1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

[RD] Florida School Shooting

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Hrothbern, Feb 15, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Arwon

    Arwon

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2006
    Messages:
    17,874
    Location:
    Canberra
    And then what happens when the first responders turn up and there's ten people with guns running around instead of one active shooter...

    And what is it going to do to teaching quality and teacher numbers to make "willingness to kill" a job requirement.

    And who's buying the guns and marksman training given that a lot of teachers have to buy their own stationary?
     
  2. stinkubus

    stinkubus Emperor

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2016
    Messages:
    1,247
    I'm having a hard time squaring the circle of one of the "ownership of guns is an alienable right" crowd arguing in favor of restricting purchases for 18-20 year olds.
     
    Lexicus likes this.
  3. Commodore

    Commodore Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2005
    Messages:
    11,367
    It certainly wouldn't hurt. It would at least be one more hurdle for someone to jump over. You could even treat it like alcohol where it would be a crime to purchase a firearm for anyone under the legal age to own one.

    Well, I argued earlier that firearm ownership alone would fulfill the militia requirement of the 2nd Amendment. It also says that militia is to be well-regulated. I would see age-based purchase restrictions as being part of that well-regulation of the citizen militia.
     
  4. Berzerker

    Berzerker Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    17,915
    Location:
    the golf course
    school shootings typically involve younger males with fresh memories of the bullies
     
  5. Timsup2nothin

    Timsup2nothin Quad B

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2013
    Messages:
    39,444
    Location:
    Shadowy Fringe of the Candy Industry
    Someone already brought up the even bigger problem of first responders showing up and capping a few teachers, thinking that since they are waving guns around they are the problem, not "part of the solution."

    But as an additional huge problem:

    Shooter comes in and caps a student. Teacher goes for gun and shooter dives for cover while popping off rounds in the general direction of the teacher, capping another student. Teacher returns fire while diving for cover, capping another student. Shooter throws out their weapon and surrenders.

    Some people will cheer that "the armed teacher worked." However, this serves as an object lesson that no one wants the seats near the teacher. It also leads to a serious liability question in regards to the student who actually got shot by the teacher, not the criminal.

    Next, substitute a fake gun for the "shooter" and reduce it to the only student killed is the one shot by the teacher. How big is the liability problem now? What if it isn't even a fake gun, just a student ducking through a classroom door for some reason? What if just about every classroom has panicked students ducking through the doors because there IS an active shooter out in the halls? In that chaos how many weapons hot teachers does it take for a fleeing student to be shot by the solution instead of the problem?
     
  6. Berzerker

    Berzerker Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    17,915
    Location:
    the golf course
    an inalienable right ;)

    but the right is self defense, guns are just the means

    Wouldn't militias want armed males who know how to use their guns? I'd think if 18 qualifies me for a draft or service then I should be able to have a gun. Course our problem isn't militia readiness any more since we replaced them with a standing army. But a 19 year old joining the nat'l guard should have access to a gun.
     
  7. Commodore

    Commodore Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2005
    Messages:
    11,367
    I think 21 is fine since the closest thing we see to citizen militias being formed would be sheriffs in rural areas deputizing armed citizens to help deal with a local crisis. And since most law enforcement agencies in the US require their recruits to be at least 21, then any potential citizen militia (aka, local gun owners) should have to be at least 21 as well.

    Only while on duty and using a government issued firearm. The reasoning being they would be under the supervision of more experienced NCOs and commissioned officers that can ensure proper usage of the firearm.
     
  8. Lexicus

    Lexicus Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    22,973
    Location:
    Sovereign State of the Have-Nots
    Sorry, where does the Constitution say that?

    What kind of a crisis?
     
  9. Commodore

    Commodore Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2005
    Messages:
    11,367
    It's usually something relatively minor, but the local sheriff needs more manpower to deal with like hunting down an animal that's been terrorizing the community or searching for a missing person.
     
  10. Berzerker

    Berzerker Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    17,915
    Location:
    the golf course
    it doesn't... gun rights are based on the inalienable right of self defense

    well, defense of the state too...
     
  11. Lexicus

    Lexicus Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    22,973
    Location:
    Sovereign State of the Have-Nots
    Does the inalienable right of self-defense mean I can start a fight with you and then shoot you to death when you start to win it?
     
  12. Berzerker

    Berzerker Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    17,915
    Location:
    the golf course
    no, starting the fight makes you the attacker, not the defender
     
  13. Timsup2nothin

    Timsup2nothin Quad B

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2013
    Messages:
    39,444
    Location:
    Shadowy Fringe of the Candy Industry
    Not under "stand your ground" laws.
     
  14. civvver

    civvver Deity

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2007
    Messages:
    5,495
    I just don't understand why people would be against certain nationwide bans of super lethal weapons. The arguments always seem to be four things:

    1. I like my guns. Ok great, but your personal preferences shouldn't take priority over other people's safety. I like to drive 120 on the freeway but I don't cus it's not safe and there are laws that place penalties on it too even when the conditions are safe.

    2. It won't change anything anyway/existing gun laws aren't being enforced/etc. How do you know for a fact it won't change anything? I have heard people say there are a ton more lethal guns than the ar-15 and perps will just switch. Or they'll use knives or trucks or whatever. But we don't know this for a fact until we try a weapons ban. If and when it doesn't work we can try something else. But instead we just do nothing.

    3. We need these types of guns to defend ourselves from totalitarian governments. Are you serious? Do you really think that a few people owning large magazine rifles is going to stop a true military coup or whatever from taking control of the country if that situation were ever to arise? We live in the information age where a drone strike can take out an entire complex. A few extra people with rifles is not going to stop that. Plus you would never be able to effectively organize since the nsa spies on everything online.

    4. We need these types of guns for general self defense. I'd argue a standard shotgun or revolver is plenty sufficient in this case. As others have said in this thread if you don't kill what you're aiming for in the first few shots I think you're screwed.

    I think #2 is the biggest issue here. People cite all this research about how it won't work, but isn't action better than doing nothing?

    I think ultimately we need some sort of surveillance around schools that's non intrusive. They could probably do it now with special drones flying around or special cameras that could see weapons but it'd be super expensive. You detect a weapon and the place goes into lockdown before someone gets into the school. Maybe it's not technically possible, I don't know, but just pass a giant federal gun tax to pay for it.
     
  15. Lexicus

    Lexicus Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    22,973
    Location:
    Sovereign State of the Have-Nots
    What research? honest question

    We've already got that, it's called security cameras.
     
  16. Timsup2nothin

    Timsup2nothin Quad B

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2013
    Messages:
    39,444
    Location:
    Shadowy Fringe of the Candy Industry
    I think, from a practical standpoint, that the first thing to do regarding school safety is to recognize that half the country needs to start over and build all new schools. I'm always at a loss when people say "lockdown before someone gets into the school." Other than a couple recently built new schools, every school around here has a chain link fence perimeter around a sprawling campus of small buildings. There's no way to "lockdown" in any way that would prevent access.
     
  17. Commodore

    Commodore Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2005
    Messages:
    11,367
    You say this, yet people with rifles were able to put up a 7-year fight against us in Iraq and continue to fight us in Afghanistan. Most of the insurgents we faced over there were just dudes with AKs and little to no actual military training or experience.
     
  18. Timsup2nothin

    Timsup2nothin Quad B

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2013
    Messages:
    39,444
    Location:
    Shadowy Fringe of the Candy Industry
    While the US government was incapable of installing a regime in Iraq, the idea that a genuinely repressive regime that was already in place wouldn't be able to subdue "some dudes with AKs" is a different thing. The structures being already in place makes a huge difference. Note that until outside interference came along Saddam Hussein managed to maintain control over various dudes with AKs.
     
  19. Lexicus

    Lexicus Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    22,973
    Location:
    Sovereign State of the Have-Nots
    And they were killed in enormous numbers, and didn't win the war. We withdrew from the occupation, but we left a puppet government and the insurgents didn't take over Iraq. Do you think the US government will withdraw from the US? The only thing a bunch of dudes with rifles (and, probably more pertinently, explosives) can do is make trouble for an occupying force. The rebels in Syria were quite a bit better-armed than just a bunch of automatic rifles, and they're being crushed.
     
    Synsensa likes this.
  20. john1565

    john1565 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2018
    Messages:
    4
    Gender:
    Male

    You sum-up what I was thinking
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page