How to prevent massacres? More guns

The only way to put out a fire is to throw more kerosene on it.
Only way to stop a corporate bank fraudster is to stop making it so easy for them to take it. Hmmmmmm...
Only way to stop diabetes is with more sugar.
I think there is a pattern to this kind of thought process...

 

You are correct, all the yahoo's that already own one (or several) are likely to keep theirs hidden.

So the horse is out of the barn, sure.

I would like to see their continued manufacturing and sale stopped, which can be done, assuming the US Supreme Court goes along with the idea, the same as they have with submachineguns, automatic rifles, and machineguns. The hole in the dike needs to be plugged once and for all. That will stop most growing adolescent psycho's from getting their paws on one as they progress through the clinical to the institutional stages of their disease.

 

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Heller already protects all handguns.

Your logic is just as flawed as LaPierre's is.

 

Defend itself against what?

 

Interestingly when we did the buy back we got a LOT more guns than we thought we would - even though the nations plumbers knew there were a lot of guns being hidden (you could not buy PVC poly pipe with the end fittings that year - so lots of guns got buried) Mostly it was girlfriends wives, mothers or others who handed the guns in as they did not want a gun in the house, and in some instances - did not want the person getting into trouble again when they got out

 

Then don't ban guns - but make SAFETY a priority. You own a gun - you make sure it is kept in a safe place or has a biometric lock on it or both

 

I think it might be the best compromise for America - I really really do not see interventions like the Australian solution working over there. There are such things as biometric locks which codes the gun to only a couple of people - heavens these days you can get yourself microchipped and have a gun that will only unlock in the vicinity of the microchip.

There are WAYS to make it safer. And one thought which is definitely left field - why lethal bullets? I mean if the aim is to deter someone - why not use non lethal but equally disabling bullets. "Rubber" bullets - heck early last century "Buckshot" was a favourite or rock salt (although it has disadvantages) Surely though, if the American public put pressure on the armaments industry they could come up with a less than lethal solution - particularly one that left the perp writing with pain (OK so, I might be anti-death but that does not mean I am a totally nice person)

 

Which is exactly why this suggestion is ridiculous. Because when you outlaw something, the only people that now have it are the outlaws. Why don't you people understand this? If criminals followed the law, they wouldn't be criminals. Herp derp.

 

Most citizens will NOT face zombie-like assailants. Let's err on the side of reasonableness.

 

Grabbers and other anti-American thieves...

 

Right! So if you outlaw rape, only rapist will rape! So make it legal! Geez. This whackjobbery is unreal.

So let's see. Suppose you had a gun ban in a major city the size of New York. And you had REAL penalties for possession. Is it your claim that gun-related violence would go up?

 

Fortunately they will be the rare ones - you can wear a seat belt and survive a motor vehicle crash but it will not save you if you run head first into a speeding cement lorry but you COULD survive that if you padded the inside of your car like an egg carton - but who wants to face everyday traffic wadded in like that?

Meanwhile there is some real research going into non-lethal weapons - my favourite, because it tickled my funny bone, was the one into "deadly smell" on the basis that the animal with one of the most potent self defence mechanisms in the world is the skunk

 

I seriously doubt that even if we allowed teachers to be armed that most of them would actually do so. Remember that not only does it require them to be armed but they also need to be trained as well.

Let me also point out that from what I've learned historically bombings are the most efficient means of committing mass murder. Arming the teachers would do virtually nothing to prevent a mass murder at a school if the use of a bomb is choosen over the use of firearms. It's actually a lot easier to manufacture a bomb than it is to acquire firearms and ammunition and is less riskly for the individual that would commit such a heinous criminal act.

This said I'm not opposed to individuals being trained and authorized to carry firearms at schools including the teachers. I just want to point out that it will not prevent mass murders either in schools or elsewhere.

 

Non-lethal weapons do have applications where they work but they remain inferior to firearms and, from all experience, will always remain inferior to firearms. They have very limited range and effectiveness.

 

No, the basic proposition is that the gun related violence will not go down. This was basically proven in Washington DC that had the strictest gun laws in the nation before the Supreme Court struck them down as being unconstitutional. The reason that gun violence won't go down is that even the use of a firearm in self-defense is still classified as gun violence.

I would also note that I own a 12 guage pump action shotgun that I selected because I hope the simple act of chambering a round, because it is the most distinctive sound in the world, would prevent me from having to shot someone that breaks into my home and threatens my life. I don't want to shoot them so I picked a weapon that the simple action of chambering a round should stop any attacker in their tracks. That firearm is intended to stop gun violence but if pressed I would certianly use it to protect myself and, in doing so, I would be commiting an act of "gun violence" by my actions.

We don't have a national database that provides the statistics on how many times a gun actually prevents violence. The woman that threatens her husband with a gun when he's intent upon beating the crap out of her isn't recorded anywhere for example. The robberies where a store owner pulls a gun and stops the robber isn't recorded in a database. We have estimates but there isn't an actual database that collects the data on how many crimes are stopped with firearms but the estimates are in the millions. We know for a fact that more lives are saved because a person has a firearm than are lost because someone has a firearm. How many innocent lives are we willing to sacrifice for "feel-good" laws that do nothing but take away the ability of the individual to protect themself from aggression?

 

False analogy, since owning a gun is not equvalent to rape.

 

Maybe but a smell bomb would be the only one that would disable everyone but leave the nurses still standing (you call THAT a stink - you should take a whiff of C. Diff!!)

 

The path lab sluice beats that for stink!

 

Nah - try removing shoes off of homeless living in the tropics

 

When I served in Vietnam we had CS gas (a very potent form of tear gas) and when stationed at Dak To some idiot would set off a CS grenade almost daily. At first it was rather annoying and soon we just became used to it. It was never debilitationg and a "stink bomb" would fall into the same category. A person can even overcome the effects of a taser and still present a very creditable threat to others especially if they're armed. As I noted there are applications for non-lethal weapons but they are limited and never as effective as a firearm which is the ulitimate form of self-defense.

 

I think I might pass on that one (or pass-out)!