A lock only serves to keep an honest person honest. Same goes for locked glass doors.
I have no problem with locked school doors and a buzzer system. Such a system is not designed to keep out a gun toting criminal so it is unfair to criticize it for this particular failing. Such a system does stop non-violent crimes such as abductions from occurring in the school.
Really, is that all you have at this point. That same old tired shit of, "if someone had had gun, this could have been prevented" line. Well, I hate to quote a D-bag like Micheal Moore, but when you're right you're right. He tweeted a day or so ago, "If only his first victim had been armed."
The point that was being made is that mass shooters target gun free zones because those zones allow them to do more damage before being stopped. The argument is not about an armed member of the crowd shooting the shooter but is instead an argument that marking an area as gun free makes it a more appealing target.
No it does not. If office personnel and the child's teacher don't notice you walking out with a kid who's not yours, a buzzer on the door isn't going to stop it. That's a nonsense argument.
No it does not. If office personnel and the child's teacher don't notice you walking out with a kid who's not yours, a buzzer on the door isn't going to stop it. That's a nonsense argument.
By being buzzed in casually by a secretary not paying attention. If I can walk right by the office without the buzzer, I can walk right by the office after getting buzzed in. If anything, the buzzer trains a false sense of security and makes staff pay LESS attention.
Number of abductions from schools in my town before the buzzers: 0. After the buzzers: 0. I have this rock that protects me from bears.
Of course they do. Every time. The buzzers make everybody safer. Except the kids at Sandy Hook.
And the TSA is just great, too.
Are you suggesting bulletproof glass? Perhaps something stronger to stop the psychotic who uses a motor vehicle to breach the school to get in? Maybe we should post Patriot Missile batteries at every school?
Take the word gun and replace it with speech in your argument. Do you support speech control? Does anyone really need a media platform that can reach millions of people in an instant?
Words are more powerful than guns, time for speech control?
Hardly. It's a false equivalency.
Speech can not directly kill a person. Guns are designed to directly kill.
If a person can be driven to kill by speech alone, then they are the defective quantity, not the speech itself.
The founding fathers decided to enumerate arms separately from other rights, so they considered it distinct. They also were pretty clear about mentioning a "well-regulated militia." It's an archaic passage from a bygone era that has increasingly less relevance in modern society.
Archaic enough that "regulated" may mean something completely different to us than them.
You can't argue that a killer driven by meme is the defective quantity and then argue that guns are the problem in the next breath. That's a little weak.
Steve - I'm suggesting that making fortresses of our schools doesn't work and we need to stop making them into pseudo-fortresses which makes them taboo and the community as a whole alienated from the student/teacher/school relationship. There ISN'T a reasonable security measure you're going to take at a school that's going to prevent shootings, so let's REMOVE cosmetic measures that produce unpleasant side effects.
Rym, you have yet to enumerate or define the sorts of regulations you are proposing. It would help move the discussion along if they weren't broad and ambiguous statements but rather specific goals which could be legislated.
The former assault weapons ban failed. It stupidly focused on cosmetic nonsense like barrel length and stock size and was probably deliberately sabotaged by gun lobbyists.
I think the only things you need to focus on are theoretical max fire rate and magazine size, with the actual numbers up for discussion.
Rym, you have yet to enumerate or define the sorts of regulations you are proposing. It would help move the discussion along if they weren't broad and ambiguous statements but rather specific goals which could be legislated.
The problem is that we don't even debate this in congress or as a society. I don't know what the best regulations are. I want experts to determine them based on evidence, and change them over time.
The gun lobby, however, is largely unwilling to debate or suggest anything, and the recent wargarble has basically turned me against them. They resist practically any regulatory attempts, and the NRA is a ridiculous organization at this point.
Off-hand? Mandatory federal registration and licensing of all guns of any type (excluding only certain classes of antiques), severe penalties for possession of an unregistered weapon, mandatory national background checks and waiting periods, an expansion of disqualification categories for individuals attempting to purchase or construct, and a high burden of proof of need for handguns of any variety. Couple that with relaxed registration and possession requirements for other nonlethal personal defense weapons.
Well then I'm glad you're one guy who doesn't feel that way.
Perhaps we view authority differently?
I like being carded when I buy alcohol. I also like being challenged when I go somewhere restricted. It may be because I work in a job with high level security issues that causes me to be more aware of the policies behind the procedures?
I see security as the norm and lax security bothers me more than tight security.
I have no trouble being carded to buy alcohol. I do have a problem being stopped for a DUI check IF I'm also asked for my identification UNLESS I am intoxicated.
Authority is fine, when applied reasonably, in pursuit of a demonstrable good. When reality and authority are at odds, we have a problem. Enter the TSA, and buzz-locks on elementary schools.
The former assault weapons ban failed. It stupidly focused on cosmetic nonsense like barrel length and stock size and was probably deliberately sabotaged by gun lobbyists.
I think the only things you need to focus on are theoretical max fire rate and magazine size, with the actual numbers up for discussion.
I think we already covered the idea letting folks who actually know firearms have some say in the wording of the regulations, and peoples obsession with "Assault weapons" is ridiculous. The weapons that would be covered under the ban account for less than 4% of gun crime. It's the handguns that get used to murder and threaten people.
Edit: Most of what your saying there sounds pretty good Rym. Especially that bit about relaxing controls on other self defense weapons. Why it's legal for me to carry around a handgun but not an extendable baton is beyond me.
Re: locks on schools It would be effectively impossible to put buzzy locks on any of the schools I went to k-12 (or any school not size-restricted by cities) because they were spread out in several buildings with individual doors for each classroom. You park on campus and you're IN the school. A buzzer there would protect...the school administration?
Now some commenters and politicians are mentioning movies and games needing to be looked at because of this tragedy. If they use this to try to target Hollywood and the game industry that'll just create more interest groups working together to stop anything from happening.
From a technical perspective, putting aside the tragedy for a second, I find it interesting how many horses there are in this race when these incidents happen. Pro-gun, anti-gun, video games, psychiatric institutions, the jail system, blame the parents, blame society, blame the media, any particular non-normative psychology. Without regard for which ones are right or wrong, there is definitely a sudden shock of indignation and then defense at play. It's like everything has to come into play and take part of the blame. What doesn't get thrown out there for consideration?
That comic ignores large swathes of reality, but OK, I giggled at the last panel, mostly due to absurdity.
That's kinda THE FUCKING POINT Muppet. It is SUPPOSED to be absurd!
Yes, but, it's trying to be satirical regarding people who espouse "an armed society is a polite society" and similar, but the joke really doesn't work for a number of reasons that it'd be tedious to enumerate and then debate in this thread.
From a technical perspective, putting aside the tragedy for a second, I find it interesting how many horses there are in this race when these incidents happen. Pro-gun, anti-gun, video games, psychiatric institutions, the jail system, blame the parents, blame society, blame the media, any particular non-normative psychology. Without regard for which ones are right or wrong, there is definitely a sudden shock of indignation and then defense at play. It's like everything has to come into play and take part of the blame. What doesn't get thrown out there for consideration?
I think it's a big mistake for discussion of gun control to revolve around atypical incidents like this one. Sure, it's an interesting argument as to what could have been done to prevent what happened at Sandy Hook, but in an overall sense it simply is not the right place to direct one's time and effort.
I can understand why this happens - disasters like this have an emotional impact that cold, hard statistics do not. That, however, is rather a poor excuse for skewing the debate to this extent.
Better (and free) mental health care is something that is quite clearly needed worldwide, especially in the U.S., but it's hardly a magic bullet. It's a good course of action, but for the most part it's a solution to a different problem.
Also, when it comes to mental health care it's of crucial importance that people are able and willing to get that treatment. Perpetuating the stigma by tying mental health problems to violence and gun crime is not a good way to get people to accept and get help with their own problems.
Comments
I have no problem with locked school doors and a buzzer system. Such a system is not designed to keep out a gun toting criminal so it is unfair to criticize it for this particular failing. Such a system does stop non-violent crimes such as abductions from occurring in the school.
Number of abductions from schools in my town before the buzzers: 0. After the buzzers: 0. I have this rock that protects me from bears.
And the TSA is just great, too.
Speech can not directly kill a person. Guns are designed to directly kill.
If a person can be driven to kill by speech alone, then they are the defective quantity, not the speech itself.
The founding fathers decided to enumerate arms separately from other rights, so they considered it distinct. They also were pretty clear about mentioning a "well-regulated militia." It's an archaic passage from a bygone era that has increasingly less relevance in modern society.
You can't argue that a killer driven by meme is the defective quantity and then argue that guns are the problem in the next breath. That's a little weak.
Steve - I'm suggesting that making fortresses of our schools doesn't work and we need to stop making them into pseudo-fortresses which makes them taboo and the community as a whole alienated from the student/teacher/school relationship. There ISN'T a reasonable security measure you're going to take at a school that's going to prevent shootings, so let's REMOVE cosmetic measures that produce unpleasant side effects.
I think the only things you need to focus on are theoretical max fire rate and magazine size, with the actual numbers up for discussion.
The gun lobby, however, is largely unwilling to debate or suggest anything, and the recent wargarble has basically turned me against them. They resist practically any regulatory attempts, and the NRA is a ridiculous organization at this point.
Off-hand? Mandatory federal registration and licensing of all guns of any type (excluding only certain classes of antiques), severe penalties for possession of an unregistered weapon, mandatory national background checks and waiting periods, an expansion of disqualification categories for individuals attempting to purchase or construct, and a high burden of proof of need for handguns of any variety. Couple that with relaxed registration and possession requirements for other nonlethal personal defense weapons.
I like being carded when I buy alcohol. I also like being challenged when I go somewhere restricted. It may be because I work in a job with high level security issues that causes me to be more aware of the policies behind the procedures?
I see security as the norm and lax security bothers me more than tight security.
Authority is fine, when applied reasonably, in pursuit of a demonstrable good. When reality and authority are at odds, we have a problem. Enter the TSA, and buzz-locks on elementary schools.
Edit: Most of what your saying there sounds pretty good Rym. Especially that bit about relaxing controls on other self defense weapons. Why it's legal for me to carry around a handgun but not an extendable baton is beyond me.
It would be effectively impossible to put buzzy locks on any of the schools I went to k-12 (or any school not size-restricted by cities) because they were spread out in several buildings with individual doors for each classroom. You park on campus and you're IN the school. A buzzer there would protect...the school administration?
The only things that correlate on a broad level to reduced gun violence appear to be:
1. Less civilian access to guns
and/or
2. Living in any industrialized nation in the world except the United States
I can understand why this happens - disasters like this have an emotional impact that cold, hard statistics do not. That, however, is rather a poor excuse for skewing the debate to this extent.
Better (and free) mental health care is something that is quite clearly needed worldwide, especially in the U.S., but it's hardly a magic bullet. It's a good course of action, but for the most part it's a solution to a different problem.
Also, when it comes to mental health care it's of crucial importance that people are able and willing to get that treatment. Perpetuating the stigma by tying mental health problems to violence and gun crime is not a good way to get people to accept and get help with their own problems.