I think this is a fair question.

I also think the same question needs to be directed at gun controllers, especially the more severe ones who are proposing bans rather than just more stringent background checks/longer waiting periods.

How many additional robberies, rapes, carjackings, etc will occur if the number of guns in law-abiding hands is significantly reduced?

Pointing out that YOUR suggestion is stupid is not the same thing as saying nothing should be done.

.

Cool. Again, what is your plan? Specifics please.

One reason these events seem to occur more compared to the 50's, 60's, and earlier is the recent inability to institutionalize the mentally ill. Not that we should go back to that practice, but fact is it probably prevented many horrible crimes.

hahah wow it's been responded to several times, perhaps try reading the thread

Dont offer a substantive response of your own or anything.

Right now we live in a society where if anyone is motivated to kill lots of people, they can:

a) go to a gun show, buy some assault weapons and ammo, and

b) kill lots of people

that status quo doesn't sit well with me, just saying....

It's the first paragraph ffs.

Do you believe that people, in any general situation, will always have enough time to either take cover, or draw a weapon, when crazies come-a-bargin'... or do you feel sometimes they will have that time, and sometimes they won't?

I was thinking we'd start by sacrificing a bunch of chickens, then move on to frowning REALLY hard at mean people. That will surely work.

I mean **** dude, you've even responded to my posts in this thread talking about mental health. But hey, go ahead and pass a bunch of new laws that will be disproportionately enforced on minorities even though the guys that have your jimmies rustled are all white.

It's hilarious how you're like "OH WOW MR GUN GUY I GUESS YOU NEED A GUN TO MAKE YOU FEEL BETTER ABOUT YOURSELF" when you're in here just running around "OMG DO SOMETHING SO I CAN SLEEP AT NIGHT I DON'T CARE IF IT WORKS OR NOT JUST DO IT."

I don't have a specific plan right now. I mean that's EXACTLY the problem, people just want to DO SOMETHING NOW rather than actually figure out a course of action that would improve things on net. Am I not allowed to point out that you're flying the plane into the mountain if I'm not a qualified licensed pilot capable of landing a 747 in a 30-knot crosswind?

the problem with that study is it only looks at one narrow effect and ignores a bunch of other stuff. Which seems par for the course in this thread, so go ahead and keep beating off to it I guess.

I mean it's certainly possible that "do nothing" is the correct move from a utilitarian perspective. I know a lot of people in this thread would feel like they were heroes if they stopped one single event that killed 20 kids even if it caused 30 other incidents which each killed one kid because they wouldn't have to watch that on TV for a week.

really, though, if we want security, this is what it looks like. if we're so terrified of the possibility of anything bad happening ever, then the entrance to any mall, school, or other place where more than a few people congregate should look like this.

i mean, that is if we assume there's only a few ways of killing people, all of which include some sort of detectable metal device

sorry no, that says semi automatic rifles and shotguns will be banned. not semi auto weapons.

looks like semi auto handguns are legal. a semi auto handgun (2 of them) is what the shooter used yesterday.

tsao, as i quoted from that paper earlier

I think it's a better idea then putting a firearm in every class.

from what i've read all you have to do is say it's for target shooting not self defense and it's acceptable.

there are very few things i would put on a list of worse ideas than putting a firearm in every class

having just read the last age of this thread, all I can say is:


lol

while i believe there won't always be time in "any general situation", so far for every mass shooting (which is the situation we are discussing), the basic "if someone else had a gun this would have ended much faster" seems to apply. in this case people rushed from other parts of the building to respond to the gunshots. if they had time to do that, they would have had time to draw their weapon. if you are a gun owner in movie theater in Aurora unless you are one of the first few to die you would have had time to draw your weapon. same for columbine, way way the same for virginia tech.

of course, all of these places were gun free zones :/

And more things for our "pass out the pistols on the playground" to think about...

There is another kinda campus where crazies have been known to come-a-bargin' and shoot a buncha peeps dead. And on these kinda campuses, there is no pesky 2nd Amendment to worry about.

These are of course, industrial campuses. Factories for example. I've worked in factories that cover several square miles, employ thousands 24/7, and have armed security departments larger than the police department of the town they were in.

The owners have a vested financial interest in promoting peace and discouraging murders in their places of business. And they can dictate any weapons policy they want... all the way from banning all weapons (except the security dept. and visiting police) to carrying weapons is a requirement of employment.

Please note that this is not a hypothetical... and please note that their is an entire mature private industry that does research, offers consulting, and even outsource regarding industrial security.

So...

How many large successful companies believe everyone should be armed on their campuses? How many actually implement such a policy IRL? How many reputable private security professionals would recommend such a policy? Do you believe that an entire mature industry, and the most 'successful' owners, are all wrongheaded, and have been for generations? And if you think schools are somehow different... how are they different?

Why stop at schools? Maybe this is what most public places will look like in the us eventually. The world will shake it's head at this dystopia, americans will hopefully feel safe.

I kinda want to go back to this post for two reasons.

First, it now appears that his mother didn't work there.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/natio...mentary/60025/

2ndly, the best option would be one that disarms nuts before they kill a bunch of people, yes, assuming that there's a method to do that which doesn't cause a bunch of other problems. It seems likely that there is such a method.

The problem is that nobody wants to do any such analysis, they just want to say "any number of incidents is unacceptable, just do something and don't worry about the costs."

Who wants to do that?