Guest American Woman Posted December 22, 2012 Report Share Posted December 22, 2012 Maybe, but this notion you fanatical gun culture supporters have that guns don't make it far easier and far more likely that someone will commit murder is patently silly and totally contradicted by all available evidence and statistics. Yes, I suppose he could go from room to room strangling people, or even use a knife. But it's FAR less likely he'd have been able to kill half as many as he did without his high powered assault rifle. Your coming up with the just about the worst possible case in history of mass murder without firearms doesn't change that. Since we're speculating - perhaps he would have killed more people, using a bomb - same as Oklahoma City, or the worst school massacre in the history of the U.S. As for using a knife, I supported, with recent facts, that such a "possibility" is far from "silly." As for this - "fanatical gun culture supporters:" such talk, such hyperbole, does nothing to win your case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted December 22, 2012 Report Share Posted December 22, 2012 (edited) It was intended as a rough estimate to get a basic order of magnitude result for the cost... but yes, 100k each could well be with overhead. Only if you just protect schools. What about daycares? Soccer practices? Boy scout meetings? Church Sunday Schools? Parks? Swimming pools? Boys and Girls clubs? Id' say you could easily double your guestimate of costs. And after spending $25 billion on security, the first gunman that shows up at the door shoots the armed guard, and then proceeds to massacre kids anyway... Edited December 22, 2012 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted December 22, 2012 Report Share Posted December 22, 2012 Ya BC, 27 problem schools, not every damn school in the country. Just ignore him. Or rather, put him on ignore like half the web site does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted December 22, 2012 Report Share Posted December 22, 2012 Since we're speculating - perhaps he would have killed more people, using a bomb -same as Oklahoma City, or the worst school massacre in the history of the U.S. Then maybe the government should monitor the sale of explosive material... oh wait, they do. As for using a knife, I supported, with recent facts, that such a "possibility" is far from "silly." It is silly. It sounds like those idiots who still won't wear a seat belt, because maybe they'll go into a river, and maybe be trapped in their car or something. The seat belt protects you 999 times out of 1000 but they're still paranoid about that 1 case. As for this - "fanatical gun culture supporters:" such talk, such hyperbole, does nothing to win your case. Why? Don't like the label? It suits you in this discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted December 22, 2012 Report Share Posted December 22, 2012 (edited) You security guy supporters seem to have ignored the post pointing out that there WAS an armed security guard, actually a cop, at Columbine. It didn't do any good. He was outgunned and outnumbered. So maybe you should propose a platoon of marines for each school now, complete with heavy weapons squad... Edited December 22, 2012 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted December 22, 2012 Report Share Posted December 22, 2012 OK...so you think that Americans have "bastardized" a right that has never existed in Canada ? What would be the non-"bastardized" version of this right according to you ? Not for me to say but do you really think your founding fathers had today's situation in mind when they wrote the second amendment? I'm very grateful that whatever their motives may have been, our nation builders didn't saddle us with that albatross around our necks because I am not overconfident we would have done much better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted December 22, 2012 Report Share Posted December 22, 2012 Then maybe the government should monitor the sale of explosive material... oh wait, they do. They also monitor the sale of guns. You do realize there are firearm regulations, right? It is silly. It sounds like those idiots who still won't wear a seat belt, because maybe they'll go into a river, and maybe be trapped in their car or something. The seat belt protects you 999 times out of 1000 but they're still paranoid about that 1 case. What's silly is that comparison. There's no relevance to this issue at all. Why? Don't like the label? It suits you in this discussion. Again, doesn't help your case. It's totally false and - ironically - makes you out to be a fanatic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted December 22, 2012 Report Share Posted December 22, 2012 Only if you just protect schools. What about daycares? Soccer practices? Boy scout meetings? Church Sunday Schools? Parks? Swimming pools? Boys and Girls clubs? Id' say you could easily double your guestimate of costs. And after spending $25 billion on security, the first gunman that shows up at the door shoots the armed guard, and then proceeds to massacre kids anyway... Maybe they've boxed themselves into a corner where they can't do anything else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted December 22, 2012 Report Share Posted December 22, 2012 They also monitor the sale of guns. You do realize there are firearm regulations, right? I wasn't aware your stores also sold bombs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted December 22, 2012 Report Share Posted December 22, 2012 I wasn't aware your stores also sold bombs. I have no idea what point you think you're making. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted December 22, 2012 Report Share Posted December 22, 2012 I have no idea what point you think you're making. No, I guess you wouldn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted December 22, 2012 Report Share Posted December 22, 2012 Since 1/3 of the mass murders in the U.S. don't involve guns, perhaps he would have done what those murderers did. Maybe, but then someone would probably notice him locking all the doors and setting the building on fire. They would then probably smash some windows to get out and a lot fewer people would have died as a result. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted December 22, 2012 Report Share Posted December 22, 2012 You security guy supporters seem to have ignored the post pointing out that there WAS an armed security guard, actually a cop, at Columbine. It didn't do any good. He was outgunned and outnumbered. So maybe you should propose a platoon of marines for each school now, complete with heavy weapons squad... This should be the end of the discussion about the NRA's ridiculous "proposals." Too bad it won't be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted December 22, 2012 Report Share Posted December 22, 2012 I wasn't aware your stores also sold bombs. I didn't realize everyone in the US knows how to make high-grade explosives that could take out a school either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted December 22, 2012 Report Share Posted December 22, 2012 Maybe, but then someone would probably notice him locking all the doors and setting the building on fire. They would then probably smash some windows to get out and a lot fewer people would have died as a result. Really? Makes one wonder why no one noticed arsonists starting the fires in which other people died. Makes one wonder why no one noticed the bomb in OK City. Makes one wonder why a bomb was responsible for the worst school massacre in the history of the U.S. Makes one wonder why you keep downplaying other methods of mass homicide. The reality is, large numbers of people have died in single incidents other than those where guns are involved, too. I've given examples. I've given statistics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted December 22, 2012 Report Share Posted December 22, 2012 . I've given examples. I've given statistics. Good job. But can you explain your point? Do you really think the status quo is fine where individuals can access assault weapons to kill children if they want to? Do you really think they shouldn't look at how that individual got access to those guns and do something about it? If so, do you really think you would feel the same way if you had a six-year-old family member shot in the head in that incident? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted December 22, 2012 Report Share Posted December 22, 2012 Really? Makes one wonder why no one noticed arsonists starting the fires in which other people died. Makes one wonder why no one noticed the bomb in OK City. Makes one wonder why a bomb was responsible for the worst school massacre in the history of the U.S. Makes one wonder why you keep downplaying other methods of mass homicide. The reality is, large numbers of people have died in single incidents other than those where guns are involved, too. I've given examples. I've given statistics. Yah lets work on stopping those as well. The solution to those attacks would be a little different then gun attacks but why wouldn't we want to stop them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted December 22, 2012 Report Share Posted December 22, 2012 There isn't as much discussion about gun control after we have a shooting spree in Canada or other democratic countries. I guess that's because in Canada or other democratic countries governments can just make a new regulation to make everyone feel better and in the USA the government's hands are somewhat tied by their Constitution. Imagine that! Tying up a government's hands like that. Sounds like someone wanted to make sure government didn't get too cocky and beyond the control of the people. Maybe what they didn't foresee was that there would be nutty people running around that would go on shooting rampages. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LonJowett Posted December 22, 2012 Report Share Posted December 22, 2012 Good job. But can you explain your point? Do you really think the status quo is fine where individuals can access assault weapons to kill children if they want to? Do you really think they shouldn't look at how that individual got access to those guns and do something about it? If so, do you really think you would feel the same way if you had a six-year-old family member shot in the head in that incident? I think the gun nuts have been feeling guilty and defensive and are realizing this event might just be the straw that broke the camel's back. I don't think any of them would have the guts to answer your questions though. It would only make them look worse than they already do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted December 22, 2012 Report Share Posted December 22, 2012 (edited) Good job. But can you explain your point? Do you really think the status quo is fine where individuals can access assault weapons to kill children if they want to? No, the kind of individual that would want to kill children should not have access to assault weapons or any other weapons. There need to be background checks on mental health for all weapons sales. Do you really think they shouldn't look at how that individual got access to those guns and do something about it? The individual in question murdered another adult (his mother) and stole her weapons. What do you propose should be done about that? One solution might be weapons with biometrics that only allow the registered owner to discharge the firearm... i.e. a fingerprint reader on the trigger or palmprint reader on the grip. The real issue here is mental health and how dangerously violent unstable individuals are going unnoticed, untreated, and unsecured. Yes, if you could somehow ban the deadliest weapons and forcefully confiscate from the people the tens of millions of such weapons already in circulation, you could probably reduce the average number of casualties caused in such incidents, but the incidents would still happen, and would still be deadly and tragic. Why not go after the root of the problem, rather than merely trying to slightly reduce its deadliness by restricting some of the tools used? It's not armed guards we need in schools, nor gun bans, but specialized psychologists trained to detect the kind of personality disorders that have been a commonality in so many of these mass shootings, and a program to provide treatment where possible and institutionalization where necessary. Edited December 22, 2012 by Bonam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 22, 2012 Report Share Posted December 22, 2012 I think the gun nuts have been feeling guilty and defensive and are realizing this event might just be the straw that broke the camel's back. I don't think any of them would have the guts to answer your questions though. It would only make them look worse than they already do. Six-year olds and younger are killed on a regular basis by firearms without "mass shootings". One member here has dismissed such events as "inner city" normalcy, so why would the larger debate of gun control now pivot on this single event ? The question has already been answered for years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted December 22, 2012 Report Share Posted December 22, 2012 There isn't as much discussion about gun control after we have a shooting spree in Canada or other democratic countries. I guess that's because in Canada or other democratic countries governments can just make a new regulation to make everyone feel better and in the USA the government's hands are somewhat tied by their Constitution. Imagine that! Tying up a government's hands like that. Sounds like someone wanted to make sure government didn't get too cocky and beyond the control of the people. Maybe what they didn't foresee was that there would be nutty people running around that would go on shooting rampages. ARE YOU CRAZY? École Polytechnique massacre lead to a 15 year political fight about a long gun registry which changed the shape and politics in a lot of ways of this Nation. You are someone who clearly know nothing by making such insane statements. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LonJowett Posted December 22, 2012 Report Share Posted December 22, 2012 Just because you don't care doesn't mean the rest of the country doesn't care Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 22, 2012 Report Share Posted December 22, 2012 ARE YOU CRAZY? École Polytechnique massacre lead to a 15 year political fight about a long gun registry which changed the shape and politics in a lot of ways of this Nation. Correct...and what is the current status of that registry ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted December 22, 2012 Report Share Posted December 22, 2012 (edited) There isn't as much discussion about gun control after we have a shooting spree in Canada or other democratic countries. I guess that's because in Canada or other democratic countries governments can just make a new regulation to make everyone feel better and in the USA the government's hands are somewhat tied by their Constitution. Imagine that! Tying up a government's hands like that. Sounds like someone wanted to make sure government didn't get too cocky and beyond the control of the people. Maybe what they didn't foresee was that there would be nutty people running around that would go on shooting rampages. Maybe it's tying a governments hands too tightly that results in people being driven nuts but I also suspect the leash that corporations have around many governments necks is likewise close to the roots of the problem. Edited December 22, 2012 by eyeball Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.