By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Shooting at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas (19 Students, 2 Teachers Dead)

Chrkeller said:

In the US we have 130,000 schools...  not including Universities.  So that is a bunch of guards, who need a salary and then the school has to take on liability insurance.  Not too mention Columbine had armed guards and it didn't do much.  Bear in mind some schools in the US are massive.  My high school had 4,000 students and was a complex of a building.  It would need what 10 guards?  15?  The idea isn't bad, but logistically not that simple.  

This is in itself a part of the problem when it comes to the current society's failure to address the needs of children. Schools, due to budget cuts, have consolidated too much in many states. In 1930 there were about 248,000 schools serving a far smaller student population of about 46 million max (fewer since many people exited after 8th grade.) That means the average American school had about 185 students in it, and the staff were able to more personally interact with the students. In 2021 there were only 98,755 schools serving 73 million students. That means the average school had 740 students making this a much more daunting task which requires very inefficient administrative bureaucracies. This makes social alienation and general atomization a much more widespread problem. Of course it isn't the only change, or cause, but it is one among many. 

Unfortunately those on the right don't want to recognize that these social problems have to be solved somehow. Either you fund public goods and services that meet people's basic needs and create socially integrated, emotionally developed, and mentally healthy young adults who aren't violent, or you have to deal with the social ailments having poorly developed young adults causes -- such as increased aggregate violence. Too often though the right just ignores it as "not my problem" until of course it personally affects them. 

Rather than guards (not that it is a horrible idea), having staff that meet the developmental needs of young adults would be a better use of extra resources.



Around the Network
JRPGfan said:
cyberninja45 said:

Why arms guards in schools a bad thing?

It probably isnt, however I suspect many see it as a failing, or sign of society (not a possitive one).
Rest of the world, you dont have security guards, patrolling, carrying armed guns, for schools.

It would have a negative image/tone to the US, that love to taut that the US is the best place in the world to live.
If your society is at a point, where you need to lock kids in schools, and have guards patrolling, armed to the teeth, to "keep them safe".
It says something about your society.

I don't see how a country protecting their children in schools makes a bad image.



My 3ds friendcode: 5413-0232-9676 (G-cyber)



cyberninja45 said:
Chrkeller said:

In the US we have 130,000 schools...  not including Universities.  So that is a bunch of guards, who need a salary and then the school has to take on liability insurance.  Not too mention Columbine had armed guards and it didn't do much.  Bear in mind some schools in the US are massive.  My high school had 4,000 students and was a complex of a building.  It would need what 10 guards?  15?  The idea isn't bad, but logistically not that simple.  

Idea based on logic from another world sounded like a bad idea to me. I misunderstood.

But from your reply it sounds like arms guards is a good idea but its not logistical to have enough of them?

Could be done, yes.  Good idea, yes.  Not sure it is a cure all solution.  But better than nothing.  



i7-13700k

Vengeance 32 gb

RTX 4090 Ventus 3x E OC

This wouldnt have happend if those kids would have been allowed to carry their gun with them to school.

I feel for these kids/families



 "I think people should define the word crap" - Kirby007

Join the Prediction League http://www.vgchartz.com/predictions

Instead of seeking to convince others, we can be open to changing our own minds, and seek out information that contradicts our own steadfast point of view. Maybe it’ll turn out that those who disagree with you actually have a solid grasp of the facts. There’s a slight possibility that, after all, you’re the one who’s wrong.

JuliusHackebeil said:

If children frequently shot to death is not enough, you really have to ask what it would take. What would it take for a yes to mandatory training and basic background checks? Where is the bar if it is not at dead children?
I get that countries and cultures are different. And what worked in one place at one time does not mean it will work in the US right now. But if people are not a 100 % sure that more robust gun controll wouldn't decrease the number of dead children, than we owe it to them to at least try.
Try it for a few years. 10 years say - is that so much to ask for in the face of this horror? And when things don't show improvment, just go back to handing them out like candy.
And even if the improvement is not particularly staggering - what is the harm in trying? That less guns get into the hands of unstable ass clowns? That the government can make sure that gun owners are sane, safe and responsible? You would want such people as protectors, right? Trained people who can judge a situation and not somebody who hears a fart, gets scared and blows his own head off.

There is nothing that will result in change.  There just isn't.  To your point, dead children aren't enough...  and if that isn't enough, what is?  The answer is nothing.  Absolutely nothing.  Sandy Hook happened 10 years ago and here we are.    

There is nothing that will convince Americans to restrict firearms.  Nothing.  They would rather die in the streets than give up guns.  Perhaps this sounds absurd to non Americans, but this is reality in the States.  



i7-13700k

Vengeance 32 gb

RTX 4090 Ventus 3x E OC

Around the Network
JRPGfan said:

What in the world, makes a kid... cuz 17 years old, your still a kid, go on a rampage like this?
Also the victims, are surely in no way connected to him, or wronged him anyway?
Like what motive does it take to drive a person to this sort? I cant fathom it.
Just lashing out at random, makes no sense to me.

Apparently he was bullied for stuttering. However in that situation, you would think he would go after the bullies. I also read that supposedly he cut up his face and got the guns for his birthday. You would think someone with such mental issues should have been looked at closely especial with guns in his hands.

Can't really feel sorry for him as what he did was senseless to those kids. We can't also say conclusively that him being bullied caused him to act the way he did.

All that can be done is assume it did, and if so how do you address the bullying problem. Fix that issue and see if school shootings go down significantly, if they do then you can conclude that is indeed was the cause in most those past cases.

In the end pro gun lobbyists will try to justify his actions and why it isn't the guns fault.

 



 

 

Cobretti2 said:

All that can be done is assume it did, and if so how do you address the bullying problem. Fix that issue and see if school shootings go down significantly, if they do then you can conclude that is indeed was the cause in most those past cases.

One of the biggest sources of mass-shootings in the last ten years is the rise of the misogynistic incel movement and its bizarre ideology. More really needs to be done to disrupt this movement. When people hate themselves (which is pretty much the core feature of Incels) and think there is no other option they are willing to lash out in whichever way makes them feel as if they are taking control or power. I wouldn't be surprised if that is the motive for this shooter given the information about the self mutilation of his face and the Incel obsession with facial structure. 

I highly recommend the Contrapoints video on the topic of Incels. 

 



SvennoJ said:
 


Why are automatic weapons not even banned in the US?

Automatic weapons were effectively banned in the U.S with the Firearm Owners Protection Act. In order to get one you need to go through a 6 month FBI background check and pay for a $200 tax stamp. All automatic weapons made after 1986 are illegal for civilian purchase, and everything else that had been grandfathered from before then is very expensive ($20,000 - $30,000.) Bump stocks, which convert semi-automatic weapons into fully-automatic weapons were banned via ATF regulation and the courts have held the ban so far. But the ban is hard to enforce because bump stocks can be made very easily and cheaply. 

The difficulty with banning semi-automatic weapons is that they are the most common weapon-category produced by manufacturers and the Supreme Court in D.C vs. Heller decided that any weapon in common-use is protected by the Second Amendment. Plus there are about 300 million semi-automatic guns in the U.S, and rounding them all up would cause considerable problems given the unconsented policing-landscape of the U.S and the strong ability for organized crime to develop around their restriction (like with drugs and alcohol prohibition.) If semi-automatic weapons were banned when there were few of them, like what was done with automatic weapons, it would be pretty easy to enforce, but since there are so many, the problems with enforcement arise. You might observe a situation where white people who live in rural areas where police don't want to enforce gun laws are affected very little, while BIPOC people who live in jurisdictions where police are more committed (mostly urban areas) in enforcing them feeling the brunt of these new laws. This of course leads to many other inequalities, and there is a widespread movement currently to move away from mass-incarceration, not create new crimes where there weren't formerly any that will almost certainly disproportionately harm non-white communities and persons. 

What are some ideas for enforcing bans of semi-automatic weapons that would get rid of about 300 million guns, in a way that doesn't disproportionately harm marginalized people, soon enough before the next political cycle leads to the repealing of such a law? 



Incredibly heartbreaking. An elementary school of all places.

My heart and prayers to all the families and closed ones affected by this inconceivably abominable tragedy.



SvennoJ said:
cyberninja45 said:

Why arms guards in schools a bad thing?

Why not make bullet proof vests standard school attire.
Why not put airport security in place at every school.
Why not have armed guards in every class room and multiple in community spaces.
Why not have guard towers on the playground.
Why not fence off the schools with bullet proof glass fences and barbed wire on top.

Or why not do something about the abundance of guns and ease of getting them. Kids should not get guns for their birthdays. How stupid is that. You can't drink until you're 21 because you could be a danger on the road, but go ahead and play with guns.

School shootings happen in other countries as well, but one stands out
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/school-shootings-by-country

We have moderate gun control in Canada and "Canada has experienced a total of 19 school shootings between 1884 and 2016. The deadliest of these events was the Ecole Polytechnique massacre in Montreal, which resulted in 15 deaths, including that of the shooter. Several Canadian school shootings have resulted in a single death or no deaths at all."

Why are automatic weapons not even banned in the US?


Anyway this is what Canada uses:

If you are 18 or older, you can apply for a possession and acquisition licence (PAL). The licence enables you to possess or acquire firearms of the class listed on your licence, and to get ammunition.

You must first take the Canadian Firearms Safety Course and pass a test. (To have a restricted firearm, you must also take the Canadian Restricted Firearms Safety Course.)

Then you must apply for the PAL licence and pay a fee. The licence fee is based on the class of firearms you intend to acquire: for non-restricted firearms, the fee is $62.55; for restricted or prohibited firearms, the fee is $83.40

There is a minimum 28-day waiting period. The RCMP conduct various background checks. They may contact your partner, former partners, and references listed in your application, to see if they have any safety concerns about you owning a firearm.

The licence is renewable every five years.

Sounds reasonable?


Gun laws require owners to be licensed and (certain) guns to be registered, similar to how driving laws require drivers to be licensed and cars to be registered.

The country its your right to bear arms. So a license to a right would never fly nationally. 

So having armed personel in schools is the next best thing to me. To me gunfree zones in a country like this makes no sense. May as well call them sitting duck zones.

Last edited by cyberninja45 - on 25 May 2022

My 3ds friendcode: 5413-0232-9676 (G-cyber)