(February 23, 2018 at 3:13 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(February 23, 2018 at 2:47 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: Americans want their guns and will do anything to keep them, even accepting the regular mass slaughter of children. The rest of the world thinks your mad.

We also have (at least for now) truly free speech and freedom of assembly. Most of the world seems to think that's a problem too. Just ask Mark Steyn or Geert Wilders..

And this has what to do with your high tolerance for child death exactly?
But if we are going down this route.

You also have the most insane and ill thought out health system in the world. I mean Obama are addresses the issues a bit but what you really need is a tax that pays for healthcare so its free at point of use, you know like the rest of the world has.
oh and stop giving antibiotics to your farm animals just because it bulks them up.
Also can americans please learn what communism, socialism and right wing are because they are wrong on all of these things wrong ALL THE TIME.
And you spell wrong. its colour not color. and buoy is pronounce "boy" not the horrendous buggering of language that americans inflict on it when they try to say it.

(February 23, 2018 at 3:17 pm)Cyberman Wrote: Thing is, though, at the moment the freedoms of speech and assembly are not slaughtering people.

You're right. Criminals are. And if you look at what actually happened in Florida it becomes increasingly clear that law enforcement, social services, and a whole host of people who should have been able to stop Cruz either failed to do so or believed they lacked the authority to do anything. Schools are so scared of being sued and teachers accused of abuse that disturbed children are kept in classrooms and from a very early age do not receive the care and concern they need and deserve.

And while I do not mean to blame the victims or excuse his evil, it is clear that Cruz was bullied, humiliated and socially rejected by his peers. And even now, the claim is that he was some mentally ill wack-job. Maybe, if he had been treated like a human being, or encouraged by a responsible adult role-model, or befriended by even a few schoolmates willing to defend his sense of human dignity he would not have been so willing to dehumanize his victims.

Grabbing guns is the easy, lazy suggested solution. And it probably would not work in the US even if it supposedly works in the UK. Just shear geography makes it so that many Americans live more that 20 miles or more away from the nearest law officer. Heck I never even saw an actual municipal policeman before I was 18; although there were plenty of State troopers passing out tickets on hwy 20. And yes, most Americans have a much different perspective than people in the rest of the world...it's not that we love guns; but rather, that we pride ourselves on our self-reliance, as in "I don't need or want to depend on the State to protect me, my family or my neighbors, we can and will take responsibility for the safety of ourselves, thank you very much."

(February 23, 2018 at 3:30 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(February 23, 2018 at 3:17 pm)Cyberman Wrote: Thing is, though, at the moment the freedoms of speech and assembly are not slaughtering people.

You're right. Criminals are. And if you look at what actually happened in Florida it becomes increasingly clear that law enforcement, social services, and a whole host of people who should have been able to stop Cruz either failed to do so or believed they lacked the authority to do anything. Schools are so scared of being sued and teachers accused of abuse that disturbed children are kept in classrooms and from a very early age do not receive the care and concern they need and deserve.

And while I do not mean to blame the victims or excuse his evil, it is clear that Cruz was bullied, humiliated and socially rejected by his peers. And even now, the claim is that he was some mentally ill wack-job. Maybe, it he had been treated like a human being or befriended by even a few schoolmate willing to defend his sense of human dignity he would not have been so willing to dehumanize his victims.

Yes to all of that, but you must admit it was compounded because he lived in a society where it is too easy to get guns.

A hurt loner with a gun does more harm than a hurt loner with anything else.

The person is part of the problem, but add a gun and you get mass death time and time again. 

We will have this same debate in a week or so when the next mass shooting happens.

Slight amendment, if I may "Criminals with guns are [slaughtering people]."

(February 23, 2018 at 3:34 pm)Cyberman Wrote: Slight amendment, if I may "Criminals with guns are [slaughtering people]."

He could just as easily have used a truck filled with fertilizer or pressure cookers filled with nails. But, oh well, black scary looking guns are scary and should be banned because they are scary looking and then once they are banned we can pretend that our lefty policies and libertine attitudes are not causing the break-down of families and subverting local social capital.

(February 23, 2018 at 3:52 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(February 23, 2018 at 3:34 pm)Cyberman Wrote: Slight amendment, if I may "Criminals with guns are [slaughtering people]."

He could just as easily have used a truck filled with fertilizer or pressure cookers filled with nails. But, oh well, black scary looking guns are scary and should be banned because they are scary looking and then once they are banned we can pretend that our lefty policies and libertine attitudes are not causing the break-down of families and subverting local social capital.

Just as easily? Seriously, Neo?

You know what else subverts local social capital? Students and teachers being murdered.

(February 23, 2018 at 3:58 pm)Crossless2.0 Wrote:

(February 23, 2018 at 3:52 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: He could just as easily have used a truck filled with fertilizer or pressure cookers filled with nails. But, oh well, black scary looking guns are scary and should be banned because they are scary looking and then once they are banned we can pretend that our lefty policies and libertine attitudes are not causing the break-down of families and subverting local social capital.

Just as easily? Seriously, Neo?

You know what else subverts local social capital? Students and teachers being murdered.

There's significantly more risk to a would-be attacker attempting to create a bomb than using a firearm.  That's why we have a rash of mass shootings rather than mass bombings.  Attackers might be willing to die, but in most cases it's only after they hit their targets.

Firearms shouldn't be banned because they're scary looking.  They should be controlled because they're ranged weapons of incredible breadth and power.  Weapons that, as we've seen, can kill and injure scores of people in mere moments.  And, unlike vehicles, fertilizer, pressure cookers, and every other failed analogy, are designed to do so.

Guards are security theater, nothing more.  And, indeed, likely wouldn't have helped in this case.  Cruz knew how the school worked.  How and when people went to class, what doors were locked or unlocked.  Even if the door was locked, he could've simply waited for the end of the day, when kids were exiting the school.  It's unlikely that a guard would be able to stop the killing that happened.

Moreover, extra guards are useless if:

They're taken out first, especially if it's before they can raise an alarm
There's inside help (another kid/kids unlocking doors or windows, or pulling fire alarms)
The guards aren't well trained, or, simply, not brave (see: what actually happened in Florida)

And since Wooters is so anxious about the liability issues, these guards would have to be restrained from essentially becoming the disciplinary arm of the school itself.  I'm also imagining a friendly fire scenario where the guard(s) shoot the wrong kid(s).

It's, frankly, a dumb idea that will simply cost more money and not actually improve security.

(February 23, 2018 at 3:52 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(February 23, 2018 at 3:34 pm)Cyberman Wrote: Slight amendment, if I may "Criminals with guns are [slaughtering people]."

He could just as easily have used a truck filled with fertilizer or pressure cookers filled with nails. But, oh well, black scary looking guns are scary and should be banned because they are scary looking and then once they are banned we can pretend that our lefty policies and libertine attitudes are not causing the break-down of families and subverting local social capital.

No, black scary-looking guns should be banned (from private ownership and public carrying) because they are deadly weapons with literally no other purpose, that maim and kill when used exactly as the manufacturer intended.

Let's indeed address all those other societal issues - but clean up the public streets as well, for fuck's sake. Are you afraid that you might end up with a more peaceful society by accident?

Not that it's worth anything more than another perspective, but one of my buddies, who I went to high-school and college with and still talk to with some frequency, is an Iraq war veteran.  Specifically, he was in the Army as an on-the-ground member of a counter-terrorism unit, one of the guys literally going door-to-door searching for insurgents.  He was one of the lucky ones who came back intact.  He now works for a cybersecurity firm in Tacoma.  To say that he's an expert in threat assessment is likely an understatement.  He had to, literally, spend his days being weary of potentially armed children in the middle of an actual warzone.

He is aghast at the ideas of both arming teachers and hiring security guards.  Why?  Because of the lack of training and oversight that will be a part of it.

As a soldier, he had months of nothing but training.  Not just on the range, but in terms of tactical analysis.  This was honed by actual exercises.  Further honed by drills, and finally with being in theatre.  Moreover, there's a rigid process soldiers must go through before they can actually discharge their weapons.  Things like fields of fire and backstops (high powered rifle bullets don't just stop when they hit a body) have to be considered.  It's at least as intense as SWAT training, likely much more.

So, as a person who's had that training, and has had to employ it, he can't help but see an even greater tragedy in the making.  Because teachers won't be able to get the kind of training necessary for this (many schools are barely functional, with parents and teachers paying out-of-pocket for supplies they rightfully shouldn't have to worry about), and most security guards are going to be rank-and-file police, former police, or veterans who either never saw actual combat, didn't have the kind of training necessary for this endeavor, or both.  And, of course, it doesn't address the underlying issues that make kids think the best course of action is to kill their classmates and teachers in the first place.

And, yes, this is a real person.  Anyone that's friended me on FB can look him up in my friend's list.  Sean Gray.

(February 23, 2018 at 3:19 pm)Tizheruk Wrote: Countless other countries have both. And don't consider the possession of an assault rifle a right .

Other countries are piss-ants.

"[Art.] 10. [Right of Revolution.] Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind."
https://constitution.com/new-hampshire-s...-17842007/