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)

cyberninja45 said:
Drakrami said:

Obviously guns is the problem. Doesn't take a 10 year old to make that out.

The problems are Republicans and rural gun lovers aren't it? Their arguments are logic from another world. From we need to arm teachers and security guards at schools to there's more deaths for car accidents (like seriously?) While they are in denial with their below average IQ, more people are dying. Simple as that.

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.



Around the Network
Chrkeller said:
Machiavellian said:

You better order your food from  hello fresh because its not like that is the only place you can find someone willing to go on a killing spree in the US.

Between fishing, videogames and grilling...  can't say I go out much anymore.  But yeah, I don't disagree it is a problem.  I'm just 100% jaded because it isn't like anything is going to change.  This has been a problem for a long time.  Heck Sandyhook was a decade ago...  I don't see the point in expecting change when we all know it isn't coming.

The reality is one side will blame guns, the other side will blame everything but guns...  and in 30 days we will sweep this under the rug, and repeat said discussion when this happens again.  Rinse/repeat.

NO, there will be no change.  The GOP is already lining up their blame game and its going to be everyone and everything besides the easy access to guns.  They will continue to use the same lines they have always used because their constituents believe and accept those sayings.  Ted Cruz already came out with his excuses and when you read the comments you see how easy people believe the solution is to create our schools into armed prisons.



Chrkeller said:
cyberninja45 said:

Why arms guards in schools a bad thing?

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?



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



cyberninja45 said:
Drakrami said:

Obviously guns is the problem. Doesn't take a 10 year old to make that out.

The problems are Republicans and rural gun lovers aren't it? Their arguments are logic from another world. From we need to arm teachers and security guards at schools to there's more deaths for car accidents (like seriously?) While they are in denial with their below average IQ, more people are dying. Simple as that.

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.



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.



Around the Network
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.



I would refuse to go to school if I was in the US.


Thoughts and prayers and wipe their tears with NRA money.

Last edited by Hiku - on 25 May 2022

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.  



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.