toldailytopic: What can be done to help prevent the epidemic of school shootings?

[gcthomas]

I'm still waiting on someone to explain to me why shooting massacres keep happening in gun-free zones. lain:

Because the nation is full of guns. The US has had 60 massacres in the last thirty years, whereas the UK has one a decade, and with fewer deaths each time.

The key difference is that where there are more guns you are more likely to have someone behave badly with them. Simple.

If you want to preserve the right to bear arms, then you will also have to tolerate a gun murder rate that is 100 time the UK's.

 

[bybee]

My solution is begin to think less in terms of equality and more in terms of fraternity.

Well said! Amen

 

[Traditio]

Because the nation is full of guns.

That may or may not explain why there are shooting massacres.

That does not explain why there are shooting massacres in gun-free zones.

 

[kmoney]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for December 14th, 2012 10:15 AM

toldailytopic: What can be done to help prevent the epidemic of school shootings?

I think you have to separate 2 types of school shootings. One is done by a student. The other, like yesterday's tragedy, is done by an outsider.

When I first heard about this I wasn't surprised that Lanza was able to get into the school. My school, a small Christian school, didn't have much security. But as I talked to some co-workers yesterday they were all surprised that the gunman was able to get in. In their schools the doors were locked down. In one instance, a woman said that if she wanted to get in the school to see her daughter she had to show ID and the person ran her ID against a list of names that had a student in the school.

What sort of security does Sandy Hook have? Perhaps increased security measures could have prevents him from getting in. :idunno:

 

[kmoney]

That may or may not explain why there are shooting massacres.

That does not explain why there are shooting massacres in gun-free zones.

Perhaps because someone who has a gun can take a gun into a gun-free zone.

I don't know why you are so perplexed by this.

Are you also perplexed why you see people sitting on grass when there is a sign that says "Stay off grass"?

 

[Traditio]

Perhaps because someone who has a gun can take a gun into a gun-free zone.

But clearly, that can't happen! That's why it's a gun-free zone. People who have guns are not supposed to take their guns into gun-free zones! So how on earth could there possibly be shootings in a gun-free zone?

 

[Town Heretic]

But clearly, that can't happen! That's why it's a gun-free zone. People who have guns are not supposed to take their guns into gun-free zones! So how on earth could there possibly be shootings in a gun-free zone?

Just because this belabored point gets under my skin whenever it's trotted out, the reason for those zones is to aid and heighten the penalty for criminal conduct. It compounds the gravity of doing something as stupid as carrying a gun where it shouldn't be. As with locks, laws mostly restrain the honest and make them more vigilant about their conduct. Else, it's a punitive measure never intended to actually thwart crime. In the same way a law against criminal conspiracy aren't actually aimed at nipping those in the bud.

 

[kmoney]

But clearly, that can't happen! That's why it's a gun-free zone. People who have guns are not supposed to take their guns into gun-free zones! So how on earth could there possibly be shootings in a gun-free zone?

I don't know what point you are trying to make.

 

[Traditio]

Just because this belabored point gets under my skin whenever it's trotted out, the reason for those zones is to aid and heighten the penalty for criminal conduct. It compounds the gravity of doing something as stupid as carrying a gun where it shouldn't be. As with locks, laws mostly restrain the honest and make them more vigilant about their conduct. Else, it's a punitive measure never intended to actually thwart crime. In the same way a law against criminal conspiracy aren't actually aimed at nipping those in the bud.

Oh, ok. So, to be clear: gun-free zones aren't actually about keeping the people in those zones safe from guns. Gotcha! lain:

 

[bybee]

But clearly, that can't happen! That's why it's a gun-free zone. People who have guns are not supposed to take their guns into gun-free zones! So how on earth could there possibly be shootings in a gun-free zone?

Now Trad, amongst your many unbelieveably stupid statements this one takes the cake! :bang::bang::bang::bang::bang::bang::bang:

 

[Town Heretic]

I don't know what point you are trying to make.

That's because there isn't one (see post # 167).

 

[Town Heretic]

Oh, ok. So, to be clear: gun-free zones aren't actually about keeping the people in those zones safe from guns. Gotcha! lain:

That was about as close as you've come to getting a neg rep from me in your TOL existence. :chuckle:

No, laws don't prevent crime, Trad. They define it. Though in doing so, in setting the risk/reward parameters for the potential criminals I suppose they might actually dissuade someone, were they rational.

Mostly it's about punitive measures and prosecution.

 

[Traditio]

Now Trad, amongst your many unbelieveably stupid statements this one takes the cake! :bang::bang::bang::bang::bang::bang::bang:

My point was rhetorical. If you simply designate an area "gun-free" but you don't actually have people making sure that there are no guns in that area (for example, enforcing these zones with gaurds and metal detectors and the like), then you aren't actually going to prevent gun crime in those areas. Because guess what: the people who are going to commit gun massacres probably aren't going to be scrupulous about bringing guns into gun-free zones.

TH may be right about the intent of gun-free zones being merely to increase penalties for people who carry guns into gun-free zones. That said, does that really make these "gun-free zones" any safer? The people who are going to obey the prohibition, more likely than not, are people who wouldn't have committed gun crimes anyway.

Are these zones actually acting as a deterrent to criminals?

If not, then doesn't it just make sense to get rid of these zones altogether and enact policies which will actually make people safer?

 

[Town Heretic]

TH may be right about the intent of gun-free zones being merely to increase penalties for people who carry guns into gun-free zones. That said, does that really make these "gun-free zones" any safer? The people who are going to obey the prohibition, more likely than not, are people who wouldn't have committed gun crimes anyway.

Are these zones actually acting as a deterrent to criminals?

To an extent they may be (see: my last). What they should accomplish is to put law abiding citizens on notice. So two parents, normally law abiding citizens, get into an altercation within those zones aren't as likely to become an item on the local news at five.

If not, then doesn't it just make sense to get rid of these zones altogether and enact policies which will actually make people safer?

No, not if you understood what I wrote and actually took a minute to think about it. Now if you want additional policy, say an armed policeman doing a sweep of a high school before anyone is admitted for the day coupled with a general lock down and buzz in admittance thereafter and/or an armed security presence on campus, something like that, it's worth talking about and considering.

 

[Traditio]

No, laws don't prevent crime, Trad. They define it. Though in doing so, in setting the risk/reward parameters for the potential criminals I suppose they might actually dissuade someone, were they rational.

Mostly it's about punitive measures and prosecution.

I'm still failing to see what the point is. Why do we not want people bringing guns into gun-free zones? Because we don't want shooting massacres to happen, right? Because we don't want people to use guns and start killing people.

Is a blanket ban on guns in those areas really the best way to go about it?

Your answer is that the goal is simply to lock people up for longer. Fine. But if someone is committing a shooting massacre, what difference does it make? He's going to prison for life whether or not it's a gun-free zone.

But that's not the cases in which we want to punish people. We want to punish the people who bring a gun to school, but don't necessarily commit shooting massacres. For example, a child brings a gun to school for show and tell.

But should a child really be allowed to handle a gun unsupervised anywhere, whether it be a gun-free zone or not?

But we don't want teachers bringing guns to school. Why not? Are teachers infamous for committing shooting massacres? And if a teacher were going to commit a shooting massacre, would the designation "gun-free" really matter?

 

[bybee]

My point was rhetorical. If you simply designate an area "gun-free" but you don't actually have people making sure that there are no guns in that area (for example, enforcing these zones with gaurds and metal detectors and the like), then you aren't actually going to prevent gun crime in those areas. Because guess what: the people who are going to commit gun massacres probably aren't going to be scrupulous about bringing guns into gun-free zones.

TH may be right about the intent of gun-free zones being merely to increase penalties for people who carry guns into gun-free zones. That said, does that really make these "gun-free zones" any safer? The people who are going to obey the prohibition, more likely than not, are people who wouldn't have committed gun crimes anyway.

Are these zones actually acting as a deterrent to criminals?

If not, then doesn't it just make sense to get rid of these zones altogether and enact policies which will actually make people safer?

Thanks for clearing that up! I apologize for the edgy comment!
You are way too intelligent to have said what I thought you said.
Sorry!

 

[jeffblue101]

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/explor...on-education-and-homicide-a-better-graph.html

I noticed that killing of the unborn is not included in your graph.

 

[Traditio]

To an extent they may be (see: my last). What they should accomplish is to put law abiding citizens on notice. So two parents, normally law abiding citizens, get into an altercation within those zones aren't as likely to become an item on the local news at five.

To prevent shoot-outs at school football games? lain:

I really have to wonder just how big of a problem this really is. Suppose two adults get into a fight, and they both have guns. How likely is it that they are going to start shooting?

Are teachers likely to get into fights with each other? If they are, are the likely to start shooting?

Hm...

No, not if you understood what I wrote and actually took a minute to think about it. Now if you want additional policy, say an armed policeman doing a sweep of a high school before anyone is admitted for the day coupled with a general lock down and buzz in admittance thereafter and/or an armed security presence on campus, something like that, it's worth talking about and considering.

I can understand not wanting most people to have a gun at school. You don't want random people walking into a school with guns. You don't want school students walking into a school with guns.

But are school staff and personell really likely to start shooting, even if they have guns?

 

[Letsargue]

What is your answer to that question?

Our moneys go to law enforcement to protect the citizens!!!!!! - Why do we have to have locks on our doors and cars? - Why do people have to buy protection for their homes, and bank accounts???? - Why is there SO MUCH Crime everywhere?? - Because the Law does not do their JOBS!!! - And what is ( Their ) JOBS???? --- (( It's the job of the Law Enforcement to make it ( So Costly ) for the criminal that it just ain't worth doing the crime ))!!!!

Anything that is now a "Felony" should be a death penalty, and taken care of within 30 days without fail, no matter what the cost!!! - Crime would drop at least 2% HHAAA! -- Why do we have to feed a thief or murderer or a burgler or rapist for years, and pay for the Law and the housing of the criminals, and for the Law to do its jobs of ( Nothing )!!!!!!! -- The law sits in parking lots waiting for some innocent person to do nothing wrong, so they can fine him!! --- Every Cop and his car costs at least $150,000 dollars a year of our money to protect WHOOOO????

You can bet now, this is their reason for taking everyone's GUNS!!!!!
You can't protect yourself because of the LAW!!!!!!!!

Paul -- 121512

 

[Town Heretic]

To prevent shoot-outs at school football games? lain:

You'd be surprised how many homicides are spur of the moment, crimes of passion, committed not by gang bangers but otherwise ordinary people who snap. Now if they were going about their business, coming to that moment without a handgun you reduce the likelihood of a tragic consequence.

But mostly criminal law is about defining parameters and punishment thereafter.

I really have to wonder just how big of a problem this really is. Suppose two adults get into a fight, and they both have guns. How likely is it that they are going to start shooting?

How often does it have to? That is, any impact is helpful and the larger point of the law remains.

Are teachers likely to get into fights with each other? If they are, are the likely to start shooting?

I was thinking more about parents who arrive to leave and pick up their children, often in a hurry and with other commitments, some of whom may have off campus conflicts, etc. Again, it's an incremental thing.

I can understand not wanting most people to have a gun at school. You don't want random people walking into a school with guns. You don't want school students walking into a school with guns.

And if they do you want the means to penalize. You can't do that for lawful conduct.

But are school staff and personell really likely to start shooting, even if they have guns?

Not something I ever suggested. I think I've clarified on the point prior and above.

Do you think laws against criminal conspiracy impact the decision of criminals to enter into one? Likely not. And the arsonist? Does he refrain from burning down buildings because a law is in place? Likely not.

So do we do away with laws against arson and criminal conspiracy? Of course we don't.