NationStates Jolt Archive

Of course this will be a new gun thread!

When classes start Aug. 25 in the tiny Harrold school district, there will be one distinct difference from years prior: Some of the teachers may have guns.

To deter and protect against school shootings, trustees have altered district policy to allow employees to carry concealed weapons if they have a state permit and permission from the administration. The 110-student district lies 150 miles northwest of Fort Worth on the eastern end of Wilbarger County, near the Oklahoma border.

More than a dozen state legislatures have considered making it legal to carry guns on college campuses, but experts and officials contacted by the Star-Telegram say the move is unheard of in elementary or secondary schools.

Superintendent David Thweatt said a main concern was that the small community is a 30-minute drive from the sheriff’s office, leaving students and teachers without protection.

'To be prepared’

The district’s lone campus sits 500 feet from heavily trafficked U.S. 287, which could make it a target, Thweatt said.
Story (http://www.star-telegram.com/news/story/834022.html)

Good idea? Or bad?

I think it's a bad idea. It seems to me to be either a stroke of paranoia or a declaration of how the US society is failing to protect its citizens - or an uhealthy combination of both.

Considering the various school shootings and other random shootings as well as incidents such as the recent killing of Arkansas Democratic Party Chairman Bill Gwatney, one could be inclined to think that some steps have to be taken.

So should the US government admit defeat and complete failure, and leave it up to the individual citizen to protect him and her self by any means possible? If not, what can be done to improve the security situation and reduce the persistent feeling of fear that seems to permeate certain parts of the society? Or is the fear just an illusion, and the average Joe is really pretty safe as it is?

I presume there is generally some sort of screening before one can be employed at a school in the first place, so the school employees are likely to be fairly trustworthy with a gun i.e. not criminal/insane. If its possible for disturbed people to get their hands on guns, its better that you provide trustworthy individuals with them in schools too, as a deterrent. I'd rather no-one was permitted to go around carrying guns, but given that people are, yeh, it seems fairly sensible

It should be mandatory (or at least strongly encouraged), not just permitted.

The internal safety of US is based on every criminal knowing that if he tries something, he'll catch bullets from every passerby.

I presume there is generally some sort of screening before one can be employed at a school in the first place, so the school employees are likely to be fairly trustworthy with a gun i.e. not criminal/insane. If its possible for disturbed people to get their hands on guns, its better that you provide trustworthy individuals with them in schools too, as a deterrent. I'd rather no-one was permitted to go around carrying guns, but given that people are, yeh, it seems fairly sensible


I agree. The people we don't want to have guns have them, so therefore we need to have them too. It's why though most police in Britain don't have guns, a small number do - while the majority don't need to be armed, at least someone does if we are too be truly safe.

It should be mandatory (or at least strongly encouraged), not just permitted.

The internal safety of US is based on every criminal knowing that if he tries something, he'll catch bullets from every passerby.

So you argue that the American government has failed in its primary task - ensuring the safety of its citizenry?

Why does the police force still exist in the way it is today? If the police are unable and not obliged to protect citizens, why isn't it privatized - except perhaps for an investigative unit connected to the criminal justice system?

So you argue that the American government has failed in its primary task - ensuring the safety of its citizenry?
No, the government was never supposed to guarantee absolute safety to people doing nothing for themselves. It's impossible. Rather, the government's primary task is to allow and help the citizens to exercise their right to defend against crime.

No, the government was never supposed to guarantee absolute safety to people doing nothing for themselves. It's impossible. Rather, the government's primary task is to allow and help the citizens to exercise their right to defend against crime.

Who said anything about "absolute"?

You don't seem to think that the government has any role in protecting their citizen (from internal security threats) when you argue that the populace need to be armed, and that it should be manditory for teachers to be armed.

I presume there is generally some sort of screening before one can be employed at a school in the first place, so the school employees are likely to be fairly trustworthy with a gun i.e. not criminal/insane.

Considering my 6th grade geography teacher who would scream at a silent class room to stop talking I'm not as willing as you to believe that.

No, the government was never supposed to guarantee absolute safety to people doing nothing for themselves. It's impossible. Rather, the government's primary task is to allow and help the citizens to exercise their right to defend against crime.

No one said that the government was supposed to guarantee absolute safety, just that the government was supposed to protect its citizenry to the extent that it can without vioating their legalrights.

Anyway, if citizens have to protect themselves from each other, or external threats, doesn't that make their country a failed state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Failed_state), a la Somalia?

edit: Gravlen beat me to it.

You don't seem to think that the government has any role in protecting their citizen (from internal security threats) when you argue that the populace need to be armed, and that it should be manditory for teachers to be armed.
a=F/m.
Ek=mv^2/2.
E=mc^2.
P=mv.
g=9.81m/s^2.
It takes at least one armed defender of the law per one defenseless person to even talk about actual protection. With anything less, it's only possible to keep an impression of order in the visible places, nothing more.


Any state with half its population in the police (even with more than 1% in the police) is a fascist one and doesn't deserve to exist. So, the only way to have any protection is to give the law-abiding citizens the right and the means to defend themselves.

The only possible way a non-fascist government can build a safe society is by providing firearm use training and encouraging their concealed or open carrying by most of the population.

i can't imagine teachers walking down hallways with guns.

just to add something that this thread reminded me of:

I've had bad teachers that got angry really easily, and I've had good teachers that just cracked once and did things that they regretted. I imagine that if they had a gun in their reach then it would have gone beyond yelling and throwing chairs across the room, IE someone actually being physically harmed or killed. Guns don't magically make someone a reasonable human being, they just make them more readily able to kill someone

It should be mandatory (or at least strongly encouraged), not just permitted.

The internal safety of US is based on every criminal knowing that if he tries something, innocent passersby'll catch bullets from every crime.

Fixed.

The only possible way a non-fascist government can build a safe society is by providing firearm use training and encouraging their concealed or open carrying by most of the population.

So you would call the scandinavian societies unsafe?

Fixed.
No.

Every criminal can have arms regardless of what the law says on this. The criminals are already armed. Weapon legality has no effect on them.
It only lets the citizens to be able to defend themselves, as opposed to concentrating the power in the hands of the criminals.




So you would call the scandinavian societies unsafe?
The classic Scandinavian society has been very reasonable and pretty safe.

Currently, their apparent safety relies only on the small number and low determination of the criminals, and nothing else - should they get the kind of criminals US has, they'll be screwed big time.

Anyway, if citizens have to protect themselves from each other, or external threats, doesn't that make their country a failed state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Failed_state), a la Somalia?
It does indeed.

i can't imagine teachers walking down hallways with guns.
Neither can I. And the day I experience that will be the day I understand that my state has failed completely.

The government has never been able to guarantee safety, and never will.

All the government can do is to react after the fact. Law enforcement is a serious and important aspect of governance, but let's not fool ourselves that the police can now, could in the past, or in the forseeable future will be able to protect individuals from crime or attack.

This action is simply an acknowledgement of reality.

It means that more people with poor aim will be spraying bullets wildly.

It means that more people will be shot unintentionally.

It means that more spur-of-the-moment attacks (eg road rage) will be gunfights not fistfights.

It means that although more criminals will be shot, more innocent people will also be shot.

It means that more people with poor aim will be spraying bullets wildly.
No, it doesn't. Guns are easily legal in most of US, and it doesn't happen.

It means that more people will be shot unintentionally.
But fewer intentionally, because criminals trying that will be quickly disposed of.

And practice shows that most firearm killings are intentional, with but a trivial number of accidental ones - so it ends up as a net gain.

No.

Every criminal can have arms regardless of what the law says on this. The criminals are already armed. Weapon legality has no effect on them.
It only lets the citizens to be able to defend themselves, as opposed to concentrating the power in the hands of the criminals.
So soceiety has failed for a long time... And I ask again: Why have a state sponsored police force?



The classic Scandinavian society has been very reasonable and pretty safe.
Classic? What's the non-classic version?

Currently, their apparent safety relies only on the small number and low determination of the criminals, and nothing else - should they get the kind of criminals US has, they'll be screwed big time.
Can you back any of this up? And explain why that kind of criminals flock to the US instead of going where the citizenry is largely disarmed? And explain why school shootings and indescriminate killing sprees happen more in the US than in Scandinavia?

Fuck no, I don't think people should have guns in school, based on the number of times I've wished to defenestrate annoying students.

The government has never been able to guarantee safety, and never will.

All the government can do is to react after the fact. Law enforcement is a serious and important aspect of governance, but let's not fool ourselves that the police can now, could in the past, or in the forseeable future will be able to protect individuals from crime or attack.
They have before, and they will again.

This action is simply an acknowledgement of reality.
Is it? How? There's no threat to the school, there's no history of violence as far as I know, and it doesn't sound like it's in an area plagued with violence as of now. What's the reality that's being acknowledged here??

Have you considered that some peopel (such as ME) don't want as gun?

Or that people die just as easily from unintentional wounds than intentional wounds?

Or that every time a black candidate makes a speech, the government would require any KKK sympathizers in the crowd to carry guns?

It should be mandatory (or at least strongly encouraged), not just permitted.

The internal safety of US is based on every criminal knowing that if he tries something, he'll catch bullets from every passerby.

In other words, you wish to force people to own and carry a firearm even if they wish not to. You're just as bad as those who support outright bans.

They have before, and they will again.

Frankly, bullshit.


Is it? How? There's no threat to the school, there's no history of violence as far as I know, and it doesn't sound like it's in an area plagued with violence as of now. What's the reality that's being acknowledged here??

That ultimately, protection of an individual is up to that individual and the social network they live in. Police cannot be everywhere; most of the time, they're just picking up the pieces and trying to keep someone from comitting a crime again.

So society has failed for a long time... And I ask again: Why have a state sponsored police force?
But how else will you disperse the anti-Bush protesters?

Classic? What's the non-classic version?
Classic is IX-XII centuries.
Their civilization was much more socially advanced than the modern US, let alone Europe.

Can you back any of this up? And explain why that kind of criminals flock to the US instead of going where the citizenry is largely disarmed?
Criminals don't "flock". They're not another species, they're humans and nationals of their country.
US is very multinational and has immense inequality. For one, blacks have 10 times higher murder commitment rate than whites; of course, that's not related to their nationality, but rather is a consequence of "Harlems" still existing in US - districts rotting in poverty, mostly filled by immigrants and non-whites.

Thus, it's naturally a dangerous place. Armed civilians are a necessity to mitigate that.

And explain why school shootings and indescriminate killing sprees happen more in the US than in Scandinavia?
US is a bigger country, a much more diverse one, and one with much more social tension.
Knives aren't banned in modern Scandinavia, right? So they could still do school cuttings, even if they're too dumb to buy black-market guns.


---

In other words, you wish to force people to own and carry a firearm even if they wish not to.
No, merely refuse them employment in certain places if they don't want to and don't pass the exam. Not to all, but just keep a large fraction of teachers armed.
Although I think it would be a good idea to extend the reach of JROTC or a similar program and provide the better students with earlier gun carry permit and the means to assist defense.

Heh, would be funny to see for how long a fraction of a second will the "school shooters" survive then.

It is going a bit far allowing teachers to shoot pupils - it was bad enough in my day when they threw chalk at you if you weren't paying attention.

It is going a bit far allowing teachers to shoot pupils - it was bad enough in my day when they threw chalk at you if you weren't paying attention.
We're not talking about allowing teachers to shoot pupils, only about allowing them to carry weapons to stop Columbine and VTEC situations.

It is going a bit far allowing teachers to shoot pupils - it was bad enough in my day when they threw chalk at you if you weren't paying attention.
I think the purpose is to defend the students from other GUN welding students, not to use the gun as a form of discipline device.

But how else will you disperse the anti-Bush protesters?*facepalm* Even if the police can't alwaysget there in time to stop a crime it's far better than the vigilante justice you seem to propose

Classic is IX-XII centuries.
Their civilization was much more socially advanced than the modern US, let alone Europe.I'm not knowledgeable about this so I'll skip it


Criminals don't "flock". They're not another species, they're humans and nationals of their country.
US is very multinational and has immense inequality. For one, blacks have 10 times higher murder commitment rate than whites; of course, that's not related to their nationality, but rather is a consequence of "Harlems" still existing in US - districts rotting in poverty, mostly filled by immigrants and non-whites.

Thus, it's naturally a dangerous place. Armed civilians are a necessity to mitigate that.wouldn't a better way to mitigate that be to improve conditions in the slums? But wait that'd be government intervention which is always bad :rolleyes:


US is a bigger country, a much more diverse one, and one with much more social tension.
Knives aren't banned in modern Scandinavia, right? So they could still do school cuttings, even if they're too dumb to buy black-market guns.and yet they don't.

No, merely refuse them employment in certain places if they don't want to and don't pass the exam. Not to all, but just keep a large fraction of teachers armed.yeah because armed teachers can automatically hit an assailant,without putting students in danger

Although I think it would be a good idea to extend the reach of JROTC or a similar program and provide the better students with earlier gun carry permit and the means to assist defense.

Heh, would be funny to see for how long a fraction of a second will the "school shooters" survive then.As well as the innocent bystanders. Never heard of the Kent State Shootings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_Shootings)? 4 dead and several wounded. All but two of whom were over 100 feet away, and most of whom were innocent bystanders. It's important to note that in that incident the ROTC fired at students that were a good distance away instead of at the closest group of students.

*facepalm* Even if the police can't alwaysget there in time to stop a crime it's far better than the vigilante justice you seem to propose
It's not "vigilante justice", and I'm not proposing it. It's the system that exists and operates: you're allowed to kill in self-defense or in prevention of crime. It's not a license to kill. You can only shoot if there's a clear reason.
And yes, it's better, because police always only arrives to arrest the perpetrator, not to stop the crime.


[/QUOTE]wouldn't a better way to mitigate that be to improve conditions in the slums? [/QUOTE]
Well, expatriation would work.
Or perpetually feeding them with taxpayers' money.
But the first way is less harmful.

and yet they don't.
So it's not because of gun bans.

yeah because armed teachers can automatically hit an assailant,without putting students in danger
They are humans, not dumb robots, and have the brains to decide when to shoot and when not to shoot.
Either way, it's better than giving the criminal a green light.



Never heard of the Kent State Shootings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_Shootings)? 4 dead and several wounded. All but two of whom were over 100 feet away, and most of whom were innocent bystanders. It's important to note that in that incident the ROTC fired at students that were a good distance away instead of at the closest group of students.[/QUOTE]
"By Sunday, May 3, there were nearly 1,000 National Guardsmen on campus to control the students."
"At this point, at 12:22 PM,[1] a number of guardsmen at the top of the hill abruptly turned and fired their M1 Garand rifles at the students."

You've misread the article. It was the NG, the military under government's control, which fired, not the students. And it was no defense, it was typical governmental oppression of anti-war protesters, using military. As you perhaps know, the military is entitled to guns in any case. Especially when it's used by the government with the explicit purpose to oppress the populace.

Frankly, bullshit.
Not at all - police can protect individuals from crime or attack. That's what they're supposed to do, that's what they do, and it has happened countless of times. Just watch an episode of COPS to see some examples.

They can't protect all individuals all of the time, but they do protect individuals from crime or attack. Even in Texas.



That ultimately, protection of an individual is up to that individual and the social network they live in. Police cannot be everywhere; most of the time, they're just picking up the pieces and trying to keep someone from comitting a crime again.
It seems more to me that it says that the reality is that the police can't be expected to be anywhere, and that senseless and random acts of violence should be expected to happen everywhere.

when you say "reliable" you mean "most likely to launch and hit their designated targets" don't you?
Well, SS-18 has a 97% success rate in test, the highest of any comparable system. They've refined the missiles very well.
As for hitting, the Soviet missiles are less accurate, but they generally are more protected, both in placement and in flight, so more likely to hit - although not always their targets. But in terms of civilian destruction it's only for the worse.

NOT including countermeasures ... the trillions of dollars spent by the US in the last three decades, most particularly in space ...
Billions, not trillions. The whole nuclear program cost 7 trillions (see detail here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=542151)).
Pretty much the only results of the ABM programs, however, are the PAC-3 and SM-3.
Since even these barely justify the expense, US government is very unlikely to keep some "true ABM" in secrecy, partially because it would be difficult, partially because it would be better for it to show off the ABM system, if only to explain and increase the spending.

Link for that would be good too. It would be hard to find specific figures, as we're talking about the very last years. But as for the general trend:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/russia/2007/russia-070209-rianovosti02.htm



There are US bases in MY country. We made no nuclear weapons, we bought no nuclear weapons, we do not accept nuclear weapons being based on our soil. But our alliance with the US means we must accept strategically important facilities of the US.
My country being nuked, or any country in the world being nuked is not "bright side" for me.
That's the price for NATO membership - mutual defense comes with mutual destruction. Of course US wants to spread its bases among multiple countries, both for the public reasons and to divert some strikes from US.

But how else will you disperse the anti-Bush protesters?
Try pretending to be the devil's advocate again. Should work wonders.


Criminals don't "flock". They're not another species, they're humans and nationals of their country.
US is very multinational and has immense inequality. For one, blacks have 10 times higher murder commitment rate than whites; of course, that's not related to their nationality, but rather is a consequence of "Harlems" still existing in US - districts rotting in poverty, mostly filled by immigrants and non-whites.
And this makes the kind of American criminals more dangerous than Scandinavian criminals? Organized criminals from Russia, poor people from Sweden, immigrants living in relative poverty, they are different kinds of criminals than what the US sees?

Thus, it's naturally a dangerous place. Armed civilians are a necessity to mitigate that.
I see. You really are saying that the US is a failed state.


Knives aren't banned in modern Scandinavia, right? So they could still do school cuttings, even if they're too dumb to buy black-market guns.
Carrying knives in public is a punishable offense.

Well, SS-18 has a 97% success rate in test, the highest of any comparable system. They've refined the missiles very well.
As for hitting, the Soviet missiles are less accurate, but they generally are more protected, both in placement and in flight, so more likely to hit - although not always their targets. But in terms of civilian destruction it's only for the worse.


Billions, not trillions. The whole nuclear program cost 7 trillions (see detail here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=542151)).
Pretty much the only results of the ABM programs, however, are the PAC-3 and SM-3.
Since even these barely justify the expense, US government is very unlikely to keep some "true ABM" in secrecy, partially because it would be difficult, partially because it would be better for it to show off the ABM system, if only to explain and increase the spending.

It would be hard to find specific figures, as we're talking about the very last years. But as for the general trend:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/russia/2007/russia-070209-rianovosti02.htm




That's the price for NATO membership - mutual defense comes with mutual destruction. Of course US wants to spread its bases among multiple countries, both for the public reasons and to divert some strikes from US.
...

For some reason, you've responded in the wrong thread, it seems ;)

For some reason, you've responded in the wrong thread, it seems My mistake. Kept too many tabs open.
---

Try pretending to be the devil's advocate again. Should work wonders. Sorry to spoil your expectations. I'm serious this time.
Self-preservation - most things every government does are aimed to keep it in place.

And this makes the kind of American criminals more dangerous than Scandinavian criminals? Organized criminals from Russia, poor people from Sweden, immigrants living in relative poverty, they are different kinds of criminals than what the US sees?
Well, what are the crime rates?


I see. You really are saying that the US is a failed state.
No. A failed state is one that encroaches into its citizens' private lives. A working state is one that reliably provides the freedom it's intended to protect.
But freedom comes with a cost - you want freedom, you should be ready to protect it yourself.


Carrying knives in public is a punishable offense. Oh my.
Are forks on their way out too, or is there already a replacement?

Can you back any of this up? And explain why that kind of criminals flock to the US instead of going where the citizenry is largely disarmed? And explain why school shootings and indescriminate killing sprees happen more in the US than in Scandinavia?

Hotter weather. *nodnod*


As well as the innocent bystanders. Never heard of the Kent State Shootings? 4 dead and several wounded. All but two of whom were over 100 feet away, and most of whom were innocent bystanders. It's important to note that in that incident the ROTC fired at students that were a good distance away instead of at the closest group of students.

Just for the record, that wasn't the ROTC. That was the National Guard - specifically a group with very little training in riot control. And, from what I've read, they weren't even supposed to be armed with live rounds. Someone screwed up big time on that.

Just for the record, that wasn't the ROTC. That was the National Guard - specifically a group with very little training in riot control. And, from what I've read, they weren't even supposed to be armed with live rounds. Someone screwed up big time on that.

Yeah I figured that out after I posted but lost my response when I lost my connection :$

I see. You really are saying that the US is a failed state.

Depends on how you look at it. I think US citizens tend to have a very different view of the state than many Europeans. If you don't expect the state to provide protection in all cases, it wouldn't be seen as a failure if they didn't.

In the US, we tend to be very leery of the state itself. We intentionally withhold power from it because we feel that, while the state is a necessary evil, it also inherently poses a threat. And if we are unwilling to give it the kind of power it needs to provide certain protections, then we find that we must provide those protections for ourselves.

My mistake. Kept too many tabs open.
---
No worries :wink:


Self-preservation - most things every government does are aimed to keep it in place.
I would disagree with you there.

Well, what are the crime rates?
Lower than in the US for most types of crimes.

But I'm still puzzled as to why you claimed the kind of criminal was so different...

No. A failed state is one that encroaches into its citizens' private lives. A working state is one that reliably provides the freedom it's intended to protect.
You're using a weird and very... unique... definition of "Failed state".

Again, I'll point you towards Somalia as a prime example of a failed state. I doubt you'll hear them complaining about any government ancroatchments...

But freedom comes with a cost - you want freedom, you should be ready to protect it yourself.
Indeed. But perhaps I would like to not be alone in that project. Perhaps letting some entity have a monopoly on the use of force, remove weapons from the society so it would be more unlikely that I would be attacked, and form a, I don't know, democratic state where we looked after each other and had a collective sense of protection?


Oh my.
Are forks on their way out too, or is there already a replacement?
So you have no problems with students comming to school with switchblades and hunting knives?

Hotter weather. *nodnod*
I blame bigger portions and the existence of Grits.

And the lack of good, tasty chocolate :tongue:
Depends on how you look at it. I think US citizens tend to have a very different view of the state than many Europeans. If you don't expect the state to provide protection in all cases, it wouldn't be seen as a failure if they didn't.
I'm not sure I agree. I'm talking about providing a basic level of protection, since we all know that the police cannot be everywhere and protect everybody, and that there are lots of crimes that one cannot be protected against. And I think this view is common between both continents.

It's when the state seemingly fails to provide this basic level of protection the state fails.

In the US, we tend to be very leery of the state itself. We intentionally withhold power from it because we feel that, while the state is a necessary evil, it also inherently poses a threat. And if we are unwilling to give it the kind of power it needs to provide certain protections, then we find that we must provide those protections for ourselves.
And this mindset is indeed puzzling to me, but I do know that it exists... Especially puzzling since it's found in a democratic system which exists by the people etc.

You're using a weird and very... unique... definition of "Failed state".
A very proper one. State isn't supposed to be a nanny, it's supposed to be the people's tool to which they delegate duties that can only be carried by a centralized body. A necessary evil, a patch for where private enterprise fails. But when it crosses the border into becoming noticed by everyone and messing with their lives, it's a failure.
Well, not for the state, obviously. For the people.


Again, I'll point you towards Somalia as a prime example of a failed state. I doubt you'll hear them complaining about any government ancroatchments...
Somalia is a failed nation, not a failed state. It's a fourth world hellhole, always has been; no state can accelerate the civilization to jump ten millenia in a few decades.


Indeed. But perhaps I would like to not be alone in that project. Perhaps letting some entity have a monopoly on the use of force, remove weapons from the society
But how do you know you can trust that monopoly? And why not ban that monopoly from the use of force too?

so it would be more unlikely that I would be attacked,
You can't take guns away from criminals by banning them. They're violating the law already, the ban doesn't affect them. Criminals can buy a gun on the black market, and it's not expensive.

So you have no problems with students comming to school with switchblades and hunting knives?
I have no problems with students coming to school with hunting guns, as long as they're carried openly and unloaded, and as long as it involves most students (say, for the gun training class). Because openly carried, known weapons aren't easy to to use unnoticeably, and so aren't likely to be used illegally.
Concealed ones are - and I'm sure you at least don't do full body cavity searches at entry for every student.


and form a, I don't know, democratic state where we looked after each other and had a collective sense of protection?
Exactly. That's exactly what I'm advocating, and what many Americans believe in. A democratic state where we look after each other and protect each other.

Where and violent crime is unthinkable of, because the criminal never has an advantage over the victim. Where everyone protects everyone else, people can rely on each other, and peacefully coexist with mutual respect and trust.

I blame bigger portions and the existence of Grits.

And the lack of good, tasty chocolate :tongue:

Clearly, you should send even more chocolate to the US> =)

I'm not sure I agree. I'm talking about providing a basic level of protection, since we all know that the police cannot be everywhere and protect everybody, and that there are lots of crimes that one cannot be protected against. And I think this view is common between both continents.

It's when the state seemingly fails to provide this basic level of protection the state fails.

Well, it's not like our police force is just sitting on its collective bum doing nothing. And we don't all go through life terrified that we're going to get shot every minute. Most of us don't really give it much thought unless we're walking through a bad part of town at night (although the people who live in the bad parts of town have to think about it more often). But, like you said, they can't be everywhere and protect everybody. So some people feel that they should do something to protect themselves.

And this mindset is indeed puzzling to me, but I do know that it exists... Especially puzzling since it's found in a democratic system which exists by the people etc.

Even a democratic system can be a threat if you're in the minority. If 70% of the population doesn't like you much....

Democracy is certainly better than the alternative, but it still removes power from the individual and gives it to a collective entity. And tyranny of the majority is just as real a threat as tyranny from one or few.

In the US, our entire governmental system was formed with a goal of limiting the power of the state to a minimum (well, the federal government anyways - limiting the state governments came later). Most European governments developed differently, so it makes sense that the general mindset towards government would be different as well.

A very proper one. State isn't supposed to be a nanny, it's supposed to be the people's tool to which they delegate duties that can only be carried by a centralized body. A necessary evil, a patch for where private enterprise fails. But when it crosses the border into becoming noticed by everyone and messing with their lives, it's a failure.
Well, not for the state, obviously. For the people.
You are using the term incorrectly. Just because you disagree with the scope and range of the rights and responsibilities of the state, doesn't make it a failed state. The Swedish state isn't a failed state just because it turns out to be a nanny state, for example. It fails if it fails to fulfill its most basic tasks.


Somalia is a failed nation, not a failed state. It's a fourth world hellhole, always has been; no state can accelerate the civilization to jump ten millenia in a few decades.
:rolleyes:


But how do you know you can trust that monopoly?
You do your best with checks and balances.


And why not ban that monopoly from the use of force too?
Because the government needs to have the ability to use force in order to protect its citizens.


You can't take guns away from criminals by banning them.
Sure you can. It just depends on how far you're willing to go to enforce the ban, the size and buildup of the society in question, etc.

They're violating the law already, the ban doesn't affect them. Criminals can buy a gun on the black market, and it's not expensive.
That depends on how far the government is going in enforcing a ban, how difficult it is to smuggle the weapon, the risk of being caught, the punishment for selling a weapon on the black market, etc.

I have no problems with students coming to school with hunting guns, as long as they're carried openly and unloaded, and as long as it involves most students (say, for the gun training class). Because openly carried, known weapons aren't easy to to use unnoticeably, and so aren't likely to be used illegally.
Concealed ones are - and I'm sure you at least don't do full body cavity searches at entry for every student.
So you have no problems with students comming to school with switchblades and hunting knives?

Clearly, you should send even more chocolate to the US> =)
I feel like I'm taking part in setting up an underground railroad of some sort :p


Well, it's not like our police force is just sitting on its collective bum doing nothing. And we don't all go through life terrified that we're going to get shot every minute. Most of us don't really give it much thought unless we're walking through a bad part of town at night (although the people who live in the bad parts of town have to think about it more often). But, like you said, they can't be everywhere and protect everybody. So some people feel that they should do something to protect themselves.
This is true. But it seems to me like the school in the article is going over the top - they seem to me to be of the mindset that they will be attacked any minute when they fear that someone will randomly choose that school and come in blasting because they're located close to a highway.


Even a democratic system can be a threat if you're in the minority. If 70% of the population doesn't like you much....

Democracy is certainly better than the alternative, but it still removes power from the individual and gives it to a collective entity. And tyranny of the majority is just as real a threat as tyranny from one or few.

In the US, our entire governmental system was formed with a goal of limiting the power of the state to a minimum (well, the federal government anyways - limiting the state governments came later). Most European governments developed differently, so it makes sense that the general mindset towards government would be different as well.

It's just strange that the European governments have developed the way they have considering the history of the continent. There have been several opressive governments and much bloody history in Europe, and not so much of that happening in America. Yet Europeans seem more inclined to trust their governments than Americans do. It should be the other way 'round.

You are using the term incorrectly. Just because you disagree with the scope and range of the rights and responsibilities of the state, doesn't make it a failed state. The Swedish state isn't a failed state just because it turns out to be a nanny state, for example.
No, not yet. It has to take a step to become a totalitarian one.


:rolleyes: Somalia has always been a hellhole, and for rational reasons. Any government or lack thereof can't fix it. Somalia is several millenia behind the European civilization, it can't catch up in a decade.


You do your best with checks and balances. I want to have the right to self-defense, don't see what checks and balances have to do with it. The policeman won't be always around - my gun and my training will.


Because the government needs to have the ability to use force in order to protect its citizens. In order to control and oppress its citizens, you mean.
Because otherwise it could give that ability to the citizens themselves.


Sure you can. It just depends on how far you're willing to go to enforce the ban, the size and buildup of the society in question, etc.
Even with the harshest laws, it's always possible to smuggle in guns, and it's done.
Unless you go to fully-blown totalitarian slavery-based state.


So you have no problems with students comming to school with switchblades and hunting knives?
Even if I wasn't, they still could always smuggle the knife in, unless there's full body cavity search at entrance and narrow barred windows in the building.
So no problems, as long as I'm sure they'll be shot the very moment they try to attack someone with that knife.

I feel like I'm taking part in setting up an underground railroad of some sort :p

LOL!

This is true. But it seems to me like the school in the article is going over the top - they seem to me to be of the mindset that they will be attacked any minute when they fear that someone will randomly choose that school and come in blasting because they're located close to a highway.

Oh, I agree. But it's "for teh children" and all that, so people often think rather extreme measures are ok.

It's just strange that the European governments have developed the way they have considering the history of the continent. There have been several opressive governments and much bloody history in Europe, and not so much of that happening in America. Yet Europeans seem more inclined to trust their governments than Americans do. It should be the other way 'round.

Well, the US was formed out of colonies originally ruled by those governments. But, while the Europeans were always there under those governments and had to make changes from within, we made a clean break and started our own.

So I suppose the Europeans perhaps came to trust government more over time, because they were changing it that way. The US government, on the other hand, was initially formed with a great deal of distrust towards it.

Of course this will be a new gun thread!
Story (http://www.star-telegram.com/news/story/834022.html)


hang on a second. For a moment there I entered this weird alternate dimension where I heard school teachers were packing AK's.... WTF?!

I think it's a bad idea. It seems to me to be either a stroke of paranoia or a declaration of how the US society is failing to protect its citizens - or an unhealthy combination of both.

I agree, this is the stupidest idea to come out of America in a long time. Actually, scratch that, but you get the point... Stupid idea, born out of the "unhealthy combination" of paranoia, social and cultural rot and a state that refuses to take responsibility for it's failed "head-firmly-in-the-sand" approach to social problems.


Criminals don't "flock". They're not another species, they're humans and nationals of their country.
US is very multinational and has immense inequality. For one, blacks have 10 times higher murder commitment rate than whites; of course, that's not related to their nationality, but rather is a consequence of "Harlems" still existing in US - districts rotting in poverty, mostly filled by immigrants and non-whites.

Thus, it's naturally a dangerous place. Armed civilians are a necessity to mitigate that.

A more effective policy than issuing guns to fend off the effects of catastrophic social collapse would be an attempt to reverse said social collapse and bring about a livable society, rather than fighting over the leftover remains of society like the barbarians fought over the dying vestiges of Rome. Surely the US is better than that? Or... maybe not.

A very proper one. State isn't supposed to be a nanny, it's supposed to be the people's tool to which they delegate duties that can only be carried by a centralized body. A necessary evil, a patch for where private enterprise fails. But when it crosses the border into becoming noticed by everyone and messing with their lives, it's a failure.
Well, not for the state, obviously. For the people.

Every society has a different view of what role the state should fill. Scandinavian countries, ever since WW2, have wanted a state that deals social issues rather than ignore them, and them let them rot. Whilst they may different with the government over the details of handling the issues, it is mutually understood they have to be tackled.

Had the Scandinavian governments "failed" as states, then they would no longer exist except a a military faction fighting for control. The fact the people accept them mean they are not failed states. Likewise the US is not a failed state (though it's grip on sovereignty in some remote areas is extremely tenuous, as religious cult settlements attest) tough some of it's policies are regarded in most of the world as failures.

Somalia is a failed nation, not a failed state. It's a fourth world hellhole, always has been; no state can accelerate the civilization to jump ten millenia in a few decades.

It hasn't always been. It is now.

You can't take guns away from criminals by banning them. They're violating the law already, the ban doesn't affect them. Criminals can buy a gun on the black market, and it's not expensive.

You take them off some, as it makes them much harder to obtain, and a lot more expensive, as supplies are more scarce. Norway and Denmark have lower levels of murder, per capita, as well as overall than the US, as indeed do all western European countries, including the United Kingdom (link (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita)).

Where and violent crime is unthinkable of, because the criminal never has an advantage over the victim. Where everyone protects everyone else, people can rely on each other, and peacefully coexist with mutual respect and trust.

Only it's not like that. In the US people can carry guns, criminal and "reasonable" citizen alike, and yet hte violent crime rather is higher than in western Europe. Please explain this.

It wont work as a deterrent, since these people who shoot up a school seemingly don't seem to care if they get shot themselves.

No, not yet. It has to take a step to become a totalitarian one.
...a totalitarian nanny state would be a failed state? :D

You really should use the standard definition, because yours is way out of bounds.



I want to have the right to self-defense, don't see what checks and balances have to do with it. The policeman won't be always around - my gun and my training will.
Checks and balances - to make sure you can trust the governments monopoly on the use of force.

Your right to self defence still exists though.


In order to control and oppress its citizens, you mean.
No, not at all. Protecting its citizens from foreign and domestic threats.


Because otherwise it could give that ability to the citizens themselves.
So we return to Europe: Are the European citizens more controlled and oppressed that the American citizens?


Even with the harshest laws, it's always possible to smuggle in guns, and it's done.
Unless you go to fully-blown totalitarian slavery-based state.
See? We've just gone from criminals can get their guns on the black market to criminals can't get their guns on the black market.

The trick is to increase the risks and the costs for the criminal, and not to place undue burdens and restrictions on the law-abiding citizen. It's tricky and difficult to find the correct balance, but I don't believe it's impossible to reduce the influx and presence of illegal firearms in the society - if you want to.

Gun control is one way to go. But I fear that's a different debate entirely.


Even if I wasn't, they still could always smuggle the knife in, unless there's full body cavity search at entrance and narrow barred windows in the building.
So no problems, as long as I'm sure they'll be shot the very moment they try to attack someone with that knife.
So you have problems with students coming to school with switchblades and hunting knives in a society where they wouldn't be shot at the very moment they try to attack someone with a knife?

Also, I think you've demonstrated the problem of escalation in that post too.

How about this on the original point: each school chooses a select number of its staff to receive gun training. The government does checks to ensure that the members of staff choesen have not done anything in the past to justify them being seen as untrustworthy with weaponry. These members of staff could then be used as a quick reaction force to take down a student with a gun before they are able to take hostages or shoot others. I'm usually a gun control advocate, but that seems fairly reasonable as a scheme, given that there are guns, and disturbed students are prone to get their hands on them, legally or illegally.

Oh, I agree. But it's "for teh children" and all that, so people often think rather extreme measures are ok.
Unfortunately, this is also true. But such extreme measures often end badly too...


Well, the US was formed out of colonies originally ruled by those governments. But, while the Europeans were always there under those governments and had to make changes from within, we made a clean break and started our own.

So I suppose the Europeans perhaps came to trust government more over time, because they were changing it that way. The US government, on the other hand, was initially formed with a great deal of distrust towards it.

But over time, has any US regime been so untrustworthy (compared to European ones) that it would warrant keeping this distrust alive?

How about this on the original point: each school chooses a select number of its staff to receive gun training. The government does checks to ensure that the members of staff choesen have not done anything in the past to justify them being seen as untrustworthy with weaponry. These members of staff could then be used as a quick reaction force to take down a student with a gun before they are able to take hostages or shoot others. I'm usually a gun control advocate, but that seems fairly reasonable as a scheme, given that there are guns, and disturbed students are prone to get their hands on them, legally or illegally.
So schools today are really in need of a swift reaction security force? Oh my...

How many school-related gun incidents are there nationwide in the US anyway?

So schools today are really in need of a swift reaction security force? Oh my...

How many school-related gun incidents are there nationwide in the US anyway?

Probably not many. But when there are there can be substantial loss of life. So is it really that unreasonable to have enough staff in each school with guns and training to overpower a gunman? Training must cost a bit, but then what is the value of human life, especially of those so young?

But over time, has any US regime been so untrustworthy (compared to European ones) that it would warrant keeping this distrust alive?

Over time, the US government (federal, anyways) has increased in power and governmental bodies at all levels have pushed at the checks on their power time and time again. If anything, this would be a reminder that such restrictions are necessary, and that the government would almost certainly overstep its bounds if allowed the power to do so. In fact, in many cases, it has. And citizens have had to fight back to reign it in.

And governments, like corporations, aren't actual people. I don't think they necessarily gain trust over time by "being good". If anything, "being good" just means that the restrictions placed on governmental power are working.

So schools today are really in need of a swift reaction security force? Oh my...

How many school-related gun incidents are there nationwide in the US anyway?

Not many. They're just all televised and reported around the nation now. And, while actual gun-related incidents may be up, school violence as a whole hasn't really increased in the last generation. My parents saw people in schools fighting with knives and broken bottles. My uncle saw someone who had to be hospitalized after such a fight.

But people always seem to have the perception that things were better "back then" and that violence and crime are on the rise when it is often reporting and awareness that are actually increasing.