Off-Topic Mass killings

Here We Go Reaction GIF by MOODMAN
Is he wrong? If there were no guns, there would be no gun crime. Its a pretty simple concept. You could say "its unrealistic" , which I agree with, but pretty much everything you said in this thread has been extremely ridiculous as well.
 
Advertisement
You can outrun a knife much easier than a gun. You also can fight back, against a knife far easier, than a gun at a distance.
It also requires a good deal of training/practice to be decent enough with a knife. Any teacher who was a HS wrestler would kill the kid with his own knife in any of the recent shootings. Let alone going against 2-3 teachers. Now if the guy is a kali expert that is a different story, but even so enough teachers will take him out and you can run away.
Maybe your elementary school is different, but the one my kids went to is staffed mostly by women over 50. I'd rather not take the chance that they'd be able to protect a kindergartener against a young adult male.
 
Its because you are making an illogical point that is constantly parroted. "if all the guns are gone, they are still going to get them". guns are far more difficult to conceal or make than drugs.

And basically what you are saying is that "criminals will get their hands on illegal things, if it isn't to difficult to get their hands on". Correct?

Guns can be easily concealed. That’s why there’s concealed carry. You trying to compare guns to a tank is more illogical than anything I said.
 
As I said. The criminals will still get them. They don’t follow the law if you haven’t noticed.
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.
 
Advertisement
McVeigh chose Oklahoma City and a fertilizer bomb.

This guy posted his intent on Facebook 15 minutes before he did it. Wouldn't it be nice if tgat was flagged and forwarded to the police instantly?
Don’t you get flagged if you try to buy materials used to build a bomb? I can’t even buy Sudafed without showing my ID.
There ain't no teacher (unless trained in the arts) who would be able to take on an assailant with crazy intent wielding this 👇
View attachment 187117

Unless we step up Public School Security, put more emphasis on our kids mental health. You can ban guns all you want. Something else will just replace gun violence.
oh come on. I’ve seen pictures of some of these shooters. In a life or death situation, let them have the knife. I’m slowing them down enough that, even if they get me, they aren’t getting any kids.

Not trying to be a tough guy. An 18 year old ***** with a knife doesn’t move the needle.
 
Most of these school shooters are very frail bullied kids and most teachers are not elderly people. Its fine to address both issues.
Again, is that the goal? Let's hope we get a frail kid who attacks and that we have young, strong teachers in case they do?

Every one of these shooters has warning signs that get missed. We can apply artificial intelligence to an array if data to determine if drugs are being diverted from a patient in a hospital, but we can't tell that a psycho is going to kill when he posts his intent on facebook?
 
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.
 
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.

In this fantasy land of zero guns how are you preventing criminals from getting them exactly?
 
Advertisement
Every argument hinges on the teacher. Isn't it better to not have someone try to kill a bunch of people?

But let's talk about elderly women possibly taking out an 18 yr old man.
So no comment on the boys in blue WITH guns too scared too enter without a significant advantage even when children are at risk? Also see Parkland shooter response. You're just straight up lying to yourself if you think knives are just as capable of committing mass murder as efficiently.
 
Maybe your elementary school is different, but the one my kids went to is staffed mostly by women over 50. I'd rather not take the chance that they'd be able to protect a kindergartener against a young adult male.
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.
 
Don’t you get flagged if you try to buy materials used to build a bomb? I can’t even buy Sudafed without showing my ID.

oh come on. I’ve seen pictures of some of these shooters. In a life or death situation, let them have the knife. I’m slowing them down enough that, even if they get me, they aren’t getting any kids.

Not trying to be a tough guy. An 18 year old ***** with a knife doesn’t move the needle.
Do you have any idea how many deadly and explosive chemical combinations there are? Sure if you go try to buy a whole lot of fertilizer, but the Boston bombers used fireworks and a pressure cooker.
 
Again, is that the goal? Let's hope we get a frail kid who attacks and that we have young, strong teachers in case they do?

Every one of these shooters has warning signs that get missed. We can apply artificial intelligence to an array if data to determine if drugs are being diverted from a patient in a hospital, but we can't tell that a psycho is going to kill when he posts his intent on facebook?
That has been the case pretty much every time. I can't recall a single incident of a shooter that looked to be in any sort of decent shape. You don't even need a strong teacher. Any middle aged man who isn't chair locked, is going to be way stronger than a frail 18 year old.

I agree with the rest of your statement.
 
Advertisement
Again, is that the goal? Let's hope we get a frail kid who attacks and that we have young, strong teachers in case they do?

Every one of these shooters has warning signs that get missed. We can apply artificial intelligence to an array if data to determine if drugs are being diverted from a patient in a hospital, but we can't tell that a psycho is going to kill when he posts his intent on facebook?
These companies like FB and Apple don’t allow profiling, for (probably rightful) fear of a slippery slope.
 

Attachments

  • 43BE35E4-8961-4FEF-A15C-0C3936790FAE.png
    43BE35E4-8961-4FEF-A15C-0C3936790FAE.png
    255.6 KB · Views: 1
  • A731F7DC-3407-4F37-B0F9-7032A02D99E8.png
    A731F7DC-3407-4F37-B0F9-7032A02D99E8.png
    397.4 KB · Views: 1
Is he wrong? If there were no guns, there would be no gun crime. Its a pretty simple concept. You could say "its unrealistic" , which I agree with, but pretty much everything you said in this thread has been extremely ridiculous as well.
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.
 
Again… my point is that people are actively trying to work on this problem. It is not being ignored. If we want to play this game… google malaria mortality worldwide… or heart disease mortality in the US. Just because the mortality is high, doesn’t mean that people aren’t aware of the problem and aren’t devoting significant resources trying to resolve it.

I’ve worked as a surgery resident at a level 1 trauma center for several years. Gun violence and motor vehicle accidents are devastating to the individuals involved and I’ve seen many innocent adults and children suffer as a result. Both of these are almost always attributable directly to the actions of the driver or shooter. However, when we look at the consequences (severity of injury) and perform a root cause analysis, we can also find system based factors that lead to worse outcomes. While we can’t fix crazy, and we can’t fix stupid, we should effectively advocate for systemic changes that keep crazy and stupid from causing havoc. In the case of MVAs we’ve been able to do this. In the case of gun violence, we’ve not.
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?
 
Advertisement
Do you have any idea how many deadly and explosive chemical combinations there are? Sure if you go try to buy a whole lot of fertilizer, but the Boston bombers used fireworks and a pressure cooker.
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.
 
Guns can be easily concealed. That’s why there’s concealed carry. You trying to compare guns to a tank is more illogical than anything I said.
Its not any more illogical. If there are no guns, where are they coming from? You think gangs in Chicago are manufacturing most of their guns?

Fine I will use a better example for you then. Since you are stuck on the concealability bit. Why don't more gangs use grenades and other easily concealable explosives. If they can get their hands on anything that is illegal, since they are criminals?
 
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.
Then why not legalize heroin, crack, grenades, etc?

If the old “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” argument is applied, should everything just be free will? Or do pro-gun guys just shape the argument to fit their stance/agenda?
 
Do you have any idea how many deadly and explosive chemical combinations there are? Sure if you go try to buy a whole lot of fertilizer, but the Boston bombers used fireworks and a pressure cooker.
Yup the 1927 school "shooting" which IIRC was the most deadly school shooting of them all was done with explosives.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top