Wouldn’t a better route to end school shootings be, you know, saving kids from the abusive homes and bullying that causes the rage and despair that triggers mass murder?
Good luck with the social engineering. Seriously, though, you have a point, but that won't stop every single case.
Maybe have a CPS worker in every HS who would remove a child from their home if they wanted, and other such non-potentially lethal, and oppressive, authoritarian measures?
It's not authoritarian to allow a person to defend themselves. It's the opposite. Authoritarian is saying "we're from the governement and we're here to protect you. You don't need that gun anymore. You can trust us!"
You don’t think your proposal will have some pretty horrific consequences, Like kids being shot for no reason, or students living in a climate of absolutist terror?
If I were a student, I'd feel a
lot better knowing that there is somebody close by with a firearm who could deal with a school shooter. As far as kids being shot for no reason... No. I don't think that would happen. Who do you trust with guns more: A teacher, or a school shooter?... because those are the only two options here.
I’m not comfortable with attending classes where the teacher can shoot me if he deems me “threatening.”
I'm not comfortable attending a class where I know there is absolutely nothing I could do if a classmate decides to go bonkers with a gun, and no firearm for miles. Even if a teacher went nuts, which is unlikely, another teacher from a neighboring room would soon hear the shots and come running. I would feel a LOT safer knowing that my chances of survival are worlds better with somebody around to take the shooter out.
It funny that in a thread that is about the media blowing the very rare occurrence of teen mass murder out of proportion, you propose a solution that will completely alter the life of every kid, and every teacher in every school, an extreme change that will greatly affect everyone because of something that is veritably non-existent ; and that will inevitably increase shootings and abuse and psychological trauma by 100 fold
How do you figure that? As it is, a kid with a gun can go around shooting people in the head unhindered, stopping to reload even.
While you're at it, perhaps 13 year olds should be encouraged to carry guns on campus so they can better defend themselves?
I wasn't going to say 13 year olds, but I'd support the idea of college students being able to. School shootings, even if they increased in frequency, would decrease in severity and end
very quickly if a good percentage of campus were armed. Think of how many people Cho took out and how the situation might have been different if even *one* of those college students had been armed.
Also, since guns were already legal in the home, how come the shooters parents didn’t shoot them? Perhaps we could fund community classes where parents are taught the signs their child is about to kill them and how to best put a bullet through their vital points once the bloodshed begins?
That's a bit absurd. I'm not advocating shoot first and ask questions later. I'm avocating ending a spree IF and when it starts. And yes, quickly and efficiently. Every US citizen should be knowledgeable in the safety and use of firearms. It's part of our history, part of our culture, and these sorts of difficulties only start when well meaning (maybe) authoritarians start messing with that.
Wait. Even better, how about parents, when they see signs their kid is about to go on a rampage be allowed to put them in some sort of private prison? Like one of those programs I’ve read about on the internets.
No. People should never be imprisoned for crimes they have not yet committed. And never without due process. And if they are imprisoned because and only becuase they have harmed somebody else directly, they should NEVER be forcefully re-educated or "treated" against their will.
If there are guns around humans, people are going to get shot.
Of course, but you can't control that. Taking guns out of our society is impossible (and would violate the second amendment). People will always be able to get guns illegally, like any contraband. What you *can* control is *who* gets shot and provide law abiding citizens with a way to defend themselves.
It's kind of scary you think everyone is level headed and sane enough to carry an instant death machine on their person at all times.
And I figure you probably think anybody who does is insane, right? But hypothetically, if everybody *did* carry concealed, shooting sprees would be very very short indeed. A well armed society is a polite society.
If you gave every leader of every country in the world, would this prevent, or provoke nuclear war?
That's actually the theory behind it, yes. It's called
mutually assured destruction. If I know that killing you will result in my death as well, I will be less likely to do it...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutually_a ... estructionThis is what your solution is, to arm everybody, and hope it makes things safer. Please, tell me you were joking.
It's an unorthodox solution, I agree, even insane sounding, but it's sound in principle and so far it's worked pretty well.
As far as the medication is concerned, it is people's business when it's only teens on meds that keep shooting up schools. Side effects of anti depressants, homocidal and suicidal thoughts. Um...
Even if such side effects did exist (homicidal do not... suicidal... well they wound't be on antidepressants if they weren't depressed already), it wouldn't excuse people from their actions and would not justify violating a person's self ownership. What person A puts in his/her body is not person B's business, or the government's on person B's behalf.
