Another mass shooting

conception_native_0123 said:
really a good idea?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure about 'good', I'm just trying to think of which gamble makes more sense.

Allow no teachers to carry guns, which means anyone can walk into a school and start shooting children. Or allow all teachers to carry guns, which means that although it's possible that the teacher themselves is the perpetrator and this makes it easier for them (but has this ever even happened once in history?) - but much more likely (my humble opinion), that when the day comes (and it will come soon again) when someone walks around a classrooms and halls shooting people, just about any adult present can just pull out their gun and have a good chance of stopping the blood shed.

Now people will come along with their charts and graphs trying to quantify that, but it can't be quantified, that's why it's subjective opinion - it's hard to quantify "avoided bloodshed", but there is plenty of it out there. Some institutions publish regular stories about it.
 
I believe the young woman had a death wish. I'm more surprised that she didn't appear to get her wish.
 
Isaac said:
just about any adult present can just pull out their gun and have a good chance of stopping the blood shed.
Click to expand...
yeah, by some of their own. and that's a sad thing in and of itself. I say do nothing and leave it be the way it is right now.
 
Saa7oM70nNGT.jpeg
 
moke123 said:
neither
Click to expand...

That's kind of like passing a law that says "No punching anyone, ever, and for any reason". Those obeying the law have to stand there still, while those disobeying the law punch them. It makes no sense.
 
Pat Hartman said:
THAT's the problem. We need a NEW LAW that says that criminals MUST obey the gun control laws. THAT will fix everything.
Click to expand...

The problem, Pat, is... OK, there is a new law that someone obviously disobeyed when they used their gun. So you could use that law to stack on extra charges. That is, you could if the local DA would ever obtain an indictment. The laws we have aren't being followed. Why bother with a new law that applies to gun-wielding criminals? Now if we could only pass a law that would require district attorneys to actually seek indictments. But if it is itself a criminal law, then the DA would have to indict himself. Clear conflict of interests.
 
I hesitate to suggest any federalization-based solution, but what if that law were federal, doc? Then US Attorneys could pursue rogue DA's for failing to indict. Hmm. Not sure about that though.
 
Pat Hartman said:
We need to purge the drug users from prisons and replace them with criminals who are caught violating ANY gun law
Click to expand...

AMEN !!!! The drug possession penalties have gone all over the pendelum, swinging wildly back and forth and MAKE NO SENSE.

  1. So back in the 80's and 90's, crack began to cause a LOT of problems - violent ones - so society came down hard on it.
  2. After a while, people notice this "disproportionately affects" blacks, since that's their favorite drug as a demographic.
  3. So everyone eases up on the penalties, and all of a sudden simply possessing crack is not that big a deal, especially as a first timer, you are quite likely to do Drug Court, Intervention, Community Service, Weekend Jail, Probation, and such niceties and not PRISON, if it's nothing but simple possession.
  4. Fast forward a few more years, people start to see Meth as the big villain of the day. So they start implementing incredibly harsh penalties for meth, which happens to be the favorite drug of whites and possibly hispanics as a demographic.
  5. So now the same thing that put a bunch of blacks in prison is putting a bunch of whites in prison - in Arizona, 1.75 years MANDATORY PRISON SENTENCE for FIRST TIME charge of POSSESSION ONLY. Can you imagine? Almost 2 years in prison for simply holding a grain of rice size meth without having hurt a soul.
  6. Fast forward another year or two, they'll probably switch their focus to fentanyl. The point is, this is silly.
So where's the racial outrage now? Yes, there is such a thing as other-colors-privilege, and this is an example of it. It has occurred to nobody that penalizing meth ultra-harshly is no less racially targeting (in practice, not necessarily motivation), just like crack was back in the day.
 
Agreed, I am mainly just thinking of plain old users. Your first time arrested user with $20 worth, I don't care if it's crack cocaine, meth or fentanyl, shouldn't be going to prison at all. Maybe 3rd, 4th, maybe if they were doing other crimes, sure, but I'm thinking of the most basic case, the crack laws used to be fierce in comparison to the 'crime' and now the meth laws are, and soon someone will cry for fentanyl to be treated like that.

Gotta go at the dealers only, IMHO. And it's all about catching it at the borders and oceans and skies so that the market gets super scarce and those people who were seriously thinking of trying to start recovering (a significant % of users at any given time), are kind of goaded into doing so from scarcity and expense.
 
A word of warning about gun control. In the UK we have the strictest gun control laws anywhere probably. The normal citizen may not own a gun full stop (period in US speak) - there are exceptions where required for work etc such as farmers and gamekeepers, but they are few and far between.

However, the total banning of gun ownership has led to a massive rise in gun related deaths, and an even bigger rise in deaths by stabbing since everyone can now own the main weapon available.

Don't ask me what the answer is however.
 
I've noticed a LOT of stabbing crimes in Phoenix, and I was also pondering this, wondering "what if nobody had guns - why is stabbing better? is it preferred? I'd rather people have guns so the good guys can fight back then we all just stand around being quietly stabbed"
 
DickyP said:
A word of warning about gun control. In the UK we have the strictest gun control laws anywhere probably. The normal citizen may not own a gun full stop (period in US speak) - there are exceptions where required for work etc such as farmers and gamekeepers, but they are few and far between.

However, the total banning of gun ownership has led to a massive rise in gun related deaths, and an even bigger rise in deaths by stabbing since everyone can now own the main weapon available.

Don't ask me what the answer is however.
Click to expand...

To us in the US on this side of the issue, it seems so obvious: When guns are illegal, then only criminals will own guns (they obviously won't obey the law) - thus only the bad guys will be able to attack, and the good guys who obey the "no guns" law won't be able to fight back.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Proper focusing of windows in MS Access (natively or by a code)
2
Replies
24
Views
3,003
MajP
MajP
N
Solved Combo box question...
Replies
9
Views
1,583
NIUHuskie23
N
D
Normalization / Approach question – arbitrary characteristics (ETA: Entity Attribute Value EAV)
Replies
12
Views
2,871
CJ_London
C
C
How to help users automatically log in.
Replies
1
Views
1,695
isladogs
isladogs
M
Question Creating progress reports for students
Replies
13
Views
2,468
isladogs
isladogs

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top Bottom