• Georgia law allows guns in some schools, bars, churches
    147 replies, posted
I don't understand how almost everyone seems to be completely ok with the fact that teachers could be allowed to carry a fucking gun on them while they're teaching. Or airports or bars or churches or wherever. It seems really fucked up to me. Your kids aren't safer around a teacher with a gun, than a teacher without one. If a shooter comes in (which isn't a frequent thing, right? but this is murrika so I might be wrong), the teacher is fucked no matter if he has a gun on him or not. He's not safer with a gun on him. The kids aren't safer with a teacher with a gun on him. He can't pull a gun out and shoot the shooter in a millisecond. The shooter already has his gun out. This is just security placebo effect. All this does is allowing more guns to be around in public, and more risk of it getting in the wrong hands.
[QUOTE=Segab;44646938]I don't understand how almost everyone seems to be completely ok with the fact that teachers could be allowed to carry a fucking gun on them while they're teaching. Or airports or bars or churches or wherever. It seems really fucked up to me. Your kids aren't safer around a teacher with a gun, than a teacher without one. If a shooter comes in (which isn't a frequent thing, right? but this is murrika so I might be wrong), the teacher is fucked no matter if he has a gun on him or not. He's not safer with a gun on him. The kids aren't safer with a teacher with a gun on him. He can't pull a gun out and shoot the shooter in a millisecond. The shooter already has his gun out. This is just security placebo effect. All this does is allowing more guns to be around in public, and more risk of it getting in the wrong hands.[/QUOTE] So you think that a teacher would have absolutely no warning if an active shooter were to appear in his school? How do you figure that?
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;44647283]So you think that a teacher would have absolutely no warning if an active shooter were to appear in his school? How do you figure that?[/QUOTE] What kind of shooter signals their presence? "Knock knock yes hello mr principal I'm about to shoot the school in an hour, please say so in the intercom"? If a teacher hears a gunshot, they should call the police and lock the door/close the lights/evacuate (whatever is the safest), not stay there and play superhero waiting there with their gun, or worse, actively start looking for the killer and even run the risk of shooting an innocent.
[QUOTE=Segab;44646938]I don't understand how almost everyone seems to be completely ok with the fact that teachers could be allowed to carry a fucking gun on them while they're teaching. Or airports or bars or churches or wherever. It seems really fucked up to me. [/quote] You are completely within your rights to feel offended by the notion of people taking personal responsibility into their own hands. It's a fucked up day and age in this country..not to mention world. People have to adapt to other fucked up people by arming themselves...just as they have done for millions of years.. [quote] The kids aren't safer with a teacher with a gun on him. He can't pull a gun out and shoot the shooter in a millisecond. The shooter already has his gun out. This is just security placebo effect. All this does is allowing more guns to be around in public, and more risk of it getting in the wrong hands.[/QUOTE] Where do you get off thinking that a teacher who is proficient in the safe operation of a firearm is just doomed to failure? This isn't a video game. Just because a teacher doesn't have some active duty military perk doesn't mean he or she is incapable of attaining "firearm proficiency XP". The safer, more proficient shooters that I have met weren't in the midst of my Enlistment. They were all Average Joe's in the civilian world. [quote]All this does is allowing more guns to be around in public, and more risk of it getting in the wrong hands. [/quote] ...That is assuming that the Teacher is incompetent in the use of a firearm. The teacher will likely be alerted at the sound of gun shots and if withdrawing a deadly weapon, most likely will find a place of concealment and cover that will not put the students he cares about in the line of fire of said deadly weapon. It's simple stuff really. Sweet avatar btw, mang.
I am so tired of the media using the word "bars". The goal is not to carry firearms at bars, it is to carry firearms in restaurants which serve alcohol. You know. Applebees. Steakhouses, etc. Places where you are likely to carry your firearm and never touch a drop of alcohol. [editline]27th April 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Segab;44647685]What kind of shooter signals their presence? "Knock knock yes hello mr principal I'm about to shoot the school in an hour, please say so in the intercom"? If a teacher hears a gunshot, they should call the police and lock the door/close the lights/evacuate (whatever is the safest), not stay there and play superhero waiting there with their gun, or worse, actively start looking for the killer and even run the risk of shooting an innocent.[/QUOTE] Because the police have teleportation devices right?
I don't understand this part of American culture. For some reason everyone needs to have a firearm. Some people argue that it prevents crimes, but with a crime per capita of almost 7 times higher than any other western country, I don't think it does.
[QUOTE=J!NX;44629258]It's good and bad really on one hand less school shootings on the other hand I feel like there's going to be a good number of teachers that would pull a full retard[/QUOTE] I'd have paid more attention in calculus if I had a loaded gun to my head. Probably would have turned out for the best.
[QUOTE=Segab;44646938]I don't understand how almost everyone seems to be completely ok with the fact that teachers could be allowed to carry a fucking gun on them while they're teaching. Or airports or bars or churches or wherever. It seems really fucked up to me. Your kids aren't safer around a teacher with a gun, than a teacher without one. If a shooter comes in (which isn't a frequent thing, right? but this is murrika so I might be wrong), the teacher is fucked no matter if he has a gun on him or not. He's not safer with a gun on him. The kids aren't safer with a teacher with a gun on him. He can't pull a gun out and shoot the shooter in a millisecond. The shooter already has his gun out. This is just security placebo effect. All this does is allowing more guns to be around in public, and more risk of it getting in the wrong hands.[/QUOTE] I can't believe how many people here seem to think it's alright to leave things as they are, while dozens of kids are murdered in schools because nobody can stop the shooter.
[QUOTE=Segab;44647685]What kind of shooter signals their presence? "Knock knock yes hello mr principal I'm about to shoot the school in an hour, please say so in the intercom"?[/quote] They'll know theres an active shooter in the school when they hear a few dozen gunshots ring out. Thats a pretty tell-tale sign that shits going down. [QUOTE=Segab;44647685] If a teacher hears a gunshot, they should call the police and lock the door/close the lights/evacuate (whatever is the safest), not stay there and play superhero waiting there with their gun, or worse, actively start looking for the killer and even run the risk of shooting an innocent.[/QUOTE] You're partially right! In the event of an active shooter, they should bar their door and turn off the lights. But what would you prefer, a teacher who can defend his students in the event of an emergency, or just another unarmed person who will get senselessly killed? [editline]27th April 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=joost1120;44658407]I don't understand this part of American culture. For some reason everyone needs to have a firearm. Some people argue that it prevents crimes, but with a crime per capita of almost 7 times higher than any other western country, I don't think it does.[/QUOTE] It's not a perfect solution but it's a solution. and where are you pulling the "7 times higher than any other western country" statistic from?
[QUOTE=joost1120;44658407]I don't understand this part of American culture. For some reason everyone needs to have a firearm. Some people argue that it prevents crimes, but with a crime per capita of almost 7 times higher than any other western country, I don't think it does.[/QUOTE] [url]http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/082113-668335-cdc-gun-violence-study-goes-against-media-narrative.htm[/url] [QUOTE]The study, which was farmed out by the CDC to the Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, also revealed that while there were "about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008," the estimated number of defensive uses of guns ranges "from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year."[/QUOTE]
America [editline]27th April 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=ilikecorn;44629247]I dunno, would you try to shoot up the school that has like 15 armed, trained teachers? It'd be interesting to see how well this works. It's not perfect, but it might provide a stop gap measure to help.[/QUOTE] I wouldn't trust a lot of my teachers with a gun
[QUOTE=joost1120;44658407]I don't understand this part of American culture. For some reason everyone needs to have a firearm. Some people argue that it prevents crimes, but with a crime per capita of almost 7 times higher than any other western country, I don't think it does.[/QUOTE] Do you NEED to have a Facepunch account? Also, to say that firearms are just straight up incapable of preventing crime is as out of touch as it gets. Here is just one case out of many where a firearm prevented further human suffering. [url]http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-183593571.html[/url] I'll be happy to provide PLENTY more sources if you'd like.. [editline]27th April 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=proboardslol;44660341] I wouldn't trust a lot of my teachers with a gun[/QUOTE] No one is forcing them to carry.
[QUOTE=Berque-IL;44661188]Do you NEED to have a Facepunch account? Also, to say that firearms are just straight up incapable of preventing crime is as out of touch as it gets. [url]http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-183593571.html[/url] I'll be happy to provide PLENTY more sources if you'd like.. [editline]27th April 2014[/editline] No one is forcing them to carry.[/QUOTE] Thing is, you're only looking at one side of the coin. Sure, access to guns might be beneficial in [I]some[/I] situations (though I might argue that they can escalate situations as well), but the easy access to guns is also why so many criminals have them. If it wasn't readily available, neither you nor the criminal would need to be armed - nor would either of you be able to. Mind you, I'm not saying this is necessarily possible in the US (at least it would take a long time to get guns completely out of circulation), but it's honestly funny to me when people present isolated cases that could've been prevented if neither party had had a gun in the first place.
[QUOTE=joost1120;44658407]I don't understand this part of American culture. For some reason everyone needs to have a firearm. Some people argue that it prevents crimes, but with a crime per capita of almost 7 times higher than any other western country, I don't think it does.[/QUOTE] yeah because the USA is so much more terrible than mexico or brazil
[QUOTE=Moose;44661792]yeah because the USA is so much more terrible than mexico or brazil[/QUOTE] Comparing favourably to Mexico or Brazil isn't really an achievement.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;44661684]Thing is, you're only looking at one side of the coin. Sure, access to guns might be beneficial in [I]some[/I] situations (though I might argue that they can escalate situations as well), but the easy access to guns is also why so many criminals have them. If it wasn't readily available, neither you nor the criminal would need to be armed - nor would either of you be able to. Mind you, I'm not saying this is necessarily possible in the US (at least it would take a long time to get guns completely out of circulation), but it's honestly funny to me when people present isolated cases that could've been prevented if neither party had had a gun in the first place.[/QUOTE] Now hear this..firearms will NEVER be taken out of complete circulation in North America. Even if every NRA member in the country was fully co-operative with confiscation. Just like drugs, the black market for firearms is alive in well... To put a stop to this is to have a war on the streets of the country between criminals and Law Enforcement Officers. How does neither party having a gun prevent anything? A criminal with half a brain will simply find another tool to CONTROL the situation and get what he wants. We as safe and responsible gun owners simply reserve the right to control inevitable situations brought on by something that will always exist: Crime.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;44661684]Thing is, you're only looking at one side of the coin. Sure, access to guns might be beneficial in [I]some[/I] situations (though I might argue that they can escalate situations as well), but the easy access to guns is also why so many criminals have them. If it wasn't readily available, neither you nor the criminal would need to be armed - nor would either of you be able to. Mind you, I'm not saying this is necessarily possible in the US (at least it would take a long time to get guns completely out of circulation), but it's honestly funny to me when people present isolated cases that could've been prevented if neither party had had a gun in the first place.[/QUOTE] yea no shit there wouldn't be gun crime if people didn't have guns. But if they didn't have guns, then they would be using blades (Just like in every other country that has tried to ban firearms). People don't just go "welp since I don't have a gun, guess I can't mug anyone".
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;44663888] People don't just go "welp since I don't have a gun, guess I can't mug anyone".[/QUOTE] They do that in la-la land.
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;44663888]yea no shit there wouldn't be gun crime if people didn't have guns. But if they didn't have guns, then they would be using blades (Just like in every other country that has tried to ban firearms).[/QUOTE] Yep, blades are totally just as deadly and efficient as guns. People go on knife killing sprees in Canada. All the time! And we go "ah, if only every citizen had a gun to protect themselves!" [QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;44663888]People don't just go "welp since I don't have a gun, guess I can't mug anyone".[/QUOTE] They kinda do. [url]http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Canada/United-States/Crime[/url]
[QUOTE=Segab;44664145] People go on knife killing sprees in Canada. All the time! [/QUOTE] yea because US culture and Canadian culture is exactly the fuckin same right lmao Like I could compare the US to a place like Switzerland where guns are prevalent but the crime rate is low, but that would count for fuck all because of how different the two countries would be. Comparisons count for fuck all, try again.
[QUOTE=Comrade_Eko;44628023]I'm certain I've never heard of a single case in which someone under the influence of alcohol did anything remotely dangerous with a gun.[/QUOTE] i'm not sure how to respond
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;44664191]i'm not sure how to respond[/QUOTE] just close your eyes and pretend he doesnt exist.
[QUOTE=Segab;44664145]Yep, blades are totally just as deadly and efficient as guns.[/quote] So then someone who gets stabbed to death is less dead than someone who gets shot to death? Also, knife wounds are fucking terrible if it's not just a quick stab. If someone stabs you and twists, you're fucked. And if you want to get technical on efficiency, a blade is technically more efficient, as it leaves behind no trace, is totally silent, and requires no ammunition. You can theoretically stab an infinite number of people with just one knife, but a gun without ammo is just a club. A gun requires something else in order to be deadly, a knife is deadly in and of itself. [quote]People go on knife killing sprees in Canada. All the time! [/QUOTE] Only in Alberta. It's Quebec, ironically the province with the strictest gun control and most anti-gun mentality, where you get all the gun-toting nutjobs who go shoot up schools. It's also interesting to note that more than 1/3 of all homicides in Canada are committed with knives, and only approximately a quarter with guns. As for this [quote]And we go "ah, if only every citizen had a gun to protect themselves!"[/quote] There are plenty of Canadians who do, actually, think similar to that. Not that EVERY citizen SHOULD have a gun, which is also not the case in the US as so many people seem to ignorantly believe when they try to attack concealed carry laws, but that any LAW-ABIDING citizen who has PASSED A QUALIFICATION TEST should be able to carry a gun.
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;44663888]yea no shit there wouldn't be gun crime if people didn't have guns. But if they didn't have guns, then they would be using blades (Just like in every other country that has tried to ban firearms). People don't just go "welp since I don't have a gun, guess I can't mug anyone".[/QUOTE] I think there's a reason why blades are not that prevalent in modern warfare; they're not really as effective as guns. Now, I'm not saying a stab wound is necessarily less deadly than a gunshot (though in most cases, it probably is), but there's a much larger risk associated with attacking someone with a knife - you have to get up real close, and get, well, physical. That's not nearly as easy as firing a couple of shots and then go about your business. Now I know that there are way more problems in the US than simply gun crime, and I know that crime is by and large a problem created by poverty. But making guns less accessible to criminals will make a difference.
Knives obviously aren't as easy as guns, but I wouldn't say they're any less scary. I'd say someone could quickly draw a knife out of their pocket and thrust a knife into someone's stomach around the same time someone with decent training could unholster a concealed handgun and shoot someone. I'd say the main difference is just about anyone could buy a 3.5 inch knife from Wal-Mart, or a hunting store, without the same sort of process as a rifle or handgun If someone with a knife really wanted someone dead, they'd just stab over and over again until you stop moving, and if you don't see it coming you're pretty much done.
[QUOTE=RaxaHax;44664587]Knives obviously aren't as easy as guns, but I wouldn't say they're any less scary. I'd say someone could quickly draw a knife out of their pocket and thrust a knife into someone's stomach around the same time someone with decent training could unholster a concealed handgun and shoot someone. I'd say the main difference is just about anyone could buy a 3.5 inch knife from Wal-Mart, or a hunting store, without the same sort of process as a rifle or handgun If someone with a knife really wanted someone dead, they'd just stab over and over again until you stop moving, and if you don't see it coming you're pretty much done.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf[/url] If knives were as effective as guns, they would be much more prevalent. Handguns (and guns in general) were, at least according to this rapport, the most popular murder weapon by far. Sure, you could, if you really wanted to, kill someone with a knife, but it takes a lot more conviction to do so. Without bringing to much psychology into this, I also think it's easier for the offender to use a gun, simply because there's a bit of a distance to it. Stabbing someone multiple times while they're fighting against you is both hard and (seems) pretty traumatizing in itself.
[QUOTE=Segab;44664145] They kinda do. [url]http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Canada/United-States/Crime[/url][/QUOTE] ...In Canada...Canada is not equal to U.S.A. [b]"United States: world's largest consumer of cocaine (shipped from Colombia through Mexico and the Caribbean), Colombian heroin, and Mexican heroin and marijuana; major consumer of ecstasy and Mexican methamphetamine; minor consumer of high-quality Southeast Asian heroin; illicit producer of cannabis, marijuana, depressants, stimulants, hallucinogens, and methamphetamine; money-laundering center"[/b] [editline]28th April 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=GoDong-DK;44664704][url]http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf[/url] Stabbing someone multiple times while they're fighting against you is both hard and (seems) pretty traumatizing in itself.[/QUOTE] ..Because you aren't a mugger who does shitty things on a daily basis to get what he needs/wants. Trust me when I say a criminal that uses a knife in particular to commit crimes has NO problem using that knife..
[QUOTE=Berque-IL;44670329] ..Because you aren't a mugger who does shitty things on a daily basis to get what he needs/wants. Trust me when I say a criminal that uses a knife in particular to commit crimes has NO problem using that knife..[/QUOTE] I suppose you talk from experience? Generally criminals want to run as little a risk as possible.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;44664544]I think there's a reason why blades are not that prevalent in modern warfare; they're not really as effective as guns. Now, I'm not saying a stab wound is necessarily less deadly than a gunshot (though in most cases, it probably is), but there's a much larger risk associated with attacking someone with a knife - you have to get up real close, and get, well, physical. That's not nearly as easy as firing a couple of shots and then go about your business. Now I know that there are way more problems in the US than simply gun crime, and I know that crime is by and large a problem created by poverty. But making guns less accessible to criminals will make a difference.[/QUOTE] except at this point theres nothing more that can be done to make guns less accessible to criminals. Theres already between 100 and 300 million firearms in circulation in the US. Banning firearms will not do shit and the government has no means of confiscating them since theres no firearms registry. Instead of banning guns or knives or drugs like a fool would, they should focus on the actual issues thats causing people to want to use drugs and guns.
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;44670793]except at this point theres nothing more that can be done to make guns less accessible to criminals. Theres already between 100 and 300 million firearms in circulation in the US. Banning firearms will not do shit and the government has no means of confiscating them since theres no firearms registry. Instead of banning guns or knives or drugs like a fool would, they should focus on the actual issues thats causing people to want to use drugs and guns.[/QUOTE] I'd disagree with you on that there would be no way to make guns less available to criminals, but by and large I agree with you there. Slowly building up a registry wouldn't be a bad idea in my opinion, though.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.