It is not a real solution.
It's a question of chicken and the egg.
Some studies might show that people who play violent video games and watch violent movies are more likely to become violent.
But for all we know it's simply people with a more violent nature who seek this material more than the average person.
I think this type of material is more likely to effect how violence is executed... but not so much the amount of it.
Your example considers a Lanza with an unrestricted firearm. Teachers in the UK provide an adequate practical defence for their pupils in a nation WITH guns restricted. As was the case when the last such attack involved a machete, a close combat weapon that enabled the female teacher to take a serious injury to save the lives of her children, some of whom were also attacked. All survived the incident.
Guns worsen such incidents, restricting them reigns in the excess of such incidents when acknowledging, like Obama does, that you'll NEVER have guarentees of any restriction working. You just have to look north of your border to see that restriction seems to do a damn fine job.
Automatic gun control must and will happen
Which doesn't preclude a crazy from getting access or a school from deciding to take extra precaution
I'm not voting for armed guards
But suggesting kids aren't safer is ideology trumping reality
Civilized life has grown altogether too tame, and, if it is to be stable, it must provide harmless outlets for the impulses which our remote ancestors satisfied in hunting. (Bertrand Russell Nobel Lecture, Dec. 11th 1950)
So the guard deters the shooter from shooting a school and he just goes to another high populated area and shoots there instead. Problem still exists.
But what the hell, let's join 'em.
Imagine (and John Lennon is rolling over in his urn that you used that word to introduce those remarks, but I digress):
You have a 6-7 year old son or daughter
They're in a school where a Lanza enters to slaughter as many as possible
Would you rather the school has an armed guard?
Or would you rather your child was the Chosen One who could bend the Matrix to just stop the bullets mid-air and send Lanza fleeing for his life?
See? Two completely out-of-touch options that completely miss the point: Children raised in communities with few or no guns don't have to worry about a Lanza, and neither do their parents.
there was a former romney advisor on morning joe last week - good guy - couple of kids - joe was quizzing him on republican reaction - what it should be, etc. and he said something that hit me
that when a parent drops their kids off at achool, it is assumed that for the time they're there - until you see them next - that they're safe - there's no debate - no worry - u can get on with your day working w/o worrying about that basic safety aspect
and now that's gone
joe s. told the story about how the morning of the shooting he called his kids school and said "i'm coming to pick them up" and he was told "don't do that - we can't have mass hysteria here - let's try to keep some semblance of order" - he backed off
yes we are in agreement
what an inappropriate term
jews in germany were scapegoats
videogames are not scapegoats
as for comic books - they're static - u read them - there's no killing by the reader
many videogames glorify violence - w/o consequence - it's sick
Inappropriate? Why? English might not be my first language, but I do know the words :roll:
a : one that bears the blame for others
b : one that is the object of irrational hostility
Also see the examples for its usage.
The only thing Sandy Hook having a armed security type person there would have done is added that persons name to the list of dead. A officer of the law is not impervious to bullets. A person KNOWING that someone like that existed would ensure they went there first. The armed police office at Columbine engaged the two killers TWICE and still how many people died?
Every mall has security. How many mall shootings have you read about.
Today they laid to rest two police officers who were shot in the line of duty in Topeka. They carried guns, knew there was a threat every day and were shot to death with those guns in their holsters.
The point is that guards are not the answer to this problem.
2) As with any study that skips many factors, that I have earlier talked about. Whether these kids were depressed before hand, what environment they're in, whether there is any kind of abuse, domestic abuse, divorce, etc. These are all factors in altering a younger childs behavior, but of course a study such as that doesn't consider those because it has an agenda.
The answer is simple, just put your TRUST in GOD and pray that it will not happen again. He'll jump right on it!
This is why La Pierre's statement is so unbefuckinglievably offensive...not only to the dead and the families and friends of the dead at Sandyhook...but honest to Christ people....when I listened and then read the remarks...I actually did almost get sick to my stomach because he seemed to be somehow insulting all the dead....and their families.....and the two armed officers who were at Columbine that day......it was just like he had taken a semi-automatic weapon and opened fire on the sensibilities and emotions of everyone.
And now he's going to spend the Sunday before Christmas appearing on Meet the Press to try to justify his remarks.
This man is garbage, Human garbage.
I think the point is that we KNOW, through observable evidence, that placing armed guards in a given location does not guarantee a massacre won't take place.
We also know, through observable evidence, that restricting weaponry reduces death tolls. This is true state-to-state in the US, and it is true internationally.
There's no faux certainty here. There is observable scientific evidence that gun restrictions are more effective than armed guards at reducing gun deaths.
What is a faux reality is when you lose an argument and therefore must resort to fantastical theory. We saw it in the trouncing Mitt Romney took that the true ideologues could not grasp therefore they created an alternate reality devoid of facts. We saw it when science pulled the rug out from under creation theory. We see it when demonstrative proof shows praying away the gay doesn't work. In fact, that sort of thing does more harm than help besides not 'curing' homosexuality. We see it now. Their desire to make reality match there ideology requires a suspension of disbelief. It is all the republican party holds as a value anymore.
Playing games of violence wasn't even close in the degree of correlation.
This is why concealed carry is more a deterrent to crime than open carry. If everyone who wanted to carry a weapon had to wear it where it was visible, criminals would know who to avoid. With concealed carry, the criminal has no way to tell who is armed, and so tends to play it safe and switch to crimes where/when no one else is around.
If teachers could carry, there would be a deterrent even for schools which didn't have any armed, so long as they didn't advertise it. Anyone deciding he wants to kill a lot of people would know that at a school there would be good odds someone would shoot back, ruining the shooting spree perhaps even before it really started.
If it was tried, jurisdictions would run out of police long before they found a significant fraction of the guns.
BTW, arming teachers would be a LOT cheaper than setting up a bureaucracy to try to enforce tyrannical gun laws.
There is no one "solution", so whatever is done is going to have to have "layers" of protection. Restrict the use of large magazines to shooting ranges and/or gun clubs, open the NICS system to private sellers -- heck, require it for on-line sales! -- bolster the basic mental health system, give public institutions the authority to report dangerous people to the NICS... all these should be done.
Then a potential shooter may be prevented from snapping in the first place by better mental health care availability; may be caught by a college or trade school and reported, and can't buy online, so it's harder to get a gun; can't use a large magazine outside a shooting range and so is more limited in slaughter; and if he gets through all that and thinks about a target, the idea of armed teachers would make him think twice about hitting a school because, after all, he wants a free hand to make a "big splash".
Federal Air Marshals … blend in with passengers
[Transportation Security Administration]
These are the freaks shows that aren't going to be stopped unless we require everyone to wear only skin-tight clothing. And that's worrisome, because as I understand it Europe has much better mental health infrastructure.
Statistics on the effects of concealed firearms suggest that only about one school in five would actually have to have armed teachers, so long as :
1. the first school attacked in this fashion after arming teachers was establish had some who took down the shooter quickly, and
2. there was no way to know which schools had armed teachers.
The image that would come to mind of any shooter would be going down ignominiously at the hands of a normally quiet person such as a teacher. That is so contrary to the desired burst of "glory" the shooter would go somewhere else.
Of course that wouldn't help society, but it would protect the kids.
Not a tangent at all. Reality. It is a special place the rest of us live in.
Why forever more would I have anything bad to say to you? I simply tell you the truth.
Your response is another classic case of Chance argument style 101. When you have no point address the user.
So go ahead and debunk the already proven fact that security does not work to prevent mass murder. Would love to hear how you come to such a conclusion.
because . . .
According to the census, there's about 64 million kids in schools (excluding colleges). That's 640,000 groups of one hundred. Since the populations are going to come out uneven, and because there are schools with less than 200 students, let's round that up conservatively to 650,000. So we need 3,850,000 cops to cover it. That's over five times as many law enforcement personnel as the nation has already.
Uniformed security is not workable.
I am currently traveling and my Internet access is sporadic, but I have been lurking and reading posts. Here's a summary response to this topic:
1. The NRA's Response was a Joke - LaPierre's rant was so out of touch, that it is being near universally panned by the American public. Just look at some of these covers media publications responded to the press conference:
When my family heard the excerpts of the press conference, they were disgusted. I was disgusted. It was so insensitive to the victims of Sandy Hook and irrational to the realities school face when it comes to safety. So I will address it point by point.
2. NRA Solution is Big Government-Police State - I find it hypocritical from some who have responded to this topic that they feel the NRA is making a rational solution. To put a police officer in every public elementary, middle, and high school is absurd both in the nature of safety, and of cost. Just *who* is going to pay the $7+ billion per year to pay for a police officer for every year? The local government? State government? Is this a federal expenditure? When we're arguing over the national deficit with the nation about to go over a fiscal cliff, I find it absolutely absurd that the nation's largest conservative lobbying organization would demand the government to pay for hundreds of thousands of new police officers on a national scale!
3. NRA Solution Ignores the Symptoms - Rather than address preventative matters that have lead up to these mass shootings, the NRA's solution is just to have more guns. Another shooting? More people just need guns! The reality is we have assault weapons that are selling like hotcakes throughout this entire country. Weapons that can kill massive quantities of people in a short amount of time. We have ammunition designed not to deter a perpetrator, but to technologically inflict the most damage possible inside a human body. We have clips that can unload dozens of bullets before the gun needs to be reloaded. This needs to change. We must have a "well-regulated militia" as the Constitution dictates. Citizens have the rights to arm but there does come a point where the weapons available becomes a threat to the common society. The NRA also ignores part of the solution being addressing mental health. We need to also address the mentally ill in this country. We have too many of them wandering the streets aimlessly and in great pain and suffering. No one is taking care of them. We have families who are too overwhelmed with taking care of their mentally ill children. They need more help. Another reality is that state budgets have cut special education funding all across the country. My state included. These mentally ill students need the most help and have faced the most cuts when it comes to education. There was no call from the NRA to help these people.
4. NRA Blames Video Games - It is the exhaustive mantra of the NRA to say, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." Yet, in the NRA's press conference, and with the support of some here, they believe video games are responsible for causing these mass shootings. Well let me just say to all of you, "Video games don't kill people, people kill people." I grew up on video games. Hell, my brother and I just played a round of Halo. Video games have never given me an impulse to harm other human beings. None of my cousins or friends that I played Goldeneye and Call of Duty games with have ever picked up a gun to shoot someone.
5. Nobody wants to ban all guns - Nobody is saying this. It isn't on the table. Stop making paranoid statements that any gun regulation is the end of all gun ownership for Americans. It's not. Stop fear-mongering and derailing the discussions we have on this topic.
Here's a big issue for me. We keep hearing how armed guards etc will deter mass shooters. The problem is when most of them plan their shooting sprees,them coming out alive is NOT part of the plan.
Kinda hard to scare someone who isn't afraid to die don't you think?
Its a ridiculously unserious proposal. Most highschools already have a police officer in them. Many middle schools do as well. (ours was called a 'resource officer') One person is not enough to protect a large building, and more than one just multiplies the instances where something could go wrong.
Take my high school, for example: 4,200 students. Four wings connected by a ring of locker bays and offices in a horse-shoe shape. 4 gyms. One large cafeteria. One full-sized auditorium. An arts wing with four huge rehearsal spaces. An athletics wing nearly sealed off from the rest of the building, with all of the auxiliary facilities you would expect. At least 14 stair-cases.
There is not a chance in hell that a police officer in that school could do a damn thing if there was a shooting. Someone could, theoretically, go on a shooting rampage in the athletics wing, inflict mass casualties, and commit suicide before the officer even had a chance to get to the athletics wing. Even if a shooting occurred in the common areas or academic areas the likelihood of the officer being able to do anything before other students were shot would be slim to none. (Think bays and bays of 4 foot tall lockers that an attacker could easily hide between)
As has been said before: NRA suggestion=idiotic and insulting.
I posed this question to someone twice in this thread who ignore it.
If video games are not real life how does it lessen the reality of violence when it in fact isn't real?
no i just got on and read the first post and that occured to me so knock off with the too lazy bullshit ( or is there a rule with your threads that one must read the entire story before being allowed to comment ? )
So if some kid watching a first person shooter game wants to put the end of an assault weapon in his own mouth...well...that is another problem.
But typically.....you've missed the essence of the entire discussion. No one is saying that the pervasive and corrosive culture of violence against others that has become the hallmark of the US over the last 200 years isn't a big part of the problem here. You are one of those who seems to imply that violence solves every problem in foreign policy, for instance. It is no wonder, with the glorification of military assaults and weaponry in the wars fought by the US in the last 50 years...that the culture of shooter games and shooter movies has become such an insistent and soul damaging part of American kids' psyches.
And no one here is saying take away all the guns. And no one is pointing the finger at the NRA moms, pops and little Jimmies and Janeys who are in love with their guns.
But the NRA...as an organization almost solely under the control of the gun manufacturers and the extremist right wing...has delivered an unbalanced response....not to say arrogant, aggressive and ill timed.
I don't expect you to get this, based on your own perception of the world around you as expressed in all your posts and threads. I don't expect Rearden to get it either because he makes you look rational by comparison to the stuff he posts on this topic.
Forunately, there are millions of Americans who do get it....and understand that something has to be done that balances everyone's interests in this matter.
check my post in the other thread you'll love it