1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

  2. Live Rockets Discussion
    Jalen Green looks like a legit star, Amen Thompson is shining and the Rockets have found something without Alperen Sengun. Clutch is talking about the 10-game winning streak at 11:00am as we talk Rockets live!

    Talking Rockets - LIVE!

Time for State Governments to take the lead on School Shootings

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by crash5179, Feb 17, 2018.

  1. fchowd0311

    fchowd0311 Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    47,144
    Likes Received:
    35,959
    Bobby's sensibilities forced him to block me. I suggest quoting my statement to him so he has some context.
     
  2. NewRoxFan

    NewRoxFan Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2002
    Messages:
    53,808
    Likes Received:
    53,592
  3. Buck Turgidson

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2002
    Messages:
    84,927
    Likes Received:
    83,114
  4. Redfish81

    Redfish81 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2016
    Messages:
    4,559
    Likes Received:
    6,317
    It depends on the layout of the campus and how well you can control all the entrance/exit points more than the number of students. If you have a campus with multiple buildings that requires more men. If you have one building with only a couple entrance points you can use cameras and less guys.

    Looking at an overhead picture of the campus that was attacked... wow, that would be an absolute nightmare to secure. They are going to have to start using experts on security when they design new schools. Ten dudes that knew what they were doing couldn't control that campus effectively it has so many out buildings.

    The main thing is having guys on site that know the building layout cold. They can move and engage much quicker than SWAT with that knowledge of the building. Average police response is 11 minutes and the average shooting lasts 5 minutes. By the time SWAT shows up like 20 minutes later everything is usually over and they take another 45 minutes plus to clear the buildings. Not to mention every police force has different ROEs. Most have wised up and let the first 3-4 guys form up and head for the gun fire. They usually won't let the first officer go in by himself in case there are multiple attackers.
     
  5. Sweet Lou 4 2

    Sweet Lou 4 2 Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    37,714
    Likes Received:
    18,912
    I like how you neglect to mention that Cho chained the doors of the building he shot and killed the 30 people in. Yes in closed trapped spaces a handgun can cause mass carnage. It doesn't take a whole lot of knowledge to know that you have a better change vs a handgun at 200 feet than a rifle. But at 5 feet yes you are dead either way.

    Point being the 2nd Amendment was written in a time it took 30 seconds to load a gun and fire off something. They never foresaw the kind of violence and power of these weapons. It's ludicrous. But if you couldn't get a rifle so easily you would have less deaths.
     
  6. AleksandarN

    AleksandarN Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2001
    Messages:
    4,444
    Likes Received:
    5,860
    What people don’t get is there is no stopping a person who is truly committed to attacking soft targets like schools and other public places. People mention more security guards in school and metal detectors. That won’t stop a shooter for waiting for recess or after school to start shooting students or the public at large. The purpose and focus should be limiting the options these sick people have of doing as much damage as they can. Start with semi automatic weapons, more extensive background checks get rid of second hand sales loop holes, get rid of “bump stocks” and other lethal adaptations to guns, restrict high compacity magizines, prevent some mental ill people that are a danger to themselves others access to guns. We may not get rid of mass shooting all together but we can try to make them less deadly and save some lives in the process.

    And one last thing for heavens sake pass a law this time preventing terrorists, from the bloody watch list, from having legal access to guns. Come on now that is absolute garbage no matter what political side your on.
     
    #46 AleksandarN, Feb 18, 2018
    Last edited: Feb 18, 2018
  7. StupidMoniker

    StupidMoniker I lost a bet
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2001
    Messages:
    15,052
    Likes Received:
    2,091
    There is no due process involved in being put on a watch list, no notice that you are on it, and little to no recourse to get off of it. No, your constitutional rights shouldn't be taken away because some bureaucrat with no oversight says so.

    This is a non-issue. Since 1982 there have been something like five school shootings with 10 or more fatalities. No, we should not infringe on the rights of hundreds of millions because on average five or so kids are shot at school per year. Nor should we spend outrageous sums of money trying to reduce that number. Lowering the speed limits on Interstate highways would probably save more lives in a year than eliminating every school shooting in the next hundred years. Installing ignition interlock devices on all cars (to prevent drunk driving) would probably save more lives in one year than 500 years worth of school shootings.

    No one wants children (or any other innocent victim) to be killed, but you have to prioritize. School shootings are less of a danger than dog bites on an annual basis, but you don't see people advocating background checks for dog ownership, or ultra-restrictive leash laws. Just like nearly all mass casualty events, the danger is blown way out of proportion by the media. I suggest we carry on as usual and don't worry about it.
     
  8. AleksandarN

    AleksandarN Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2001
    Messages:
    4,444
    Likes Received:
    5,860
    Actually good analogy. Please read.

    https://www.dogsbite.org/legislating-dangerous-dogs-state-by-state.php

    So in your senario or anology. We should ban certain guns like we do for certain dangerous breeds of dogs. So I agree with your anology. Thanks for proving my point.
     
  9. StupidMoniker

    StupidMoniker I lost a bet
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2001
    Messages:
    15,052
    Likes Received:
    2,091
    No, we should ban neither particular breeds of dogs, nor particular guns. The point is that neither school shootings nor dog bites should be of particular concern to anyone, and taking restrictive and/or expensive actions to fight them is a bad idea.
     
  10. AleksandarN

    AleksandarN Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2001
    Messages:
    4,444
    Likes Received:
    5,860
    Why is it a bad idea to restrict bump stocks or and high compacity magazines? Since you guys are scared the big bad government are after your guns. Lets outlaw the sale of bump stocks and other similar devices and high compacity magazines? No becuase the nra don’t want that. It is all about money with them.
     
  11. StupidMoniker

    StupidMoniker I lost a bet
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2001
    Messages:
    15,052
    Likes Received:
    2,091
    I don't own a single gun, so I am not scared the big bad government is after my guns. I am against restricting freedom for millions of people to address an issue that is statistically insignificant. The vast majority of gun homicides are committed with handguns and the magazine capacity being limited to 10 rounds would have no effect. Mass shootings are the exception, not the rule. Mass shootings with a bump stock and high capacity magazines has happened once, ever. Why erode 2nd amendment protections and spend God knows how much money in enforcement to deal with a problem so rare it may as well not exist?
     
  12. crash5179

    crash5179 Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2000
    Messages:
    16,465
    Likes Received:
    1,290
    It shouldn’t be the federal governments responisibilty to subsidize schools, this is part of the reason I created this thread. The responsibility of financing schools and ensuring the safety of people attending and working at those schools is the state and the city.

    The reason we live in a Republic and have a Federal Government and not a National Government is to maintain States rights and the ability for those states to govern themselves.

    The Federal Government should absolutely cut funds for schools and let the individual states finance their own states. In Texas we will be just fine while states like California and New Jersey may have to revisit some of their spending policies. I’m more than ok with that.
     
  13. Redfish81

    Redfish81 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2016
    Messages:
    4,559
    Likes Received:
    6,317
    I understand how that is an important point that anti-gun folks really like to hold onto. However, it is not true. There were guns that shot more rapidly than 30 seconds a round. The puckle gun, Girandoni air rifle, and Lorenzoni repeating flintlock are all examples of guns available before the 2nd Amendment was written that shot way faster.

    Puckle gun shot about 9 rounds per minute. The Girandoni air rifle was invented in 1778. It had a 20 round high capacity magazine tube in it before needing to be reloaded and was good for 30 lethal shots before needing a new air canister. It shot a .46 caliber ball up to 950 feet per second. That is faster than 45 acp ammo shoots out of a 1911 handgun. It was used most famously in the Lewis & Clark Expedition and that particular rifle was made in Philadelphia. It was also in service in the Austrian Army and well known. So basically they had a suppressed .45 acp rifle back then and Japan and France adapted it as a sniper rifle.

    Are those as powerful as an AR15? No, but lets try to get past the talking points here and you can see all these guns in action on youtube.
     
  14. crash5179

    crash5179 Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2000
    Messages:
    16,465
    Likes Received:
    1,290
    Understanding that the 2nd amendment is not about the right to hunt deer but instead it’s about the right to defend yourself against an oppressive government, the argument that the intent was never about 40 round clips and AR15s begins to take on water. The civilians armed themselves with approximately the same type of weapons the military did when the 2nd amendment was created in 1791. Therefor I think it’s a logical assumption to make that the men who ratified the 2nd amendment would not have excluded AR15s with 40 round clips of the military was armed with similar weapons.

    Having said that, one of the true genius elements of the constitution that reflects the genius of the men who wrote it, is that it was always intended to be a living document capable of changing with the times. The men who wrote the constitution clearly understood that they could not look into the future and forecast what the country would look like 200 years later or if a constitution written in 1787 would fit a civilization that exists in 2018 which is why we have 27 amendments today.

    The preamble to the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence lay down the core principals of the Constitution but the Constitution itself can be amended and should be amended when existing amendments fall short or don’t meet the needs of our current civilization. I am very much pro 2nd amendment but it is because of this core belief that I don’t think we should shy away from a discussion centered around if that amendment is still right for our civilization in its current form. Is there a way to amend the 2nd amendment to fit the needs of today while still holding true to the foundational elements of the constitution as laid out by the Decleration of Independabnce and the Preamble to the Constitution?
     
  15. Redfish81

    Redfish81 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2016
    Messages:
    4,559
    Likes Received:
    6,317
    I think you are correct and we can make changes. I have no problem with more extensive background checks and even having to take a training course to be able to buy an AR15. I had to do that to get my CHL. My belief, which is based on what you just said, is the firepower an American citizen should be able to own would be up to whatever the standard issue rifle is for an Army infantryman. That upholds the principles of what the 2nd Amendment was for.... an armed populace being a check and balance to a standing army.
     
  16. Amiga

    Amiga I get vaunted sacred revelations from social media
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2008
    Messages:
    21,698
    Likes Received:
    18,478
    Hate for it to come to a 3rd world solution, but I think we should have well trained and armed security guards around the school perimeter for every schools in the nation. And yes, we should tax the Gun manufacturers and owners to pay for it. It's a sad state, but at least that's doing something that should help.
     
  17. Sweet Lou 4 2

    Sweet Lou 4 2 Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    37,714
    Likes Received:
    18,912
    My point being is that even with that air rifle the idea of being able to shoot up a ton of people was not even conceivable. One man with a gun in that era wasn't considered a grave danger to a school or group of people. Even getting hit by that thing - you'd still have an excellent chance of living. And AR-15 or to your point a semi-automatic Walther are capable of killing mass number of casualties.

    I don't have a problem with guns being used for hunting or home defense. Or by responsible gun owners. Contrary to your claim, I am not anti-gun. I am anti-murder.
     
  18. leroy

    leroy Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Messages:
    26,276
    Likes Received:
    9,481
    This is the 2nd time today I've seen the Puckle gun used as a "what-about" argument. There's no proof that any more than 2 were ever made and 1 was the prototype.

    Even so, were those guns readily available in mass production to the general public? No. Could you walk into your local WalMart in 1778 and purchase a Girandoni air rifle?
     
    NewRoxFan and Sweet Lou 4 2 like this.
  19. Sweet Lou 4 2

    Sweet Lou 4 2 Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    37,714
    Likes Received:
    18,912
    Then why I am I not allowed to own grenades or missiles? How can I defend against the U.S. military without jets and tanks? Your argument here doesn't hold water.
     
  20. Bobbythegreat

    Bobbythegreat Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2013
    Messages:
    63,171
    Likes Received:
    25,826
    Well, the reason to erode 2nd amendment protections and spend god knows how much money in enforcement to deal with a problem so rare is may as well not exist is because that has been a goal of a certain group on the left for decades now. Any excuse is sufficient to advance their agenda.

    The fact that homicide rates are at one of the lowest points in over 100 years has nothing to do with them wanting to further their agenda. The fact that their agenda would be ineffectual has has nothing to do with them wanting to further that agenda. It's not about actually helping anyone, it's about furthering a political agenda.
     

Share This Page

  • About ClutchFans

    Since 1996, ClutchFans has been loud and proud covering the Houston Rockets, helping set an industry standard for team fan sites. The forums have been a home for Houston sports fans as well as basketball fanatics around the globe.

  • Support ClutchFans!

    If you find that ClutchFans is a valuable resource for you, please consider becoming a Supporting Member. Supporting Members can upload photos and attachments directly to their posts, customize their user title and more. Gold Supporters see zero ads!


    Upgrade Now