|
|
 Originally Posted by oskar
So let me break this down again:
Yes please, let's do that.
This is a localized problem within the US.
Is it? The numbers don't support that conclusion. Perhaps if you're going to narrow the criteria to be just "school shootings", you might have some numbers. But even that data looks like swiss cheese when you consider what 'counts' as a school shooting
Furthermore, the comparison you're making ignores significant factors. In a country where guns are allowed, shootings are going to be most concentrated in the softest targets. If your whole country is a soft-target, then your shootings are going to be more disbursed.
Countries that are culturally and economically comparable don't have these types of shootings
.
Not true. See the links above. The US ranks 11th. But let's assume for a minute that it were true. Does that mean that the US is somehow "worse off"? Look at Ong's situation. He's potentially got criminals poking around his property and the best he can do is buy a Louisville Slugger.
In multiple of these shootings, the shooter had been diagnosed with a mental illness, but was still able to legally purchase a firearm.
So? The DSM-V contains enough mental illnesses to diagnose 70% of the population. I'm almost more concerned about the other 30%. What kind of sick sociopath do you have to be for a psychologist to declare you "normal".
Unless you have been institutionalized you can probably still legally purchase a firearm regardless of your medical history.
Where are you going with this? An episode of mental illness in one's past automatically precludes them from buying a gun ever? That's not a world I want to live in. Do you know how many soldiers come back from war with PTSD? Are we really saying they can't have a gun??
How about your medical history doesn't mean shit. How about if you're a free citizen, you can exercise your rights as you see fit, including owning a gun. If some crazy people get guns, so be it. That's a FAR better alternative then letting ideologues with medical licenses become arbiters of freedom.
In many of these shootings the assailant was reported for saying they will carry out an attack, yet no further action was taken by the authorities.
Really bud? Really? Didn't you just rail against me for half a dozen posts about "who pays" for something as simple as providing active shooter training to a school resource officer? Now you want to have law enforcement take action every time someone makes a shitpost on the internet?
With all of that those potential means to infringe on the rights of an innocent person, my first go-to wouldn't be to arm teachers or put more armed guards in schools security.
Fixed your post
Even SWAT teams that presumably receive adequate training, still run the risk of executing innocent unarmed people based on a fake report. Cops do kill kids with toy guns occasionally. So yes, I think security officers pose an unnecessary risk
SO? SWAT teams and cops do a hell of a lot more good than bad. No system is perfect. Human beings make mistakes. Now we have data that shows what things look like when mistakes are made and risks are realized. When guns were brought to school, a risk was taken, and that risk was realized when a broken ceiling tile fell on a kid's neck he got cuts and scrapes. The benefit of taking that risk...of having armed security in schools.....was shown today in the potential saving of dozens of lives.
You don't think the risk is worth it? Really???????????????? x?^100000000000
to an environment that should not be at risk
Pollyanna talk. C'mon man. one of the reasons there are so many school shootings...is because it happened once. After Columbine got so much attention, any kid who is thinking "How am I gonna cause massive chaos on my way out?" now has something to look at for inspiration.
given reasonable gun laws and competent reaction to terroristic threats.
More liberal propaganda. Why do you get to claim the words "reasonable" and "competent" for your views? I think your proposals sound oppressive and invasive. I think you're playing a dangerous game with people's fundamental rights, in the name of a phenomenon that claims, on average, less than 50 lives a year. Nothing you've said sounds "reasonable" to me.
|
Reply With Quote