Posted: 16 February 2018 at 10:47am | IP Logged | 7
|
post reply
|
|
To me, the situation is basic. I don't think any of the following are debatable premises.
We have a crisis of epidemic proportions. It involves broken people using guns to kill people.
If there are fewer guns, then that means that broken people don't have access to them.
If there are fewer broken people, then the number of guns won't matter.
So I conclude... fixing broken people and reducing the number of guns should make things better.
Now, by "broken people" I don't include everyone who uses a gun to kill. There are terrorists who are perfectly sane and still kill people. There are children who get hold of guns and then an accident occurs. But I feel that the threat posed by these is insignificant; the vast majority of shootings seems to be by broken people.
Incidentally, even if one discusses that suicides shouldn't count as gun deaths... why the hell not? That's a broken person using a gun to kill. The tremendous majority of those need to be fixed as well.
I also feel that putting police in schools won't help. Even though this is a crisis, I feel that the number of security personnel that would need to be in EVERY school in this country would be tremendously inefficient. It also takes too big a step towards a police state.
And two more undebateable items (I hope.)
ITEM: Arming teachers, security personnel, principals, etc. adds more guns and bullets to the situation. I do not think that will contribute to fewer gun attacks.
ITEM: Guns don't kill people; people kill people. But guns make it a lot easier. If a broken person attacks a school with a switch blade, a sword, a bow and arrow... it's a lesser threat than a gun.
It's just so hard to feel so powerless in such a crisis.
|