Tools magnify effort. If the only indicator that someone will become violent is that they have done so, it makes sense to reduce the tools for violence floating around. It reduces the cost of that first indication.
Tools also magnify the ability for victims to defend themselves. They also decrease the likelihood that the criminal will continue committing that crime then or afterwards. That "first indication" may become their last.
And there is the rub. You will never stop violent people from getting their hands on something that can hurt someone else, be it guns or anything else. Instead of recognizing the failure of such an approach, the left shrugs it off and says "we didn't go far enough". You will never be able to go far enough without complete and total loss of freedom, and that is a far worse fate than the problems we have now. Until the focus is on the people who do violent things, and making sure that they as an individual are removed from society until reformed or dead, the violence will keep on. I have lived in societies where guns aren't necessary in a day to day context, but the US certainly isn't one of those countries.
Well, change that to "CONSIDERED UNNECESSARY" by whom ? a Government ? I was a Constable in a nice tropic Paradise with no real predatory species once in a while a Cobra from a shipment of wood sneaked in, and few had arms, I used to hunt in farms and rice patties and sugar can fields and if the need arose, shoot a huge constrictor eating chickens etc..... or tracking down the odd murderer, doing Medical outreach etc........ You would be surprised how many people would die from an untreated wound, had no standard inoculations etc...
Well DUH, people with cars are more likely to be in crashes than those who don't own cars. Your point?
They never focus on that aspect do they? It's like all tool are ok except the gun...then it's OK to deny it as a tool for self defense because guns make people do evil things. I get the distinct impression they don't care about victims.
And if there were no disease, everyone would be far less likely to die from illness. It is nothing but circular logic without a reasonable purpose. Are you even attempting to make a case for your position anymore, or are you simply presenting something for the sake of responding to others who you cannot refute?
A trust worthy 18 year old male ? How about constitutional carry for all these 18 year olds. Why stop there at CCWs ? We can give them fireman's hats and save money in both law enforcement and the fire department. The ones with the biggest guns should be allowed the fastest cars so they can pick up campus speeders. Of course, they will be allowed to write tickets and; guaranteed; every kid carrying will be an A+ student. If the town has more restrictive laws, we'll just hand guns to kids as they drive on campus and they can just drop them in a the basket on the way out. That should work. Drinking should be encourage on campus as having just one kid not high will put him at an advantage over the other kids. But of course, that will be tough to do as kids with guns are automatically good citizens. The gun is like a badge.
<MOD EDIT - Removed flamebait>Many CCWs are already on campuses without this proving to be a problem. Sounds like you are trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist.
Many ? Where are these campuses. They aren't U Mass in down town Boston ? Define many. like this is happening all over the country ?http://www.armedcampuses.org These that mandates CCW permit holders must be allowed t carry a gun. The rest of the states leave it up to the college or ban it.
I figured that you were swimming in unfamiliar waters.... In 23 states the decision to ban or allow concealed carry weapons on campuses is made by each college or university individually: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and West Virginia. Because of recent state legislation and court rulings, eight states now have provisions allowing the carrying of concealed weapons on public postsecondary campuses. These states are Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Mississippi, Oregon, Texas, Utah and Wisconsin. During the 2015 legislative session, Texas' legislature passed a bill permitting concealed weapons on campus and making it the eighth state to permit guns on campus. The legislation will take effect in August 2016. Like I said, many CCWs are on campuses everyday without problems. Why are you trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist?
Law enforcement is not about eliminating crime. It's about reducing it's occurrence and impact. I think we all recognize that the only way to eliminate all bad behavior is to eliminate all freedom and no one wants that. But the approach you suggest has a problem. If you try to divide people into classes, into those who do violent things and those who do not... well, both groups will surprise you. And the results will be tragic. Treat every gun as if it was loaded, similarly assume every person could go off.
The purpose of a car is to drive, the purpose of a gun is to shoot. When we don't want driving on campus, we don't allow cars on campus. I don't want shooting on campus. *shrug*
So then we agree since LEOs cannot prevent most crimes, honest law abiding citizens should always have a recourse....including teachers, correct? Eliminating all freedoms would not eliminate all bad behavior, there are not enough government officials to prevent them from occurring. Proof positive that self reliance and not government intervention is the proper attitude. think it's fine to divide criminals from law abiding citizens, and if a law abiding citizen becomes a criminal then you treat them accordingly but I agree people are unpredictable.
That doesn't make any sense to me, at all. Please let us know what the surprising and tragic results are for removing violent people from society.
Making yourself an easy victim is exactly what promotes killers to target things like schools. I mean, consider the fact that they choose schools in the first place. They're attacking the most defenseless targets in society already.
When you believe there are only two kinds of people, violent and not, you trick yourself. When you remove that class of people you label violent and put them on the other side of a wall... you eventually discover there is only one kind of person. You close the door on half our creativity, ability, and strength. And you eventually discover one of the people you armed and locked yourself in with one of the folks you were confident could never commit a violent act can.
This isn't some kind of "ism". This is what should be done based on someone's behavior, it isn't just some arbitrary "label". Putting murderers and rapists on the other side of a wall is exactly where they belong. There is no creativity, ability or strength to be had from people who are parasites on society. It is ridiculous that you're making this some kind of laughable diversity issue. Sure there are people who can become violent, but typically criminal behavior begins at an early age, and they will never be rehabilitated.
We eliminated all freedoms from Timothy McVeigh in June 2001. There have been no reports of bad behavior from him since. If you don't have the freedom to act badly, you cannot act badly. ... but no one wants a perfect society, at least not in America (I hope). We appreciate great freedom in this country and value the creativity and productivity that comes with it. We recognize there is a price. We also recognize absolute freedom is absolute anarchy, and we don't want that either. So we draw a line, allowing some freedoms and not others. *shrug*
First, only gun carriers create gun violence. Minimizing the number of those with guns to only those most qualified, is the only sane answer for schools with children. Second, concealed weapons carriers is a reactionary, not a proactive way of preventing mass violence in schools. After all, by definiton, the guns are concealed. A show of force and prevention is just as effective as actually demonstrating It. Lastly, uniformed armed guards does cut down on fighting and drug usage in general making professional armed guards a resonable alternative to all school violence.
The single biggest factor that encourages criminal or anti social behavior, is opportunity. It's easy to be a model citizen when the opportunity to do otherwise is eliminated and it's easy to put a big dent in gun crime by restricting gun ownership to only those who have a permit that demonstrates legality and proficiency.
Everyone commits criminal acts. Jay walking is a crime. I have no problem punishing bad behavior to limit that cost, I just recognize it's not as simple as drawing a line between folks who are criminals or parasites and those who aren't. You might find yourself on the wrong side of it if we did. And I appreciate your fundamental trust in human nature. That you believe you can safely arm folks who haven't shown signs of criminal behavior from an early age, that you can trust them with guns among your children. I'm just not as liberal with my trust as you are. I don't think guns belong in schools. I don't see any value in taking that risk. So I am expressing my opinion that we don't. I recognize my opinion is just on of 319 million, and this isn't my country it's ours. We'll see how the vote goes. *shrug*
