Highly Trained Armed Security In Schools - Reallocate IRS Funds to Do It

Quote by noll

So how do you think the problem of school/mass shootings in the US can be solved then?

I think it's time we consider legalizing fully automatic weapons.

Quote by Magical_felix

I think it's time we consider legalizing fully automatic weapons.

I see. Care to elaborate?

Quote by noll

I see. Care to elaborate?

Well, the mass shooters have semi-automatic assault rifles so if we legalize full automatic machine guns we can defend ourselves. I think we need to legalize grenades too.

The red line is when republicans let the assault weapons ban expire.

2016-2020 was a particularly active time for mass shooting of strangers as well.

Quote by Ironic

I haven't read any posts here that seem to me to be trying to exclude anybody because they're not American.

You haven’t seen those posts because they’ve been removed, and that will continue to be the case.

If one can’t make their point without saying or otherwise implying that someone’s opinion is invalid because of their nationality, then one shouldn’t post in a Think Tank that is open to all nationalities.

This is the last time I’ll be commenting on this subject.

Let’s please return to the topic at hand.

Quote by Ironic

Every solution for any country's problem will be special to that country because they'll all depend on the country's politics.

The Swiss approach to gun control is a Swiss solution, not an American, German, French, or any other country's solution.

Whatever the fix is for the American school shootings will be an American solution, not one from another country, because every other country has different politics.

I haven't read any posts here that seem to me to be trying to exclude anybody because they're not American.

Many countries have things like licenses, registrations and perhaps occasional buy back campaigns. The details are of course (or hopefully) fine-tuned for that specific country, but the general approach is often similar in nature.

Quote by Ironic

We all know Americans have the right to own firearms. Posts which are proposals to remove guns from Americans are as unproductive as complaining about gravity pulling on us because taking guns away from Americans will require a constitutional amendment, and that's not going to happen anytime soon.

what about posts that propose to restrict the use of certain models of firearms, aka automatics and semi-automatics? do Americans have the right to own any and every firearm? and yes, it's not going to happen soon, but should it happen? i'm not talking about taking away all guns. i'm talking about restricting the right to own certain guns that most sane people can agree that their only real use is for committing mass murder.

Quote by noll

Many countries have things like licenses, registrations and perhaps occasional buy back campaigns. The details are of course (or hopefully) fine-tuned for that specific country, but the general approach is often similar in nature.

most other countries have decided that common sense and sanity are integral to the quality of life and a safe and happy society.

Quote by Ironic

We all know Americans have the right to own firearms. Posts which are proposals to remove guns from Americans are as unproductive as complaining about gravity pulling on us because taking guns away from Americans will require a constitutional amendment, and that's not going to happen anytime soon.

Gravity isn't man made. The US constitution and its amendments are. If a constitutional amendment is required to fix the current gun violence issues in the US, which I think is the case, then it's pretty sick IMO to not push for such amendment given all the lives that are taken as a result of the violence.

So how do you think the problem of school/mass shootings in the US can be solved?

Quote by Ironic

It will be solved by not rejecting every post that's different from the repeated "get rid of the guns" approach. It's the people who think that their ideas are the only ones that'll work, and attack all the others, that slow progress.

Wait, you think the issue will be solved here, in Lush's Think Tank? And that the level of moderation is what keeps the US from fixing this issue?

Quote by Ironic

I didn't say anything of the sort, and you know it.

Except you did.

The mass shooting issue won’t be resolved in the Lush Think Tank forum. But we’re not here to resolve the issue. We’re here to discuss our opinions of approaches to this issue.

Quote by Ironic

That country-specific approach is what I told Dani.

Take the buyback campaigns, for example. There are millions of privately owned guns here in the US. Any meaningful buyback program would cost a lot of money, and after it was over, what of the guns whose owners didn't sell?

You think that's specific to the US? That all other countries who've had buy back programs collected all the guns in one campaign? Of course that's not what's happening during those campaigns, but they can still speed up the process of getting firearms, that are about to become, or have recently become illegal, out of circulation.

In these discussion there's often mention of "law abiding citizens". Buy back programs are giving citizens the option to remain law abiding citizens while laws are changing, or regain that status when laws have already changed.

Apart from the numbers of firearms per capita I don't really see why that would be fundamentally different in the US compared to other nations. And yes that may take more money than in other countries with less firearms around. But that's another reason why it should've happened way earlier. Waiting longer makes the problem a bigger issue, with more innocent deaths, and also increasingly harder to tackle.

Quote by Ironic

You already know Americans don't have the right to own any and every firearm, so why are you asking?

Your use of "sane" when describing people engaged in a debate is pejorative; so's "committing mass murder".

I happen to agree with you that there's little reason for the retail sale of assault rifles.

they currently have the right to own semi-automatic weapons, whose singular use seems to be killing a large number of people, including kids. and there are kits that enable owners to turn semi-automatic weapons into fully automatic weapons. there are also lobbyists who would like to make automatic weapons legal, so really, the question is, are you okay with that or do you think that limiting/taking away certain firearms seems like a common sense move?

and okay, i will withdraw the word "sane" and replace it with "sensible" as well as withdraw the phrase "committing mass murder" with "killing a bunch of innocent people/target shooting/protecting your home with a weapon that is, frankly, overkill". better?

Quote by Ironic

I didn't say anything of the sort, and you know it.

Then what "rejecting every post" were you referring to?

Quote by Ironic

Your use of "sane" when describing people engaged in a debate is pejorative; so's "committing mass murder".

I'd say that in the context of the crazy amounts of mass shooting taking place in the US, stating…

We all know Americans have the right to own firearms. Posts which are proposals to remove guns from Americans are as unproductive as complaining about gravity pulling on us because taking guns away from Americans will require a constitutional amendment, and that's not going to happen anytime soon.

… is kinda pejorative.

Quote by Ironic

That country-specific approach is what I told Dani.

Take the buyback campaigns, for example. There are millions of privately owned guns here in the US. Any meaningful buyback program would cost a lot of money, and after it was over, what of the guns whose owners didn't sell?

saving lives > saving money, imo. as for gun owners who didn't sell - let's say you only take 40% of said guns off the street - theoretically, that could save 40% of the lives taken by gun violence or accidents. see, the thing is? i'm weird. i value human life over the need to own a gun. if you take a moment and really examine the issue, why do Americans NEED so many guns? Sure, it's a right, but in all honesty, so we really need them? okay, hunting. i get that. kind of, though i'm not a fan. i think that about covers it

btw, i am a gun over - a very recent event. a handgun - and i have a CC permit. the gun resides in a locked safe. it comes out for target practice once a month. and then goes back in. i have taken safety courses and it is registered. this is reasonable and sensible gun ownership, in my opinion. if everyone followed my example, i would be fine with people owning guns. not everyone does. most don't, imo. that is the real issue.

Quote by Ironic

No, I didn't. You're wrong, and you can't quote me posting what noll aid I did.

You're right about the mass shooting issue not being resolved here, though.

Are you proposing an approach requiring a constitutional amendment? If so, I think you've selected an approach that's take a long, long time.

just because it might take a long long time, doesn't mean it's not worth pursuing. there are a lot of things that took a long long time to change. slavery comes to mind. worth it, in the long run? you betcha. the sooner we start, the sooner the change, a change that is good for, imo, both society and individuals (frankly, i think people are getting sick of burying sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, moms, dads... well, i think i don't need to go on - you get the point, right?).

Quote by Ironic

No, I didn't. You're wrong, and you can't quote me posting what noll aid I did.

You're right about the mass shooting issue not being resolved here, though.

Are you proposing an approach requiring a constitutional amendment? If so, I think you've selected an approach that's take a long, long time.

So, what "rejecting every post" were you referring to?

But more on-topic: what faster approach would you suggest then?

Quote by Ironic

Nobody's worth an infinite amount of money.

Why are you assuming that the 40% reduction would reduce the shootings by 40%? It probably would reduce the shootings, but there's no obvious reason to assume that the 40% reduction would be taking all the guns that would otherwise have been used in shootings.

I don't own a gun because I think I don't need one. But if a hunter (rifle) feels a need for a handgun for self defense, then that's 2 for the hunter. Since the right exists and will continue to exist until amended away, I think laws limiting the number that can be owned legally will be difficult to get past judicial review.

More American "can't do".

Imagine telling the parents of all the school kids killed "Sorry, but even the thought of trying to fix the issue of gun violence was just too hard, but here's our thoughts and prayers".

Quote by Ironic

If you're comfortable with the long ride, that's the approach for you to take.

So, is there an approach that will yield results faster then?

Quote by Ironic

More complaining the US isn't the way you'd like it.

What’s your issue with such complaining regarding gun violence in a thread about possible solutions to gun violence?

Quote by Ironic

More red flag laws - if they can be written well enough to get through the course.

The thread topic idea should be discussed instead of dismissed.

Red flag laws such as "a registry of people with mental health issues"?

Telling others that they can't dismiss a topic they deem nonsensical sounds exactly like rejecting posts, of which you accused the mods.

Quote by Ironic

Calling people who don't agree with your POV on the Constitution sick is divisive and unproductive, IMO.

Funny that you respond to that, but not to the many times I've asked you about a faster approach.

Quote by Ironic

No, I didn't. You're wrong, and you can't quote me posting what noll aid I did.

You're right about the mass shooting issue not being resolved here, though.

Are you proposing an approach requiring a constitutional amendment? If so, I think you've selected an approach that's take a long, long time.

You’ve already been quoted saying exactly that. But I’m happy to let the matter die. It’s not very productive.

And no, I’m not proposing an amendment to the constitution, because 1.) I’m not an advocate for revoking the right to bear arms. I don’t want guns to go away. I never have. And 2.) I believe that gun reform is possible without having to change the constitution. For example, the ban on assault rifles happened without amending the constitution, and it can happen again.

Quote by Ironic

Because noll's "More American "can't do". " isn't addressing any part of the thread topic.

Since when is opining that America’s response to gun violence is inadequate in a thread about responses to gun violence off topic?

Quote by Ironic

No. Red flag law - Wikipedia

You might catch a few potential killers in time with that, but it's slow and works backwards. A Green Flag Law would be better: make it a repeating requirement for gun owners to prove their sanity. The Red Flag laws could be a backup to plug the holes then.

Quote by Ironic

It will be solved by not rejecting every post that's different from the repeated "get rid of the guns" approach. It's the people who think that their ideas are the only ones that'll work, and attack all the others, that slow progress.

A quote of Ironic implying that the gun violence issue which we’re presently discussing in this thread will be solved by what posts get “rejected” in the Think Tank on Lush.

Thankfully, we’ve all acknowledged that this isn’t the case, and can move forward with our differing opinions regarding how to resolve the gun violence issue in America without these red herring side discussions that do nothing but derail the thread.

Quote by Ironic

It was unproductive because his "More American "can't do". " didn't address any part of the thread topic. .

If that were the case, I would have removed/edited the post, as I’ve done with his and many others’ posts in this thread that have been off topic.

Quote by Ironic

It was unproductive because his "More American "can't do". " didn't address any part of the thread topic. .

The thread's topic is about fighting the symptoms, instead the cause, because of American "can't do" mentality in this context.

Quote by Ironic

Nobody's worth an infinite amount of money.

Why are you assuming that the 40% reduction would reduce the shootings by 40%? It probably would reduce the shootings, but there's no obvious reason to assume that the 40% reduction would be taking all the guns that would otherwise have been used in shootings.

I don't own a gun because I think I don't need one. But if a hunter (rifle) feels a need for a handgun for self defense, then that's 2 for the hunter. Since the right exists and will continue to exist until amended away, I think laws limiting the number that can be owned legally will be difficult to get past judicial review.

i am not assuming that a 40% reduction would reduce shootings by 40%, hence the word 'theoretically'. thing is, i'd be happy with ANY reduction - even 1% would work. did you know that, so far this year, there have been 17 mass shooting just in Texas? if we could have reduced that to 16 - one less - that would make it worth it, imo. def make it worth it to however many people that equates to. let's say it's 4. four lives saved. to me, that's an epic win. to those 4 people and their families, it would be a miraculous win. see where i'm going here? we seem to be having more and more mass shooting. turning it around to less and less would be a good thing, right? unless we're just okay with mass shootings as long as we maintain our rights to own guns?

right, you might not need one. i am assuming that you're (and don't take this as an insult or me taking shots at you, it's just reality) a target of any kind - white. middle-aged. straight. male. probably not outspoken about unpopular stances or politically involved outside of the internet, where you can maintain some anonymity. does that sound about right? not all of us fit that description. i (and my wife) had a very long discussion about it - there were a lot of factors that went into the decision, but essentially, we came to the conclusion that we are both potential targets and it would be prudent to be prepared in case things go completely south at some point in our lives. I mean, dude, Trump DOES plan on running again, right?