Should schools teach students how not to be killed by police?

My first reaction, at least to the title of the thread was heck no! That's a job for the parents. But then on further reflection, being that parents today do not have the time to teach their kids properly, perhaps that isn't such a bad idea. I mean in quite a lot of families, both parents work, leaving the raising of the kids to day care, after hour school programs, TV, Video games and the like. Then there are the single parent families when the single parent works and is gone most of the day again leaving the raising of the her kids to others. No wonder these kids go astray, join gangs, commit crimes, don't know the difference between right and wrong. No one is at home to teach teach them.

Perhaps schools need to become the new father and mother. Have we progressed that far? That parents raising their kids proper isn't happening and worst yet, we don't expect them to.

 

I'm not advocating this, or any other position.

I just tried to think of a general approach to gun control that reasonable liberals might like ... so I looked at other country's gun laws, and found, among those countries, this approach to guns. You can have 'little ones' but not 'big scary ones', and it's pretty hard to get even the little ones. But you are not totally disarmed. You can have a .22 rifle or even a .38 handgun. And this country that has this law has a dramatically different homicide rate to the US.

I was interested in what Renee would actually want to see as the law in the US and thought that maybe she'd like this one.

Of course, given the high rate of gun ownership in the US now, it might be difficult to enforce this law. But probably with high enough prices for gun buy-backs, severe enough punishments for people caught trying to hold on to their guns [ very high fines, in addition to long prison terms, to finance the buy-backs], rewards for informers, widespread deployment of the police and military in night-time raids ....over a period of 20 or 30 years ... we could make it very very difficult for anyone to own illegal guns. Seizing NRA and gun club membership lists, examination of peoples' emails (and forum posts!) could yield long lists of people to target.

America is undergoing fairly rapid, profound change. Most of the people running the organs of the state -- judges, police, military -- are mainly interested in their careers -- which is why we'll have transgenders in Marine rifle companies within the next ten years -- and they'd go along with a law like this.

So although it would be difficult, it would be possible, and it's the way the wind is blowing.

 

I know this was really clever to you, and I see what you were trying to do, but it's really clunky and you can do better.

 

It's a joke. Remember those things?

 

Yeah, I'm giving you feedback on your joke because it wasn't good

 

To each their own. I appreciate the feedback.

 

I hate to admit it, but I didn't get the joke. Can someone explain it to me?

 

People need trucks. People need cars. Why does any person need an AR 15? People don’t buy cars to kill other people. What do they buy an AR 15 for? It is for hunting… Human beings.Please tell me why they are needed. Haven’t we had enough mass shootings to realize the danger of these guns? Sometimes people who are not evil just snap

 

The AR can and is frequently used for hunting deer. There are many people who own them and they did not buy them to hunt human beings, that is your own interpretation. Try to look at it through a gun enthusiasts eyes instead of your biased eyes. There are many people who like guns and enjoy shooting legally not everyone who owns them are would be criminals.

 

Sounds a lot like Nazi Germany to me.

 

Why do you need to be on this forum. The electricity you use causes co2 that is causing terrible climate change.

Until 1936 with even giving a name a person could buy as many machine guns of as much or greater fire power and as high or higher capacity than a 30 rd AR 15 clip - used surplus or new - plus all the ammo they want by mail order, on the street or in a store. Americans were heavily armed including with concealed firearms - 100% legal - without being restricted from having them nearly anywhere. Mass shootings were virtually unheard of. As more and more anti gun laws came along, so did the number of mass shootings increase. Explain it.

 

The social media has a lot to do with it,
Are you really saying anti gun laws are responsible for mass shootings? Gimme a break. Why does anyone need a gun designed for the military to kill people explain it

 

Interesting I have heard people talk about guns and never have I heard one say they use it to hunt animals . Maybe they should use machine guns to hunt deer. Such a fair sport.

 

Well .. . yes ... I suppose it does. But hey, the Nazis had REALLY good gun control. Nor did they permit people who disagreed with them to speak, where they could prevent it. (Interestingly, the Nazis had a lot of support among college students, who probably enforced the 'No Thoughtcrime' law on campuses before the Nazis took power.)

Anyway, can you persuade Renee to tell us what gun control laws she'd like? I've proposed what seem to me to a pretty reasonable set of laws ... which are already in force in a country not-too-distant from the US ... and which has a dramatically different homicide rate.

Renee can't understand why anyone would want to own a semi-automatic rifle. Well, I can't understand why some women want to be tied up and spanked -- but the author of Fifty Shades of Grey and her publishers and screen-writers knew their audience. We just have to tolerate each other's weird desires, except where they impinge on other people.

Now deadly weapons are one of those areas, which is why the US effectively bans almost all serious military weapons, including automatic rifles, mortars, Claymore mines, etc. (No one -- well, no sane person -- would argue "Claymore mines don't kill people, people kill people, they could use a rock instead, so let's sell Claymore mines at Walmarts, and anyway the Second Amendment." [Non-gun people: look them up, here.]

The argument is, are semi-automatic rifles deadly enough to come within the logic of the (effective) ban on automatic ones? Or is it just semi-autos with high-capacity magazines? Or ones that look scary?

I think there is an argument to be had, but the anti-gun people need to make it. Which is why I wish Renee would give us some indication of what weapons she would like to ban. Commenting on my example law would be a good start.

 

Self defence is fine. It's being "self-defended" by so much weaponry that itches a bit. No need for a full-auto milspec rifle equipped with an under-barrel grenade launcher to "defend" oneself: A simple shotgun suffices (being even better in the case of a home/store invasion). Not discussing your case here, just going down to basics.

Like with any other good thing, an excess of anything is bad.

 

Very sportsman-like. Grenades must work real well too. This isn't deer-hunting; it's declaring war on deers.

There I agree. People who are against guns should try target shooting at least once - or get home-invaded at least once - to realize guns are but tools, that are, like all tools, dangerous only if in the wrong hands.

 

Are you clumsily trying to imply that anti-gun laws have enabled gun-based massacres? Would that be the only explanation for them? Tell us more.

 

Not speaking for her in anyway, but as both a left-leaning moderate and a gun enthusiast, I would like to see firearms classified into categories, requiring the corresponding permits to either buy, carry and use them - A bit like vehicles are. I don't want to ban vehicles, just be sure that those who operates them know what they are doing.

Those who are being sane and observing firearms safety rules should then have no problem keeping their guns.

 

Well, as a right-leaning moderate, or a moderate-leaning Rightie, I can shake hands with you on that.Then we could argue about magazine capacity, etc. (You see, Renee ... it's males. Something about being male. We all like 'em, those guns. We can't really help it.)

However ... I'm afraid we are in the same position as the fellow who observed that he was "in blood stepped in so far, that should I wade no more, returning were as tedious as go o'er."

That is, anything most of us could agree on would probably leave plenty of lethal armaments around for the next jihadi or maniac to acquire, although it might prevent a few of the less affluent or determined would-be killers from getting one when God or whoever tells them to purge the earth of Unbelievers or little children or country music fans or Republicans or those nasty teachers and other students who laughed at you or white people or Black people or Muslims or .......

It's the semi-automatic weaponry that is used for the mass killings, and the best we could agree on there would be to limit magazine capacity to five rounds instead of fifteen or twenty. Unfortunately, it's not difficult to learn to do fast magazine changes, but I suppose the three or four seconds that it takes would give the armed deputy a chance to take a couple of aimed shots, although I wouldn't want to be in the position of taking on someone with a rifle, and myself armed only with a handgun. (As apparently neither did the policeman at that school in Florida.)

And no one has mentioned flak-vests, which the wise mass murderer will want to purchase, if there are any left after the run on the market for them among teachers and school students and ... everyone else.

So I fear that if you really want to end gun violence in America, you'll have to opt for something like the set of laws I've set out here a couple of times for Renee's comment ... and there's no guarantee that they'll do the job either.

 

...now quiet down children...Johnny stop playing with Myrtle's butt!! Now today's lesson.....

 

Wait'll he starts playing with her Receiver.

 

I think it should be up to the students' fathers to teach their kids how to interact with police if they happen to have a run in with the law.

 

Those hunters who use the AR usually only need one shot to take down a deer but being in the forest with other critters like bears, wolves and mountain lions it is good to have more protection with you.

Target shooting is fun and so is just plain old shooting at trees while knowing there is nothing down range of you.

 

The problem is, people like Renee only want to remove all guns from everyone and just don't have any other goal in mind. You know full well that removal of guns in other countries does not stop all killings, remember the knife attacks in Europe or the truck and car attacks? We need to work to remove the causes of the killings not just the tools used. I would have no problem giving up my gun if I knew without a doubt that nobody would ever break in to my house, or knew no terrorist would ever go around killing people. If I could be guaranteed that no other country would invade ours or some future leader would try to become a dictator then I would consider it. As long as criminals have access to guns I do not wish to give up mine.

 

We use legal guns to hunt animals, machine guns are illegal to own. People hunt animals for food, I don't but many others do. I never kill what I don't eat but one reason I keep a gun is for that purpose in case our economy becomes such that I have to live off the land. But that is one of many reasons I keep a gun another is protection and as long as criminals have access to guns I will keep mine.