Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentPolitics · 8 years ago

Can we have a real debate on gun control and making our kids safe?

First of all lets all agree that we can fairly easily as a nation eliminate 30 round clips. Secondly no matter how much one might wish to get rid of weapons, the second amendment will probably never be amended to eliminate private gun ownership--not soon anyway.

So what do we do.

1. We do like Newton, Conn. did--Require ID etc for the door to be unlocked and someone allowed access. This will eliminate access to anyone with knives etc but as we've seen won't eliminate someone shooting the door out.

2. Direct line to police. Various public places need a emergency button with a line directly to the police. The police will immediately know it's a armed and dangerous situation

Ideas like this and others can lower the probability of an attack by making the site harder to infiltrate

This reduces the probability of such an attack.

Now, time and time again over the last few years we've seen crazy people breech security and slaughter a lot of innocent people.

So a grown up discussion must follow. If we can't eliminate firearms from America, then the probability will always exist that a shooter armed with shotgun, bolt action rifle, revovler (all of which would be legal under any new laws) will gain access to schools, movie theaters, and the like

How do we improve the probability of survival if your caught in one of these situations. We can drill students for evacuation but in malls and movie theaters--I doubt whether this would be of us. While you may be able to harden individual schoolrooms against entry--won't work in malls or movies.

What would give you a better chance at survival than just hitting the floor and praying?

Many will disagree. The militia in the early days of this country was avaialbe when maurading groups threatened the community. The militia engaged and bought the time for the military to be deployed. Citizens militias (the posse) were used in the 19th century to go after mauraders. As life became more urban we relied more heavily on our local goverment to provide protection.

What we've found is during those minutes between the onset of such an event and the arrival of the police your survival proability is dependent on nothing but luck. You are on of those ducks in a shooting gallery.

The left will say we cant have handguns in teachers desks--I absolutely agree with that. However, what would happen to the probability for survival if shools, theaters etc were to have two or three at most individuals trained in the use of firearms and trained in dealing with armed opposition.

If you had in a school a janitor, administrator that was able to return fire onthe shooter--the shooterr would have to break off his attack to deal with the person engaging him. This very action would buy precious minutes for the police to get there.

There truly is a difference between being rational and knowing that know solution is perfect--and being an idealogue where just because you can't get rid of all guns, you'd not look at something which would radically improve the survivl chances of people in these types of situations.

This questionwill get a lot of sarcasm I'm quite sure--and a lot won't actually read it and babble on about guns in teachers desks.

Finally, if you were able to poll the brave teachers who rushed this most recent shooter unarmed in a bid to take him out and were gunned down--do you think there would be any of them that didn't wish with all that they were that they had a gun themselves?

4 Answers

Relevance
  • 8 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    I am against banning 30 round magazines and here is why. As a Soldier the magazines I was issued by the Army suck. I spent my own money to go buy what our known as PMAG's. If we banned 30 round magazines guys would be forced to deploy with 2nd rate magazines (The hole lowest bidder crap). Now you can say well police and military can buy them but if you had such a limited market would any company waste their time catering to it? I do not think so.

    Now with that out of the way I think there are some things we can and should do about this problem:

    1) Make background checks more in depth- As it stands right now mental health history is not on the background check to buy a firearm. I believe we can link all mental health centers in to an online database that can be checked against each time a person wants to buy a weapon. All of these records should be on a computer already so it just a matter of getting them on to a server. We can also include employment history. That way if a person is fired in the morning they cannot go buy a firearm and get even in the afternoon.

    2) Mandatory weapons safety classes. While this will not help with those murdered by firearms it will help prevent accidental deaths with firearms. Before a person can buy a weapon they should have to go to a class on how to use that type of weapon. If you want to buy a shotgun you have to go to a shotgun training course. Want to buy an AR-15 you will have to go to a class on AR-15's. Want to buy a handgun go to a handgun course. This will be to ensure if nothing else people who have never handled weapons before know how to safely handle them before they buy one.

    3) Unarmed security is no security. A lot of schools already have security guards but most are not armed. This serves no tactical purpose at all. If a school is going to spend the money on security guards make sure they are trained operators (AKA former military, or law enforcement). What this also means is that if a school is going to allow teachers to carry than any teacher wanting to carry needs to attend a tactical training course and get their CCW (Concealed Carry permit).

    4) Police training- Have police work with school districts to ensure that officers know the layout of every school in their patrol area. Have officers practice clearing the schools on the weekends at least once a month or as much as possible depending upon other police operations. At least once every few months practice a real world scenario during the school day. This will ensure that officers, faculty, and students will know what is expected of them in case of a real world situation.

    5) Make sure teachers and other faculty know their roles. Teachers are trained on how to get their classes out in case of a fire they need to be trained on how to respond in an active shooter role. This does not mean arming teachers per say. What it does mean is knowing the best places to have students take cover. It does mean knowing whether to lock down the classroom and move students to a part of the class where they will be out of the line of fire or move to the nearest exit and leave the danger zone. Each situation is different.

  • mark h
    Lv 7
    8 years ago

    You live under the impression that people, not just children, are made safe only when their government controls all the weapons.

    I have been to far too many countries where only the government has weapons, and the people are not safe. They are oppressed, enslaved, and suffering.

    Governments are not the people's benefactors of their own volition. I know its easy to sit in the US and believe that our government is the nicest and safest and bestest government that has ever been, but all of that can change tomorrow.

    Governments are only benefactors to the people, when they are forced to be so.

    In other words, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts. absolutely.

    And like it or not you live in a world where power comes from the barrell of a gun.

    The only question is, who do you want to have the gun?

    In the end this is the decision:

    "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."

    --Benjamin Franklin

    Are we there yet? Have the people of the US become so corrupt and so vicious, that the government of the US must take control and put us in our place.

    Or are we still in control of our government?

    Hope that helps.

  • Frank
    Lv 7
    8 years ago

    No, we can't have an intelligent discussion like that. People are divided up into teams and they "know" what the other team "really" wants. So one side argues that banning guns is ridiculous - which most on the other team actually agree with. While the other side argues against arming every psycho with an assault weapon, which most of the other team believes as well.

    Lots of talking, little listening.

  • Anonymous
    5 years ago

    Criminals don't pay any attention to laws... If guns were ever banned than only the bad guys would have them..Criminals prefer unarmed victims!! Having a gun will not help all the time but being defenseless will never help.. Calling 911 and asking the bad guy to wait is not a viable option. Better to have a gun and not need it than to need it and not have it!!! **Police do not protect you from crime, they usually just investigate the crime after it happens.** Arnie

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.