Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 1/8/08 12:04 AM, TheMason wrote: Jesus, when did we become a nation of pussy sheep who go passively to slaughter and then be blamed for the slaughter?

I have two theories on this, and they are centered around personal responsibility and how litigious a society we are now.

I bring up personal responsibility because nobody wants to take the blame for their own misdeeds, or assign blame to others. When a V-Tech style massacre occurs, people are usually more focused on the weapons used than they are the mad man wielding them, and their rhetoric usually shows a twisted form of logic that would have you believe possession of the weapons somehow drove the person to the actions they took... nevermind that Cho and his contemporaries are usually all misanthropic loners with long histories of mental illness.

I also bring up how litigious we are as a society because, well, let's face it, we're just plain lawsuit happy anymore. McDonald's Coffee being to hot, McDonald's making me fat, I didn't realize that I shouldn't take tylenol pm before going out on the road... people go looking for a reason to bring a lawsuit against others. Despite what common sense -- which isn't all to common anymore, in my opinion -- dictates, the Domino's delivery driver who shot that thief was well within his right to defend himself, however because he was acting as an agent of the company when he did it, the guy he shot could just as easily bring a lawsuit against them AND WIN because their agent used what could be viewed as unnecessary force to defend himself with. So the company will probably wind up firing him long before he can quit, and they can wash their hands of the situation.

At 1/8/08 10:09 PM, poxpower wrote: You want guns in high schools? Damn :O
I guess the only way to know if it would work is to try it, but it sounds pretty iffy.

High Schools and colleges. Do you have something more substantial than pranks as to why it sounds "iffy"? I do concede that it sounds rather counterintuitive...

And who would those people be? Cops? Isn't your whole point that cops can't be everywhere at once? Would pulling 2-3 of them from every station to babysit kids in some high school stop more crimes?

I'm talking about ppl who are veterans of either the military or law enforcement that are either a) teachers or b) students (applicable only to college). Therefore, no it does not defeat my point.

o

Again...more obfuscation by not addressing the reality behind what I brought up...

Which was what?
Your personal experience?

Nothing to do with my personal experience, but rather with the reality that cops cannot protect...only clean-up the mess. Why not give teachers and students a fighting chance?

Great plan, as long as nothing bad happens to you, then it can't possibly happen to anyone else right? Damn I should get into this "lottery" thing, I hear people are winning millions!

Hey, I'm not saying accidental shootings don't happen. I'm just making the argument that I lived in a gun saturated community and those type of things were very rare. This is unlike the anti-gun image that accidently shooting oneself or loved one is a foregone conclusion.

I'm not sure what you want. You seem to be saying that at some point cops wouldn't help you out, and so we should put armed guards in schools to prevent shootings? I'm saying that we should train kids in high school for self-defense, which would help them out their entire life. Guns in high schools? You're asking for soooooooooooo much trouble, unless you turn it into a prison with metal detectors and strict surveillance.

I'm not talking about arming HS kids; but rather responsible adults so your prison idea falls flat. Furthermore, the teachers who are armed are instructed not to let anyone know they're packing...if they do it's their job. That way they are less likely to be targeted by a would-be shooter.

Yes, taking people's freedom away is generally a great way to make them do less stupid shit, but is this what you want?

Absolutely not, that's why I make the argument for concealed carry in Universities (and to a lesser extent schools).

At 1/9/08 07:28 PM, TheMason wrote:

High Schools and colleges. Do you have something more substantial than pranks as to why it sounds "iffy"? I do concede that it sounds rather counterintuitive...

The one day that a kid shoots another because he got the gun from the "guards" or whoever, you will see an ENDLESS media shitstorm. ENDLESS. Not to mention the really tiny chance of ever getting that system in schools.

And colleges? Maybe. There was a security guard, but he didn't have a gun and he was like 70 years old. He was more there to open the door and whatnot, I don't know how many shootings he could have stopped.
I guess you could replace that guy with a marine or something, but do we have an excess of cops or something? Because I'm sure cops would rather have a job as a cop than a babysitter in some college in the 1 in a million chance that a guy will show up with a gun and probably take the cop out first anyways.

I just don't see it. It would just be costly and generally really useless, like buying little tiny helmets for all the hamsters in case you drop them.

I'm talking about ppl who are veterans of either the military or law enforcement that are either a) teachers or b) students (applicable only to college). Therefore, no it does not defeat my point.

I don't want other students to carry guns while I'm in a class. While I wouldn't go shoot up a college like that, I wouldn't want to attend it either. Also college students get really STUPID drunk. Not a good combination with guns.
Military vets? I guess you could employ them as the security guards and give them a gun. That could work. But again I guess that's the kind of people anyone would hire as a security guard if they were available, which I'm guessing they aren't that much :o

And giving guns to teachers? Like, they would carry a gun all the time? Who'd check them for it? How would it work?
There's always going to be a lot of extra red tape and costs associated to this idea.

Nothing to do with my personal experience, but rather with the reality that cops cannot protect...only clean-up the mess. Why not give teachers and students a fighting chance?

Because it costs too much money and isn't practical? And would make schools feel like prison? And would probably cause more accidental deaths than prevent shootings?

School shooters are known to come in to die, how many lives are you really going to save with the billions of dollars you'd have to invest in this project in both red tape crap, equipment and permits, not to mention that you'd turn your country one step closer to Water World or something crazy where every man makes his own law.

Hey, I'm not saying accidental shootings don't happen. I'm just making the argument that I lived in a gun saturated community and those type of things were very rare.

Well I live in a gun-free community and that's also very rare.
My point was that it must be soooooooooo much worse to lose a loved one because of a stupid accident with your gun than some asshole breaking into your house to do it.

Furthermore, the teachers who are armed are instructed not to let anyone know they're packing..

That would last about 5 minutes haha.
Again, who's going to enforce that? More complications.

Absolutely not, that's why I make the argument for concealed carry in Universities (and to a lesser extent schools).

For what, really? There's been how many school shootings in the last 20 years? That seems to be your main focus, right?
More people probably got killed because they were playing outside during a thunderstorm and got struck by lightning. In fact tiger attacks probably took out more people.

It sounds more preventable, but is it really? And at the cost of allowing more and more guns into our public lives? Shit, after all the taser and pepper spray stories I constantly hear on Fark and the news, I don't know how great an idea that is to encourage people to carry guns around "just in case".

At 1/9/08 08:35 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 1/9/08 07:28 PM, TheMason wrote:

Because it costs too much money and isn't practical? And would make schools feel like prison? And would probably cause more accidental deaths than prevent shootings?

I must apologize, I haven't really restated what I'd be for.

1) I'm not talking about hiring vets or ex-cops to be security guards. I'm talking about allowing students like me who have military experience to carry concealed firearms to class. The cost would be zero because it would be bourne by me...not the school.

2) The entire drunk argument falls flat for two reasons:
a) I'm talking about carrying during class time, not party time. Furthermore, party time remains problematic because the people who would be carrying already have their concealed carry permits and if this were truly a problem then we'd be hearing a bunch of stories about how drunken concealed carry holders are shooting up college parties...but we're not.
b) I'm also talking about students who are 25 and older...not your typical kollage stoodints. Especially ones who already have the experience because they were in the military.

Think of it as a volunteer police force...trained for the thing you cannot assign paid police to do.

At 1/9/08 08:44 PM, TheMason wrote:

I'm talking about allowing students like me who have military experience to carry concealed firearms to class. The cost would be zero because it would be bourne by me...not the school.

There's not many of you :o
And would not really protect more students most of the time. Aren't you like 30?
School shooters are usually 20 or less and attack their classmates of the same age. You would not be there to protect anyone.

At any rate, I guess it still couldn't hurt since you're an army veteran anyways, sounds pretty low-risk, but also doesn't sound like anything useful and would perhaps cause other people to start asking to carry guns too for X reasons.

a) I'm talking about carrying during class time, not party time.
about how drunken concealed carry holders are shooting up college parties...but we're not.

Wait, there's people in Colleges who carry concealed weapons?

b) I'm also talking about students who are 25 and older...not your typical kollage stoodints. Especially ones who already have the experience because they were in the military.

Never heard of anyone shootting up their masters degrees class because their friends made fun of them.
So yeah probably wouldn't really change anything. I'm not really familiar with guns laws in the united states. Where exactly do people get to carry their guns?

At 1/9/08 08:55 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 1/9/08 08:44 PM, TheMason wrote:

There's not many of you :o

In every College course I have taken there has been at least one veteran in it.

And would not really protect more students most of the time. Aren't you like 30?
School shooters are usually 20 or less and attack their classmates of the same age. You would not be there to protect anyone.

lol! I'm a PhD student at a large public university; and I'm going to be professor. So yes, I would be there to protect my undergrad and my fellow students.

At any rate, I guess it still couldn't hurt since you're an army veteran anyways, sounds pretty low-risk, but also doesn't sound like anything useful and would perhaps cause other people to start asking to carry guns too for X reasons.

Wouldn't be legal for ppl who do not meet the criteria.

a) I'm talking about carrying during class time, not party time.
about how drunken concealed carry holders are shooting up college parties...but we're not.

Wait, there's people in Colleges who carry concealed weapons?

Anyone who lives in a state that has a concealed carry permit (most do) and is 21 and has the permit may carry. Currently they may not carry on campus, but most college parties take place off campus. My point is the potential already exists for college kids to carry while at drunken parties.

It seems you come to this conversation lacking certain facts and knowledge...

b) I'm also talking about students who are 25 and older...not your typical kollage stoodints. Especially ones who already have the experience because they were in the military.

Never heard of anyone shootting up their masters degrees class because their friends made fun of them.
So yeah probably wouldn't really change anything. I'm not really familiar with guns laws in the united states. Where exactly do people get to carry their guns?

1) Most grad students TA which means they are in or near undergrad courses. Furthermore, school shooting sprees are not limited to specific courses (in fact I don't Cho at VT had any classes in the engineering building he shot up). Therefore, a grad student would be able to respond.

2) Then there are the profs...

3) 25 or have military experience...there are many non-traditional students in University who would be allowed to carry under what I'm saying (and S. Carolina proposed).

Pox, with all due respect I don't think you really know enough about the reality of US universities, gun culture and laws to make an informed argument. Furthermore, you seem to have a problem thinking outside of the box, which blinds you to realities outside your worldview...

At 1/9/08 09:13 PM, TheMason wrote:

In every College course I have taken there has been at least one veteran in it.

Yeah obviously.
Oh wait you mean another one :p

lol! I'm a PhD student at a large public university; and I'm going to be professor. So yes, I would be there to protect my undergrad and my fellow students.

I guess so then, if you're going to be a teacher.

Wouldn't be legal for ppl who do not meet the criteria.

Until the criteria are changed.

It seems you come to this conversation lacking certain facts and knowledge...

I live in Canada. I didn't know tons of people were walking around with guns.
Why are they banned on campus if they're allowed everywhere else??

I thought only a few states let you carry guns publicly.

Therefore, a grad student would be able to respond.

Maybe.

In any case if you're telling me that everyone gets to carry guns everywhere except in schools, then yeah go ahead and give teachers and whatnot the right to carry guns, I don't even see why they couldn't.

I was assuming that you couldn't just walk around with guns as soon as you turned 21 in "most states".

Is that really true?? How do they prevent people from having guns on campuses and in schools? Why can't the teachers carry them? Were the shootings in states where it is illegal to carry guns? Why didn't anyone do anything if everyone can carry guns around?

I'm missing some piece of information here because something doesn't add up :O

At 1/9/08 07:18 PM, TheMason wrote: Actually, that would be a bare majority and not an absolute majority. There are many more ways than stolen private guns and straw-man purchases. Furthermore, only 8% of FFL gun stores are the source of this problem. That is not statistically significant enough to justify as radical a restructure of our licensing structure as you suggest.

If you would, please cite your sources. It'd make it so much easier to retort if I knew for sure you weren't pulling numbers out of your arse.

Right, so what we should do is legalize drugs. Imagine the faces of the big drug bosses when they find out that they're going out of business because the government is opening up it's own drug shop, only they sell safer drugs for less money. They'd be pissed!

Good dodge of the question! :)

I'm not dodging the question at all, I'm telling you the sollution. People always complain about how much violence and crime the drugs bring with them, and I'm like, well duh! If you'd legalize drugs and impose regulations and taxes on their production and distribution, such as with alcohol and tobacco, you'd effectively chop off a major arm of the organized crime syndicates. They'd have no more use for their fancy AK-47's, and drug smugglers would be out of work.

And yes I think the threat is real enough that I want my kid's teacher armed. If my daughter is running to a classroom to seek safety from a shooter I want her teacher to have the option of shooting the shooter rather than locking my daughter in the hall with a murderer.

Wow, isn't that sad. Where are we going as a society when we can't even feel safe without having teachers packing heat?

I think school shootings recieve way too much media exposure, giving the impression that they are more prevalent than they actually are. I mean, how many people have been killed in school shootings? Not that many if you look back. In the last ten years, 95 people have died in a total of 23 school shootings in America (not counting the perpetrators), and I don't think that's reason enough to have armed teachers at every school. There must be some other way to reach the kids who commit these crimes than by putting a bullet through their chest.

Your logic is flawed in that you seem to think buying a gun is a impulse buy. The vast majority of legal gun owners are ppl who have training either through formal means (police, military, etc) or informal means (growing up on a farm). Furthermore, they give it serious thought as to their budget and what they need. Licensing would not deter that many gun owners.

No, it wouldn't. But stopping serious and responsible gun owners from getting a gun was never the purpose. It's purpose is to stop the straw-man purchases.

Furthermore, guns put food on the table. I knew kids growing up who would be malnourished if their family did not have guns.

Uhm........ what? Guns put food on the table? Like, through hunting? You're going to have to explain this a bit further. And at any rate, restricting hunting rifles was never an issue. Criminals don't use hunting rifles, they use handguns.

At 1/9/08 09:25 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 1/9/08 09:13 PM, TheMason wrote:

In every College course I have taken there has been at least one veteran in it.

Yeah obviously.
Oh wait you mean another one :p

lol...I haven't always been a veteran...I tried college before enlisting! In fact the majority of my weapons training (to include knowing how to use an AK-47) was accomplished before enlisting...

Is that really true?? How do they prevent people from having guns on campuses and in schools? Why can't the teachers carry them? Were the shootings in states where it is illegal to carry guns? Why didn't anyone do anything if everyone can carry guns around?

* 48 states allow some form of Concealed Carry. Wikipedia has a good summary: here.
* Each state has varying degrees of rigor/liberalness.
* CCW does not allow you to carry just anywhere. Common prohibitions: schools, bars and churches. In some states (most actually) businesses have the right to ban firearms from their premises...even CCW holders.
* Training is required in the vast majority of states; the cost of which is bourne by the individual seeking the permit.

What I'm arguing is ppl who qualify for CCW and meet additional criteria may get a certification that would allow them to carry a weapon to prevent or reduce the damage done by a school shooter.

At 1/9/08 09:36 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote: If you would, please cite your sources. It'd make it so much easier to retort if I knew for sure you weren't pulling numbers out of your arse.

"Let's be honest. If someone wants a gun, it's obvious the person will not have difficulty buying a gun, either legally or through the extensive United States black market."

...only about 8% of the nation's 124,000 retail gun dealers sell the majority of handguns that are used in crimes.

..."of the 120,370 crime guns that were traced to purchases from the FFLs then in business, 27.7 % of these firearms were seized by law enforcement in connection with a crime within two years of the original sale. This rapid `time to crime' of a gun purchased from an FFL is a strong indicator that the initial seller or purchaser may have been engaged in unlawful activity."

What this last quote is saying is that 27.7% of gun crimes are committed by suspected straw purchases. This is a plural [sorry I misspoke earlier] majority (ie: more than all other sources of illegally obtained firearms) compared to a simple majority (ie: more than 50%) or an absolute majority (ie: more than 66%).

But this is SO much more significant than the 10-15% that comes from stolen guns.

Oh yeah, just so you know I'm not pulling these numbers out of my "arse" here's my source: Mason's ass.

Uhm........ what? Guns put food on the table? Like, through hunting? You're going to have to explain this a bit further. And at any rate, restricting hunting rifles was never an issue. Criminals don't use hunting rifles, they use handguns.

I grew up in rural Missouri. My ex-wife's family would've starved had her family not hunted. And she's not the only person whose family put meat on the table by hunting.

Any I will not argue that hunting rifles (or any rifles) are a problematic threat in American crime. I was responding to something that you said that suggested that I only care about guns as an anti-crime measure...

At 1/9/08 09:48 PM, TheMason wrote: lol...I haven't always been a veteran...I tried college before enlisting! In fact the majority of my weapons training (to include knowing how to use an AK-47) was accomplished before enlisting...

So it would be safe to say that you like guns a lot.

* 48 states allow some form of Concealed Carry.
What I'm arguing is ppl who qualify for CCW and meet additional criteria may get a certification that would allow them to carry a weapon to prevent or reduce the damage done by a school shooter.

Well I don't see why not, but again that would necessitate extra red tape to create more certificates and different training etc and would also take time because people would oppose having guns in schools.
But yeah then if you get to walk around with guns all over, I guess you should allow some of the higher-level owners to carry at schools in the remote possibility that it would do anything.

You win :o

At 1/9/08 08:35 PM, poxpower wrote: My point was that it must be soooooooooo much worse to lose a loved one because of a stupid accident with your gun than some asshole breaking into your house to do it.

Tell that to Batman.

At 1/9/08 10:49 PM, Gunter45 wrote:

At 1/9/08 08:35 PM, poxpower wrote: My point was that it must be soooooooooo much worse to lose a loved one because of a stupid accident with your gun than some asshole breaking into your house to do it.

Tell that to Batman.

If batman had shot his own parents with a gun ( or kid whatever ) he'd have turned into some weird criminaly insane avenger bent on destroying all the guns in the world or something. There's probably a "what if" comic about it somewhere :p

At 1/9/08 10:02 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 1/9/08 09:36 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote: If you would, please cite your sources. It'd make it so much easier to retort if I knew for sure you weren't pulling numbers out of your arse.

So Angry-Hatter...are you going to retort?

Oh, sorry about that. Forgot about this topic. Commence retort!

"Let's be honest. If someone wants a gun, it's obvious the person will not have difficulty buying a gun, either legally or through the extensive United States black market."

Well this all depends on what type of individual we're talking about here. Are we talking about your ordinary street criminal/drug dealer, or your ordinary disgruntled, Marilyn Manson fanatic, suburb dwelling, 16 year old boy? My plan would very much hinder the latter from getting ahold of a gun through straw-man deal. Other measures should be implemented as well, such as banning mail-order gun sales.

True, the street criminal type could propably get a gun through some other means, but does that mean that we should do nothing to stop them from gettin guns through the straw-man method, the preferred way to purchase firearms among criminals?

What this last quote is saying is that 27.7% of gun crimes are committed by suspected straw purchases. This is a plural [sorry I misspoke earlier] majority (ie: more than all other sources of illegally obtained firearms) compared to a simple majority (ie: more than 50%) or an absolute majority (ie: more than 66%).

But this is SO much more significant than the 10-15% that comes from stolen guns.

Are you somehow implying that even though it is a lesser number than the first method, stolen legal guns are somehow MORE signifigant than guns gotten through straw-man deals?

You're basically saying, 'pffh! The plural majority (27.7%) of guns come from straw-man deals, but let's ignore all that and focus on stolen guns (10-15%) instead!'

Having tighter demands on gun owners would decrease the number of stolen guns as well. If you lose your right to carry or have to pay a fine if your gun is stolen, gun owners are going to be more keen on keeping their guns safe. They'd also be trained in how to keep your gun safe during their license course.

I can't see how requiring a license to carry a leathal weapon could be seen as extreme when we already require people to get a license to drive a car. It's no different.

Oh yeah, just so you know I'm not pulling these numbers out of my "arse" here's my source: Mason's ass.

And now I just feel like a big, silly titty. ^__^

I guess that's what you get when you post an article you read months ago as a source and didn't bother to re-read the whole thing this time around.

Gomen nasai. ^__^

At 1/10/08 10:01 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote:

"Let's be honest. If someone wants a gun, it's obvious the person will not have difficulty buying a gun, either legally or through the extensive United States black market."

... Other measures should be implemented as well, such as banning mail-order gun sales.

One of the problems with gun control advocates is they are so easily manipulated by the gun control elites who lie about the law and what is legal or illegal.

Mail-order/online gun sales are ALREADY illegal. Now, you will see ads in periodicals and online for guns. HOWEVER, you must have a FFL in order to purchase it. To explain, say you or I saw a good deal in The Shotgun News and wanted to buy it; we would have to go to a gun store and have them order for us. We would buy from them, not the advertiser. We would go through the SAME background checks and steps as if they had the firearm in stock.

Making the cops gun dealers would not stop straw man purchases. I would solve this by charging people who do a straw purchase and the gun is used in a crime; are subject to prosecution for the same crime as the gun is used for. For example...in Columbine the girl who bought the guns for the killers would be subject to prosecution for murder...and quite possibly the death penalty.

Are you somehow implying that even though it is a lesser number than the first method, stolen legal guns are somehow MORE signifigant than guns gotten through straw-man deals?

You're basically saying, 'pffh! The plural majority (27.7%) of guns come from straw-man deals, but let's ignore all that and focus on stolen guns (10-15%) instead!'

Not at all...I'm just pointing out that the straw-man purchase is NOT the end all magic bullet to stopping violent gun crimes.

Here's something important you need to understand; I grew up with guns and want to preserve gun ownership. I have a vested interest in keeping gun crime low so it becomes a non-issue. I want laws that work (that's why I'm against AR bans...but that's another topic...literally)...and much of what the gun-control crowd proposes I honestly think is misguided.

I can't see how requiring a license to carry a leathal weapon could be seen as extreme when we already require people to get a license to drive a car. It's no different.

You do not need a license to own one...but you do need one to carry it. That already exists.

Oh yeah, just so you know I'm not pulling these numbers out of my "arse" here's my source: Mason's ass.

And now I just feel like a big, silly titty. ^__^

Np! :)