Main Menu

The Political Thread

Started by The Legendary Shark, 09 April, 2010, 03:59:03 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Professor Bear

13 well-trained military personnel were gunned down at Fort Hood by a spree killer, but sure: a civics teacher will fare much better.

Theblazeuk

The best-case scenario here is minimum 2 casualties. The 'bad guy with a gun' and whoever they shot first so the 'good guy with a gun' could open fire.

M.I.K.

There's also the issue of what happens if the teacher is the 'bad guy'.

The perpetrator of the Dunblane massacre was a youth club director and had previously been a Scout leader.

TordelBack

Quote from: Theblazeuk on 22 February, 2018, 01:57:15 PM
The best-case scenario here is minimum 2 casualties. The 'bad guy with a gun' and whoever they shot first so the 'good guy with a gun' could open fire.

Nah, the best case is that armed teachers - or the kids that access their weapons - accidentally (or deliberately) kill fewer students than would have been killed without their supposed deterrent effect. And given the numbers of teachers we're talking about, I would consider that to be a deeply improbable outcome. The solution to guns in is not, and has never been, more guns.


Tjm86

Plus there is the issue of teacher burnout and stress.  How good an idea is it to have professionals with a high incidence of mental health issues bringing firearms to work?  Also, what happens if a kid accidentally gets hold of it?

Yeah, this is shaping up into a really good idea.   :o

K2

FwiW; The issue with firearms and these random shootings I personally believe has little to nothing to do with firearms themselves, ease of their procurement, or a reciprocal threat on the premises (teachers having guns).  I do believe you need some controls as to who and how firearms are procured, yet I believe the answer is much simpler though much more difficult to address.

50-years ago firearms in the U.S. were not only easier to get, by virtually anyone, yet there was also no fear of a response (as in quickly alerted L.E., armed guards, etc.)  In fact in rural communities it was not that uncommon for someone to go out hunting in the morning and then take their firearm to school and it was not given a second thought.  By virtue of all of the suggestions, there should have been even more shootings then, though decreased proportionally due to population.

In any case, I believe among many other issues one of the biggest is the loss of feeling a sense of responsibility to one's family, their name, good standing and so on, as well as to the community.  Naturally that means a much bigger problem being that those values aren't taught, and on the same token aren't enforced by the community at large... Further, as much as so many people are afraid to say such now-a-days, one of the biggest aspects of that family and community often revolved around their faith in God.

The second there is no belief in an inescapable overseer, then the possibility of convincing ones self of 'getting away with it, being praised for it, finding acclaim or notoriety for it, etc..' and then having to pay with no greater consequence than your life (which really makes no sense to me, most youngsters are fatalists at one time or another, so if this life is all there is, why wouldn't you fight and scratch for it), then why not (as a twisted mind would envision it)?

Personally, I believe you could establish all sorts of defenses, and they'll find their way around them. Ban guns, and they'll still find them.  Destroy all the guns, and they'll use something else...

It's a deeper issue, one where the individual, and their families, and the communities need to begin once more taking responsibility for everything/one else, instead of where being an "individual" without responsibility to others is the end all goal.  So it is a MUCH bigger problem.

K2

Professor Bear

The GOP is pathologically incapable of arguing its side without personal attacks, so there is every possibility this one is going to go badly for them - especially in a mid-term election year.

Tjm86

Quote from: K2 on 22 February, 2018, 03:26:23 PM

It's a deeper issue, one where the individual, and their families, and the communities need to begin once more taking responsibility for everything/one else, instead of where being an "individual" without responsibility to others is the end all goal.  So it is a MUCH bigger problem.


Granted there are other dimensions to this issue.  Trump is not completely wrong to suggest that mental health support could be more robust.  I may be misreading your core argument which seems to suggest that the decline in religious observance may be a factor and I can see where that might have come from.  Certain American politicians have been decrying the decline of morality and linking it thusly.  Your final point is one that I'm not entirely sold on though.

Firstly my understanding, albeit flawed and limited, is that American's value individual responsibility and self sufficiency above a lot of other things (from American relatives and time living among US armed forces personnel out in Germany).  The idea of the 'self made wo/man' is often cited as a key feature of the American psyche.  Secondly, a sizeable chunk of American's prefer local community solutions to government imposed federal solutions.  There is an inherent tension in American politics as it tries to resolve this dichotomy.

it is a MUCH bigger problem, that much is true.  I think it's also fair to say that Trump's proposed solution could make it so as well.  Having said that, I think that this time the NRA might find themselves on the losing side of history.  Maybe someone will finally call them out on the first half of the 2nd Amendment.  Does America still need a well armed militia to protect the citizenry against the British?  (let's face it, a pea shooter would probably do the trick).

IndigoPrime


TordelBack

#14034
Quote from: K2 on 22 February, 2018, 03:26:23 PM
Destroy all the guns, and they'll use something else...

And yet in Australia and the UK they didn't. American exceptionalism is never more frustrating than when applied to this issue.  In aggregate human behaviour is becoming less violent, less criminal,  year after year: the US is part of this trend,  your population is not composed of any more amoral rudderless psychos than the rest, but of all the rich western countries,  only in the one where you can pretend you need a military grade firearm to hunt deer and/or protect yourself from uppity negroes does this crap happen again and again and again. Join the bloody dots.

K2

Quote from: Tjm86 on 22 February, 2018, 04:00:53 PM***Compressed Quote***
Granted there are other dimensions to this issue...........Does America still need a well armed militia to protect the citizenry against the British?

Against the British? Are you kidding me, would you want them traipsing around your backyard?  ;)

In any case, first off, get the idea that Trump is going to be good for anything right out of your head... I'll just leave it at that.  Secondly, the 2nd Amendment is not just about defending against other nations, or other individuals.  It is most importantly about defending against your own government if they decide that the constitution can be scrapped and they can just take charge (The Declaration of Independence spells it out much better than I ever could... Simply replace Great Britain with "the U.S. Government").

That said, morality is subjective.  My morality is not your morality, and my morality may not jibe with societal standards, yet I'm free to live my morality as long as I don't impose it on others.  It has nothing to do with women's rights, and even as contradictory as it sounds, an individuals rights... and to some degree even what level of government it comes from.  You're encouraged to be an individual.  In fact if you think about it, in a good home you're groomed for the day you go out and are that independent individual, to give you the tools to do so both mentally and emotionally.

What I'm talking about is a sense of responsibility.  To your family, your friends, your local community, customers, people you encounter, state, and then nation.   Until a few years ago, schools and churches were the focal point of community.  I lived in a region where dependent upon what church a family went to established the smallest aspect of community after family (and many friends also went there).  Then it worked up the scale.  In fact, people would be looked at as coming from a separate yet peer community if they didn't attend the same church.  To not attend church at all made you an absolute outsider.

Church and God regardless, it boiled down to having a sense of responsibility to others... That your actions or inactions could not only harm yourself, yet harm the ever escalating and greater community at large, and you dared not risk that lest you be excluded from that community.  That oddly is part of it too.  We now tend to tolerate people who want this and that from the community, yet never participate let alone give back.  So instead of having this ever growing ring of communities that you're a part of, that you feel "responsible to and for" and realize and accept that you affect them and that they affect you... People have made themselves into islands.  They take no responsibility for anything except themselves, mostly in that they're not a part of it.

If you have to blame something, blame the loss of personal interaction due to the internet, though it goes back further than that.

In the end, it's about feeling both a responsibility to others, obligation, and feeling a need to contribute and bear the losses that occur when we fail to act and participate.

Someone I know has a great answer for many questions that in his case bears tremendous weight.

"How do I know you'll do X?"... 'Because I'm _____ ________."
"How do I know you're not lying?"... 'Because I'm _____ ______."
etc..

His name bears weight not because of fame or fortune, yet due to his consistent honesty, resolve, and sense of responsibility. And it all started with never wanting to harm his families name, and just worked out from there.

So it boils down to "each of us" as individuals living our lives being more concerned for others than for self.  Then actually getting out there and being a part of it, contributing, not just taking or doing it all on our own.

That's what I'm talking about ;)

Boy, can I yap or what?

K2

K2

Quote from: TordelBack on 22 February, 2018, 05:35:05 PMAnd yet in Australia and the UK they didn't... ***Quote cut short***

And yet, didn't they recently pass or try to pass a ban on long and large bladed weapons like swords, machetes and so on?  "American Exceptionalism?"  How about we not turn it into that debate along with all the other qualifiers you've stated.  Such an approach negates having a discussion.

K2

TordelBack

Quote from: K2 on 22 February, 2018, 05:37:25 PM
That said, morality is subjective. 

To a point. And the idea that the constitutional right to maintain a well-regulated militia somehow trumps the rights of children not to be mown down by a freely-available semi+automatic weapon seems to be to way beyond that point.

I accept your arguments about personal responsibility,  and responsibility to others. But that has nothing to do with what happens when you liberally distribute devices that have only one purpose.

Big_Dave

the us public school system
disproves the idea
that if everyone was armed
fewer kids would die

TordelBack

#14039
Quote from: K2 on 22 February, 2018, 05:42:25 PM
And yet, didn't they recently pass or try to pass a ban on long and large bladed weapons like swords, machetes and so on? 

*checks Google for stats on recent school massacres by machete in UK*

Your point?

My reference to 'American exceptionalism' is to the idea that US citizens and culture are somehow exempt from the patterns experienced by the mass of humanity: the notion that your country is so fucked that if you took away the guns there'd be the same number of mass-murders,  just with cutlery,  is the example at hand. It doesn't happen