Dealing with mass shootings

To solve world problems

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 18583
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 146 times
Been thanked: 212 times
Contact:

Dealing with mass shootings

Post #1

Post by otseng »

We've heard about the mass shooting at Sandy Hook elementary today.

What can be done to curb mass shootings in the US?

DiscipleOfTruth
Scholar
Posts: 457
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2012 7:08 pm

Post #11

Post by DiscipleOfTruth »

Otseng

I admire your thoughts but I also believe they might be a bit too general. Let me explain:
- All schools should have an armed police officer, even in communities where there is no history of violent crimes.
Instead of overloading the amount of police officers we have by stationing some where nothing might happen, it would be better to have metal detectors, and I forget what it's called but something people walk through which allow a security guard to see what a person is concealing, and cameras in all places except the stalls of rest rooms. Security watch the cameras from a hidden location inside the building. Police officers make better patrol routes in between calls that require them to go for a potential crime scene. When those offices go to the scene another patrol takes thier place untill they return.
- Curb culture of violence in movies, TV, games, entertainment.
I'm one of the people who love violent games and movies but I'm not a violent person. What we should do instead is make stricter requirments to view such content. Pyschological assements, images of the brain, keep records of family tree to look for possible positive and negatve characteristics learned from relatives if syptoms of such behavior surfaces. Most importantly allowing such information to be viewed by the courts so that if negative behavior is shown then a judge could test the results of the defendant not beling allowed to view certain things for a certain perios of time. If taking it away makes things better considering that route, if taking it away makes things worse, considering a different route.
- Stop viewing killing people as a solution to problems.
- No leniency for mass murderers. Go straight to jail with lifetime sentence.
If we're not going to make attempts of trying to get people back in society then why shuld we allow them to become parasites on our communities? Draining the money of hard working tax payers in a country that's already in debt? I can sympathize that a person might not be able to help who they are and so it's sad that thier in such a situation. And I know if I was in that position I wouldn't want to be sent to the death penalty as well. But there comes a time when we have to sacrifice for the greater good, sometimes we can only save a lot more people by giving up on a much less minority of them.
- Fundamentally is a moral issue. Only a transformation of the heart can deal with our nature to sin.
Only if such a person is capable of such a change. Do you honestly believe that everyone has such capability? Because I don't, but that is a thoery of my own that doesn't hold any more weight than yours. However, if you do believe everyone has the ability to change then why would we sentence people to prison for life? Why not sentence them to life until they actually change? I say this because people in prison aren't given the responsibility of financing thier own housing which leaves it to the tax payers.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 18583
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 146 times
Been thanked: 212 times
Contact:

Post #12

Post by otseng »

DiscipleOfTruth wrote:
- All schools should have an armed police officer, even in communities where there is no history of violent crimes.
Instead of overloading the amount of police officers we have by stationing some where nothing might happen, it would be better to have metal detectors, and I forget what it's called but something people walk through which allow a security guard to see what a person is concealing, and cameras in all places except the stalls of rest rooms. Security watch the cameras from a hidden location inside the building. Police officers make better patrol routes in between calls that require them to go for a potential crime scene. When those offices go to the scene another patrol takes thier place untill they return.
I think there's too many problems with going that route. At my child's school, there are over a dozen entrances to the school. There can't be a metal detector on every single entrance. Even if it's limited to, say, four entrances, it would cause bottlenecks. Plus, you'd have to staff every location. It would most likely be cheaper to hire one policeman than to hire four security guards. At my child's school, there is already an armed officer at the school that handles security and traffic, so I know this solution is feasible.
- Curb culture of violence in movies, TV, games, entertainment.
I'm one of the people who love violent games and movies but I'm not a violent person. What we should do instead is make stricter requirments to view such content.
I'm not saying that everyone would become a violent person. But, there is no denying that we have a culture of violence. And I think it's also undeniable that it has an affect on peoples' behavior as a society.
Most importantly allowing such information to be viewed by the courts so that if negative behavior is shown then a judge could test the results of the defendant not beling allowed to view certain things for a certain perios of time. If taking it away makes things better considering that route, if taking it away makes things worse, considering a different route.
I don't believe this is practical.
- Stop viewing killing people as a solution to problems.
- No leniency for mass murderers. Go straight to jail with lifetime sentence.
If we're not going to make attempts of trying to get people back in society then why shuld we allow them to become parasites on our communities? Draining the money of hard working tax payers in a country that's already in debt?
If someone is a mass murderer, I'm not in favor of attempting to put that person back in society.
- Fundamentally is a moral issue. Only a transformation of the heart can deal with our nature to sin.
Only if such a person is capable of such a change. Do you honestly believe that everyone has such capability?
Actually, no, I do not believe that anyone is capable of it. I only believe that God is capable of this through God's redeeming grace.

User avatar
Armed Citizen
Site Supporter
Posts: 114
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 2:21 pm
Location: Midwest Jupiter

Post #13

Post by Armed Citizen »

otseng wrote:
Armed Citizen wrote: This crap only happens at places where you can't carry.
I'm not so keen on allowing weapons at schools by civilians. I don't mind the police being armed, but I think we should keep the current rules of no weapons in schools.
Includin Fort Hood. Why can't no soldiers carry a sidearm full time on base? Really? #-o
Never knew that. It that also true for other military bases?
otseng wrote:
Armed Citizen wrote: This crap only happens at places where you can't carry.
otseng wrote: I'm not so keen on allowing weapons at schools by civilians. I don't mind the police being armed, but I think we should keep the current rules of no weapons in schools.
Yeah I agree with ya on that. I was mostly thinkin’ about the Mall Shooting and the one at the Batman release.
Includin Fort Hood. Why can't no soldiers carry a sidearm full time on base? Really? #-o
Never knew that. It that also true for other military bases?
Yes, from what I know it’s been that way since 9/12/01. I ain’t sure if thats the exact date or not but its when I first knew bout it. Only Military officers of the peace. And they are in short supply on bases. If anyone reading this knows more about it feel free to chime in. I sure ain’t no expert on it.
:2gun: :usa: Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth.
- George Washington :2gun: :usa:
Image

User avatar
Nickman
Site Supporter
Posts: 5443
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Idaho

Post #14

Post by Nickman »

Armed Citizen wrote: Yes, from what I know it’s been that way since 9/12/01. I ain’t sure if thats the exact date or not but its when I first knew bout it. Only Military officers of the peace. And they are in short supply on bases. If anyone reading this knows more about it feel free to chime in. I sure ain’t no expert on it.
I wouldn't say officers, because that would mean that only commisioned individuals can carry weapons on base. It is actually MPs, SFs and the like, which are Military police. These make up the majority of our military. Security is number one on any base so you will definitely run into several of these in cruisers on a Sunday joyride.

User avatar
Armed Citizen
Site Supporter
Posts: 114
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 2:21 pm
Location: Midwest Jupiter

Post #15

Post by Armed Citizen »

Nickman wrote:
Armed Citizen wrote: Yes, from what I know it’s been that way since 9/12/01. I ain’t sure if thats the exact date or not but its when I first knew bout it. Only Military officers of the peace. And they are in short supply on bases. If anyone reading this knows more about it feel free to chime in. I sure ain’t no expert on it.
I wouldn't say officers, because that would mean that only commisioned individuals can carry weapons on base. It is actually MPs, SFs and the like, which are Military police. These make up the majority of our military. Security is number one on any base so you will definitely run into several of these in cruisers on a Sunday joyride.
Thanks Nickman. I wasn't too awful sure on all that. By the way, as for officer I just meant police (officers of the peace) ant C.O.s or somthin'.
:2gun: :usa: Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth.
- George Washington :2gun: :usa:
Image

User avatar
Armed Citizen
Site Supporter
Posts: 114
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 2:21 pm
Location: Midwest Jupiter

Post #16

Post by Armed Citizen »

Mindlessfollower wrote: Okay. Well it seems that while I was away things have gone crazy due to the unfortunate and extremely profane shooting in Connecticut.
I am not sure where exactly I stand on all of this right now. I do know that I am still collecting my thoughts and trying to sort through the plethora of emotions flooding within me. I am trying to see through the feelings and do my best to look at this clear headed.

I see far too many people involved in discussion with too much invested bias and not enough logical analysis, consideration for American law and the effect that their stance would have.

If we ban all guns, what will that produce? Will we have issues like we had during prohibition? Will as some suggest, there only be guns in the hands of criminals and cops? Will we, the common citizen, be left unable to protect ourselves?

If we allow guns to remain as they are or even relax the regulations, will we see an increase in crime or a decrease? Will more guns end up in the wrong hands like in the infamous “Fast and Furious� debacle?

What if we allow students in college to carry? Or professors? What about principles at K-12? Where is the line to be drawn?

Is the 2nd Amendment fine the way it is? If not how does the 2nd Amendment need to be amended? What changes should be made?

There are so many questions and emotional response that is whipped out emblazoned with defensive rage or biased hatred towards weapons will do no good for anyone. We need to practice what we preach and look into this with sound logical expectations of finding something that will not be a quick fix or need to be undone later, but instead will provide the utmost security for our citizens here in the U.S. and to those abroad who visit our shores. We need to think objectively and clearly. We need to make a sound decision as there is no doubt that change has to be made.

For all that may question my stance. I own several guns (some are merely family heirlooms), I have a CCW not for personal carry but for the ability to carry in my truck at work. I do not hunt currently but I plan on beginning next year. I do not compete.

This is why I am torn right now and cannot submit a good answer to the questions that bouncing around. I instead hope that my words will in and of themselves perhaps offer a chance for some of us to step back and think more clearly and honestly.





What him said. I like this a whole heckovalot. It makes much more sense than the babblin some of us been doin'!! Myslef to be rightly included.


:2gun:
:2gun: :usa: Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth.
- George Washington :2gun: :usa:
Image

User avatar
Armed Citizen
Site Supporter
Posts: 114
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 2:21 pm
Location: Midwest Jupiter

Post #17

Post by Armed Citizen »

Mindlessfollower wrote: Okay. Well it seems that while I was away things have gone crazy due to the unfortunate and extremely profane shooting in Connecticut.
I am not sure where exactly I stand on all of this right now. I do know that I am still collecting my thoughts and trying to sort through the plethora of emotions flooding within me. I am trying to see through the feelings and do my best to look at this clear headed.

I see far too many people involved in discussion with too much invested bias and not enough logical analysis, consideration for American law and the effect that their stance would have.

If we ban all guns, what will that produce? Will we have issues like we had during prohibition? Will as some suggest, there only be guns in the hands of criminals and cops? Will we, the common citizen, be left unable to protect ourselves?

If we allow guns to remain as they are or even relax the regulations, will we see an increase in crime or a decrease? Will more guns end up in the wrong hands like in the infamous “Fast and Furious� debacle?

What if we allow students in college to carry? Or professors? What about principles at K-12? Where is the line to be drawn?

Is the 2nd Amendment fine the way it is? If not how does the 2nd Amendment need to be amended? What changes should be made?

There are so many questions and emotional response that is whipped out emblazoned with defensive rage or biased hatred towards weapons will do no good for anyone. We need to practice what we preach and look into this with sound logical expectations of finding something that will not be a quick fix or need to be undone later, but instead will provide the utmost security for our citizens here in the U.S. and to those abroad who visit our shores. We need to think objectively and clearly. We need to make a sound decision as there is no doubt that change has to be made.

For all that may question my stance. I own several guns (some are merely family heirlooms), I have a CCW not for personal carry but for the ability to carry in my truck at work. I do not hunt currently but I plan on beginning next year. I do not compete.

This is why I am torn right now and cannot submit a good answer to the questions that bouncing around. I instead hope that my words will in and of themselves perhaps offer a chance for some of us to step back and think more clearly and honestly.



What him said!

I like this a whole heckuvalot. It makes muchmore sense than what most of us been all babblin' about! Myself to be rightly included.





:2gun:




True Story.
:2gun: :usa: Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth.
- George Washington :2gun: :usa:
Image

Dantalion
Guru
Posts: 1588
Joined: Mon May 28, 2012 3:37 pm

Post #18

Post by Dantalion »

mm, Im not for a gun ban (gun ban means only people that would follow that law lose their guns and they're not really the problem) and decreasing the size of your military is naive. If america wouldn't have this stupidly powerful military, crap would hit the global fan with devastating effects.
Also the violence in media etc, not convinced about this, society xxx years ago was way more violent and dangerous then it is now. (and movies now are pretty tame compared to movies 30 years ago but that's not really a point) Violence is a part of human nature, can't really change that imho.

I am however for more armed guards (don't you guys need more jobs? :-D) and for the ban of military weapons and other crazy stuff.

how about this, a maximum of 1 handgun per household?
and please, keep your guns out of reach of your kids

Dantalion
Guru
Posts: 1588
Joined: Mon May 28, 2012 3:37 pm

Post #19

Post by Dantalion »

and as a personal note, I must say that having a happy gun toting smiley in your posts after loads of kids have been massacred is pretty disturbing.
I'm all for your 2nd amendment rights but maybe a little taste and tact is in order here.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 18583
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 146 times
Been thanked: 212 times
Contact:

Post #20

Post by otseng »

Dantalion wrote: how about this, a maximum of 1 handgun per household?
and please, keep your guns out of reach of your kids
I don't think having a limit on the number of handguns per household would work. If people are forced to give up their handguns, I doubt everyone would comply. Also, there are some good reasons to have more than one handgun.

Guns should definitely be out of reach of kids. I think somehow the gun owner should be held partly liable if a gun is used by another family member to commit a crime.

Post Reply