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

A few things of note:

1) That isn't a teacher

2) That isn't a school

Due to the extreme violence over there, this is a pretty normal sight.

 

Yes, and it's worked so well. Israel is a nice, peaceful place with no problems with violence at all.

 

uh geography fail...? The "5 boroughs surrounding Chicago"? Does that mean Staten Island, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Queens & the Bronx?

Perhaps you should post the full link to where you are copy pasting this from first. Perhaps a british murdoch newspaper - seems like somebody who would call the chicagoland suburbs a "borough." as its a common british english term

While it's true that a few upscale incorporated enclaves (Oak Park e.g.) around chicago had similar rules, the fact is that Chicago, like most large cities is surrounded by hundreds of incorporated areas that have no such laws.

This is why Chicago fought a long legal battle against the gun industry for flooding the area with guns.


Edit - here is the mistake you are making:

That's just 4 (well to do) suburbs of the hundreds that surround chicago and that make a fractional amount of the land area of the surrounding counties, - that would be akin to saying all areas surroundign the city of Houston had a gun ban if it was limited to the Woodlands, Friendswood, Clear Lake, and Bellaire

 

Is NY the only city with Boroughs?
Serious question . . . i guess I could google it . . but . . . .

Rocket River

 

You see it in NJ, Pennsylvania - other areas settled by the British.

 

Boroughs do not exclusively refer to New York and New Jersey, they are basically any suburb outside of a city.

You're right, they have no such laws...now. They were overturned 2 years ago.

If I didn't, I should have said the 5 largest boroughs, and I am not copying and pasting. It's from a Duke research paper.

I like how you attempt to belittle anyone who disagrees with you. You never fail to be a pompous ass.

 

Small country surrounded by countries full of people that hate them and because of this, Israel has mandatory conscription for all citizens.

Not quite the same thing as here.

 

this is an interesting dialogue:

<iframe width="853" height="480" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/HE3Kxz_ilKM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

I am not recommending it and am still thinking through all of the implications but I think for some rural schools where police aren't close it is something to consider. Also as I said it would require very intensive training and safeguards regarding who has access to the guns.

 

He's not packing heat in classrooms but FB is a gun owner already.

 

You should try martial arts.

 

If you read through this thread you will see that all of her points are addressed.

 

this too:

<iframe width="640" height="480" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/XcyLeOm6yGc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

Would you agree to have the same gun laws here as Israel?

http://www.jpost.com/NationalNews/Article.aspx?id=296480

 

bait and switch

 

How many ways can stupidity be repeated?

And your point is?

Israel is a safer place? Israel's water tastes better?

I will enact a law to ban you from owning any gun instantly.

 

Why is a simple problem and a simple soultion so hard to understand? Many of you make it way too complicated as if it was an unsolvable enigma.

The problem is mass shooting by people who shouldn't have had control of guns. Any six year old will tell you, an effective solution is reducing gun availability to those people throught stricter gun controls. Period. Lanza would not have had the gun to kill his mom and others had the mom not allowed to have the guns. Could Lanza get guns from any sources in theory? Yes, but it would be harder and there is a good chance his attempt would be detected. If you say, well, he can get guns from a black market, you don't understand a person with a mental condition like Autism.

While there are many other ways to attack this problem, stricter gun control is a sound solution based on a balance of utility and cost. Show me some data that armed citizens have avoided harm becuase of their guns and there was no other way they could've avoided the harm. You guys make it sound like a doomday if your precious guns are taken away. Your logic defies common sense and your examples have been places like South Africa and Israel.

Lastly, even if all the data you cited is correct, it does not support your conclusion that the gun-control in the past was not effective. Not effective in what? Let's be a little more precise. Since gun control, say in Chicago or UK, were there mass shooting like the one in Newtown despite the stricter gun control? So was the stricter gun control effective on that front? Once again, you guys confound a retrospective problem due to past loose gun control with a prospective problem. Let's solve them one at a time, instead of not solving them at all, which is many of you are proposing, that defies logic of a 6 year old.

 

Brah - I lived in Chicagoland for 3 years, and trust me, nobody ever called them "boroughs".

Anyway the point remains that you were mistaken, not only in nomenclature, but in the substance of your commentary being misleading (possibly deliberately, but more likely due to ignorance)