Connecticut (et al)

[aspire1670]

Realistic suggestions on how to significantly reduce the guns in circulation?

The problem is political. That is, getting people to agree. It will be well nigh impossible even to get government to agree, much less the 100 million gun enthusiasts like Seth.

So no realistic suggestions. That's what I thought.

Probably a small start is the best approach. Prof. David Hemenway suggested that a law making all new firearms child-proof. That seems kind of too little to me, but at least it would be a start.

"Child-proof"? What does that mean and how would that prevent anyone from using a gun except the 1-5 year-old gunman crowd?

Are you kidding me? Have you not read the child like, pearl clutching, omg if we can't do everything we shoudn't do anything, sacred text, school guards justifications for keeping teh gunz? Child proof guns would more than prevent most gun owners from operating a firearm. Shall I order you a fainting couch?

[Jason]

In English please?

[Blind groper]

The problem is, Ian, that we have people on this forum who will take those ideas, and call them excellent.

There are 100 million gun enthusiasts in the USA, and a portion of them would consider Svartalf's suggestion to be wonderful, and one which should be enacted in law. Best to leave those concepts alone, even in satire.

[Seth]

And after we get armed personnel in every school (just like Columbine had, not to mention how Virginia Tech had its own police force)

As I carefully explained, the School Resource Officer for Columbine was NOT in the school when the attack started. Likewise the campus police were not in the building when the VT killer started his spree. In both cases, it took at least three minutes for them to arrive, and more than 15 minutes at VT for the tactical team to gain entry because Cho had chained the doors closed, knowing that nobody inside the building would have a gun to oppose him with.

, we'll get armed personnel on every school bus, in every supermarket, at every daycare center, in every movie theater, etc. That'll take care of it. And it won't cost too much to do that, I'm sure.

Indeed, and the way you get "armed personnel" everywhere is for the citizenry to be armed, which is to say ubiquitous lawful, permitted concealed carry by at least 50 percent of the people.

The US has by far more guns per capita than any other country. By pure coincidence, it also has by far more gun homicides than any other advanced nation on earth. Therefore, we need more guns in more places. Makes perfect sense! Analytically irrefutable.

The issue is not how many gun homicides there are, but how you deal with the misuse of firearms by criminals. Less than .0001 percent of all guns in the US are used for any sort of criminal act. This means that 99.9999 percent of guns are possessed by law abiding citizens who might as well be allowed to carry them for self defense.

[Seth]

And after we get armed personnel in every school (just like Columbine had, not to mention how Virginia Tech had its own police force), we'll get armed personnel on every school bus, in every supermarket, at every daycare center, in every movie theater, etc. That'll take care of it. And it won't cost too much to do that, I'm sure.

The US has by far more guns per capita than any other country. By pure coincidence, it also has by far more gun homicides than any other advanced nation on earth. Therefore, we need more guns in more places. Makes perfect sense! Analytically irrefutable.

Why not make it a civic duty for every citizen to be a qualified firearms user and to carry at all times while you're at it?

Well, at least those who are sober, sane and not disqualified. Surprisingly, a law such as you suggest is probably one of the few gun control laws that Congress could actually lawfully enact, under it's power to raise armies and regulate the Militia.

Less hassle hiring specialized personnel if every teacher, driver and janitor is packing and knows what to do with it.
(but hiring armed guards will be good for employment, if you can find employers and get them to fork out the budget for it)

Yup. Except that if ever second or third person on the street is lawfully armed, you won't need special guards because there will always be someone around to take action if needed.

[Blind groper]

In both cases, it took at least three minutes for them to arrive, and more than 15 minutes at VT for the tactical team to gain entry because Cho had chained the doors closed, knowing that nobody inside the building would have a gun to oppose him with.

A situation that would still apply in any school with one or two armed guards. The killer will not enter where the guards are. Will wait till the guards are away from his target, and will have the full three minutes to carry out his massacre before any guards arrive, at which time the killer will do his best to kill the guards as well.

As for arming everyone....
That would be a guaranteed method for increasing America's death toll dramatically.

As I pointed out earlier, 220,000 attempts at suicide happen in the USA each year, 75% of which are with drugs, which are 98% failures. Guns, though, have a 90% success rate. Make sure that everyone has guns, and most of those 220,000 suicide attempts will be with guns, meaning that 150,000 plus deaths each year, rather than the 12,000 you have right now.

That is reeeeeel smart!

[Seth]

To Seth

It matters very little if someone in a school has a gun, in terms of stopping a massacre.

How the fuck would YOU know. You know absolutely nothing whatsoever about tactics for armed encounters.

As you pointed out, 30 seconds is enough to see a whole heap of people killed. High schools tend to be large, with many buildings and cover a wide area. If a killer walked in at one point, and started shooting, and a guard with a gun was at another point, a randomly decided point, then it would probably take him a good five minutes plus to get to where the killer was. By the time the guard arrived, the massacre is done. The whole bloody exercise with guards is pointless.

And that's why you secure school grounds with fences, locked doors and MULTIPLE teachers and staff who are armed, so there's always one or two around wherever students are.

And the notion that armed guards are "pointless" is just about the most ridiculous and asinine thing I've heard from you yet. You have absolutely NO viable or useful suggestions or solutions. You bloviate on and on about something that cannot possibly happen (gun bans) and that even if enacted would take 200 years to be effective, and yet you dismiss putting armed guards, or for fuck's sake the National Guard with machine guns, in schools to protect children, which is quite obviously the ONLY thing that has any chance at all of stopping or mitigating the harm of such an incident.

How stupid are you, really?

Not only that, but you are talking of thousands of armed guards across the country.

Tens of thousands actually. So what?

A small percentage of those armed guards will, through carelessness, or crazy design, end up killing people themselves.

Maybe, but I'd rather take those odds than the ones kids have now, which is certain death if someone decides to attack their school.

Another small percentage will meet the killer and the guard will become just one more victim.

Yup, sometimes you die. But that's no reason to, as you are, stick your head up your ass and propose impossible and utterly useless fantasies that cannot possibly do anything to protect children in this century or the next. That's why it should be MULTIPLE armed guards, in the persona of teachers, administrators and staff members, who are paid to be there already.

The NRA is being two faced. They know damn well that this system will not work, but are simply pushing their own agenda.

It makes much more sense than anything you've proposed. At least they have a viable idea. You don't.

[Seth]

In both cases, it took at least three minutes for them to arrive, and more than 15 minutes at VT for the tactical team to gain entry because Cho had chained the doors closed, knowing that nobody inside the building would have a gun to oppose him with.

A situation that would still apply in any school with one or two armed guards. The killer will not enter where the guards are. Will wait till the guards are away from his target, and will have the full three minutes to carry out his massacre before any guards arrive, at which time the killer will do his best to kill the guards as well.

Soooo...your solution is to do NOTHING and pray for divine intervention?

As for arming everyone....
That would be a guaranteed method for increasing America's death toll dramatically.

That's not what the evidence shows.

As I pointed out earlier, 220,000 attempts at suicide happen in the USA each year, 75% of which are with drugs, which are 98% failures. Guns, though, have a 90% success rate. Make sure that everyone has guns, and most of those 220,000 suicide attempts will be with guns, meaning that 150,000 plus deaths each year, rather than the 12,000 you have right now.

Oh, back to suicides again. I don't give a fuck what someone who wants to die does. It's their life and they have an unalienable right to end it whenever they like, and it's none of your or my business how they go about it, so long as they don't hurt others.

And you'd do NOTHING about school shootings, not even hire armed guards, because you're so paranoid about guns that you have to concoct stupid strawmen like suicides to try to bolster your argument.

That is reeeeeel smart!

Smarter than anything you've suggested. At least most suicides just kill themselves.

[Blind groper]

How stupid are you, really?

I have an IQ of 130.
Some years ago, I did a full day of aptitude testing, and my highest score, bordering on genius, was a quality the testing psychologists called "critical decision making", but which I call my bullshit alarm. My ability to detect bullshit puts me (according to the test) in the top 0.1% of the population.

And Seth, in your posts, I detect a major plethora of bullshit. The biggest one is the idea that, in a nation with a major problem with gun violence, you think you are going to makes things better with more guns. That idea I declare to be bullshit. Big time bullshit.

[Seth]

If you have a town with an infestation of rattlesnakes, you do not fix it by bringing in more snakes. You kill snakes or remove them.

If you have a nation with an infestation of firearms, firearm users, and firearm crime, you do not fix it with more guns. You remove guns to reduce the problem.

The problem is not the guns, it's those nutbags who wield them for evil purposes. Reduce them and you reduce the problem.

Then I'm sure we can count on your support for the next major expansion of health care, so access to mental health care becomes easier.

Or, limit death penalty appeals to one and execute the condemned within 72 hours of the appeal verdict.

Of course, even if a person is deemed dangerous, unless they're committed against their will the lack of background checks at gun shows means they'll still be able to buy firearms at will. So can we assume you're in favor of closing that loophole as well?

That's a tough one. What do you mean by "deemed dangerous?" Hoplophobes and gun banners want vague criteria applied to mental conditions precisely so that they can disqualify the maximum number of people from owning guns possible, regardless of whether or not they are actually a danger to themselves or others. One friend suggested anybody who had to take antidepressants should be disqualified until I told him that doing so would eliminate about 60 percent of every police department in the country.

I'm satisfied at the moment with the requirement that a person be ADJUDICATED to be mentally ill in a court of law, where due process obtains so that an individual wrongfully diagnosed can seek justice and/or have his rights restored if and when he returns to mental health.

Yes, this means that the insane among us who are able to keep anyone from finding out they are dangerous may be able to slip through the cracks and buy a gun, but then again that's precisely the sort of people that I personally carry a gun to defend against. If you are worried about such people, the YOU should carry a gun and defend yourself, not offload the responsibility for your safety onto someone else who might not want to be sacrificed in your defense (your local policeman), which is utterly immoral and unethical. Cover your own ass, be a man.

Or are you all talk?

I don't have a problem with those who are adjudicated as mentally defective in a court of law and who are ruled a danger to themselves or others by a judge, after a trial, having their RKBA suspended while they are mentally ill. Nor do I have a problem with the records of these court actions being entered into the NCIC NICS check database nationwide. I don't even object to a federal law requiring all states to report such adjudications to the feds...so long as there is a pathway for appeal and reconsideration for such persons if and when they are well again.

Nor do I particularly care if background checks are required at organized gun shows, as they have been here in Colorado for some time now. However, it's just impossible to have every private transaction go through NICS, and it's a stupid idea to try because all you do is create a black market for guns.

The best way to defend against criminals who obtain guns illegally who intend to use them for illegal purposes is to a) lock them up and keep them there when they are caught; and b) carry a gun yourself so you can use it to defend yourself, or your kids, should a criminal or nutcase pop up in your vicinity...because that's the ONLY way you have even the smallest hope of safety because the police WILL NOT BE THERE when you need them. They almost never are.

[Seth]

How stupid are you, really?

I have an IQ of 13.

Some years ago, I did a full day of aptitude testing, and my highest score, bordering on moron, was a quality the testing psychologists called "critical decision avoidance", but which I call my bullshit alarm. My inability to make rational decisions or formulate rational arguments puts me (according to the test) in the bottom 0.1% of the population.

And Seth, in your posts, I detect a major plethora of bullshit. The biggest one is the idea that, in a nation with a major problem with gun violence, you think you are going to makes things better with more guns. That idea I declare to be bullshit. Big time bullshit.

That's because you added a zero to your IQ results and are incapable of understanding the simple fact that in a nation where guns are a valued part of our national character and are ubiquitous in our society, the only sane and effective method for people to defend themselves against the tiny fraction of guns which are used in crimes is by having their own gun and being prepared to respond in the 1.5 seconds that most people have in which to effectively respond to an armed attack.

[Jason]

secure school grounds with fences

Are these fences to be 12 feet tall, extend 6 feet below ground, be topped with razor wire, and electrified with 20,000 volts? Should guard towers be placed at every entrance point, manned by armed and trained marksmen as well as towers every 200 feet around the perimeter?

[Seth]

secure school grounds with fences

Are these fences to be 12 feet tall, extend 6 feet below ground, be topped with razor wire, and electrified with 20,000 volts? Should guard towers be placed at every entrance point, manned by armed and trained marksmen as well as towers every 200 feet around the perimeter?

If that's what it takes, then yes. I suspect that a much lower level of unobtrusive security will do the job. As I said, secure schoolgrounds, video cameras to detect intrusions from outside, armored entryways, armored classrooms, automatic lockdowns, automatic partitioning and armed personnel on site at all times students are present will have the best chance of foiling such attacks.

Is it going to be 100 percent effective? Of course not, nothing is, but it's better than anything anybody else has suggested.

[JimC]

secure school grounds with fences

Are these fences to be 12 feet tall, extend 6 feet below ground, be topped with razor wire, and electrified with 20,000 volts? Should guard towers be placed at every entrance point, manned by armed and trained marksmen as well as towers every 200 feet around the perimeter?

And even without the concentration camp hyperbole, I wonder whether Seth knows how deeply sick his suggestion is...

"We have a problem; some people are using our precious guns to shoot children. Answer: lock the children away behind fences, build in their young minds the nagging sense of danger and insecurity that a real survivalist needs to feel deep in his bones..."

[Ian]

Seth - let's say the public actually thought your ideas were rational (well, maybe as many as 13% do, though I think the real number is half that at best) and that's exactly the course American society took: armed guards everywhere you look, nearly everyone packing a sidearm, i.e genuine ubiquity of firearms. Ignoring for now the ludicrous opinion that this would make things safer, is that really the vision of America you want to see? Do you really feel such a society would be worthy of the term Civilization?