Off-Topic Mass killings

[OriginalGatorHater]

If there was no alcohol…..if there was no tobacco……your right “it’s unrealistic” go back and read my initial post in this thread and tell me it ridiculous.

Why don't we do this? The anti gun folks in this thread. Put out your “gun control” solution. Pretend your Beto Orourke, you just got elected as POTUS. You have total control of both houses and have the power to get it done, Lets hear what you would do.

I am not pro gun control, so I am not going to "take a stance on this"

 

[Roncaneefc]

How many guns were made by the criminals themself? Why aren't they using tanks and things like that if they will get them regardless of their legality?

**** it you pulled out the tanks before I did. I didn't read this until after I posted I'm not trying to steal your point.

 

[gruntking]

I've been telling my wife (and others) that this country, our country, has degenerated culturally for decades. Social media is one of the major players especially with our young people whose minds are developing. Also, there is way-way too much violence as entertainment in movies and games that can affect young developing minds in an adverse manner.
The gun controversy is quite complicated; however, most deaths/murders are committed with handguns and knives. If we eliminate legal gun ownership, will we eliminate murders?
Also, I think that we should do something to make it much more difficult for sickos to enter schools... all schools.
BTW... last night I woke up to pee at 4 AM and couldn't go back to sleep just thinking about the mass shooting of those young defenseless kids. Extremely sick!

 

[OriginalGatorHater]

**** it you pulled out the tanks before I did. I didn't read this until after I posted I'm not trying to steal your point.

No problem man. Use my point all you want lmao. I wasn't the first to come up with it.

 

[MidnightCane]

so this will be long, but I have not heard one effective solution yet from any of the parroting heads on either side. Any of the solutions presented would not have solved this or many other "mass shootings" of now or before.

Gun free zones: They are two types of Gun Free zones. 1. Fully enforced gun free zones. These are ones like at an airport, court house, etc. Where every single person is positively checked for a weapon. They are fairly effective, but expensive and hard to control. Schools are much more difficult to implement this, due to the nature of multiple entry points and staffing levels to maintain integrity of all entry points. 2. The "Gun Free Zones" that hang a sign up and say no guns allowed. These become slaughter points, as only law abiding sane (loosely used here) try and obey the law. These absolutely have to be banned, cause almost every mass casualty gun related incident are here. This is absolutely where we need to look for CHANGE, they change everyone is saying needs to come, but no one is effectively identifying as the change they are calling for. BAN ALL NON ENFORCED GUN FREE ZONES. That is the answer. If it is a GUN FREE DECLARED ZONE, then the organization that is declaring it MUST BY LAW ENFORCE IT.

Second. I don't think we have got it right by folks carrying guns around in Schools. I really don't, I know my 2nd Amendment Friends will not agree with me on this one, but hear me out. There is absolutely no way a "School Resource Officer" can cover all the grounds on a school zone effectively. PLUS, they are known and have patterns that can be predicted. In addition, having teachers and other school administration folks carrying guns on their hips isn't a good idea either. They can easily lose control of those guns as most are not in a physical condition to overpower many of the younger stronger kids in these modern schools. Last, teachers and admins shouldn't be roving the halls looking for an active shooter. They should defend their ground, not patrol for a threat.

So my solution, and I have proposed this before to many folks whom once they hear it out, do not necessarily disagree with it nor find fault with the logic. it goes like this.

1. Each classroom has a small biometric safe in the classroom. Only the teacher and a designated security personal can access said safe.
2. Any teacher wishing to of their own accord have a self defense weapon to defend that classroom and that classroom alone, can put a weapons of their choice in that safe as long as it is legal.
3. Teachers would only be allowed to put something in or take it out in a non emergency situation before or after school hours when children are not present.
4. No one knows if there are 100 guns in that school, or 0. It is UNKNOWN and UNPREDICTABLE; however, a massive deterrent.
5. Any teacher that wishes to get training for defense purposes - that training counts toward master plan points of recertification.
6. This is not to have them patrol the halls, this is to barricade the rooms just like we do today; however, if something comes in that door, you don't have the slaughters that you do today

That's it. It is a price effective solution and deterrent. It doesn't have gun welding teachers roaming the halls. It doesn't force anyone to do anything they don't want to do. It gives a crazy idiot thinking they are going into a "Gun Free Zone" a real deterrent to the same old I am going to kill folks that are unarmed easily.

 

[JD08]

And you can build your own gun, even if we were to 100% outlaw all guns.

The idea isn’t to stop it 100%; it is to make it as difficult as possible for these people to succeed.

Again, is it okay if they only manage to kill one person?

I'm still taking my shoes off in the airport because they decide air travel was worth protecting. We need to do better with schools and we need to do better identifying these people ahead of time. The only acceptable number is zero deaths.

 

[OriginalGatorHater]

so this will be long, but I have not heard one effective solution yet from any of the parroting heads on either side. Any of the solutions presented would not have solved this or many other "mass shootings" of now or before.

Gun free zones: They are two types of Gun Free zones. 1. Fully enforced gun free zones. These are ones like at an airport, court house, etc. Where every single person is positively checked for a weapon. They are fairly effective, but expensive and hard to control. Schools are much more difficult to implement this, due to the nature of multiple entry points and staffing levels to maintain integrity of all entry points. 2. The "Gun Free Zones" that hang a sign up and say no guns allowed. These become slaughter points, as only law abiding sane (loosely used here) try and obey the law. These absolutely have to be banned, cause almost every mass casualty gun related incident are here. This is absolutely where we need to look for CHANGE, they change everyone is saying needs to come, but no one is effectively identifying as the change they are calling for. BAN ALL NON ENFORCED GUN FREE ZONES. That is the answer. If it is a GUN FREE DECLARED ZONE, then the organization that is declaring it MUST BY LAW ENFORCE IT.

Second. I don't think we have got it right by folks carrying guns around in Schools. I really don't, I know my 2nd Amendment Friends will not agree with me on this one, but hear me out. There is absolutely no way a "School Resource Officer" can cover all the grounds on a school zone effectively. PLUS, they are known and have patterns that can be predicted. In addition, having teachers and other school administration folks carrying guns on their hips isn't a good idea either. They can easily lose control of those guns as most are not in a physical condition to overpower many of the younger stronger kids in these modern schools. Last, teachers and admins shouldn't be roving the halls looking for an active shooter. They should defend their ground, not patrol for a threat.

So my solution, and I have proposed this before to many folks whom once they hear it out, do not necessarily disagree with it nor find fault with the logic. it goes like this.

1. Each classroom has a small biometric safe in the classroom. Only the teacher and a designated security personal can access said safe.
2. Any teacher wishing to of their own accord have a self defense weapon to defend that classroom and that classroom alone, can put a weapons of their choice in that safe as long as it is legal.
3. Teachers would only be allowed to put something in or take it out in a non emergency situation before or after school hours when children are not present.
4. No one knows if there are 100 guns in that school, or 0. It is UNKNOWN and UNPREDICTABLE; however, a massive deterrent.
5. Any teacher that wishes to get training for defense purposes - that training counts toward master plan points of recertification.
6. This is not to have them patrol the halls, this is to barricade the rooms just like we do today; however, if something comes in that door, you don't have the slaughters that you do today

That's it. It is a price effective solution and deterrent. It doesn't have gun welding teachers roaming the halls. It doesn't force anyone to do anything they don't want to do. It gives a crazy idiot thinking they are going into a "Gun Free Zone" a real deterrent to the same old I am going to kill folks that are unarmed easily.

My HS is a "enforced gun free zone" we had metal detectors

 

[OriginalGatorHater]

Again, is it okay if they only manage to kill one person?

I'm still taking my shoes off in the airport because they decide air travel was worth protecting. We need to do better with schools and we need to do better identifying these people ahead of time. The only acceptable number is zero deaths.

Its certainly better. I would rather 1 person die than 20.

 

[Roncaneefc]

In this fantasy land of zero guns how are you preventing criminals from getting them exactly?

Not denying it's an impossibility. This kid purchased his guns legally. I don't think people need to have such easy access to guns. If there is zero tolerance for "infringement" how do you stop this from happening?

 

[Roncaneefc]

We, as a society, deemphasized traffic violations during 2020 and deaths went up significantly. Why aren’t we advocating for a return to pre 2020 policing to reduce deaths?

Mostly accidents? You don't accidentally shoot kids in a school so that might be why there is a different reaction

 

[JD08]

The median teacher age in the US is 41. Elementary schools generally have younger teachers because they need experience to move up to HS teacher. I would take a couple 41 year old females over some incel with a knife any day. No one said we can't do both. You are the one saying we need to pick one or the other.

So half are over the hill.

The charter school my kids went to had all young teachers. When they moved to the local elementary school, it was like this is where old teachers went for their sunset years. Which do you think a scrawny incel would target? Let's solve the problem instead of hoping for the best.

 

[JD08]

Its certainly better. I would rather 1 person die than 20.

I'd prefer 0.

 

[imurcane]

If there are zero guns there is zero gun crime. As I understand the average citizen cannot own a tank, criminals could probably buy a tank to commit crimes with but they don't because it's against the law.

No it is more likely that cost deters most buyers. The companies making tanks did not have you or me in mind as potential buyers for their product.

 

[NC_Canes_11]

It does make sense - see Switzerland.

You’d think they would have made that (whatever you believe their intentions were) clear, in the document, when they were writing it. If, that’s indeed what they meant.

“The security of a free state” means…

“Militia” means…

“Arms” means…

It’s impossible to narrowly define those terms today, let alone proscribe specific meaning to those words when they were written in 1788 AND apply that interpretation to the facts as they are, now. Trying to do that makes no sense. Alas, here we are.

I defined 2A for you.

 

[scrantoncane]

Here's one of my main issues: the inability of people to cross the aisle.

I consider myself a left-leaning independent, but certainly a moderate/centrist. I belive there are things that both parties do right and do wrong. I can't help but feel that too many people's opinions are shaped by what their party or source of news says they should do/think.

My brother's father-in-law has a stash of weapons that could arm a small country. He has them locked up in the basement, some crazy lock system so no kids/grandkids can get in, none of the guns are loaded, no one goes down there without him present. He is a big game hunter, and he likes to shoot the semi-automatic weapons on acreage he owns, taking the kids and grandkids with him. This guy is exactly what one is supposed to be as a gun owner. Is it fair to take his guns? I mean, no, not really. Or not at all. That is what he is into. It'd kinda be the same as taking Miami Hurricanes football away from me (yes, I know Canes don't kill people... guns are his hobby and Canes are mine, you get my point).

But where is the tradeoff between what is essentially a hobby - I don't think he ever, realistically, intends for his gun stash to protect him from Al Queda or aliens - vs kids dying in school shootings? Something has to give here.

I've said it several times in this thread, and I have no idea if there is any merit to it (i.e., if any politicians/talking heads have said anything like this, or if it is even viable), but if I had to offer a solution, a hypothetical:

-December 31, 2027 is the last day you can buy a gun in the US.
-Buy all the guns you want before this day, they are yours and they are legal
-Jan 1, 2028 - register all your guns; failure to register them renders them illegal and you in breach of the law
-All sales of guns (private party to private party) after 1/1/28 must be registered and approved in advance - something like title insurance when buying a house
-By doing this, you aren't taking away the hobby/"rights" of present-day gun owners; guns then become essentially a family heirloom that get passed down generation to generation
-Concurrently, the gov't starts a buyback program like they did in England; kid that inherits a gun can turn right around and sell if for cash to the US government
-The next generation (and the one after that) then won't even know what it is to "lose" their right to purchase a firearm, because they never had that right to begin with; just like kids today can't imagine that black people weren't allowed in the same schools and had to ride in the back of the bus
-The gun companies eventually consolidate or go out of business, but **** them anyway
-Eventually, the trickle-down effect will kick in, and the school shootings and senseless murders will reduce

Will the shootings go away? No, not for a long time, and not totally. But it is SOMETHING. And I think that is all that most reasonable folks are looking for right now... SOMETHING.

 

[MidnightCane]

Not denying it's an impossibility. This kid purchased his guns legally. I don't think people need to have such easy access to guns. If there is zero tolerance for "infringement" how do you stop this from happening?

What do you consider easy access? Are you going to take my Beto Challenge?

 

[JD08]

No it is more likely that cost deters most buyers. The companies making tanks did not have you or me in mind as potential buyers for their product.

According to this, they can be had for as low as $50k, so that might be a bit of a deterrent.

Top 10 Military Tanks For Sale To Civilians - Military Machine

Military tanks for sale to civilians including M4 tank for sale, Leopard tank for sale and even WWII tanks for sale. Enjoy Army tanks for sale in America.

militarymachine.com

 

[Roncaneefc]

No it is more likely that cost deters most buyers. The companies making tanks did not have you or me in mind as potential buyers for their product.

Don't want to argue with you as I have seen you in other threads. I would love a tank. Sat in an Abrams once .

 

[NC_Canes_11]

Here's one of my main issues: the inability of people to cross the aisle.

I consider myself a left-leaning independent, but certainly a moderate/centrist. I belive there are things that both parties do right and do wrong. I can't help but feel that too many people's opinions are shaped by what their party or source of news says they should do/think.

My brother's father-in-law has a stash of weapons that could arm a small country. He has them locked up in the basement, some crazy lock system so no kids/grandkids can get in, none of the guns are loaded, no one goes down there without him present. He is a big game hunter, and he likes to shoot the semi-automatic weapons on acreage he owns, taking the kids and grandkids with him. This guy is exactly what one is supposed to be as a gun owner. Is it fair to take his guns? I mean, no, not really. Or not at all. That is what he is into. It'd kinda be the same as taking Miami Hurricanes football away from me (yes, I know Canes don't kill people... guns are his hobby and Canes are mine, you get my point).

But where is the tradeoff between what is essentially a hobby - I don't think he ever, realistically, intends for his gun stash to protect him from Al Queda or aliens - vs kids dying in school shootings? Something has to give here.

I've said it several times in this thread, and I have no idea if there is any merit to it (i.e., if any politicians/talking heads have said anything like this, or if it is even viable), but if I had to offer a solution, a hypothetical:

-December 31, 2027 is the last day you can buy a gun in the US.
-Buy all the guns you want before this day, they are yours and they are legal
-Jan 1, 2028 - register all your guns; failure to register them renders them illegal and you in breach of the law
-All sales of guns (private party to private party) after 1/1/28 must be registered and approved in advance - something like title insurance when buying a house
-By doing this, you aren't taking away the hobby/"rights" of present-day gun owners; guns then become essentially a family heirloom that get passed down generation to generation
-Concurrently, the gov't starts a buyback program like they did in England; kid that inherits a gun can turn right around and sell if for cash to the US government
-The next generation (and the one after that) then won't even know what it is to "lose" their right to purchase a firearm, because they never had that right to begin with; just like kids today can't imagine that black people weren't allowed in the same schools and had to ride in the back of the bus
-The gun companies eventually consolidate or go out of business, but **** them anyway
-Eventually, the trickle-down effect will kick in, and the school shootings and senseless murders will reduce

Will the shootings go away? No, not for a long time, and not totally. But it is SOMETHING. And I think that is all that most reasonable folks are looking for right now... SOMETHING.

So bc taking away rights from law abiding citizens is “something” and you want “something” done, it makes it ok?

 

[Roncaneefc]

What do you consider easy access? Are you going to take my Beto Challenge?

Well in the UK you have to have 5 years of training before you are even considered for firearms ownership let's start there. All those kids would still be alive