Would we be safer without guns?
This is a conversation I had with a fellow who seemed shocked at my suggestion that teachers and school personnel, those we trust with our children, ought to be allowed to arm themselves just as other people do, something that at least a third of states, including states like Massachusetts, currently allow:
What if teachers and personnel don't want to arm themselves in schools (as no-one in their right mind would)?
Then they shouldn't, as a former public school teacher I knew a couple of teachers who did, is there a reason you would trust someone with your child but not a gun? That's the thing about arming yourself, it is your choice. Shouldn't a woman have a right to choose how she wants to defend her child? Studies show that those who choose to use guns for self defense have fewer injuries than those who choose other weapons to try to defend themselves. Seems like a logical choice.
What if human human beings just want the killing to stop?
In that case human human beings would certainly want to arm themselves, that would be the logical thing to do. Armed citizens stop a disproportionate number of active shooters. What would be illogical would to push for more foolish and ineffective gun control laws, they might want to push for some efforts to deal with massacres caused by prescription drugs that are known to cause suicidal actions.
The question should be, where will all this fucking nonsense end?
Very soon, brick and mortar schools will be gone in a generation or two.
50 years from now, you'll sleep, shit, shower, shag, eat your meals with your gun inches from your hand should a nutter in your vicinity have bullets with your name potentially on them (and the means to discharge them in your direction)?
I keep my guns in the safe, I personally don't really consider them part of my self or home defense plan, I can't say what the world will be like in 50 years, I don't know what a "nutter" is or why they would have bullets with my name on them, if there was a "nutter" with bullets with your name on them would you want to have a gun or not have a gun to defend yourself?
And who's to say you won't be the one to crack first?
I am not too worried about "cracking" either in myself or others. People who go on sprees are never a surprise, in most all cases everyone knew they were crazy and usually people tried to stop them to no avail.
If someone does "crack" is it better for his potential victims to be armed or unarmed?
Or do people with mental health issues all know the exact state of their mental health?
If people have mental health issues that make it likely they will go on a killing spree the idea that preventing them from legally acquiring guns will stop them from going on a killing spree is a little silly to me, do you think a homicidal maniac would fail a background check and then go home and give up on going on a killing spree?
"Failed the background check? I guess mass murder is out, its needlepoint for me!"
And do the ethically right thing, accordingly?
You seem to think if they fail a background check they will. Sounds like your problem is not unregulated guns but actually unregulated homicidal maniacs. Why do you blame the means instead of the motives that cause the killing?
Why ignore that these guys are mostly on SSRI?
I suppose whilst it's still mostly schoolkids being slaughtered the hunter-gatherer American can still turn a bit of a blind eye. But let's face it, the NRA would love to swamp your nation with firearms. As would those people who have some form of tacit / non-tacit investment in the NRA love to, also.
"mostly schoolkids being slaughtered"
How did you come to that conclusion? Weird how this slaughter takes place in "gun free zones" places where you are not allowed to bring a firearm, why do you think that is?
"swamp your nation with firearms"
we have well over 300,000,000, as that number has risen firearms homicides have declined.
The NRA, they're just after your money. But they'll take your blood, too, obviously.
Really they just want to sell magazine subscriptions, they don't sell guns. And they are not interested in anyone's blood.
Firearms never get outlawed, they want to maximise sales through all the crap they manage to get their supporters to chew up. And win. Guns some day get outlawed? Why, they'll have done all they could to maximise profits to the very last. They'll shut up shop and move on to the next legal thing available to the most unscrupulous of parasites. Winning again.
The gun industry is not very profitable, small potatoes compared to your friends in the drugs industry whose products cause mass shootings and other mass murders. The gun industry has its own lobbying organization that is not the NRA. Actually we banned so called "assault rifles" on the federal level for a decade, it didn't achieve any reduction in crime or homicides.
God bless the NRA, eh? ;) SMFH
God bless them for helping to protect the rights that enable Americans to defend themselves with guns as many as 3 million times a year. I don't choose guns for defense but I am glad they did, aren't you?
Arming the teachers that are willing, traing them, and paying them for the extra risk; will make schools a hard target! Since the crazies will not know who is actually armed, the risk to them is substantially increased. They are cowards at heart, so they will go elsewhere.
exactly, and when someone does attempt a shooting spree the sooner the meet armed resistance the sooner it ends and the fewer casualties there are. We don't hear about armed citizens stopping mass shootings because when they intervene no mass shooting happens.
It WORKS! Well.
https://thepoliticalinsider.com/maryland-school-shooting-armed-guard-stops/
howdy @smithlabs great post, I know it's a serious topic but the "needlepoint" line cracked me up! I wrote a post about how to stop these insane mass shootings in my blog by examining Israel who, although they have had more terrorists after their kids than any nation on earth, has never had a mass school shooting because of the system they use. No one can even get close to their kids because of armed guards and locked steel doors so no one gets in unless they're supposed to be there. so simple, why don't we protect our kids that way instead of having insane gun-free zones?
I have a friend who went to high school in Israel. There is another reason they do NOT have these problems there. A large number of the students are armed. He said you treat a girl respectfully there, because you never know which girls are packing! Something I never considered.... :)
lol, that's brilliant! Well I know that in most schools at least 2 teachers carry but they don't let anyone know which ones but I didn't know about students being armed. different culture and circumstances but it sure works, hopefully their students are more stable than ours. thank you smithlabs!
You grow up fast when everyone around you wants you dead! Our snowflakes are not up to it; but my kids could have safely carried! :)
exactly.
even if their students were less stable with lots of good guys with guns and good kids with guns no shooter can shoot that many people before they get shot.
very true @funbobby51 thank you! I appreciate your blog and your courage, followed and upvoted your "couger" joke. what state are you in?
The experience of Austrailia, Sweden, and England come to mind.
Yeah, London surpassing NYC in murders and mass shooting in Australia.
Curated for #informationwar (by @truthforce)
If you really think what Count Dankula posted was hilarious:
What you need to do, @funbobby51. Is go to Times Square, New York City. Midday. The day after the next school shooting.
Spend an HOUR shouting the following two sentences and the following two sentences alone:
"I'm just exercising free speech as I'm constitutionally allowed to."
"I'm making a video. I need to borrow a dog to teach the expression, 'SHOOT ALL KIDS' to".
If you don't get murdered in that hour / phone the police and beg for police protection....
I'll buy you the fucking boat.
Just post a video showing you doing this please. One more thing, you're to be dressed in street clothing. Ie. No stab vests. No bullet-proof jackets.
What a dickhead you are, @funbobby51! :D
no you won't, no matter how many times you post that. I like when people come up with crazy challenges and start calling names, that means their argument is lost.
I lost the argument when you ran off to make some posts that were supposed to drag some helpers into the discussion for you?
I like when people run off crying to their mates.
Did it really need THREE posts? PMSL. :D
no when you started calling names and you came up with your bizarre challenge. I laughed at loud at the dragging helpers in idea, that's very funny. No the idea of posting the discussion was to make some money off of it, otherwise I wouldn't waste my time.
Why not, I spent my time writing, did you think I was doing that just because I wanted to talk to you? I like how triggered it got you and you choose to project "crying" on it. Do you do that a lot, was crying to your mates the intent of your post?
I don't like wasting my time on people I regard as idiots but I don't feel I was particularly triggered. I spent a lot of time trying to help you. Help you understand the power of words. But you failed, bigly time.