Lucky wrote:Thank you for showing you lack of understanding of the problem. I've seen far too many moronic gun control laws that care more what the gun looks like then what it can do be passed.
Thank you for comparing apples and oranges... :)
My stance is that guns should be better regulated, and that most (as in, the majority of) countries with more stringent regulations seem to have lower violent crimes than those without...
You speak of bad laws...
Bad laws are bad, but they are still better than no laws...
Cocytus wrote:Yes, because as people like Nidal Malik Hasan and Christopher Dorner prove, you can ALWAYS trust the police and the army, right?
Exceptions do not make the rules, my friend... :)
And yes, I trust Police officers a lot more than Mr. Joe Shmoe when it comes to gun responsibility...
And how are you defining firepower? Muzzle velocity? Caliber? Rate of fire? What impact do any of the arbitrary "military style" features that make a gun an "assault weapon" have on those? A forward pistol grip does not affect the caliber or rate of fire of the weapon. Neither does a barrel shroud, or a flash suppressor, or a muzzle brake, or a bayonet lug, or a collapsible stock, or a threaded barrel. A high-capacity magazine does affect how much lead the weapon has available, so I'm not averse to regulating that.
I would say muzzle velocity, caliber AND rate of fire...
The paperwork, not to mention the cost (if you've ever seen the Class III table at a gun show) make it not worth my time.
While it IS worth the time for others, and I'm not too sure I want the guy who REALLY, REALLY wants his legal assault rifle to get it...
And while I agree these weapons would still be available on the black market, frankly the amount of "normal" citizens who would know where to get them is staggeringly low...
You yourself articulated it. New laws won't stop every massacre, so employing dedicated security personnel means we accept that reality. Hell, Biden himself admitted there would probably be no impact on crime in general or the possibility of mass shootings in particular.
Ok, so having an armed security guard at the door will not impact (i.e., will not lower) the general crime or possibility of mass shootings...
Then why the hell should we put them there?
If their efficiency is in effect 0% in reducing mass shootings, then why the hell put money on armed guards who may stress the hell out of many students, instead of putting that money on batter education, more social workers in school, who can, by helping troubled students cope with their issues better, have an actual impact on these sorts of shootings?
I often hear liberals say that "even if the gun ban saves just one life, it will be worth it."
Even if armed security saves just one life, won't it be worth it?
If it was a simple case of 1 equals 1, then yeah, I'd say go with the option you like better, but it's not the truth, preventing such happenings, by offering more services to the population, by making sure the general populace is less stressed out, happier, much more balanced mentally, THAT's how you prevent mass shootings...
While we have had a couple here in Canada, they are proportionately much less in number, yet we have no armed school guards...
What we do have, though, are a shitload of social workers...
He injured 20 children with a knife. None of them died. What the gun-control crowd draws from this is that guns make it easier to kill people than knives, which is absolutely true. What the gun-rights crowd draws from this is that no law can deter crazy, which is also absolutely true.
Exactly, I much prefer 20 injuries than 20 deaths...
An frankly, the teachers were incredibly dumb, as two of them with baseball bats could have stopped this idiot real fast while the other teachers took the students to safety, while two baseball bats vs a gun...
Well, not so efficient... :)
But Cocytus and sonofccn's responses both made me think about it, and I believe I may be looking at the issue from the wrong perspective...
Countries who are by nature less violent will have more stringent gun control laws (as a majority)...
If you compare the US's penal system with Canada's, you'll notice that, while our Penal system seems much less harsh (a bit too leniant sometimes if you ask me), our recidivism rates are much lower, because we believe very strongly in social re-insertion, and give our criminals may tools to allow them to come out of prison and insert themselves in society and finally live a good life, while studies show that criminals who go to prison in the US simply come out more hardened than ever...
I guess we like to suspend a carrot at the end of a stick in front of the criminals while in prison, whereas the US prison system beats them with the stick... ;)
I see many of the responses here abound the way of "Well why disarm the innocent civilian in front of the criminal?"...
Valid question...
Let me ask you another one to my US friends:
If your crime rates were much lower, say compared to Canada's, would your guns be less important to you?