Gun free zone

[kokojie]

I think it's about time that retarded law makers realize that gun free zone can not be achieved without airport level security.

Let's see, what's the most successful gun free zone? on an airplane, why? because there are sufficient level of security screening.

Who had the bright idea of making schools that has no security check and no walls, a "gun free zone"? Are we to believe that these gun men will simply respect the "gun free zone" because they are lawful, moral and virtuous?

[sebicas]

Let's see, what's the most successful gun free zone? on an airplane, why? because there are sufficient level of security screening.

Are you suggesting to screen kids on the school like they screen passengers on airports?

[kokojie]

Let's see, what's the most successful gun free zone? on an airplane, why? because there are sufficient level of security screening.

Are you suggesting to screen kids on the school like they screen passengers on airports?

Yes, I'm saying if you make a place a "gun free zone", then you better implement airport level security, otherwise, you can't make it a "gun free zone", you are simply putting people in danger, basically you are putting up a sign that says "Everyone at this place is unarmed".

[jgarzik]

Yes, I'm saying if you make a place a "gun free zone", then you better implement airport level security, otherwise, you can't make it a "gun free zone", you are simply putting people in danger, basically you are putting up a sign that says "Everyone at this place is unarmed".

Pretty much.  Most mass shootings in the US happened in so-called gun-free zones.

[Topazan]

In some schools they do have airport style security.  I can't imagine it does wonders for creating a welcoming learning environment.

[firefop]

I agree with what you are saying but...

Airplanes are the most successful gun free zone? Did you forget about 9-11 by chance? At least give the pilots guns! They already hold the lives of everyone on board in their hands.

Personally, I avoid places where I am unable to protect myself and others.

Rather than banning guns - lets ban cars... after all cars killed 3 times more people last year than guns did.

A much better solution would be to mandate that every public functionary carry a handgun - that would pretty much end violence in public schools (and other public venues as well).

[myrkul]

I agree with what you are saying but...

Airplanes are the most successful gun free zone? Did you forget about 9-11 by chance? At least give the pilots guns! They already hold the lives of everyone on board in their hands.

Personally, I avoid places where I am unable to protect myself and others.

Rather than banning guns - lets ban cars... after all cars killed 3 times more people last year than guns did.

A much better solution would be to mandate that every public functionary carry a handgun - that would pretty much end violence in public schools (and other public venues as well).

Or just not mandate that law-abiding people be unarmed to enter an area?

[Mellivora]

Gun Free Zones = Criminal Safe Zones.

Maybe we should get rid compulsive education that forces children into criminal safe zones.


I expect a wave of new gun laws to come out of this tragedy.  But I don't expect NPR (National Propaganda Radio) to cover stories of governments that have participated in genocide and advocate for the banning of government.

[Lethn]

You best example of a gun free zone is an airplane? Really? This will make the Americans on this board ballistic but then again everything does 9/11 happened because a bunch of crazed terrorists seized planes and crashed them into the twin towers, even your 'best' example had a serious flaw with a real life example that is conveniently ignored.

[Luno]

For you Americans:
How about if want to own a firearm, you have to be a member of a neighbourhood guild and your guns are kept in a locker with 3 locks. In case of a zombie apocalypse, you can get together with your neighbours and unlock your firearms. If however. you want to kill your wife or your parents you have a tough job convincing others to unlock the safe. This won't protect you in case of a robbery at home but it will eliminate freak shootings.

In my country we have had a sharp rise in gang related shootings, around 150 episodes in the last 6-7 years. That is in a country where guns are not easily obtainable. The gang bangers manage to get them anyway. However they are totally lousy shots, only 5 people have been killed because of the unfamiliarity with firearms in general in my country. So less firearms in society = less gun related deaths, and if you are robbed, they won't have anything to shoot you with. You're only gonna get beaten and tied up.

Criminals are safer also, as they don't risk their lives trying to make money, but they are also less likely to kill any victims or witnesses. Robbery is not a capital punishable offence!!

So if you don't object to making criminals lives safer, we all can be safer.

[Lethn]

What I think should be done is more checks on the health of people and their families if anyone wants to buy a gun, if they have a known history of mental problems etc. or one of their family members dones then someone should come along and advise them properly on how to make sure the wrong people get their hands on guns. People like to ignore this, but I've noticed a lot of American families who have guns in the household have really stupid ways of keeping them, I see examples where they've left guns on the table or even worse given a person with a known mental disorder a bloody shotgun for their birthday with it loaded. There was that one where a boys mother decided to kill himself with a gun and rather than notice the fact that she gave him the damn gun with the ammo and all, rather than realise what she'd done she decided to blame the game he played, Everquest, of all the stupid things instead.

If it were up to me I'd put the people who leave guns lying around in their houses without being in a locker etc. in jail for extreme negligence, if I could get away with calling it stupidity I would, the problem is though law makers are never going to do this because they're afraid of losing votes from people who want the freedom to be colossal morons in their homes.

[cunicula]

I think it's about time that retarded law makers realize that gun free zone can not be achieved without airport level security.

Let's see, what's the most successful gun free zone? on an airplane, why? because there are sufficient level of security screening.

Who had the bright idea of making schools that has no security check and no walls, a "gun free zone"? Are we to believe that these gun men will simply respect the "gun free zone" because they are lawful, moral and virtuous?

The most effective way is to prohibit private possession of firearms entirely. Obviously a gun free zone is a joke. Gun control starts at the border.

[Rudd-O]

'Gun free zone' = invitation for mass murderers to succeed. Worked for Stalin, worked for the Columbine sociopaths. I wonder why that fat fuck who made that movie did not notice (ostrichism?).

[Rudd-O]

http://cdtbk.com/site/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/20080621-214056-pic-987556172-547x363.jpg
http://cdtbk.com/site/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/sun_c21vwpb.jpeg

In some schools they do have airport style security.  I can't imagine it does wonders for creating a welcoming learning environment.

Schools  = prisons.

[Rudd-O]

Let's see, what's the most successful gun free zone? on an airplane, why? because there are sufficient level of security screening.

Are you suggesting to screen kids on the school like they screen passengers on airports?

Yes, I'm saying if you make a place a "gun free zone", then you better implement airport level security, otherwise, you can't make it a "gun free zone", you are simply putting people in danger, basically you are putting up a sign that says "Everyone at this place is unarmed".

'Government' can't keep weapons or drugs out of the cages they built, what makes you think they can keep them out of the free-range pen where they farm you?

[imanikin]

"Gun-Free zones" anywhere are an oxymoron.

And we can see from America's neighbors that prohibition of private gun ownership is not the solution: Canada has stricter gun laws and gun violence seems to be rare. In Mexico, where private gun ownership is effectively prohibited, gun violence is rampant. So, there is a strong cultural element in this issue.

Rocks are not prohibited in any country; yet, in some countries people are stoned to death, and not in others. And private gun ownership in America long preceded mass murders with them. So, something else changed in American society since then.

Seems like there aren't financial resources in America to put an effective armed guard presence in schools and other "gun-free zones."

Maybe if America stopped providing free defense for other countries, and moved those resources from foreign bases to protecting its own borders and high-value targets, this violence could be stopped, along with illegal border crossings, and associated problems...

Really, this unfortunate community was visited fundamentally by mental illness; the resources for its treatment are limited everywhere, and in America further curtailed by limited health insurance coverage of such illness, co-payments, deductibles, for-profit health care, etc.

Any American who dealt with lifelong mental illness in themselves or loved ones, knows how prohibitively expensive it is to access treatment on a continuous basis. Once again, seems like a question of misplace societal priorities and misdirected resources in American society. 

Deepest sympathies for the people involved in this tragedy.

[cunicula]

"Gun-Free zones" anywhere are an oxymoron.

And we can see from America's neighbors that prohibition of private gun ownership is not the solution: Canada has stricter gun laws and gun violence seems to be rare. In Mexico, where private gun ownership is effectively prohibited, gun violence is rampant. So, there is a strong cultural element in this issue.

Strong government is the answer. Mexico's government is weak. The state does not have a monopoly on violence.

Rocks are not prohibited in any country; yet, in some countries people are stoned to death, and not in others. And private gun ownership in America long preceded mass murders with them. So, something else changed in American society since then.

Punish rock possession with summary execution and you will stop people from being stoned to death.

America used to be far more violent than it is today. If there has been any cultural change, it has been an improvement.
http://blogs.berkeley.edu/2010/06/16/a-crime-puzzle-violent-crime-declines-in-america/
I don't think it is a cultural change, however. The United States has become a progressively stronger state. The police force has become progressively more effective at enforcing lawful behavior among its citizens.

If you want to do even better then today (near the US historical best in terms of violent crime rates), then you will have to repeal the 2nd Amendment, restrict gun ownership to state agencies, and aggressively enforce this law.

The homicide rate in Singapore (perhaps the strictest prohibition of firearms in the world coupled with strong, incorruptible enforcement; any private discharge of a firearm = capital punishment) is one-fourteenth of that in the United States.

[Axios]

Rather than banning guns - lets ban cars... after all cars killed 3 times more people last year than guns did.

A much better solution would be to mandate that every public functionary carry a handgun - that would pretty much end violence in public schools (and other public venues as well).

2-3? More like about the same.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm

In 2011: Guns killed: 31,347 Cars killed:34,485

Drivers are licensed. Need to take a exam. Have Insurance.

That would mean every gun would require an insurance payment of $20-50 / month. And if we take a case like in CT, the insurance companies would need to pay out about 1 million to victims. I am all for mandatory gun insurance.

[Charlie Prime]

Imagine how many children would be alive today if teachers and principals at Sandy Brook had been allowed to carry self-defense weapons on school property.

Self-defense is a basic human right.  I detest the people who deprived the children in Connecticut of their basic human rights.

[yogi]

From an outside perspective the American response to gun crime is very strange. The usual response from a country is an outpouring of shock and grief. The American response is to start panicking that someone might take your guns away.

The fact is, country's with stricter gun controls generally have lower rates of gun crime. The idea that more guns results in less violence is simply a fallacy.