Message from @Ghostler
Discord ID: 414203301807259669
Why?
I just think it's more complicated than that, especially in the United States. There are plenty of areas in the US where it is not uncommon to be miles away from the nearest telephone pole, much less being within a reasonable response time to a police station or sheriff's office.
Because most north/west EU countries have basically fully digitized their government communication
hunter/sportsschiessen: heavily regulated where you are allowed to use your guns, what guns you can use and even how you can use your guns.
And in a lot of the major cities, there *is* very strict gun control, if not outright bans.
I depart. Good luck, all.
Yes, but you at first just said hunter. When I pointed out that isn't true, you suddenly changed that to hunter 'also means recreational shooting'
to me hunting is recreational shooting
but you are right that there IS a destinction in the law
Here is a problem, in the us, with at least some instances. There are several laws already in place that are not enforced as well as the should be. Yet the solution proposed is to add more to it? In Florida, it seems literally everyone knew this was a very real possibility with this kid
The FBI even knew but couldn't get him on anything. Banning assault weapons doesn't really fix it. Or more accurately is like having a hammer and treating everything like a nail. Why ban all cars, for example, when you knew a person was very likely going to use a car to commit a terror act. Why not find where they should have been able get them, and add a small piece of legislation there, rather than punish all the law abiding companies and citizens for the action of a minority.
why should anyone give a sliver of their rights up to stopgap something that may or may not do anything long term?
In the grand scheme of things, you cannot reasonably stop people who lose their shit from doing anything.
You ban guns and they run around with cars or swords or make explosives
we cannot un-learn these things
NICS should have a bit more of a handle on things
but in this shooter's case; really I'm not sure that the feds should have been able to do anything
maybe the teachers could have actually been armed?
As much as I might dislike that kids were shot and killed; it's honestly probably not possible to actually predict and 100% stop nutjobs like this
Arming teachers and having armed security is a very logical thing to do.
Well, I'm not suggesting arming them per-se, but allowing them to do so would be nice
Giving them the ability to be armed yes.
Don’t have to force them.
In that case, you're removing at least one penal code from the state
so I has no issue
It sounds fucked up to say, but I am more OK with random spurious lunatics losing it than I am with giving up the rights enumerated in the constitution of the US
I'd of course, rather they be stopped
but I don't want to go down the thoughtcrime path
Where I live we have security guards at all schools, some teachers have personal weapons, and in general lots of people walk around with military grade weapons (which are allowed in schools). Can’t recall ever having a school shooting so guns aren’t the problem.
Yeah, there are like a handful of states/municipalities that allow it afaik
Here in the social justice capital of the united states however, that's a big nono
Frisco?
The problem with armed security is the cost
And that in public schools it would be taxpayers money
Better to spend it on security than stupid social programs.
Bray areayylmao only
not SF
(Thankfully)
Just cut wasteful expenses and start funding security (also creates new jobs).
actually most campuses already have security