Topic: Gun free zone - page 25. (Read 21968 times)

I dunno. I'm willing to sacrifice chewing gum in order to live in a place where my daughter can be safe on the streets at any hour of the night in any neighborhood.

Regarding soldiers, Singapore is probably the second most militarized country after Israel. I don't like that personally. Waste of money.

I am not sure why then they allow civilians to carry concealed firearms, if they can't be removed from the armory. In any case, "an effective state" and "moderate degree of repression" are in the eyes of the beholder and recipient, and as Americans say - "a slippery slope".

Singapore is a great example of that. Many other legal actions we take for granted in our countries are subject to corporal punishment in Singapore. So, i doubt any of us would wish to have those in addition to protection from gun violence.

America actually has more police presence than any other country. It just chooses to have a great deal of it outside its borders on other country's territories.

American soldiers have landed under various pretenses of American government in many different countries, were allowed to impose American will and "laws" in those countries by shooting the local citizens - in some cases unarmed and simply on-site!

At the practical, personal level, to tell those millions of highly-trained American soldiers that when they return home to America they can't have a personal firearm when they go to a movie theater or to their child's school seems absurd to me.  My point is that if America can't afford to police both the world and its territory, it should concentrate its resources on the latter. 

I'm curious how many dead children you consider "a marginal effect".  5 ?  10 ?  20 ?

In Israel teachers get free guns.

The difference is the possibility of an impact. If no peaceful people have a firearm on hand, then no one can defend the rest of the people, even if they were ready and willing. If there are armed, peaceful people, then someone who is ready and willing will also be able.

The problem with that is that will only have a marginal impact on murderers who fully expect to die on the scene. A kindergarten teacher surprised by a murderer in class won't have much of a chance of drawing a handgun before being shot dead. Unless you want to train 6-year old children to retaliate with guns I don't see how handguns for teachers will do much good. I can see an epidemic of gun-related accidents in school coming and the occasional teacher mental breakdowns taking epic proportions though...

Anyway, that's not like it's the first time the US have seen this kind of thing happen and nothing was done to solve the problem. Some of you keep voting laws allowing the distribution of tools designed to kill to nearly everyone just to have one yourself to feel safe. Feeling safe and being safe isn't the same thing, deal with it.

Perhaps if there was less outcry to take the guns away from peaceful people....

Look, if we want to stop this sort of thing from happening, there's a two pronged approach that will stop it cold.

1) And most importantly: Stop making these assholes into celebrities. A particularity insightful tweet I saw pass through my feed yesterday said that it's like some twisted sport, and the news anchors sports reporters, telling us all the "score." And people wonder why I don't watch the news.

2) Allow peaceful people to defend themselves. You don't have to arm everyone. Just let the people who would arm themselves, do so. Then you get a self-selected group, ready, willing, and able to defend the rest, and best of all, no sign on the door saying "The people within these walls are completely defenseless. Have at 'em!"

This is a misunderstanding. All private guns are kept in the armory of private shooting clubs. These shooting clubs are under armed guard at all time and guns may not be removed from them. Thus, yes you can have a gun, but you must keep it at the shooting range and it can never be in your personal possession. You can't even transport it to the shooting club yourself. It must be transported from the airport to the gun club armory by a state agent. If you tried to transport it yourself you would risk a very long jail term. Transporting three firearms simultaneously is punishable by hanging. Discharging a firearm (or even attempting to do so) outside of a shooting range is punishable by hanging. It doesn't matter if no one was injured or you did not intend to injure anyone. They will hang you anyways.

Anyways, for the most part I liked your comments. Not all strong states have to be quite like the Soviet Union. An effective state can keep people safe with only a moderate degree of repression.

And yes, the fact that there was more murder in America before the police were widespread was sort of my point. I think your idea of expanding the police presence is a good one. I just disagree with the notion that strict gun control should not be a part of that.

It's not just self-defense that our governments take away from children, children can't vote either, they also can't get jobs.

It's not that weak. The organized crime is strong, because Americans love to buy Mexican drugs, which is a whole other debate. 
Really, i can rest my case, if you are serious about that. 


For 2/3 of the time in the chart you cited, America was a frontier nation, trying to subjugate or kill off the indigenous population, and many people living in areas without police. Cowboys or the army shooting it out on the frontier is not the same as shooting defenseless people in a building...

We had that kind of strong state in the Soviet Union, where gun violence was rare yet still existed. Everyone, including the criminals, was pretty safe from gun violence. I understand why state agents or members of a country's upper class would advocate for such a state, but in practical terms, it's only desirable in theory.

Most of the Russians don't want that kind of strong state back, even though it was "safer", because that kind of a state comes with a lot of other restrictions, which would mainly benefit state agents and the elite. 


Or you could pull American armies from their numerous bases in other countries, and have them become security guards at American school, or border guards. If what you said about violence reduction due to effective police is true, America needs more  such police in "gun free" zones more than it needs impractical private gun ownership prohibition.

Speaking of Singapore, its firearm laws seem to be more like some of the more restrictive American states, such as CT - automatic weapons, multiple weapon possession, unlimited amounts of ammunition, carrying in public concealed or openly, and  so on seem to be allowed with a license and training.

Are you lot the same people who keep going on about how the UK army for example wasn't properly equipped to go into Iraq and Afghanistan while completely ignoring the fact that these are people that are going out into another country specifically to kill other people?

You act as if this was a preventable accident, that's what despairs me the most about the gun control, use police for everything line of thinking. Admittedly I haven't looked into what happened with 9/11 because it's filled with conspiracy theories but if it was reported they used box cutters and not guns surely that should tell you that gun control doesn't prevent crime? In the end criminals are just going to switch to something else to use. In the UK we have a huge problem with knife crime now because they are far easier to get hold of than guns, one of my oldest friends was threatened by a guy with a knife once when she was with a boyfriend, you really should come out to these gun control zones we have and realise what a mess it is still.

The only people laws affect are law abiding people and that is a fact that's why the governments brand people that don't obey their laws criminals or terrorists.

Yes 9/11 would still be a good example of gun free zone. 9/11 was done with box cutters, not guns, so the "gun free zone" was maintained. Box cutters were legal to bring on a plane at that time. The security fail was a whole another issue, which is now being remedied with air marshals and secure inaccessible cockpit.

Absence of logic and reason. Further argument on my part is pointless.

Probably wont, but the accident rate will.

OK, lets say I give one in three Americans a hand grenade. Do you think the rate of hand grenade crime will not go up?

Statistics doesn't really provide prove of that. The only thing you would see that poorer regions have more crimes than wealthier regions.

From an outside perspective the American response to gun crime is very strange. The usual response from a country is an outpouring of shock and grief. The American response is to start panicking that someone might take your guns away.

The fact is, country's with stricter gun controls generally have lower rates of gun crime. The idea that more guns results in less violence is simply a fallacy.

Imagine how many children would be alive today if teachers and principals at Sandy Brook had been allowed to carry self-defense weapons on school property.

Self-defense is a basic human right.  I detest the people who deprived the children in Connecticut of their basic human rights.

2-3? More like about the same.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm

In 2011: Guns killed: 31,347 Cars killed:34,485

Drivers are licensed. Need to take a exam. Have Insurance.

That would mean every gun would require an insurance payment of $20-50 / month. And if we take a case like in CT, the insurance companies would need to pay out about 1 million to victims. I am all for mandatory gun insurance.

Strong government is the answer. Mexico's government is weak. The state does not have a monopoly on violence.

Punish rock possession with summary execution and you will stop people from being stoned to death.

America used to be far more violent than it is today. If there has been any cultural change, it has been an improvement.
http://blogs.berkeley.edu/2010/06/16/a-crime-puzzle-violent-crime-declines-in-america/
I don't think it is a cultural change, however. The United States has become a progressively stronger state. The police force has become progressively more effective at enforcing lawful behavior among its citizens.

If you want to do even better then today (near the US historical best in terms of violent crime rates), then you will have to repeal the 2nd Amendment, restrict gun ownership to state agencies, and aggressively enforce this law.

The homicide rate in Singapore (perhaps the strictest prohibition of firearms in the world coupled with strong, incorruptible enforcement; any private discharge of a firearm = capital punishment) is one-fourteenth of that in the United States.

"Gun-Free zones" anywhere are an oxymoron.

And we can see from America's neighbors that prohibition of private gun ownership is not the solution: Canada has stricter gun laws and gun violence seems to be rare. In Mexico, where private gun ownership is effectively prohibited, gun violence is rampant. So, there is a strong cultural element in this issue.

Rocks are not prohibited in any country; yet, in some countries people are stoned to death, and not in others. And private gun ownership in America long preceded mass murders with them. So, something else changed in American society since then.

Seems like there aren't financial resources in America to put an effective armed guard presence in schools and other "gun-free zones."

Maybe if America stopped providing free defense for other countries, and moved those resources from foreign bases to protecting its own borders and high-value targets, this violence could be stopped, along with illegal border crossings, and associated problems...

Really, this unfortunate community was visited fundamentally by mental illness; the resources for its treatment are limited everywhere, and in America further curtailed by limited health insurance coverage of such illness, co-payments, deductibles, for-profit health care, etc.

Any American who dealt with lifelong mental illness in themselves or loved ones, knows how prohibitively expensive it is to access treatment on a continuous basis. Once again, seems like a question of misplace societal priorities and misdirected resources in American society. 

Deepest sympathies for the people involved in this tragedy.