Poll: Arm the Victims or Take Away the Gun?

[Clive Howlitzer]

I think it's wrong to simplify the incredibly complex issue of gun control down to a simple binary choice. I think both options are completely stupid, and completely ignore a lot of the real issues at hand.

This. There is also a lot of other problems here besides gun control. Gun control laws are not the only reason these things happen and only people who are strongly anti-guns will say so.
There are a lot of mental health problems that could be addressed(Without just throwing drugs at all the problems), as well as increasing of education.
Also, while we are at it, why don't we hold the media responsible a little bit? They glorify these people, you see their faces plastered up on every news site and news channel for weeks after an incident. They become immortal, no one will ever forget their name. All you do is create a society where if you want to go out in a blaze of glory so you'll be remembered, you need to try and top the last guy so the media will jump all over it.

 

[Tanakh]

I personally think that we should allow teachers to have a weapon in the classroom (doesn't necessarily need to be a gun) and have it in their desk or purse. Also if the teacher does want to keep a gun in their classroom they should be required to go through some sort of gun safety course and gun handling course.

Seriously? Exactly how would that work? I mean, it sounds like the shittiest idea ever because:

- The teacher can be subuded and the gun taken (sure, some teachers are fit, but most? The average highschooler can take em out easily). IE, it gives an easy access to guns for crazy people, and they need to do nothing but subdue an old or feeble teacher.

- The "desk" of every teacher in US would need to be a minisafebox.

- Schools would need to increase drastically their security to prevent the guns from being taken OR teachers would need to carry armed twice a day through school halls.

- Teachers would need to take a psych evaluation every year at least.

- If a crazy dude flips, then what mate? You think the psycho wont wait till the teacher is a couple of steps away and then shoot him first? Or should teachers also wear vests?

- Teachers would need to be at least at US marine shooting level. A psycho is killing students you say? Well, the teacher would be obligated to take action, possibly needing to shot him in a very stressful situation with rooms full of children.

I do not have an answer, but that one seriously sounds bad. As a Mexican I really don't care that much either way, just wish you would sort that cesspool of arm system you have so they wouldn't reach here.

 

[Andy Shandy]

Between these two extremes, I'd have to choose banning the guns.

The teacher, no matter all the gun safety and gun handling courses they'd had, is in all likelihood, going to be freaking out like all hell if something like this happens. And that isn't going to make it any safer. And when these panicked teachers get killed, all you've gone and done is give the killer more guns and ammo to kill with.

 

[Aetherlblade]

Arm the victims because banning guns is no option. Banning guns is just another way of pacifying the population.

Indeed, which is a GOOD thing in my opinion. How many times have guns been used in a BAD way since the initial revolution? And then how many times have they been used in a "GOOD" way, by overthrowing the goverment? I don't see Europeans, Canadians and other western nations being suppresed or whatever because the population is not armed like a disorganized mob like in America.

 

[Phasmal]

As a Brit, I really can't understand America's gun culture. It's freaky to me.
However, I seriously doubt that the answer to everybody getting shot all the time is more guns.
I don't think `ban guns` is possible with so many people weirdly attached to their guns, but their definitely needs to be more control.

 

[Jynthor]

Neither.
When you ban guns, fucked up people who are planning to shoot somebody WILL find a way to find a gun. Even if they don't they'll kill people with something else.
Banning them is bloody useless.

 

[ScorpionPrince]

Give everyone a tranquilizer gun. Problem solved.

 

[Spade Lead]

Now my question, how many revolutionary wars have American civilians participated in since then? You are honestly saying that, because some many many years ago, civilians fought in a war with soldiers, that at this point in time, with no wars being fought on American soil, they are still allowed to carry said guns?

That sounds absolutely ridiculous.

Still with a sense of history, it wasn't that long ago we fought the Civil War, either.

Whether you agree or not, it's an interesting lesson in history. Something to think about...

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

-----------------------------

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.

 

[Aetherlblade]

Arm the victims because banning guns is no option. Banning guns is just another way of pacifying the population.

Indeed, which is a GOOD thing in my opinion. How many times have guns been used in a BAD way since the initial revolution? And then how many times have they been used in a "GOOD" way, by overthrowing the goverment? I don't see Europeans, Canadians and other western nations being suppresed or whatever because the population is not armed like a disorganized mob like in America.

You don't see, because you are blind.

Right, that is a great argument you got there..

 

[Rawne1980]

My problem comes from giving people guns who have no idea what the fuck they are doing with them.

Letting every random Joe own a gun is just about the silliest thing I can think of.

Mavis the Maths teacher pulls out a gun to protect her class. The safest place to stand is directly infront of her. She's never used a gun before and she isn't prepared for the kickback. As soon as she pulls that trigger the bullets will be flying everywhere but the direction she wants them to.

The attacker is safe but the roof is fucked.

 

[Breywood]

I think it's wrong to simplify the incredibly complex issue of gun control down to a simple binary choice. I think both options are completely stupid, and completely ignore a lot of the real issues at hand.

Count me as number 3 to say the word "this"

 

[Broax]

Yes... Since weapons bring so much peace and prosperity to the US states I can't imagine how more guns would do any harm!

 

[maninahat]

Neither is particularly plausible - it would be practically impossible to remove guns from the US and the surround countries, so banning only has a limited effect in itself. Meanwhile, arming victims won't work, because the people who run amok specifically avoid places where people are likely to be armed. If teachers did carry guns, what's to say a gun man won't attack a public swimming pool or a retirement home instead of a school?

I pick the ban, if only because it takes away the weapons from otherwise honest citizens who would use the weapon in a crime of passion or suicide (the biggest killers by far), and creates a stumbling block for teenagers who plan massacres. Unlike professional criminals, middle-class school kids don't often have access to black markets, so without a convenient, legitimate method to get guns, I suspect a lot of massacres could be avoided.

How often do kill sprees happen in the UK? Once every 20 years. How often in the US? Bi-annually.

 

[invadergir]

We all know whats going on in the news lately and everyone here in the US is arguing over banning guns. The arguments that I keep hearing are ban guns so no one can get them or give everyone guns.

What I really want to know is what do you my fellow escapist think?

I personally think that we should allow teachers to have a weapon in the classroom (doesn't necessarily need to be a gun) and have it in their desk or purse. Also if the teacher does want to keep a gun in their classroom they should be required to go through some sort of gun safety course and gun handling course.

If people are worried that the teachers aren't trust worthy then who is?

Uhhh why such a black and white approach? This isn't Fox news here.

The either/or fallacy perpetuated upon us by the right-wing has become silly. Either allow children to stay alive OOOOOOR we have stormtroopers invading your houses raping your mother.

 

[Extra-Ordinary]

I don't own a gun myself and I don't like to get involved too much in the politics but between the choices take away ALL the guns or put them in the hands of EVERY citizen...
I don't know, it seems like both of those kind of nuke the anthill.