The problem with weapons bans is that only law abiding people will follow it anyway.
Do they really think that someone who would be attempting to harm children would care about a law that says they can't have a gun/knife. At least if you don't ban the weapons, then someone can have an appropriate weapon to defend themselves or their children/friends.
Kinda works in Australia tbh... we had one school shooting and learned our lesson, while the usa kids are still getting shot up because of their 'protective laws'
The problem has never been guns. Listen here. Don't fight to ban or not ban guns. Fight to make purchasing them harder. Stricter gun purchasing laws. There are background checks and mandatory wait periods to buy guns from authorized dealers. But to buy a gun from private seller to private buyer is so damn easy. No background check no wait periods nothing. It's so easy and quick you'd think they were buying any old thing off of craigslist. That's what really needs to be enforced and even then there still might be tragedies, but you aren't going to win banning guns we just need a deterrent.
Purchasing them is already hard for law abiding citizens at least in my state, even in-family transfers has to go through FFL... the deterrent you are looking for is expanding CCW permit program.
Go to gun shows if you want a gun quickly. No background checks needed. Third party sellers don't need to carry out a background check most of the time. America makes it hard in some places to purchase guns but groups like the NRA lobby to create loopholes elsewhere in the laws to make it easy to purchase what you want.
First guest is right. Pro handler is a misinformed moron. Second guest is mostly wrong. Very few states allow sales st shows without background checks.
Until a staff member decides to go crazy and kill a bunch of students. There's no easy answer to this: banning weapons on school grounds makes sense because you don't people packing heat around children, where a potentially deadly situation could easily occur. Placing a police officer at each school would be met with harsh resistance too, because it would jeopardize the independence of the school. I truly, in my heart of hearts, don't believe that we need more (possibly scared and inexperienced) teachers and staff throwing hot ones around during a school shooting. Then again, certain people would be much at ease if at least one trained staff member, maybe a security guard, was able to carry a firearm.
Most schools (high and middle, extreme cases in elementary) in 'Murica do have armed officers who walk the halls during the day. They'll park their patrol vehicle near the front door to politely remind people they're there.
That's nice your schools don't do that but our school system does. It took the proactive step to have a visible police presence without making it feel like the police were hunting armed gunmen in the halls.
You commented that most schools in America have police presence. Then you later stated that your district dies. Most schools in America do not have a police presence that statement is simply not true
I keep forgetting you're that young. Once someone hits college/beyond I automatically assume they're late 20s-mid 30s for some reason. Maybe because it's the internet...
Author of this article is using cherry picked data and showing correlation rather than causation in many incidents. In the 70s the FBI began including suicides among the number if people killed by firearms. The number of people killed by knives or ropes do not include suicide deaths. I just had an argument on another post about violence wherein I claimed that NYC is not as safe as their leadership would have you believe. The violent crime rate in NYC is 1/156 residents in a city that allows almost no private (non wealthy) residents to own firearms. Violent crime rate in my town is 1/1350 in a town wherein better than half of the residents own several firearms.
2Reply
deleted
· 9 years ago
**Please don't get offended or think I'm trying to force my beliefs onto anyone, because I really don't want anyone to feel like I am**
The reason guns are used so much more than any other weapon for killing is because of the lack of 'hands-on'ness. You can shoot from a distance and it doesn't feel quite so real.
If you were to use a knife or strangle someone, it would feel much more real and that itself is a deterrent. A lot of deaths by gun are someone killing someone else in a fit of rage, or accidental. I think that's why there's been a push to change laws.
I just dont get it.. you keep using this same argument over and over again so nothing changes. Yet in most countries where guns ARE banned it has had a positive influence. I'm not from the US so I couldnt care less about your laws. But when I see that a 7 year old boy shot his sister with his dad's gun it makes me sad and angry that there is still no progress on your gun laws.
We have in our Constitution an amendment allowing people the right to bear arms (debatable whether the amendment is specific to militias or the general public, argument for another day). It's ingrained in us that we have guns of various size and calibur (sic) and that no one has the right to take that away from us. We are a proud country but we sometimes can't see why it's important to ban a magazine that carries 30+ rounds. "For hunting!" they'll say.
Robber: "Oh hello sir, I will be robbing your house to day"
Responsible gun owner: "Well no sir you can not, now you wait here while I go unlock my safe"
Robber: "oh well okay then I will wait"
Responsible gun owner: "Dear wife, did you change the code, we are being robbed and I need my gun"
Wife: "yes sorry dear, the kids figured out your code so I had to change it"
Responsible gun owner: "cheerio thanks"
Robber: "oh man I'm sorry, you have a gun, I shall leave."
Responsible gun owner: "Have a great night"
Well from Australia and we banned guns and it was the best thing we've done in a while. Our gun crime and shootings are negligible now. It really is about the guns guys.
In Iowa, it's legal for blind residents to buy guns and/or have a gun license because not allowing them to buy guns would be "an act of discrimination."
Guest is right. Lane6, just because they can own something doesn't mean they have to use it themselves. Maybe a wealthy blind person employs an armed security detail that carries issued weapons in an issued car.
Do they really think that someone who would be attempting to harm children would care about a law that says they can't have a gun/knife. At least if you don't ban the weapons, then someone can have an appropriate weapon to defend themselves or their children/friends.
http://www.businessinsider.com/americas-gun-problem-explained-2013-4?op=1
The reason guns are used so much more than any other weapon for killing is because of the lack of 'hands-on'ness. You can shoot from a distance and it doesn't feel quite so real.
If you were to use a knife or strangle someone, it would feel much more real and that itself is a deterrent. A lot of deaths by gun are someone killing someone else in a fit of rage, or accidental. I think that's why there's been a push to change laws.
Responsible gun owner: "Well no sir you can not, now you wait here while I go unlock my safe"
Robber: "oh well okay then I will wait"
Responsible gun owner: "Dear wife, did you change the code, we are being robbed and I need my gun"
Wife: "yes sorry dear, the kids figured out your code so I had to change it"
Responsible gun owner: "cheerio thanks"
Robber: "oh man I'm sorry, you have a gun, I shall leave."
Responsible gun owner: "Have a great night"