The Topic of Gun Control and How it Relates to Recent Mass Shootings

yes that john lott. here i thought you would counter with an incident proving him wrong (maybe he is wrong. I have no idea). His claim can be easily refuted/proven.

 

gun violence has increased as a result of gang related violence but you are still talking about 39 murders last year. thats less than 0.1 per 100k.

What's the difference? One country bans guns. The other doesn't.

 

fact is the more guns are taken out of people's lives, the less lives of people are taken out by guns.

THere is no need for any auto or semi automatic weapon. we won't ever be able to clean up all the illegal guns, but more murders are done with legal guns. Time for a change.

 

no assault weapons, no hand guns

 

Perhaps if you posted a scientific study from a reputable source it would be worth the effort to research and present supporting or countering information. But you presented something from John Lott, whose studies are funded by the NRA, aptly described as "junk science" and with a history of having no factual basis. No need to expend any effort in this case...

 

you don't know what 'junk science' means

 

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/NgDvg-jS6xQ#t=1m45s" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

There is no way in holy hell a majority of people in any state in this country would support arming teachers. And LOL @ Perry sporting the black on black Tony Montana mob boss look. That's fitting.

 

Edited... that image was too big

 

I have to say my mind was changed a tiny bit yesterday. I know, weird.

NPR did a very balanced piece on guns in schools, and they included a segment on a rural TX school that has K-12 in one place, and the school is 20 or more minutes from the nearest police station. Neither the police or the school can afford full-time security, so in about 2006, they started a policy of having a couple of staff volunteer for intensive gun training and these people have their guns at school, with some sort of non-deadly polymer bullet that could still put a shooter down or slow them down. Or that was my understanding. The parents in this district really like it, since the school is so isolated. The staff are anonymous to the general public.

Small towns overwhelmingly bear the brunt of these mass killing tragedies, according to a psychologist who studied the phenomenon.

Anyway, I was like: hmmm, that policy actually makes sense in a weird way. Would it *really* deter a completely crazy person?

 

Back at you! Seriously appreciate you participating in these difficult threads, and appreciate your responsible (for all appearances anyway) gun ownership. Cheers.

Could actually be a decent thread if we could weed it.

 

It's not about deterring really. It's about stopping while in the progress. Mitigating the damage.

 

Non-fatal bullet is the keyword. I would be okay with certain, responsible teachers having guns in school if the guns were non-fatal and couldn't be used to actually kill people.

 

Well, it would be for me, yes, but it's not according to some of the gun-in-school advocates. Everyone (in this radio piece anyway) who was talking about guns in schools had the following argument: "why do you think these people target theaters and schools? Because they are cowards and seek soft targets to maximize damage."

Psychologists might tell you these insane young men just seek a central public space in a small town, the social center of the hive, if you will.

 

If a school cannot afford a dedicated security officer (this should be something every school should have a budget for, depending on size), I'm all for an administrator having some kind of self-defense and weapons training (something that is FAR beyond what a CHL requires). That's a reasonable and economical solution to a small-town (low budget, small enrollment) kind of problem.

 

I am done talking. There are too many villiage idiots. I am all for a gun debate but some posters can't have a conversation without taking it personal.

Spoiler

 

^ This is such stupid reasoning. Criminals don't pay attention to laws? Yeah, I'm sure every gun crime is a crime of compulsion committed in the heat of the moment without thinking about the consequences. There isn't a rolleyes emoticon big enough for that.

 

yes it would

Facts speak for themselves. Mass shootings don't occur where people can carry guns.

But remember, Rick Perry is insane and unreasonable for suggesting people should be able to carry them. Beyond the pale.

 

You have zero evidence to prove this.

This 'fact' is riddled with qualifiers to the point it pretty much makes itself moot. You're making the same mistake as the earlier poster, attributing correlation to causation.

Edit: WOW. This 'fact' sits upon even shakier ground than I thought, as it is pulled directly from an Op-Ed by known liar and gunrights propaganda-wonk, John Lott. He published a string of false garbage after the Aurora shootings telling outright lies about where and why James Holmes attacked. (In case you were wondering what he lied about, for starters, the "closest theatre" he cites to Holmes' was actually a performing arts venue... in addition, the "largest auditorium theatre" he sites was a concert venue that was twice the distance from Holmes' residence as the Century 16 theatre that was attacked)

Rick Perry was insane and unreasonable before making this stupid suggestion.