More mass shootings

[gowlerk 1,912]

Quote

People who are looking to the government to solve this will continue to be severely disappointed.

Gun control works in every other western country. Government has both caused and is the solution to this problem. The people just have to give it a mandate. Until the people do that, your defeatist statement is true.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[DJL 232]

Quote

Although I don't know for sure I suspect the "armed guard" was a $10/hr rent a cop who won't put his life on the line for others like we might want. I want Rambo at the door. Tongue

For me, the bottom line is we can't legislate our way out of this. People who are looking to the government to solve this will continue to be severely disappointed.

Yet you propose to post people of whom you also have no idea what they'll do for the quantity of pay they receive as your counter point. You can't have it both ways and the only fact is that the person who's job it was to protect them was unable to do it within the 6 minute attack.

If you can't legislate your way out of it then what's the solution, because we're back at this just being the price of us wanting to own guns so we can protect ourselves against people who have guns because "law abiding citizens" are doing a shit job at keeping guns out of the wrong hands.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[wmw999 2,121]

Quote

who won't put his life on the line for others like we might want. I want Rambo at the door.

And if Rambo is wrong, and decides that the kid coming in late is actually a threat because he has his trombone, and is disheveled? Or Rambo shoots a student in trying to "take out the perp?" Or Rambo decides that the wrong person is the perp? The presence of a gun is a sign, but when there are multiple people, there might not be tattoos on their foreheads with "good guy" and "bad guy." Not to mention that people in realtime situations sometimes see threats, like guns, that aren't actually there (see repeated police reports to this effect).

It's some of what needs to be thought about. Because having one attack thwarted, but three made worse, isn't exactly a win-win situation.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[DJL 232]

Simple question to you: Why do other developed countries not have as much of a problem (per capita) as the United States?

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[billvon 2,400]

>We've banned many things...drugs, murder, prostitution.

Do you think the ban on murder has worked? i.e. have laws against murder reduced the murder rate?

[BIGUN 1,053]

I would encourage everyone to search "NYC Schools Security." You have to ask yourself why no school shootings in the city of violent crimes.

EDIT: Grammar

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[wmw999 2,121]

That's a much better plan than hiring veterans who can't find another job. It's expensive (17 weeks of training, insurance, union dues). But it does appear to be effective, based on the comparison of city vs. school data. I don't have any issue with hiring veterans. However, ones who can't find a job in a hot job market might not be the best match for a job with a need for interacting with students, calm assessment of risks, and interacting with parents.

NYC is no longer one of the most violent cities in the US. I couldn't find it on any of the "most dangerous" lists that I checked (not exhaustive).

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[BIGUN 1,053]

http://www.baruch.cuny.edu/nycdata/public_safety/crime-selectcities.htm

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[billvon 2,400]

Per that list, it is better than Chicago, Houston, Indianapolis, Jacksonville and San Francisco. It's about the same as San Antonio and Charlotte.

Indeed, in that list, it's close to the middle. It averages 596 violent crimes per 100,000 population; Philadelphia is over 1000.

[wmw999 2,121]

And even on that chart, when compared with selected cities (and some of those aren't on the most-violent lists), it's in the bottom half of nearly all per capita crime rates.

I'm in complete agreement that any new group wielding guns around children should be at least as highly trained and organizationally regulated as the NYPD. It sounds as though they have a reasonably good, reasonably effective, system. And in a city that large, "reasonably good" is pretty doggone good.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[kallend 1,623]

Hooknswoop

Quote

That is exactly right. Personally, I only "demand" things that will be effective.

Well, you did think that the Colorado universal background check would be enforceable.

Derek V

NOTHING is enforceable if it can be circumvented just by driving a few miles. That is why any action needs to be nation wide.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[wmw999 2,121]

Ergo the big push to make concealed carry reciprocal across all of the states. If your knuckles don't rub the floor, you can get one in some states. In others, the standards aren't quite as high.

I'm all for the possibility of concealed carry. With a mandatory class, and, frankly, periodic recertification. After all, LE personnel have to recertify.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[kallend 1,623]

Hooknswoop

Quote

Hence my suggested law that IS enforceable, but you won't consider because you don't want to give up your right

to defend myself.

Derek V

You must live in a rough neighborhood to be so fearful.

I have lived and worked in Chicago and its south suburbs for 41 years and never once felt the need of a gun to defend myself. If I ever did, I would move away pronto.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lummy 4]

NYC School safety agents are not armed. They are also trained NOT to try and disarm an active shooter but rather get students and faculty to safety

http://www.nytimes.com/1998/09/16/nyregion/new-era-as-police-prepare-to-run-school-security.html

I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. eat sushi, get smoochieTTK#1

[wmw999 2,121]

Thanks -- I didn't see that in what I was reading. So they have the training, and no guns, and they're effective.
Maybe training is better than the guns

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[DanG 1]

Quote

A- Without 100% gun registration, that law is not enforcable. It is not a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Sure it is. Like many laws it is mostly enforceable after the fact, of course. There is no Pre-Crime unit. If someone is caught with a firearm during the investigation of another crime it is pretty easy to ask where they got it, and simultaneously track the serial number. If the stories don't match up, you have pretty good probable cause. And yes, gun registration would make it significantly easier, but it is not a requirement.

Quote

B- The freedom to loan a friend a rifle to take hunting or the range.

I don't see that as a Constitutionally protected freedom. The right to keep and bear arms doesn't say anything about the right to pass out guns to anyone you want.

Quote

The freedom to go buy an 11+ round magazine. When the ASW ban was law, and you could only buy 10-rounds or less magazines, people switched form 9mm to .45. Not exactly the result they were looking for.

Again, not a Constitutionally protected right. And your contention that reducing the number of likely casualties in a mass shooting event was not the goal of the magazine size limit just shows you are being disingenuous.

- Dan G

[lummy 4]

wmw999

Thanks -- I didn't see that in what I was reading. So they have the training, and no guns, and they're effective.
Maybe training is better than the guns

Wendy P.

You're welcome. The job description made no mention of firearm training so I had to adjust the search parameters

I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. eat sushi, get smoochieTTK#1

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

NOTHING is enforceable if it can be circumvented just by driving a few miles. That is why any action needs to be nation wide.

It is not enforceable unless you track who owns which guns in a database.

Derek V

[Stumpy 256]

The "Arm the teachers" idea is horrible for a number of reasons.

1. The people calling for teachers to be armed are generally the same ones that think teachers are overpaid elitist liberals
2. Who's going to pay for it? Certainly not this congress, they'll just funnel another billion to the armed forces instead. As kallend said, schools can't even afford paper, let alone guns and ammunition.
3. Just about every teacher thinks this is a horrible idea.
4. The hit rate of well trained LEO's in a pressure situation is somewhere around 20% on a good day. How accurate do you suppose teachers/ security guards are going to be?

That's just for starters. I'm pretty sure the crowd that think its a good idea to bring more guns into school didn't apply themselves when they were students.

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

You must live in a rough neighborhood to be so fearful.

You must be a really bad, paranoid, and fearful skydiver to have a Cypres in your rig.

Derek V

[kallend 1,623]

Hooknswoop

Quote

You must live in a rough neighborhood to be so fearful.

You must be a really bad, paranoid, and fearful skydiver to have a Cypres in your rig.

Derek V

If you say so.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Sure it is. Like many laws it is mostly enforceable after the fact, of course. There is no Pre-Crime unit. If someone is caught with a firearm during the investigation of another crime it is pretty easy to ask where they got it, and simultaneously track the serial number. If the stories don't match up, you have pretty good probable cause. And yes, gun registration would make it significantly easier, but it is not a requirement.

No, it isn't. In your example, why would the bad guy tell the investigator where they got the firearm? For a reduced sentence? OK, now you go to the person they named and they say they didn't sell them the gun. Now what?

Quote

I don't see that as a Constitutionally protected freedom. The right to keep and bear arms doesn't say anything about the right to pass out guns to anyone you want.

You are moving the goal post. from freedom to constitutionally protected freedom......

Quote

Again, not a Constitutionally

Again, goalposts.

Derek V

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

You must live in a rough neighborhood to be so fearful.

If you say so.

Derek V

[DanG 1]

I suspect that many suspects who obtained their weapon illegally will in fact offer up the person they got it from. Perps flip on their best friends all the time. You assume that when the guy they fingered denies it the police will just throw up their hands and quit. If that were how law enforcement investigations worked then no one would ever get convicted of anything. Luckily they don't, except perhaps when the state police have decided they don't want to enforce a law, like in Colorado.

Also, thanks for proving what I suspected all along. You aren't interested in making any changes at all. You've set the bar at, "doesn't restrict any freedom that I or anyone else currently enjoy, whether Constitutionally protected or not." Reduced to its logical conclusion, that means no new laws whatsoever. It also implies enforcement of current laws shouldn't be strengthened, because that might also inconvenience you, which you have now defined as the loss of freedom.

- Dan G

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

I suspect that many suspects who obtained their weapon illegally will in fact offer up the person they got it from. Perps flip on their best friends all the time. You assume that when the guy they fingered denies it the police will just throw up their hands and quit. If that were how law enforcement investigations worked then no one would ever get convicted of anything. Luckily they don't, except perhaps when the state police have decided they don't want to enforce a law, like in Colorado.

You are not going to prosecute anyone with only the word of a criminal that is getting a reduced sentence in exchange. You keep missing my point. You have to be able to prove they sold the firearm. Innocent until proven guilty.

Quote

Also, thanks for proving what I suspected all along. You aren't interested in making any changes at all. You've set the bar at, "doesn't restrict any freedom that I or anyone else currently enjoy, whether Constitutionally protected or not." Reduced to its logical conclusion, that means no new laws whatsoever. It also implies enforcement of current laws shouldn't be strengthened, because that might also inconvenience you, which you have now defined as the loss of freedom.

Wrong.

I think we should ban bump stocks. I think we should increase the funding for the NICS system so that the 72-hour law is never used. I think the 72-hour law should be doubled to 144 hours. I think that states and the military should ensure that anyone that should not pass the NICs background check be put on the list within 24 hours. This is just off the top of my head.

Derek V