Connecticut shooting, gun control

[Gilly]

LMAO americans.

LMAO EUROPEANS

Fag.

[Gilly]

Personally, I think if I went psycho, guns would be a horrible way of being violent. Push button-loud noise-someone falls over wouldn't be as satisfactory as, say, knifing small animals.
(Maybe this is the wrong time to say something like that...but I'm pretty sure it's not the wrong place.)

Sorry I just had to

[Gilly]

This shooting has nothing to do with gun control. Politics is generally concerned with statistics, and 20 kiddies isn't even a blip on the radar.

[FDG]

You've been doing a good job of making yourself unappealing lately.

Because I question something I find stupid? Ahahah, pathetic.

[Scapegrace]

Leave Fabie alone. The world has every right to laugh at Americans.

[Creepy-male]

Security personal trained to lock down certain areas of the school and rapidly evacuate could have been used in tandem with calling a fast action response team to deal with the problem. If you had a central location in which the fast action response team could be "staged" for deployment. That could have prevented the problem. If you had good security systems it may have been possible to say lock certain exits remotely and "trap" the person in a wing of the school after it had been evacuated. Most schools don't have the resources though to maintain such a security system. It would require the ability to design a school intelligently for security, it would require the ability monitor and remotely lock areas, and it would require a few trained security personnel (which wouldn't have to be armed, but just be able to respond to crisis and maintain security systems). In absence of having such well oiled security logistics (which probably take back seat priority to other concerns and areas of the budget) the only realistic measure to deal with these situations is probably preventive in nature. The armed teacher scenario is a bad one because it is better to have professionals training in civil martial conflict than attempt to train educators. Your taking time away from the educators focus at being a teacher and teaching them something else, and people know how shitty some teachers can be... . Also most untrained people would struggle to deal with the conflict and pressure I'd think.

Building schools with two exits is also smart, because many school are designed in wings with all classrooms accessible from the wing. This is a goldmine for a shooter because once they get to a wing they have control of the exits of all classrooms. If there was say an exterior exit to the outside from the classroom that didn't go through the wing. This would give security personnel the option to remotely lock the interior doors and unlock the exterior ones while the person was in the wing. People could evacuate outward, and the shooter could be locked in the wing.

Anyways I guess the real point is this isn't common enough to go to the extreme in terms of designing school security. In all reality you might as well begin to partially privatize schools based on the community that surrounds them and if the communities priority is security then they could raise the funds for security. If its a disadvantaged community then possibly you could either raise funds from the federal level as part of a clear initiative to improve schools of specific regions. Otherwise these disadvantaged areas would have to rely on entrepneurs to stimulate their funds -- which is possible, in which case the government should not restrict these entrepeneurs.

[mikemex]

I honestly don't get the resistance to banning assault weapons. It baffles me. I would much rather be in a setting where the killer comes in with a knife or a handgun, thank you very much. Seriously, which civilian needs an assault weapon?

What you don't seem to understand is that the typical handgun IS an "assault weapon". A typical 9mm pistol holds between 13 and 17 cartridges and can be reloaded within a few seconds. If there is nowhere to escape you can pretty much kill anyone in a crowded place in a matter of minutes with one. And to make things worse, a pistol can usually be concealed, something that is not practical to do with a long gun. All in all, handguns are far more dangerous for the average citizen than what they call "assault weapons" (automatic long guns).

Nope. They want to ban long guns, specially those of military value, simply because that's what people uses to start insurgent movements and oppose governments. it is a well known military fact that a handgun is far more difficult to operate with any efficiency by the average infantry soldier than a rifle, so they issue rifles mostly to compensate.

That already happened here: when they came out with a law to control firearms, they pretty much banned all long guns and left handguns intact. Needless to say, far more crimes are committed with handguns than long guns, but in in the early 70s they had a major problem of insurgency here (after the '68 massacre) and there was no legal support for their oppression. They really didn't care about the safety of the average citizen but the safety of the regime.

Gun advocates are right, but only half way. Citizens must be armed, not only to protect themselves but also to keep the government in line. But just giving away weapons so people do whatever they want with them is irresponsible; if you're being given power then it must be under certain conditions and obligations. They should not only arm citizens but train them in the proper use of such weapons and check them frequently. That's why there is so little violence in Switzerland despite the large numbers of weapons.

[FDG]

That's why there is so little violence in Switzerland despite the large numbers of weapons.

That's an extremely superficial analysis. Switzerland is a very rich and culturally homogeneuous country, with very few large cities and strict immigration laws. I would say those are the typical reasons why a society is extremely non-violent.

[Creepy-pikachu]

That's an extremely superficial analysis. Switzerland is a very rich and culturally homogeneuous country, with very few large cities and strict immigration laws. I would say those are the typical reasons why a society is extremely non-violent.

Incest is best, put your brother to the test!

[Creepy-pikachu]

When has someone with a concealed carry permit EVER stopped something like this?

Most people can't act when they are shocked and mentally unprepared.

I'm not taking a position one way or another, but the concealed carry spiel when a mass shooting happens always makes my eyes roll. I would love to say one example of a gun carrying hero saving the day.

Now if Herzog had been there...

If Jay was there, you woulda got starry anime eyes and swoooooned.

[Minde]

Because I question something I find stupid? Ahahah, pathetic.

Leave Fabie alone. The world has every right to laugh at Americans.

Neither of you apparently get it. What I said, and feel, has little if anything to do with the concept of laughing at Americans.

FDG's response to me is a case in point, however. *sigh* But, whatever. He obviously doesn't care what I think so... no point in trying. Carry on with whatever makes your hearts happy.

[Scapegrace]

Neither of you apparently get it. What I said, and feel, has little if anything to do with the concept of laughing at Americans.

FDG's response to me is a case in point, however. *sigh* But, whatever. He obviously doesn't care what I think so... no point in trying. Carry on with whatever makes your hearts happy.

What do you want me to say? I'm so glad you feel safer around people with guns? Honestly I don't give a flying ninja fuck.

I happen to be sort of phobic since I've had one in my face on two occasions. Can I please have your validation now?

[Minde]

What do you want me to say? I'm so glad you feel safer around people with guns? Honestly I don't give a flying ninja fuck.

I happen to be sort of phobic since I've had one in my face on two occasions. Can I please have your validation now?

I didn't ask you to say anything. I really don't care what you think about this thread's topic, so say what you like about it. I'm certainly not stopping you. My "no" was in response to you trying to shut me down from shutting down laughing at Americans, which wasn't what I was doing at any point in this thread.

Eh, I'm starting to get confused now. If it makes you happy, I'll say you're totally ok for not liking guns. Here's my official stamp of approval ->

Do I get your validation or is this all one-sided?

[Radio]

oh look this thread again

[Pa3s]

I've found an interesting infographic showing the relation between amount of firearms in a country and deaths by firearms. Yes, it's german, but I'm sure you can still understand the information it conveys.

The size of the gun (and sometimes even a specific number) depicts the number of firearms, the blood drops the victims.

[Creepy-pikachu]

Im not moving to India lol...

[InvisibleJim]

People will always go on sprees.

Still, can you limit the damage/number of sprees by changing the availability of weapons? To a point, but there are always ways around the system.

[Creepy-pikachu]

It also helps when a country's dominating philosophy isn't to invade whoever it disagrees with.

I totally agree with FDG - wtf Americans? What is your fetish with assault weapons and shooting each other up? Love, rest of the world (excluding various South American drug cartel countries and developing nations with large expanses of lawlessness)

You know what love is?

[Creepy-pikachu]

No, I want you to showwww meeeeee

No thanks, and you'd still not understand.

[Kim]

What you don't seem to understand is that the typical handgun IS an "assault weapon". A typical 9mm pistol holds between 13 and 17 cartridges and can be reloaded within a few seconds. If there is nowhere to escape you can pretty much kill anyone in a crowded place in a matter of minutes with one. And to make things worse, a pistol can usually be concealed, something that is not practical to do with a long gun. All in all, handguns are far more dangerous for the average citizen than what they call "assault weapons" (automatic long guns).

At the very least, high-capacity magazines should be banned outright, IMHO.

Nope. They want to ban long guns, specially those of military value, simply because that's what people uses to start insurgent movements and oppose governments. it is a well known military fact that a handgun is far more difficult to operate with any efficiency by the average infantry soldier than a rifle, so they issue rifles mostly to compensate.

Who is "they"?


As for Switzerland, gun ownership is relatively high because all Swiss males are required to do military service. Men are required to have guns ONLY because Switzerland does not have a standing army. People are not required to have these guns to defend themselves as civilians. I think there is a big difference between gun cultures in which people own them because they are expected to protect their country and those in which people want to have guns for personal reasons.

Here are some studies: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research...ath/index.html

Since everyone is comparing, this might be especially interesting:

2. Across high-income nations, more guns = more homicide.

We analyzed the relationship between homicide and gun availability using data from 26 developed countries from the early 1990s. We found that across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides. These results often hold even when the United States is excluded.

Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew. Firearm availability and homicide rates across 26 high income countries. Journal of Trauma. 2000; 49:985-88.

[Absurd]

I would ban autism from the U.S. and such things wouldn't happen. I see Ashton is another potential candidate for shootings, my plan is foolproof.

[Creepy-male]

I am in the middle, gun control will never completely stop these incidents, but it may cultivate a more mature attitude towards firearms and their use.

[mikemex]

At the very least, high-capacity magazines should be banned outright, IMHO.

Banning things doesn't equate to preventing people from getting them. The perfect example of this is drugs.

Besides, a gun is what it is. Trying to make it "less dangerous" by reducing the capacity of the magazine makes no sense. In general, the true dilemma is either to allow guns or not allow them, at all. I'm personally convinced that guns shouldn't be banned but at the same time I'm well aware that there is a lot of people who isn't responsible enough to safeguard that power. That's why I advocate for education related to guns because in my opinion, what's wrong is to leave guns for people to do whatever they want to do with them.

As for Switzerland, gun ownership is relatively high because all Swiss males are required to do military service. Men are required to have guns ONLY because Switzerland does not have a standing army. People are not required to have these guns to defend themselves as civilians. I think there is a big difference between gun cultures in which people own them because they are expected to protect their country and those in which people want to have guns for personal reasons.

You're saying here exactly the same, just with different words. There is less violence in Switzerland because they do not simply give people weapons, they give them under very specific conditions (military discipline) and have a system who checks what people does with them. In the US the conservatives want the power of guns but they want to keep it "private". Power must always be regulated and thus must always be public.

Who is "they"?

Governments. Most of the time they have this mentality in which they are in one side and the people in the other. I don't like conspiracy theories in general, I just think that governments underestimate their citizens frequently. And they treat them like children. But they don't come up with this mentality from nowhere; it's people just like you who feeds them that they need to babysit us.

In general, accepting the inherent risks of life is a sign of maturity.

[Creepy-male]

There are a few people on this forum who I worry about in regard to mass shootings... I'm glad this is only an online community. >__>

Lol so ridiculous, it's online people love to bitch, moan, whine, argue, troll, and trash talk. Play an online game and you'll hear worse threats with more frequency. Most of it is empty bravado.

[Azure Flame]

The conspiracy theorist in me thinks its possible special interest people are paying other people to commit atrocious murders so that americans will beg the government to take away their right to bear (bare?) arms.

[Gilly]

The conspiracy theorist in me thinks its possible special interest people are paying other people to commit atrocious murders so that americans will beg the government to take away their right to bear (bare?) arms.

Yeah, I'm sure somebody killed kids in an open-fire school shooting for money. That makes a lot of sense.

If anything he could have been coerced into it, at the threat of the lives of his family. That's the only thing I could think of.

[Kim]

In general, accepting the inherent risks of life is a sign of maturity.

I prefer the risk of not having a gun in my house and possibly being invaded over the risk of being shot by random people who happen to snap and run amok in the streets or at elementary schools. I remember sitting on a bus once when a guy just lost it and threatened everyone to shoot them. The thought that he very well might have a gun on him was terrifying. What is currently in place is obviously not working and needs to be addressed.

And I do not believe in all these conspiracy theories.

[Animal]

Eh, get a hold of yourself. Many people die every day in worse ways.

The awfulness of other things doesn't mitigate the awfulness of another, slightly less awful thing.

[jessica129]

Who else is sick of reading about this on Facebook? ME. Everyone secretly loves these massacres, stop lying.

[Gilly]

I prefer the risk of not having a gun in my house and possibly being invaded over the risk of being shot by random people who happen to snap and run amok in the streets or at elementary schools. I remember sitting on a bus once when a guy just lost it and threatened everyone to shoot them. The thought that he very well might have a gun on him was terrifying. What is currently in place is obviously not working and needs to be addressed.

And I do not believe in all these conspiracy theories.

Forget the conspiracy theories.

Imagine that you lived in the time of the American Revolution. Would you want to own a gun then? Do you really have so much faith in the random people hired by our government that you believe they wouldn't exercise power over you in order to make their own lives better, if it was easy enough? Don't fool yourself. You have too much faith in people. Laws can change in the blink of an eye. Freedom is not something we were given like a present; it's something that was passed to us, something we have to uphold over the course of our lives and generations to come. Freedom is a living thing, and it can live for as long as human societies have to live, but only if we have respect for it, and nurture it with the fear of people we give power over ourselves to: their fear, of all of us, as one. We are their Gods; they work for us, providing us services, and they should be afraid that we will begin to resent not having other options; otherwise, why would they bother to do the work necessary to give us what we want? Because they are good and decent people?

[InvisibleJim]

You know what love is?

There was a song about that once

[Gilly]

Who else is sick of reading about this on Facebook? ME. Everyone secretly loves these massacres, stop lying.

No, it scares them. People don't like being scared, but they are always looking for reasons to be, and when they feel scared, they like to gather round the campfire and hug each other with special group-co-masturbatory words to make it all go away, revealing in sickening fashion exactly how fear perpetuates the things that cause it.

[Absurd]

I thought gun control is a religious issue...

[Kim]

You have too much faith in people.

I don't have any faith in people, that's why I don't want them to have assault weapons under their beds.

[Absurd]

And I have been right once again.

[Gilly]

I don't have any faith in people, that's why I don't want them to have assault weapons under their beds.

But you think they will voluntarily keep fulfilling their duties to you forever when they could be enslaving you?

[Absurd]

Those people are dead, unfortunately, and nothing is going to bring them back, definitely not a thread on the16types.info. Face the facts, it's history, best part is U.S. Americans and People of U.S. and United States of America, didn't learn anything, oh well, history likes to repeat itself.

A sobbing president, okay.

[Gilly]

Those people are dead, unfortunately, and nothing is going to bring them back, definitely not a thread on the16types.info.

Nor banning assault rifles.

[Absurd]

Nor banning assault rifles.

Check my post above the few.

http://www.cutoutcancercrop.com/

[Capitalist Pig]

Statistics are useless, and comparing news reports side by side is also a fruitless endeavor. There are risks to owning a gun, yes. There are also risks to owning a cutlery set, a power drill, table saw, automobile, computer, sports and exercise equipment, a cellular phone, a credit card, or even children's toys (choking hazards, anyone?). The fact remains bad things are going to happen to good people because the world is fucked up, some are more stupid than others, we make mistakes and that's the way it is.

If we fool ourselves into thinking that prohibition of an arbitrary class of commodities labelled "especially dangerous" by their own merits, will somehow mitigate the scope and scale of violence that we're hearing about so often on the news; then we are kidding ourselves in the face of our own human nature. People are resourceful, that's one reason we won the evolutionary lottery out of all the other hominids that co-existed alongside us.

"But firearms are tools unlike the others you've mentioned," a Bambi-faced prohibitionist may cry. "They are designed specifically for the purpose of killing! Surely this is a meaningful distinction."

No, it's not. There were many ways to kill people before firearms arrived on the scene, and to go through a list now would be redundant and as equally pointless as reminding you that the sky is blue except when it is overcast. In short, what I am trying to say is that banning firearms, for the purpose of preventing tragedies such as these, is a moot point when someone has violence in their hearts.