Enough is enough. Public massacres and school shootings must stop.

originally posted by: OrdoAdChao

originally posted by: CharlesT
Just like locks on doors, laws are only for honest people. Locks don't stop burglars and more laws won't stop criminals

This, ladies and gentlemen, is precisely the notion we need to accept.

We cannot stop criminals, we can only deter them. Castle doctrines can be applied to public schools, but, like any public setting, teachers would need to hold public requirements. Excepting private schools, of course.

I don't like the idea of teachers carrying guns. I did not have good experiences with teachers at large, so yeah. I am bias.

What's keeping mass shootings from happening in China or Japan or UK or Norway or Scotland , Spain etc... They have criminals there as well correct? When was their last mass shootings?

a reply to: Violater1

So let me get this straight. The best solution to too many lunatics having too many guns is to bring in presumably sane people with too many guns? Which means that you have to have a shootout to stop a shootout? That is, in essence, what you are saying.
No.
Enough is enough. America needs to look itself in the face and admit that there's a problem here. It's time for some form of gun control, it's time for background checks, it's time to stop nutjobs from getting their hands on guns. No more of this 'it takes a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun' stupidity that's prattled out by the NRA, that just expands the lunacy. Can those 'good guys' be trusted to shoot safely? For all your no doubt carefully cherrypicked examples how accurate are they and how many more cases were there where an armed bystander just made things worse or was misidentified and then shot by the police?
No more school shootings. There are now incidents involving schools, either threats or fights or shootings, at a school in America almost every other day. Think about that.

originally posted by: odzeandennz

originally posted by: OrdoAdChao

originally posted by: CharlesT
Just like locks on doors, laws are only for honest people. Locks don't stop burglars and more laws won't stop criminals

This, ladies and gentlemen, is precisely the notion we need to accept.

We cannot stop criminals, we can only deter them. Castle doctrines can be applied to public schools, but, like any public setting, teachers would need to hold public requirements. Excepting private schools, of course.

I don't like the idea of teachers carrying guns. I did not have good experiences with teachers at large, so yeah. I am bias.

What's keeping mass shootings from happening in China or Japan or UK or Norway or Scotland , Spain etc... They have criminals there as well correct? When was their last mass shootings?

Last mass school shooting in the UK was Dunblane. That was in 1996.

a reply to: cynicalheathen
Look at the Switzerlands!

Almost every household there owns a Sturmgewehr 90 (SIG 90),


because after doing duty at the military the soldiers can take their guns home. Till 2007 they even got free packets of ammo in addition to the firearm, so that in case of an attack every man can fight his way through, to wherever he needs to go because of defense strategics.

And how many school shootings do we have in the Switzerlands?
I never heard of one, and Switzerland is around the corner. Guess it´s because they have no school massacres like in the "U"SA, even if almost every household there owns a military SIG 90. How can that be if not simply the society is a different one? The worst things that happen in the Switzerlands with these weapons are suicides, a lot of them. But no massacres or daily murders, no daily victims of firearm violence there.

It is the society!
Just look at all that hollywood stuff, tell me fast, in three seconds, the name of a hollywood movie where problems aren´t solved with violence and firearms. Where other people around the world have been teached to talk, discuss to reduce problems, the "U"S society has been told to shoot first and maybe(!) ask then, when it is too late. Let me give you a simple example, slightly exaggerated: Hey, you own me 50 bucks, do you have my money? No. BANG. Now you tok a life, maybe do life in prison and didn´t even have your 50 bucks back... This behaviour has been glorified by the movie industry, for decades. No wonder, how often are hollywood movies sponsored by the army or the NRA?

In Europe we had wars with other nations on our soil, we know what harm weapons can do and what their real purpose is, we know that they are not problem solvers but problem makers. They are weapons for war, to kill people, if they are not used for hunting, to make food. We are not afraid to leave our houses without firearms, we still know how to fight like men, here in Europe. Fists and stuff. Ok, now stabbings get more and more here, the kids(!) stab each other instead of using their fists now. Now, while murders and crimes with firearms are daily routine in the "U"SA, since ever.

And there are a lot of firearms here too, illegal and legal ones(in germany you have to be member of a Schützenverein, Gun Club for a year, without any police records and you can buy whatever firearm you want, maybe not the heavy military ones, as i know), in many households. And we watch that violence and killing with firearms filled series and movies here too, coming from the "U"SA. How often do you hear from school massacres, done with firearms, that happen in Europe? We had in many years not that much of those incidents than the "U"SA had in 2018 yet. 12 school shootings in 2018, 300 since 2013, in the "U"SA.

Even in Russia something like this doesn´t happen all the time, and the people there are armed too, and they don´t play around if it comes to "special situations". But how often do you hear of mass shootings or of school shootings from Russia? And this even counts for whole eastern Europe. Even for the whole balkans, which are full of all kinds of firearms since the western interventions in the Yugoslavia war.

It indeed has to be the "U"S american society, and i don´t want to attack anybody with that statement, but just look at the facts. The whole world is full of lunatics, full of firearms, full of violence, but only the "U"SA is the undisputed "champion of shool shootings", lonely at the top, worldwide. Seems that the "U"S society can´t handle firearms. Sounds even more right if you hear the firearm enthusiasts saying that guns don´t kill people, but people kill other people.

Where else on earth you need cops, sherrifs, metal detectors in schools? Where else on earth do teachers need to be armed, as some people think? Where does anybody think that more guns would solve the problem, even if the facts tell something really different. It´s like hey, we`re getting flooded, give us some more water, will help to fight the flood...

originally posted by: BhadhidarYou prove my point.

Your fear of losing Your right(s), Your property, Your status, because of what might happen completely outweighs your ability to consider the demonstrated threat that is already existing.

The smallest minority is the individual. Rights belong to the individual. Are you or are you not in support of individual rights?

Again, prove that lawfully owned firearms present a "demonstrated threat".

I'll give an example. I live near a metro area of about 300k people. In 2017, there were 46 reported murders. 95% plus were committed by felons, and 100% were committed by persons who could not lawfully carry/own a gun.

If I were to give up my guns and right to self defense, I would gain nothing but an increased risk of being robbed or killed. Because the criminals wouldn't care about the new laws.

If guns were illegal, only criminals would have guns; and having a gun would be sufficient reason for your arrest,

So you support making previously law abiding people into criminals for exercising their natural right to self-defense?

Before you had an opportunity to harm anyone with that gun.

The only people in any danger from my guns are those who present a clear and immediate threat.

But you’d rather take your chances, right?

You can accept risk as a free man or live securely as a serf.

Tell us, if your child was at that school in Florida, even with your perfectly legal guns,

Could you have done anything except pray to protect your child?

I don't have kids, so moot point.

But of course, if I were not present and armed, I couldn't do anything to protect anyone. That's obvious. So because I'm not omniescent or omnipresent, I should give up my right to self-defense?

I'm not making the argument that more guns would've prevented this tragedy. I'm merely pointing out that more laws wouldn't have either.

Name one law in addition to the ones already broken that would have prevented this.

a reply to: Violater1

This is probably the dumbest thread i've read since I started reading ATS. And the embodiment of the stereotypical dumb Americans logic.

Arm the teachers!!!!

And what happens when one of these armed teachers snaps and decides to shoot up the school?

Arm the children?

How stupid do you have to be to think throwing more guns at this is the solution.

Its beyond belief how brain-dead some people are.

The "it'll never be me" crowd. Pig-ignorant in their belief.
"
I'm allowed a gun because I know I'll always be safe" until the moment your not and you snap, or your weapons get stolen or you have an accident. And then everyone else tuts and says... "yeah but it'll never be me".

originally posted by: cynicalheathen

If I were to give up my guns and right to self defense, I would gain nothing but an increased risk of being robbed or killed. Because the criminals wouldn't care about the new laws.

Based on.... delusions?

So you support making previously law abiding people into criminals for exercising their natural right to self-defense?

Natural right? What are you talking about? Are you against all laws or just ones that restrict you owning your precious weapons?

The only people in any danger from my guns are those who present a clear and immediate threat.

Yes, because there are no cases of people accidentally shooting or killing other members of the public are there. But no of course, you are an exception.

What a small-minded, ignorant and dangerous approach. By owning a gun in your house you IMMEDIATELY increase the risk of one of your family members being shot whether by yourself or by an intruder.

Despite your delusions of grandeur and self-belief that you can shoot down any would-be criminal before they can shoot at you. Moron.

I don't have kids, so moot point.

Thank god for that.

I should give up my right to self-defense?

What the hell are you talking about? Why aren't you kicking off about your right to own your own nuclear bomb for "self-defence" or hell eat a Kinder Egg.

I'm not making the argument that more guns would've prevented this tragedy. I'm merely pointing out that more laws wouldn't have either.

Despite the fact that in nearly every other civilised country it has. But America is different right... because... you don't feel like a real man without that gun.

Name one law in addition to the ones already broken that would have prevented this.

How about the ease in which he obtained weapons. Of course your too simple-minded to realise that reducing the number of guns in the country actually makes them harder to obtain and easier to prevent.

Why have any laws if criminals are going to go against them anyway? Why make rape a crime if people are still raping? Clearly rape laws don't work.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: odzeandennz

originally posted by: OrdoAdChao

originally posted by: CharlesT
Just like locks on doors, laws are only for honest people. Locks don't stop burglars and more laws won't stop criminals

This, ladies and gentlemen, is precisely the notion we need to accept.

We cannot stop criminals, we can only deter them. Castle doctrines can be applied to public schools, but, like any public setting, teachers would need to hold public requirements. Excepting private schools, of course.

I don't like the idea of teachers carrying guns. I did not have good experiences with teachers at large, so yeah. I am bias.

What's keeping mass shootings from happening in China or Japan or UK or Norway or Scotland , Spain etc... They have criminals there as well correct? When was their last mass shootings?

Last mass school shooting in the UK was Dunblane. That was in 1996.

We had 18 school shooting this year so far, and I don't mean school year, I mean calendar year; we're in February still...

And instead of finding a solution we keep invoking a law or amendment passed several centuries ago to thwart a very specific threat...
Again, it's time we look at the society of yesteryear and today and think.
Men weren't allowed to be shirtless until 1938, women weren't allowed to vote, we have to adapt with the times.

I am pro gun, or gun choice. I own a rifle and a couple of Smith's, under fingerprint sensors. I used to compete.
It's time we rethink how/why/when/where guns can be acquired.

a reply to: DerBeobachter

You make very good points.

Based on.... delusions?

Based on anecdotal knowledge that the local criminals specifically target areas in which to commit robberies, home invasions, and burglaries based on the number of citizens with guns.

Natural right? What are you talking about? Are you against all laws or just ones that restrict you owning your precious weapons?

The natural right that every human has to self-defense, by whatever means they deem appropriate. My local criminals carry guns, so I feel that I should be on equal footing.

Where did I say that I am against laws? I merely said that criminals, by their very definition do not follow them. Honest men don't need laws to keep them in line.

Yes, because there are no cases of people accidentally shooting or killing other members of the public are there. But no of course, you are an exception.

What a small-minded, ignorant and dangerous approach. By owning a gun in your house you IMMEDIATELY increase the risk of one of your family members being shot whether by yourself or by an intruder.

Safety is a habit. It is learned through training. If adults can learn to drive, operate heavy machinery, handle cutlery, or operate power tools safely, they can learn to handle guns safely. Guns are tools, nothing more. There is nothing more magically dangerous about them than any other object.

Despite your delusions of grandeur and self-belief that you can shoot down any would-be criminal before they can shoot at you. Moron.

With the amount of time I spend training, I like my chances. Of course, the first objective is avoidance of conflict. Use of firearms in self-defense should always be a last resort.

What the hell are you talking about? Why aren't you kicking off about your right to own your own nuclear bomb for "self-defence" or hell eat a Kinder Egg.

Well considering that a nuclear weapon would be overkill for any threat I foresee encountering, and a Kinder Egg is of little use in a self-defense situation unless I maybe threw it at them, I fail to see what either of those things have to do with this discussion.

Despite the fact that in nearly every other civilised country it has. But America is different right... because... you don't feel like a real man without that gun.

I've asked for a law that is actually feasible which would prevent these tragedies time and time again, and have yet to see anything beyond "Ban and confiscate the guns". It is a multi-faceted problem with no easy solution.

I feel "like a real man" regardless of whether I own a firearm or not. I've never understood the "manhood" argument when it comes to firearms.

How about the ease in which he obtained weapons. Of course your too simple-minded to realise that reducing the number of guns in the country actually makes them harder to obtain and easier to prevent.

Do we even know how he obtained his weapon yet? And it's actually easier to illegally obtain a weapon than buy it legally. Just steal it or buy it off the street. No background check required.

How do you propose to reduce the number of guns in the U.S. without infringement of rights or a police state?

Why the need for the insults? Debate the argument, don't attack the opposing side.

originally posted by: MOMof3
I would rather keep my rifles and outlaw war weapons. I would rather the NRA become a extinct business. I would rather vote out all Republican Congress. They are letting people die and our children are targets.

You had us until you said R's,, if you can't recognize it is both parties this crap will continue until the end of time!

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: Konduit

If you have a society that needs to arm and train teachers then you have a broken society that more guns will never fix

But no guns for the innocents literally brings on slaughters of epic proportions that make the school shootings a microcosm of the death that would occur. History is repute with idiots who mistakenly think man's nature will change and the evil person will not care to hurt another human being for any reason. An armed society is a polite society. Disarming certain zones are creating killing fields.

originally posted by: MostlyReading
a reply to: MOMof3


I guess there were no school shootings when Obama was president, then. Wow, I learn something new every day.

Anyway, the school shootings will not end until average Americans end their passionate love affair with guns. In other countries where it is not considered part of everyday life - or even remotely sane - to have guns stached around your house, these massacres don't happen every week or so like they do in the US. Just the way it is.

No they will end when people quit wanting to hurt others for evil and selfish reasons. If you can stop that we can do something. Otherwise, pretending that the weapon of choice was the issue won't stop a thing.

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: Konduit

If you have a society that needs to arm and train teachers then you have a broken society that more guns will never fix

But no guns for the innocents literally brings on slaughters of epic proportions that make the school shootings a microcosm of the death that would occur. History is repute with idiots who mistakenly think man's nature will change and the evil person will not care to hurt another human being for any reason. An armed society is a polite society. Disarming certain zones are creating killing fields.

Fear-driven nonsense.

I can't imagine how sh1t it must be living in a country riddled with this gun-infestation/fascination.

I guess i'm lucky enough not to live in such backwards country but I don't have to worry about guns on daily basis.

I'm ok with someone doing a study to reduce school shootings. Are most shootings done by people under 21? If so raising the age to own and use a firearm without adult supervision could be raised. If people under 21 are constantly acting psychotic, our society may have other deep issues. If the legal age to own a gun was raised, I would make exceptions for certain professions like military and possibly anyone holding a professional job. They are often busy working. Someone would need to do a study to determine effective and fair constraints on the 21 and under psychos. I might add a second exception if hunting or for use in rural areas. People under 21 in cities not allowed firearms without adult supervision. Would this reduce shootings? There are some smart people in this country. We should be able to reduce the deaths and save lives.

originally posted by: MOMof3
I would rather keep my rifles and outlaw war weapons. I would rather the NRA become a extinct business. I would rather vote out all Republican Congress. They are letting people die and our children are targets.

They could use those same rifles to take pot-shots through the school windows. Then what?

Have all these perps in mass shootings been a card carrying member of The National RIFLE Association? Didn't you say you wanted to keep your rifles?

And you think this is a Republican issue? Why didn't the Dems enact gun control through the years of 2006-2010? Especially when they had a super majority to do whatever they wanted?



You madam, are a moron.

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: Konduit

If you have a society that needs to arm and train teachers then you have a broken society that more guns will never fix

This kid was banned from school grounds, which happens to be a gun-free zone. If you think that is enough prevention then society is already broken.

originally posted by: cynicalheathen

Based on anecdotal knowledge that the local criminals specifically target areas in which to commit robberies, home invasions, and burglaries based on the number of citizens with guns.

So not based on fact at all. Based off your own insecurities.

The natural right that every human has to self-defense, by whatever means they deem appropriate. My local criminals carry guns, so I feel that I should be on equal footing.

So how do you differentiate between your local criminals and you? Neither of you are criminals until you commit the crime.

So if I get to deem whats appropriate I would kill you for owning a gun because you are considered a threat.

Where did I say that I am against laws? I merely said that criminals, by their very definition do not follow them. Honest men don't need laws to keep them in line.

Your whole argument is why have laws preventing gun ownership if criminals won't obey them.

Criminals are criminals, you are basically saying that because Criminals seem to get away with something you'd like to as well.

Safety is a habit. It is learned through training. If adults can learn to drive, operate heavy machinery, handle cutlery, or operate power tools safely, they can learn to handle guns safely. Guns are tools, nothing more. There is nothing more magically dangerous about them than any other object.

Guns are weapons designed to kill and injure, they have no other purpose and they do not enhance the safety of you or your family by owning them.
Yet the NRA need their profit so keep buying their BS.

The other "tools" serve a purpose and thus the risk of injury/death is weighed up against the need for their purpose.

With the amount of time I spend training, I like my chances. Of course, the first objective is avoidance of conflict. Use of firearms in self-defense should always be a last resort.

Of course its the self-entitled Rambo American. Every single gun owning American on ATS seems to believe they are heavily trained and above everyone else. Head stuck firmly up your own ass.

Well considering that a nuclear weapon would be overkill for any threat I foresee encountering, and a Kinder Egg is of little use in a self-defense situation unless I maybe threw it at them, I fail to see what either of those things have to do with this discussion.

You forsee... I don't. And since you don't mind people using any force they deem necessary for their natural rights for self-defence, you won't mind me being your neighbour and storing nuclear weapons in my basement.

Or filling my lawn with mines and bear traps. Or keeping deadly poisons and bio-hazardous materials ready for intruders.

Because hey! you've got weapons next door to me and I need to protect myself in case you try to kill me. Self-defence right?

I've asked for a law that is actually feasible which would prevent these tragedies time and time again, and have yet to see anything beyond "Ban and confiscate the guns". It is a multi-faceted problem with no easy solution.

Its feasibly, it works. America's just to cowardly to try it.

I feel "like a real man" regardless of whether I own a firearm or not. I've never understood the "manhood" argument when it comes to firearms.

Of course you do. And all gun-owners would say the same. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it doesn't apply to you.

Do we even know how he obtained his weapon yet? And it's actually easier to illegally obtain a weapon than buy it legally. Just steal it or buy it off the street. No background check required.

Thats the point you idiot. Its easy to obtain weapons. The shoot had instagram posts littered with him showing off weapons. If it were illegal he would of been arrested. Ta da! No mass shooting today, you asked for the one law and there it is.

How do you propose to reduce the number of guns in the U.S. without infringement of rights or a police state?

F*ck your perceived rights.

The irony that you are hiding behind out-dated laws, designed for a different purpose, to stop people from creating new ones today.

Wake up and consider that the approach back then might not work now, join the rest of the world in modern thinking and practice and stop pretending you actually care about solving the problem more than losing your precious guns.


"The government of today has no right to tell us how to live our lives. Because the government of 200 years ago already did."

How pathetic.

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: Violater1

Another empty stupid argument. I care a thimble full for your kind. Trying to convince me we can’t stop this. We can. Just get rid of republicans who can’t protect and govern.

Now you're an idiot.

Chicago isn't run by Republicans, and look at the gun crime. I guess you don't care about that because "think of the children" politics gives you a better feeling of moral superiority.

originally posted by: odzeandennz

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: odzeandennz

originally posted by: OrdoAdChao

originally posted by: CharlesT
Just like locks on doors, laws are only for honest people. Locks don't stop burglars and more laws won't stop criminals

This, ladies and gentlemen, is precisely the notion we need to accept.

We cannot stop criminals, we can only deter them. Castle doctrines can be applied to public schools, but, like any public setting, teachers would need to hold public requirements. Excepting private schools, of course.

I don't like the idea of teachers carrying guns. I did not have good experiences with teachers at large, so yeah. I am bias.

What's keeping mass shootings from happening in China or Japan or UK or Norway or Scotland , Spain etc... They have criminals there as well correct? When was their last mass shootings?

Last mass school shooting in the UK was Dunblane. That was in 1996.

We had 18 school shooting this year so far, and I don't mean school year, I mean calendar year; we're in February still...

And instead of finding a solution we keep invoking a law or amendment passed several centuries ago to thwart a very specific threat...
Again, it's time we look at the society of yesteryear and today and think.
Men weren't allowed to be shirtless until 1938, women weren't allowed to vote, we have to adapt with the times.

I am pro gun, or gun choice. I own a rifle and a couple of Smith's, under fingerprint sensors. I used to compete.
It's time we rethink how/why/when/where guns can be acquired.

I'm British, my wife is American and I am just so glad at the moment that she's teaching in London and not in her native country. Otherwise I'd live in constant dread the entire time.
This is all a very complicated issue and I do recognise that guns are needed in the US - you have bears and mountain lions, whilst all we have are the occasional angry squirrel. But I agree that you do need to look very hard at how guns are acquired. The Second Amendment is for members of the militia, the predecessors of the National Guard, not for lunatic teenagers and others with anger management issues and manias that border insanity.
Something has to be done - but I am already wearily shaking my head in the knowledge that the political will to do anything sensible is sorely lacking. I'm travelling to the US on business in October and I'm already worrying about making my trip as short and as safe as possible.