School Safety Commission will not look at role of guns.

originally posted by: projectvxn

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: Metallicus

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Metallicus

Guns don't go off without a human pulling the trigger.

Unless you're a dancing backflipping FBI agent.

If you watched the video the moron absolutely pulled the trigger.

It's hard to tell. What do they call it? A hair trigger?

They call that a Negligent Discharge.

Yes. That's exactly what it was. Negligent discharge. I never claimed that the FBI agent's gun went off when dropped. I just said it looked like a hair pin trigger.

a reply to: TheLead

I didn't need the condecending explanation of what a trigger is and how it works, thank you. But the erroneous claim that guns only go off when a human pulls the trigger isn't true and I couldn't let it stand. Besides the gun that failed the gun drop test that I posted, there are all kinds of weird designer guns, plastic printed guns and modified "gangster" guns out there that haven't been drop tested.

originally posted by: skunkape23
School is the problem. Not guns.
No school.
No school shootings.

Where were you 50 years ago ?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

But you did because the scenario you were referring to has nothing to do with the article. I'm sure the poster felt as I did that you didn't know anything personally about guns as how you totally misdiagnosed the situation.

Also no.need to bring gender into the equation as the poster felt they were responding to someone with no grasp of the situation, not a female with no grasp of the situation as you seem to have felt it.

Here's a good idea to help the students be safe against the school marauders.

www.rawstory.com...

And what a fantastic graduation gift!!

a reply to: TheLead

But you did because the scenario you were referring to has nothing to do with the article. I'm sure the poster felt as I did that you didn't know anything personally about guns as how you totally misdiagnosed the situation.

It looked to me like the gun discharged as if it had a "hair pin trigger" and that the agent wasn't expecting it to be so sensitive to his touch, because the safety pin (or something) dislodged or moved because of the impact of the fall. I don't think the gun went off when it was dropped, but I think dropping it made it less safe.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Ockham's razor would suggest he overreacted like a drunken buffoon in a compromised situation.

a reply to: TheLead


Sure. But in that still picture, it doesn't look like he has enough traction on the grip to pull the trigger. And, it should have had the safety on. Maybe it didn't, but I think that would weird for an FBI agent to have a holstered gun that didn't have the safety on. But, he was acting like a drunken buffoon, so maybe he was that dumb!

a reply to: Speedtek

Possession of guns by minors is already illegal in most jurisdictions
Possession of guns on school grounds is already illegal
Stealing a gun in order to possess it is already illegal
Shooting someone with a gun outside of justified self defense is illegal

Plenty of laws are already in place to prevent school violence. Maybe more laws or obsessing over the inanimate object used to commit said violence isn't the solution.

Even in the late 90's, early 00's, when I was in middle/high school, it wasn't uncommon for classmates to have gone hunting before school and have a rifle in their truck.

Even prior to that, schools had rifle teams, and it wasn't uncommon for students to openly display their rifles in the gun rack in their truck.

School shootings weren't really heard of.

What changed?

Instead of inanimate objects, maybe the following should be examined:

SSRIs / prescription drug use in children
Growth of single parent households
Absentee parents who leave children to their own devices
Bullying left unchecked and addressed incorrectly
A culture which promotes narcissism and notoriety as virtues
A culture that promotes violence as the first solution

Concentrate on the individual, not the tool.

I have yet to see a school shooter who was reported to have had a normal, stable, two-parent household.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Look I appreciate your adjusted stance, I don't have enough details or inclination to argue it much further. Even in your scenario he put his finger into the trigger guard which he shouldn't have. There are heavier and lighter poundage trigger pulls, I believe most standard issue are on the heavy side, most likely with a trigger safety. Even with that he doesn't need firm grip on the whole of the handle to fire it. The thumb behind the grip.and finger in the trigger are enough, the rest of the fingers provide stability . Seems to be a bad actor situation not a bad gun situation. I apologise for my tone before, the fact you were willing to compromise at all I applaud.

Also Appologies to SpeedTek for the distraction.

a reply to: cynicalheathen

In that case, why have any laws? If criminals break them, none of them are any use right?

This argument is circular - obviously if someone is willing to use a gun illegally (shooting another human) they have no objection to breaking a law against murdering. If that is the argument, why have a law against homicide to begin with? The whole argument is based on the false idea that the effectiveness of laws depend on the compliance of a criminal - But, if the law requiring a background check is enforced, it takes away one path for a criminal to obtain that gun. How else would a criminal get a weapon then? Steal it? If people followed common sense gun safety and locked them away, a major path of getting these weapons would be removed as well.

Its NOT the gun, but it is keeping THE GUN out of the hands of those who wish to cause harm. We have laws, but they need to be enforced. Proper background checks, responsible gun ownership and storage, not glorifying these idiots in the media when they do happen to get a weapon and wreak havoc.

So, again, its not about THE gun, it is about access, common sense, and finding a solution that works for all.

originally posted by: Speedtek
a reply to: cynicalheathen

In that case, why have any laws? If criminals break them, none of them are any use right?

Laws do not prevent crime. Laws provide for punishment after the fact. Honest people don't require laws to behave.

But, if the law requiring a background check is enforced, it takes away one path for a criminal to obtain that gun.

Contrary to popular belief, a NICS check is required for every new gun sale. Any gun bought "on the internet" is required to be shipped to a FFL. Private sales are only legal in certain states, and the federal prohibitions on selling to prohibited persons still apply.

A lack of background checks is a myth.

How else would a criminal get a weapon then? Steal it? If people followed common sense gun safety and locked them away, a major path of getting these weapons would be removed as well.

A point I agree with you on. But how do you enforce gun safe gun storage without infringing upon people's 4th and 5th Amendment rights? Do gun owners have less rights than non-gun owners?

What about guns kept for self-defense? Those don't do much good when they're locked up.

Its NOT the gun, but it is keeping THE GUN out of the hands of those who wish to cause harm. We have laws, but they need to be enforced. Proper background checks, responsible gun ownership and storage, not glorifying these idiots in the media when they do happen to get a weapon and wreak havoc.

Good, now we're getting somewhere.

So, again, its not about THE gun, it is about access, common sense, and finding a solution that works for all.

Now, can we talk about the other points I raised, or are we still just gonna have the same 'ol argument about guns?

locking guns away is not fool proof.a google search should tell ya that.


www.google.com...

School security is the problem not guns.

If you can get drugs and other prohibited things into schools a gun is easy.

if people that are not allowed on school grounds can just walk on you have a bigger problem then guns.

a reply to: Speedtek

She heads the Department of Education--she should be looking at the issue from within the school system, not without.

It's a pretty simple concept, really, because she can only control what happens within the nation's schools, not what happens in students' and non-students' homes outside of school grounds, nor should she be able to.

She needs to look into things like bullying, students' mental health, how removing recess and increasing scholastic stressors has affected children and young adults over time, the role that teachers are allowed to play in the lives of students, if no-tolerance policies for things like bullying and fighting (even when an individual is defending themselves) are appropriate, the design of security measures in the average school system, etc., etc.

But no, tackling guns, which are neither allowed in schools nor tracked or supplied by them, should not be a focus of the Department of Education.