A room full of people where many have guns, one is a psychopath, some know how to handle the situation, but most don’t.
You’re picking 2. I think 3 is far, far, far more likely. So I’ll pick 1.
5 Likes
I think open carry is possible and can be done right. Here’s one example:
Carrying semiautomatic rifles at the ready is a bit over the top.
3 Likes
Or maybe some people have actually had family members get shot. Think maybe that might make a guy lean to one side or the other?
I’d prefer:
- A room full of people where not even the psychopath has a gun
Or ideally,
- A room full of people where no-one is a psychopath.
7 Likes
Regarding Fort Hood: it’s interesting to me that “the military,” who I would consider to be the most experienced where guns are concerned, have decided they only want a limited force to be armed on their bases. It’s very telling. I mean, if anyone would know, they would right? So why do you think that’s their policy?
4 Likes
There’s an easy solution for that, though. Take away all the guns and outlaw ammunition sales.
I’d vote for that.
1 Like
Fair enough. I think it’s an unworkable idea, even ignoring the problematic issue of taking away the guns. Should I feel like it, I can turn out serviceable weapons in my garage shop. Not everyone has the skill, or the tools, but they aren’t uncommon either. You’d simply create a large black market for illegal weapons, and crazed gunmen would still be a phenomena.
you also mean from the police and government, right???
but? even the far right guys are saying these open Carry guys went way way too far, and? are not safely carrying. As usual? media whores look to get their 15 mins of fame…
2 Likes
From the The Peoples Department of Irony:
1 Like
You are glad you dont have to eat with Mexicans?
Did I click on my bookmark to Stormfront… no, this BoingBoing…
Am I in bizzaro world?
yeah, see. Like I said. Not idiots, necessarily, just maybe overconfident. Maybe.
1 Like
You are right, predators intent on shooting people do seem to like gun free zones. The bad news is that they dont seem to give a shit that they are not supposed to be armed there.
But a bullet to the brainpan does seem to calm them down.
- Not ‘virtually’, EVERYONE is trained to use firearms.
- Including the assailant.
- Contrary to popular belief, military bases are ironically gun free zones.
2 Likes
