| User | Comment |
|---|
| Jody | | posted 21-Apr-1999 4:23pm |
I think they could be safer, but I don't think the way to make them safer is to put metal detectors and guards at every entrance (someone could still come up and shoot the guards before they even knew what hit them, and get into the school anyway to do their damage). I think strong gun control is a better way. |
| supplicant | | posted 21-Apr-1999 4:36pm |
The situation in regard to violent crime here is not even remotely similar to the US, so I don't really feel qualified to answer. But in light of the several school shootings lately and the wide spread use of metal detectors in schools I really have to wonder.
|
| daver | | posted 21-Apr-1999 4:40pm |
More people die annually by choking on ball point pens than are shot in schools. Yes, the Littleton shootings were tragic, but the wave of quick fix gun control legislation that we will undoubtedly see is not the answer. |
| anonymous | | posted 21-Apr-1999 4:49pm |
"Safe" is such a relative term. Kids are probably safer in schools than they are in school buses, or in their parents' cars. But are they safe in the absolute sense? Nope. Nobody is. Ever. |
| Mattias | | posted 21-Apr-1999 5:11pm |
I don't know. The only things I see of US schools is what media shows and I don't think that's a representative view. |
dab   | | posted 21-Apr-1999 5:19pm |
After the widely publicized school killings last year, it was reported that homicides in schools were actually lower last year then in previous years. It wasn't reported very widely though. Not so interesting I guess. |
they   | | posted 21-Apr-1999 6:03pm |
They are about as safe as walking down the street I suppose... I think the more important issue is: Are schools in America useless? |
| steve | | posted 21-Apr-1999 6:34pm |
There is no such thing as safety. We're all going to die. |
| Frostbrand | | posted 21-Apr-1999 7:32pm |
Used to be you get on that bus and worry about your grades. Now, you get on that bus fearing that you won't survive through the day. |
| jjg | | posted 21-Apr-1999 9:15pm |
Yes, schools in the United States are safe. How could sticter weapons laws make them safer? People under the age of 18 are generally (most states) not allowed to possess any sort of weapon. How can you make that prohibition any stricter? |
| North79 | | posted 21-Apr-1999 9:47pm |
**jjg..but they may have easy access to a parents gun, a friends gun, a neighbours gun. Availability facilitates acquisition. |
| fooyun | | posted 22-Apr-1999 12:43pm |
Depends on where the school is located, whether or not it's private or public, in the suburbs, in the city, or inner-city, in the country, etc., the class status of the kids who go that that school, the ethnic makeup of the student body and whether or not race/class tension is an issue. |
| North79 | | posted 22-Apr-1999 1:24pm |
**dab..you didn't read the full scoop I guess. Schools killings are down, its true..only problem is that deaths by firearm have quadrupled over the same period. |
| dab | | posted 22-Apr-1999 2:33pm |
So North79, are gun deaths somehow worse than deaths by other means? Would it be an improvement to lower the number of gun deaths but have the total number of deaths increase? |
| jjg | | posted 22-Apr-1999 7:19pm |
North79: they may also have access to a butcher knife which is much easier to conceal on your person and has many more generally peaceful uses than a firearm. The one and only murder which occurred on school grounds in my city was caused by a knife. Should we ban knives? |
| North79 | | posted 22-Apr-1999 10:46pm |
**dab, no, but why did the number of firearm deaths go up? What if you could control that too?
**jjg, there is no need to ban knives, since they are nowhere near as effective weapons as guns. |
| anonymous | | posted 22-Apr-1999 11:19pm |
Doesn't anyone just dog and moan quietly in a corner anymore? |
| jjg | | posted 23-Apr-1999 6:34am |
North79: If you wish to kill one individual at close range a knife is far more effective than a firearm. Also knives are generally more accessible. Someone breaking into my home would not find a firearm to kill me, but they would find a knife.
I am simply pointing out that if you wish to ban firearms on the basis that they are dangerous weapons, then you should be prepared to ban all dangerous weapons. If one dangerous weapon is bad then it stands to reason that all dangerous weapons are bad. If you are singling out one group then I believe that you are beginning with faulty reasoning. |
| drdt | | posted 23-Apr-1999 1:19pm |
A knife doesn't give the wielder a false sense of power or invincibility. |
| North79 | | posted 23-Apr-1999 1:59pm |
**jjg..the reason that we have knives in our homes is that they serve a purpose which is useful to us (as a food preparation utensil). Guns serve no such purpose. Guns are used purely as weapons rather than tools. I wish to ban firearms on the basis that they serve no purpose other than to kill other people. All dangerous weapons are bad, there is no question, but if we are to encompass any object which might potentially serve as a weapon the list is endless. The difference is most things do serve some other useful purpose.
Also about your 'close range' argument, that may be the case..but it is exactly the range which makes guns scary. What other weapon can you kill someone with from twenty feet? I don't think we'd have 13 dead people at Columbine if the two suspects had had knives instead of guns.
|
| jjg | | posted 23-Apr-1999 9:41pm |
North79: I still insist that if you are intending to ban something that causes the death of people then you should be ready to ban everything that may cause the deaths of people. "In for a penny, in for a pound." By singling out firearms you are simply showing a prejudice against them which doesn't promote your goal of removing dangers from society.
My argument on knives still stands, because they are very deadly weapons when used as a weapon. A firearm is a very useful tool for hunting, or a very deadly weapon when used as a weapon. Anything can be perverted. Don't blame the item for the actions of the wielder.
As for something that can be used to kill as easily as a firearm at a distance, have you heard of the bow? How many people have died from a bow wound since the invention of that weapon? Should we ban it? Its primary function is to kill. |
| North79 | | posted 24-Apr-1999 3:05am |
**jjg, it is impossible to ban everything that causes the death of people, because anything can potentially kill..water can kill you if you drown in it or you could be smothered by a pillow! I am indeed prejudiced against firearms; they are far more likely to be used as weapons than water or pillows.
Knives are not as effective weapons as guns. If they were as effective, then why carry guns to defend yourself? Why not carry a knife? Too often these two weapons, as examples, are spoken of as if they are interchangeable. If this was the case, then why are knives not the choice weapon in combat? Why do police not carry knives instead of guns? This is because guns are the superior weapon. The same is true of the bow...it has largely been abandoned in favor of a superior weapon.
Even if we are to accept guns for the purpose of recreation, why then do people in urban areas have firearms in their homes? They are not using them as a recreational tool.
I am sure there is heavy argument that in place of guns other weapons will be employed. This is true to a degree, but there are two things to consider..the first is that not all people who kill are so inclined to do do that they will use any means necessary; rather, the fact they have a gun expedites their actions. Second, even if everyone who used a gun substituted another weapon, the chances of survival of the victim increase greatly. In the case of an able-bodied person, they may be able to outrun or physically disable their attacker. In the cases such as in Littleton, the number killed may be dropped from 15 to 1 or 2.
|
| seth | | posted 25-Apr-1999 3:59pm |
What troubles me most about what happened in Littleton is that most people will see it as a problem of gun control, rather than of chold rearing, and will want to solve it by passing laws about guns, rather than trying to help raise children better.
I hate that high profile scandalous activity leads to legislation.
North79: when constructing a survey for purposes of arguing about something you already have a strong opinion on, there are two helpful guidelines you should follow: 1) Don't. 2) Try not to bias the answers so much.
|
| mandy | | posted 25-Apr-1999 6:52pm |
The schools in our town are very safe.... |
| North79 | | posted 30-Apr-1999 11:17pm |
**seth: I don't believe that this question was particularly biased. Most regulars here who know my stances on certain touch-and-go topics (firearms and Canada, for instance) will probably already know it is one of my surveys before they answer. Also, you will see I am prepared to argue my point through ongoing dialogue.
There are very few things for which I find it difficult to conceal my biases, but this topic happened to be one of them. |
