School Bus Control

[Lance]

School Bus Control

There are over 450,000 yellow school busses in the U.S. According to NHTSA, they average over 144 accidents per day and injure 17,000 school children per year.

When a commercial airliner goes down it is tragic because they are almost always 100% fatal. People don't bounce well from 37,000 feet. Depending on who you believe, somewhere between 74% and 90% are caused by human error. "Controlled flight into terrain" is a common problem. Yet we still fly because such failures happen so infrequently that flying is still the safest form of transportation.

There are an estimated 10-20 million AR-15 rifles in the U.S. When they are involved in tragic failures, it is always the human, not the gun, that has failed.

We need School Bus Control because they are obviously far more dangerous to our children than AR-15s.

[Enzo]

Oh crap, I just posted a disgusted comment over at a technical forum on this. They went on for a couple pages until the inevitable references to Hitler and Stalin popped up.

As long as we want to sling rhetoric around about this, please just broach the Hitler reference right at the onset so we can get it out of the way.

[Lianachan]

While driving to work yesterday morning, I was listening to the issue of gun control in the US being discussed on BBC Radio Scotland. They were talking to somebody who was all in favour of some sort of reform, although I think stopping short of outlawing them entirely, and they were also talking to somebody who proposed a solution to the problem of these events in US schools: arm the teachers.

[tubeswell]

A teacher with one arm? Or a teacher with two arms?

[wring]

A couple of thoughts: It is impossible to erase all danger from life. The fact that is true does not and should not prevent us from trying to make life safer. It is also not necessary to only look at one area of safety. So, the fact that some may want to look at gun safety does not prevent us from attempting to make school busses safer, for example.

One thing that some one posted elsewhere that made me see red- he was suggesting that "if more sane people were armed, it would be safer and shooters would be shot sooner", suggesting apparently that there should be armed janitors, school administers (he stopped short of suggesting that the actual teacher should pack as well). I pointed out that in this particular case, the guns involved belonged to a sane, non criminal. Whose son then took them and shot her in the face. Didn't protect her at all.

[Lance]

"if more sane people were armed, it would be safer and shooters would be shot sooner"

I believe this is true. The Oregon Mall shooting a week ago is a good example of this. How many more innocent people would have been killed if the shooter had not been confronted by an armed citizen? The reason this doesn't happen more often is because there are far too few armed "normal" citizens.

[Enzo]

Problem is, we can always find anecdotes to support either side. We can find the occasional story where a citizen saved some lives by shooting someone. But we can also find stories about a father shooting his son coming home late, thinking he was a burglar. Such anecdotes simply do not make a case either way.


Here is an anecdote I have modified. Recently we had a kid shoot up a movie theater. Inevitably it was suggested that armed citizens could have stopped him. Now armed citzen #1 sees the gunman shooting, and stands up and opens fire on the guy. The bad guy ducks. Armed citizen #2 also hears the gun shots, turns and sees the other armed citizen standing there point a gun. Only gunman he sees. What is he going to assume? That the other armed citizen must have been the shooter. SO Armed citizen #2 shoots armed citizen #1, expecting to be a hero. Instead he is a murderer.

Yes, there will be instances where an armed citizen saves the day. On the other hand trained police have shot people dead thinking they were grabbing a gun when they were reaching for their wallet and ID. If such trained personnel can make this sort of mistake, why should we believe that people off the street, having taken their little gun safety course, won;t make more of them.

Remember the old lady, alone in her apartment? The local narcotics squad broke through her door, thinking they were raiding a drug dealer. They had the wrong address. She had no idea who they were, and she had her gun, so she opened fire. The police, not yet knowing of their mistake, only knew that as soon as they busted in, they were being fired upon. SO they shot her dead. Thank god she was armed and could protect herself.


I am not trying to make a case for or against carrying firearms. I am suggesting that the whole "Oh how much safer we'd all be if everyone was packing" argument is not valid.

[Lance]

When you have an armed population there is a deterent effect. I present Kennesaw, Georgia for review.

[Enzo]

Sample of one.

[Мастер]

School Bus Control

There are over 450,000 yellow school busses in the U.S. According to NHTSA, they average over 144 accidents per day and injure 17,000 school children per year.

Just ban the damn things.

[Enzo]

Children? Or school buses?

[Мастер]

Children? Or school buses?

I was thinking of the buses, but since you mention it . . .

[Lance]

Sample of one.

Are there examples of where it was tried and has failed?

[Enzo]

Just last night, I swear to god this actually happened, I was at the computer here, and I moused over something to click on it and as I pressed the mouse button, a BEEP came from my speakers. A second later I clicked again, and again a BEEP came out. And finally, a second later, a third time. I wondered what on earth...? Well, I listen to CBS News radio feed while I work, and for whatever reason, the feed included a "beep" sound that just totally randomly coincided with my clicking. Sample of one: I cannot extrapolate from that that mouse clicking will cause BEEP elsewhere.

A mandatory gun law may well be responsible for a reduction of crimes in that community, but where else has it worked? Where else has it even been tried? In the USA, other cultures may not respond as we would. Plenty of places in the world that everyone totes an assault rifle, and there is no shortage of people being shot. SO I assume we want to omit those examples.

I know that if I were looking for somewhere to live, a mandatory gun ownership law would make me turn and go the other direction.

[Lance]

A mandatory gun law may well be responsible for a reduction of crimes in that community, but where else has it worked? Where else has it even been tried?

I agree. We don't know. How will we find out unless we continue to try?

[tubeswell]

A mandatory gun law may well be responsible for a reduction of crimes in that community, but where else has it worked? Where else has it even been tried?

I agree. We don't know. How will we find out unless we continue to try?

NZ has stricter controls on gun licensing, and a slightly lower per-capita death rate than the USA - according to the venerable wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... death_rate

(Just sayin')

[Lance]

NZ has stricter controls on gun licensing, and a slightly lower per-capita death rate than the USA - according to the venerable wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... death_rate

(Just sayin')

And that is what I think we need here, much stricter control and a tiered licensing system.

I used to have an AR-15 and I'd like to get one again. I would not mind having to go through a strict background and mental health check as well as proficiency testing and safety training to get one. The rules should be different for the person that wants a pump shotgun and someone who wants an assault rifle.

[Enzo]

I am open to trying all sorts of things. I just am ranting against universal type claims for things we have no real evidence for other than a couple stories.


\My personal view is that if everyone is packing, it generally just escalates the level of conflict. A guy stealing your lawn mower involves potential loss of a couple hundred dollar or whatever in property. Shoot him and now it is life and death. I work in a neighborhood where we literally hear gunshots from time to time. People are willing to shoot. If a guy wants to stick you up, and he thinks you are armed, he is more likely to just shoot you at the start and no more risk to him.

I know some disaffected people who will call their gun "the great equalizer". We all know someone who is "just waiting for someone to try something, I'm ready." I fear those people are already cconvinced of a threat level that would encourage them to shoot. Equalizer? DOn;t think so. Just means you have the same tool in your toolbox that the bad guy has. Not everyone has the same effectiveness wielding their tools.

[Lance]

My personal view is that if everyone is packing, it generally just escalates the level of conflict. A guy stealing your lawn mower involves potential loss of a couple hundred dollar or whatever in property. Shoot him and now it is life and death.

There are guns in 40%-50% of American households now. People don't generally shoot lawn mower theives.

I work in a neighborhood where we literally hear gunshots from time to time. People are willing to shoot. If a guy wants to stick you up, and he thinks you are armed, he is more likely to just shoot you at the start and no more risk to him.

Cite, please? I believe he is more likely to seek an easier target. His greater risk is to be convicted of murder which is a more serious offense than armed robbery.

I know some disaffected people who will call their gun "the great equalizer". We all know someone who is "just waiting for someone to try something, I'm ready." I fear those people are already cconvinced of a threat level that would encourage them to shoot. Equalizer? DOn;t think so. Just means you have the same tool in your toolbox that the bad guy has. Not everyone has the same effectiveness wielding their tools.

Which is why I support tiered licensing, proficiency testing and safety training.

[MM_Dandy]

I'm not really sure what one can do with an AR-15 that one can't with a .22 in the name of self-preservation. In fact, with the rise and increasing availability of non-lethal (or at least less lethal) alternatives like tasers, the self-defense argument is becoming less and less compelling.

I'm not much of a sportsman, but my brother-in-law is an avid hunter. He's shot moose, bear, elk, etc. As far as I know, he's never felt the need to bring an assault rifle on his hunting trips. He brought a handgun along on a couple of trips to remote areas for self-defense purposes - against predatory animals.

And I can't think of any other reason to own any gun except for criminal mischief or vanity.

So, yeah, I'd support banning assault weapons altogether.

As for the rest of them, I'd support implementing tougher rules for ownership - testing, handling, storing, etc. This would probably make a few people that I know and love a little grumpy (my dad, for one, still leaves 2 20-gauge shotguns unsecured in their house or even in the pickup cab during hunting season - even after they've caught a man in their house uninvited [he was looking for pain killers]! - and I'm positive he is not an isolated case), but it would be for the better, in my opinion.