Newtown School Shootings

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

And mass shootings are great to remind people like you that there are downsides to your world view as well, whether you like it or not.

---

Nothing about anybody's worldview or political affiliation where this can be pinned upon, this is just someone who's insane. These things happen everywhere there is no system in the world that can prevent people from going nuts. There is no explanation and there is no cure. Just a fact of life that these things can happen. If you are sane you will never understand insanity. Nobody did anything wrong it's just a major tragedy. It can happen everywhere no need for any soul-searching.

Many of these people are outcasts of some sort who feel they have nothing to lose anymore, calling them insane is just an easy explanation for people who don't want to think about it or reconsider anything.
Then again if you think it's normal, why are you so shocked and sad? If you're saying it's essentially no different from the 500 traffic deaths every year then there's no reason to be any more sorry over this than over the 500 dead people from traffic accidents every year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Many of these people are outcasts of some sort who feel they have nothing to lose anymore, calling them insane is just an easy explanation for people who don't want to think about it or reconsider anything.
Then again if you think it's normal, why are you so shocked and sad? If you're saying it's essentially no different from the 500 traffic deaths every year then there's no reason to be any more sorry over this than over the 500 dead people from traffic accidents every year.

---

As you said, they are outcasts. There is nothing that can be done about outcasts, in ANY system they will always exist. Predictably people start claiming this for their own uses, lack of god, lack of gun control, too much liberal upbringing, too much conservative upbringing, whatever suits them. Stop claiming it. There is NOTHING that will stop this from happening again as there will always be people who lose it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

As you said, they are outcasts. There is nothing that can be done about outcasts, in ANY system they will always exist. Predictably people start claiming this for their own uses, lack of god, lack of gun control, too much liberal upbringing, too much conservative upbringing, whatever suits them. Stop claiming it. There is NOTHING that will stop this from happening again as there will always be people who lose it.

---

What can be done is to make people stop casting others out. We've stopped casting gays out of society, why can't we stop casting geeks and other "strange" people out? We still haven't cast you out of this forum either so don't say it's impossible not to do. ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

What can be done is to make people stop casting others out. We've stopped casting gays out of society, why can't we stop casting geeks and other "strange" people out? We still haven't cast you out of this forum either so don't say it's impossible not to do. ~;)

---

We stopped lawful discrimisation of gays, the social stigma remains, just changing the laws means little to their everyday life. Look! We put it on paper everything is different from now on, twelve a'clock let's lunch. That's a reality that only exists on paper, it has nothing to do with the harrasment gay couples still endure. When complaining about said harrasment they get to read a piece of paper, as if that helps them to have it on paper. It's a reality that only exists on paper.

Horrible tragedies are just a fact of life. Sometimes someone will snap. That isn't very fun but what do you suggest?

States should pass a law allowing concealed carry in formerly no carry zones. It should be sort of like the Air Marshall system; with a few weeks of training, school staff are allowed to bring small firearms to class, concealed, IWB, with a heavy police grade trigger, a. Level 3 holster and they should be asked not to discuss the fact with anyone.

You'll never be able to stop rampages, but you must be able to reduce death toll. Like it or not, kids are sheep and cannot defend themselves. When faced with these situations, they need responsible adults to protect them more reliably than this

The social stigma is much lower today than it was in 1950 for example, these changes obviously do take some time. That's why it's better to start now than to keep talking about how doing this or that now will not yield immediate results next year. That sort of thinking only works for turbo capitalists and housing bubbles. The recognition of blacks in the USA for example also took a long time, if they had gone and kept your attitude, they could still be slaves now. It's absolutely true that you cannot change some attitudes over night but just accepting that never helped anyone. I thought the great strength of America is that it takes issues and relentlessly works towards improvement, no?

[Cynic_mode]Only if the improvement makes more money than the current situation. [/Cynic_mode]

Husar is correct in that social stigmas can change. But it takes time and more importantly, it takes a dialogue in order for progress to be made. This is why I was mad yesterday about the thread and much of the public dialogue focusing on guns instead of the healthcare issue. If people are not even talking about this aspect of it, no progress will be made. And in fact that is what has happened at least since Columbine, everyone talks about guns and we have had no social progress on mental illness, so the mentally ill continue to attack after years of non treatment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

The social stigma is much lower today than it was in 1950 for example, these changes obviously do take some time. That's why it's better to start now than to keep talking about how doing this or that now will not yield immediate results next year. That sort of thinking only works for turbo capitalists and housing bubbles. The recognition of blacks in the USA for example also took a long time, if they had gone and kept your attitude, they could still be slaves now. It's absolutely true that you cannot change some attitudes over night but just accepting that never helped anyone. I thought the great strength of America is that it takes issues and relentlessly works towards improvement, no?

---

And what exactly do you actually think that can be done about some people being outcasts. People shouldn't think that tragedies like this can be prevented.

If we allowed our children to legally carry guns things like this would not happen.

Gun control works really well in Chicago. If we could model the entire nation as we do Chicago, the minority underclass should wipe itself out in 3-7 years, using all those guns they are not legally allowed to possess. This would make whitey happy, and we could finally have White Flight Part 2: The Reclamation go into effect

BUT AT LEAST THEM GAYS CAIN'T GET MARRIED!!! *charges rifle*

AND HERE I THOUGHT THE ONLY THING THAT COULD HARM KIDS IN SCHOOL WERE LIBERAL TEACHERS AND LACK OF PRAYER *charges assault rifle*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump

If we allowed our children to legally carry guns things like this would not happen.

---

Yes, absolutely, because they wouldn't be nervous or confused at all and statistics show that a country with more guns, like America, is a safer place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump

Gun control works really well in Chicago. If we could model the entire nation as we do Chicago, the minority underclass should wipe itself out in 3-7 years, using all those guns they are not legally allowed to possess. This would make whitey happy, and we could finally have White Flight Part 2: The Reclamation go into effect

---

Absolutely correct again because a single city with gun control surrounded by a whole country with hardly any gun control and gun fares, gun shops and tons of illegal weapons floating around is really the best example of why gun control on a nation-wide level would never work. :rolleyes:

I didn't want to enter the gun debate as America will never change anything about that and happily pay the price of more gun deaths, which is okay with me as long as you don't expect me to be shocked, but please spare me with completely nonsensical "examples".
If you want to make a valid comparison, take a country that actually has effective gun control, has had it for more than ten years and isn't flooded with guns due to the lax policies all around and from the past, i.e. an area that simply has effective gun control and not the lame US regional version.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Yes, absolutely, because they wouldn't be nervous or confused at all and statistics show that a country with more guns, like America, is a safer place.



Absolutely correct again because a single city with gun control surrounded by a whole country with hardly any gun control and gun fares, gun shops and tons of illegal weapons floating around is really the best example of why gun control on a nation-wide level would never work. :rolleyes:

I didn't want to enter the gun debate as America will never change anything about that and happily pay the price of more gun deaths, which is okay with me as long as you don't expect me to be shocked, but please spare me with completely nonsensical "examples".
If you want to make a valid comparison, take a country that actually has effective gun control, has had it for more than ten years and isn't flooded with guns due to the lax policies all around and from the past, i.e. an area that simply has effective gun control and not the lame US regional version.

---

I think your sarcasm detector may be miscalibrated, bra. You may want to take it in and have it looked at, is the little red light on? I hear Wal Mart is running a special, but you guys don't get superior stores like Wal Mart because you hate guns, freedom, and hence, low prices.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump

I think your sarcasm detector may be miscalibrated, bra. You may want to take it in and have it looked at, is the little red light on? I hear Wal Mart is running a special, but you guys don't get superior stores like Wal Mart because you hate guns, freedom, and hence, low prices.

---

Ok, when I went to have a shower I wondered whether I would regret breaking my rule of not posting in the morning before I'm fully awake.
I can see the sarcasm in the first part but given that Chicago actually has gun control and lots of crime, how is the second part sarcasm? Or is it sarcasm in the sense that you also think of it as a bad example? My apologies if I horribly misunderstood, I still love you anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

States should pass a law allowing concealed carry in formerly no carry zones. It should be sort of like the Air Marshall system; with a few weeks of training, school staff are allowed to bring small firearms to class, concealed, IWB, with a heavy police grade trigger, a. Level 3 holster and they should be asked not to discuss the fact with anyone.

You'll never be able to stop rampages, but you must be able to reduce death toll. Like it or not, kids are sheep and cannot defend themselves. When faced with these situations, they need responsible adults to protect them more reliably than this

---

You want to live in a country where primary school teachers carry weapons in class?

I keep seeing this suggested as a solution today, and it's the most pathetic and moronic thing i think I've ever read.

Of course its moronic. Deterrence relies on display hence a 0.50 cal. machine gun on the desk and an assault rifle in hand. Truly, it would send a message...

Not all teachers should carry, just some. The principle, assistant principle, some others, maybe randomized so they can't be individually targeted as easily. There would be a courses similar to the auxiliary air marshalls course. We do it on flights. People should be able to carry concealed, children should be protected and with special training there should be responsible people available to make sure that these rampages go from 25 to 10. More rapidly than waiting for police to get there to pick up the bodies. It would slow most shooters down and instead of easily running room to room them may be forced to take cover while kids flee and police arrive

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Ok, when I went to have a shower I wondered whether I would regret breaking my rule of not posting in the morning before I'm fully awake.
I can see the sarcasm in the first part but given that Chicago actually has gun control and lots of crime, how is the second part sarcasm? Or is it sarcasm in the sense that you also think of it as a bad example? My apologies if I horribly misunderstood, I still love you anyway.

---

Its sarcasm because its both measurable and not measurable. Yes, it has strict gun control. No, its not working. Yes, it is surrounded by states where guns are legal, so acquiring guns is still rather easy. All in all it is a perfect example both for and against gun control.... If guns were prohibited tomorrow, how would said guns be removed from the street? Well, I would imagine that the gun registry would be scrubbed and people would be forced to hand over their legal guns..... okay, great, so thats a fraction of the guns.... what about all the cartel members, the gangs, organized crime, career criminals, hillbilly militias, how would we get thier guns? The same way we get them now, when they get arrested and the guns get confiscated, which hasnt reduced the illegal guns significantly (yes, yes, supply i know). Those people wont be turning their guns in for a Kmart gift card. Making ownership a life sentence will have a negligible effect just like it does for other life sentence crimes.

Gun prohibition is a circular argument. People would be all for it, if there werent so many illegal guns.

As I've said before, it would be a terrible shame if Americans allowed fear and ignorance to convince them that restricting rights that millions of their fellow citizens enjoy would somehow prevent the statistically insignificant actions of madmen. This is a mental health issue, and any legislation that results from it should be focused on that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catiline

You want to live in a country where primary school teachers carry weapons in class?

I keep seeing this suggested as a solution today, and it's the most pathetic and moronic thing i think I've ever read.

---

Those yankees love it! They love shooting guns. Not only is it fun, but it defends them against the US government and the King of England. So anything that prevents gun ownership is crazy and will never work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

Not all teachers should carry, just some. The principle, assistant principle, some others, maybe randomized so they can't be individually targeted as easily. There would be a courses similar to the auxiliary air marshalls course. We do it on flights. People should be able to carry concealed, children should be protected and with special training there should be responsible people available to make sure that these rampages go from 25 to 10. More rapidly than waiting for police to get there to pick up the bodies. It would slow most shooters down and instead of easily running room to room them may be forced to take cover while kids flee and police arrive

---

Absurd. No one that does this sort of thing is going to be deterred by Miss Miggins with a concealed weapon, though you can guarantee eventually someone will pinch it off her and go postal on the kids, and a decrease from 25 to 10 isn't a real improvement, its window dressing. The only thing that will help is a fundamental reduction in the number of serviceable weapons, which is achievable over time if society wills it, and making access to mental healthcare easier than access to hand gunsand assault rifles.

But hey, drape yourself in your fabricated interpretation of the 2nd, and pretend that each time this happens it's worth it for freedom and your right to have Rambo fantasies that these weapons that are fantastically good at killing kids could otherthrow the government when they get a just a little bit more tyrannical.

The teachers with guns argument isn't even worth having, especially when it moves away from the random odd teacher with a concealed weapon to some organized, trained in-school militia like flight marshalls. Give me a break. This isn't a video game. The librarian, the gym coach and the cafeteria supervisor tactically moving as a strike team... yeah. As if teachers don't have enough on their plate already, and as if most teachers would be a match for a couple of teenage thugs who decide to overpower them and take their gun.

If schools need to be more secure, then add more security guards and cops, with modified ROE, and be careful not to encourage police brutality while also allowing those security/cops to act accordingly against serious threats. Oh, and make sure they are well trained and not overweight, gaping vaginas like the cop who fled the columbine shooting because he was "outgunned." A trained cop with his service pistol should be more than enough match for a couple of nerdy dorks who don't even know how to handle a weapon.

A few cops/security in every school should do the trick. Cost too much, you say? Well, there's the price of our freedoms. Turns us into a police state, you say? Well, there's the cost of our freedoms. Wallow in it and enjoy it.

For the record, him having an assualt rifle in this case is laregly irrelevant IMO. It's not like he took on the SWAT Team. Kids that age freeze, the dont run, and he shot each multiple times. He could have caused just as much carnage with a pistol and a few magazines

Theres an interesting story coming from portland, a guy with a concealed weapon had the mall shooter in his sights but did not have a clear shot due to civilians cowering nearby. He is claiming the shooter saw him there pointing a gun at him, then shot himself..... I saw this on a blog, gonna wait and see if someone legit picks it up

I should also point out that many of the armchair cops and taciticians who think arming teachers is golden are the same people who think teachers are lazy, overpaid, incompetent union monkeys. They don't trust those liberal teachers to teach their kids, but by god lets give em guns. Funny

Is it normal in the US to be vetted before entering school grounds or is it an exception to the rule? I thought it was limited to problem inner city schools and definitely not the norm particularly for primary schools.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

And this really sums it all up doesn't it? You don't understand, but continue to comment and make judgement anyway?




I don't know where you live, but obviously not in the US. It was taxation without representation that riled up the elites. They felt they were proper British citizens (aristocrats even) and deserved to be treated as such. That's why you saw motions such as the Olive Branch Petition to prevent all out war in the first place. No one wanted war, they only wanted a democratic voice and were happy to pay taxes as long as they could redress their concerns.

---

No, what I don't understand is why people delude themselves into thinking they need guns, and none of you have so far answered. The real reason seem to be quite well known. I quote:

Quote:

---

And now it has happened again, bang, like clockwork, one might say: Twenty dead children—babies, really—in a kindergarten in a prosperous town in Connecticut. And a mother screaming. And twenty families told that their grade-schooler had died. After the Aurora killings, I did a few debates with advocates for the child-killing lobby—sorry, the gun lobby—and, without exception and with a mad vehemence, they told the same old lies: it doesn’t happen here more often than elsewhere (yes, it does); more people are protected by guns than killed by them (no, they aren’t—that’s a flat-out fabrication); guns don’t kill people, people do; and all the other perverted lies that people who can only be called knowing accessories to murder continue to repeat, people who are in their own way every bit as twisted and crazy as the killers whom they defend. (That they are often the same people who pretend outrage at the loss of a single embryo only makes the craziness still crazier.)
So let’s state the plain facts one more time, so that they can’t be mistaken: Gun massacres have happened many times in many countries, and in every other country, gun laws have been tightened to reflect the tragedy and the tragic knowledge of its citizens afterward. In every other country, gun massacres have subsequently become rare. In America alone, gun massacres, most often of children, happen with hideous regularity, and they happen with hideous regularity because guns are hideously and regularly available.
The people who fight and lobby and legislate to make guns regularly available are complicit in the murder of those children. They have made a clear moral choice: that the comfort and emotional reassurance they take from the possession of guns, placed in the balance even against the routine murder of innocent children, is of supreme value. Whatever satisfaction gun owners take from their guns—we know for certain that there is no prudential value in them—is more important than children’s lives. Give them credit: life is making moral choices, and that’s a moral choice, clearly made.


Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blog...#ixzz2FFZiJQ9X

---

The mental health angle is being used as a smokescreen (which is not the same as saying it is illegitimate). I'm sure some people who use it do it knowingly to divert attention from gun control, but I suspect many are actually self-deluded enough to believe it.

Also, I do live in the US. And while 'taxation without representation' is a very convenient slogan, it does not make any sense when you stop and think about it. When did people gain the god-giving right to representation if they are being taxed? What is so outrageous about taxation without representation? The reason why the declaration of independence says that it is 'self-evident ...' is because they could not find any legal basis for revolution. You can make decent arguments for the fairness of representation if there is taxation, but none of you ever get that far.

The problem with America is that from the very inception, it is a nation founded on commercial interest on the one hand, and popular demagoguery on the other. The perversity is how the phoney ideals of the revolution have been enshrined in the national consciousness as the ultimate good of humanity. The need to indoctrinate the masses in the legitimacy and goodness of the revolution has led to such wonderful things as American exceptionalism and the worship of founding texts like the declaration of independence and the constitution. The former is thankfully coming under increased scrutiny, but the latter still dominates political discourse. It is typical that political discourse on gun control is based on how to interpret the second amendment rather than the good of the nation, that no rational thought examines what is a 'constitutional right' and if something should be a right.

It might be debated whether such textual literalism is fueled by the fundamentalist Christian right, or whether the contradiction at the heart of the idea of America is particularly amenable to fundamentalism (I suspect the latter, personally). The situation is in no way improving with even greater access to the political process by the wealth of corporations (Citizens United, another decision based on constitutional technicalities) and the general fostering of ignorance as a political position (mostly the Tea Party, but also the vapid Occupy movements).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Is it normal in the US to be vetted before entering school grounds or is it an exception to the rule? I thought it was limited to problem inner city schools and definitely not the norm particularly for primary schools.

---

I was actually just discussing this with some of my friends yesterday.

I went to a private school so we didnt have any security checks, but in my elementary/middle school we had a secure fence (not chain-link: a real fence that you can get over), and special doors that you needed to be paged in. And there were a few security guards. But that was because it was a Jewish school and we have gotten threats before so it pays to be prudent. For high school it was even less. No security guards and no fence.

But my friends who went to public schools? Nothing whatsoever. Not even a clear backpack that Ive seen some of the kids who go to the inner-city schools have to wear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump

I should also point out that many of the armchair cops and taciticians who think arming teachers is golden are the same people who think teachers are lazy, overpaid, incompetent union monkeys. They don't trust those liberal teachers to teach their kids, but by god lets give em guns. Funny

---

Maybe they could earn their keep. Maybe we could pay ex-cop pensioners 10-20k per year to be armed and on premises. I'm all for useless hillbillies with guns, so it stands to reason that some teachers should have them, with the proper training.

Or we could go the way of eliminating a right to own semi-automatic firearms, which is most of them. What is Switzerland's Homicide rate per 100k with an overwhelming population armed with auto and semi automatic weapons? .7 - lower than the UK. Finland? How about Russia with their overbearing gun control? 14 - almost 3 times as high as the U.S. Counter-intuitive. My points about certain armed staff are not absurd, nor are they poorly reasoned. You can poison the well, suggesting that those opposed to the current structure or incentives in our educational system are inconsistent - but what's inconsistent in first saying person A provides sub-optimal service for payment and then later addressing the need to bestow additional responsibilities on person A? I'm in favor of arming individuals on the regular and arguing those in responsible positions over defenseless children when they cant arm themselves. I'm ok with regulation and mandated safety courses. In fact, I would push for more firearms education even in New York. I'd also discourage those parents with adolescent or teenage children from even owning firearms or keeping them on the premises, unless they were kept secret in a heavy duty safe.


Unrelated - I went to Catholic grammar school mostly and at both public and private elementary schools attended, all doors were locked and intercom systems used to allow entrance during the school day. This was more to reduce kidnapping than a baby-shoot as almost all conceivable measures would likely proof useless against armed assailants should the will exist to enter. Most schools use Windows, but those have been known to serve as weak entryways - i know, it stretches the imagination a bit to consider, but it's true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by quadalpha

No, what I don't understand is why people delude themselves into thinking they need guns, and none of you have so far answered. The real reason seem to be quite well known. I quote:

---

Oh look, once again you fail to realize that there are so many more factors going into crime related to guns than just 'OMG GUNS R BAD" rants that I see people just like you always spouting. Look at Switzerland. High gun ownership, yet low gun crime.#Why is that?

If you did a shred of research (which you clearly have not done) you would realize that banning guns wont do much in this country due to demographics and cultural attitudes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by quadalpha

The mental health angle is being used as a smokescreen (which is not the same as saying it is illegitimate). I'm sure some people who use it do it knowingly to divert attention from gun control, but I suspect many are actually self-deluded enough to believe it.

---

Please read this article. You will notice, as Im sure you have, that the other Western Nations where shootings are not a regular occurrence, their health care is better than what we have here. Look at the Oklahoma City bombing. No guns involved, yet 168 people died, including 19 children.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by quadalpha

Also, I do live in the US. And while 'taxation without representation' is a very convenient slogan, it does not make any sense when you stop and think about it. When did people gain the god-giving right to representation if they are being taxed? What is so outrageous about taxation without representation? The reason why the declaration of independence says that it is 'self-evident ...' is because they could not find any legal basis for revolution. You can make decent arguments for the fairness of representation if there is taxation, but none of you ever get that far.

---

What are you smoking? And more importantly, is it legal? Because if it is, you gotta tell me where I can get some.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

What are you smoking? And more importantly, is it legal? Because if it is, you gotta tell me where I can get some.

---

I think he is trolling. Either than or the post is an opaquely constructed ironic argument meant to convey the opposite agenda.

Well I live in Sydney's west. I'm what they call a Westy. It's considered the less desirable and more dangerous part of Sydney. A city of some four million inhabitants.

I can walk my year one kid straight into the center of school. There is a little fence around it to stop children's sports balls rolling out from the grounds. No vetting process, parents just wander in with their kids, the younger ones clutching their hands and the older ones it you are lucky giving you a kiss on the cheek and then running to line up.

My kids safe, I don't have to go through an ID check and I can go home and not worry about the safety of my kid.

A five year old kindergarten boy got run over on his way to school. It was in the papers and news for days afterwards, that's the level of tragedy here that makes multi night headline news on paper and tv.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Well I live in Sydney's west. I'm what they call a Westy. It's considered the less desirable and more dangerous part of Sydney. A city of some four million inhabitants.

I can walk my year one kid straight into the center of school. There is a little fence around it to stop children's sports balls rolling out from the grounds. No vetting process, parents just wander in with their kids, the younger ones clutching their hands and the older ones it you are lucky giving you a kiss on the cheek and then running to line up.

My kids safe, I don't have to go through an ID check and I can go home and not worry about the safety of my kid.

A five year old kindergarten boy got run over on his way to school. It was in the papers and news for days afterwards, that's the level of tragedy here that makes multi night headline news on paper and tv.

---

But Australia also has a much better health care system which perhaps is able to catch would-be killers and commit them before they do anything terrible. Im not very knowledgeable about Australia's mental health care system so I cant really comment to the fullest, but I can only assume that with the better health care system that there are other positive results from it.

Australia also has 22 million people vs our 300+ mil.
It's pointless to draw parallels between the two countries.

It's not pointless, by any means. Though a sentiment like, "Here is Australia. Why can't Amerikkka be more like it?" isn't very useful, the questions for analysis it raises can lead to workable solutions. Just because Australia is a different country does not mean we can take nothing from its policies or circumstances. Differences invite circumspection and qualification, not disregard.

Certainly, though the military situations the US found itself in when invading Iraq and Afghanistan would share little in common with an American entanglement against China, the Chinese military studies these situations very carefully for any lessons it could glean.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

Australia also has 22 million people vs our 300+ mil.
It's pointless to draw parallels between the two countries.

---

Ratios.
Per Capita.
Compare similar number of states, with similar ethnic mix and background.
Meta studies.
Many ways to compare and contrast data from different sized number sets.

Canada, Australia and US are different but similar enough that you can learn from each other and cherry pick the best of solutions.

As I stated earlier its your country, your rules, your outcomes. USA leads the way in so many areas it is an amazing icon. It's size doesn't always work for it and its social inertia can be counter productive.

Forgive me if I have different preferences. I do not as a Kiwi expect everyone to be an Ozzie. That's like asking a Canuck to want everyone to be a Yank. I like the variations, I'm just personally happier to give up urban gun ownership for increased safety in Australia. In New Zealand with far more rural based people and plenty of pests to hunt, gun ownership is a far more positive thing as they are tools and generally taught as such. So horses for courses.

DAWG: nothing you laid out makes organized arming of teachers any less absurd. And the fact that you think they can "earn their keep" by being armed is even more absurd. Throw as much analyticals as you want, I will continue to live in the real world. I wold be perfectly willing to entertain the notion of allowing CC holders to carry at school, but never the idea of arming teachers as a rule.

I think the one thing everyone is forgetting in this entire tragedy, with their talk of changing gun culture, is the irrepairable harm that would come to the rap industry if we enacted gun prohibition. Are you guys willing to answer for all those lost jobs? Won't someone think of the rap music?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump

DAWG: nothing you laid out makes organized arming of teachers any less absurd. And the fact that you think they can "earn their keep" by being armed is even more absurd. Throw as much analyticals as you want, I will continue to live in the real world. I wold be perfectly willing to entertain the notion of allowing CC holders to carry at school, but never the idea of arming teachers as a rule.

---

How would CC holders being allowed to carry at school and not be punished by the government have helped prevent this kind of tragedy? Other types, sure. Unless you also allowed employees who had their CCW's to carry to work at school it would be meaningless. My suggestion is not that we arm all teachers, but rather that we arm some admins or other workers who arn't in regular contact, maybe teachers if they are so inclined and it would not pose a major hazard. Not arm teachers as a rule, I havn't said that

What has always fascinated me about the gun grabbers is their complete silence on alcohol. Alcohol related deaths claim the lives of millions of people each year, hundreds of thousands of them being innocent children - far more than firearms. Even infallible Australia isn't immune to the misery caused by the substance. And the typical arguments about guns are uniquely interchangeable. Consumable alcohol serves absolutely no beneficial social good. It's sole purpose is to alter people's mental state, which leads to all manner of terrible outcomes. The fact that millions consume it responsibly each year does not negate the fact that millions also die each year because of it.

And yet, in all the years that I've been reading Pap's and some of the others' posts, I've never read a word written about the social costs of alcohol. This leads me to believe that the immediate jump to ban guns, as opposed to say, trying to understand why society keeps letting mentally disturbed individuals fall through the cracks, is not out of a genuine concern for the teh childrenz. If it were, such posters would be calling for a return to Prohibition in the states and abroad. Instead, the urge to ban instead of understand reveals deep rooted fear or ignorance about guns and/or general disdain of the mindset that leads people to desire gun ownership.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

How would CC holders being allowed to carry at school and not be punished by the government have helped prevent this kind of tragedy? Other types, sure. Unless you also allowed employees who had their CCW's to carry to work at school it would be meaningless. My suggestion is not that we arm all teachers, but rather that we arm some admins or other workers who arn't in regular contact, maybe teachers if they are so inclined and it would not pose a major hazard. Not arm teachers as a rule, I havn't said that

---

It would have to be "as a rule" because otherwise there would not be enough takers. We are talking about schools, at least in this instance, as being in municipalities inside of towns inside of states, not feds in federal airports in federal skies. In order for your plan to come off, it would have to be complied to, which would raise all sorts of liability, district, county, city and state issues that no one wants to touch, especially school admins and teachers. Or we could just put more cops/security in schools as dedicated security, not an administrator trying to juggle duties and be school security. To argue that it would cost more would actually be unprovable, because I promise you that arming clerks and educators will make insurance premiums skyrocket. And if it did cost more, then so what? That's the price we have to pay for getting our cool toys.

Let me tell you where this is going to go, since politicians don't have the balls to close loopholes for fear or rustling feathers. They are going to take the path of least resistence. They are going to use the same conecept being used for ObamaCare, for Tobacco and for Lotteries: PREPARE FOR FIREARMS TO HAVE THE LIVING HELL TAXED OUT OF THEM. And that, my friends, is how we will cover the costs of added security, both physical and administrative.

@Panzer: many states (not sure about the federal level) have laws that do not allow firearms in the homes of felons or abusers. I foresee similar measures to be taken in conjunction with homes where people with mental issues are present.

What I find really funny is that the VA and DOD give names of mentally defunct veterans to the fed to prevent them from buying firearms. Not gonna debate this issue, and I would be willing to bet ole Tom Coburn takes his dog out of this fight now. But if I am not mistaken, there is no similar database kept for the casual mental health recipient, due much I am sure to patient-provider confidentiality. Much of the ATF form relies on the honor system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

And yet, in all the years that I've been reading Pap's and some of the others' posts, I've never read a word written about the social costs of alcohol.

---

Because banning alcohol has been tried and it failed miserably. Which is why banning guns will also fail but people are delusional so they think it will work because panic is always fun to practice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

Because banning alcohol has been tried and it failed miserably. Which is why banning guns will also fail but people are delusional so they think it will work because panic is always fun to practice.

---

Not really the same. Brewing a beer can be done in a bath tub with stuff from the supermarket. You cannot make a gun anywhere as easy. Only issue with America is the prevalence of guns in mainstream culture which would make it difficult to remove whilst in other countries, it is a non-issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiaexz

Not really the same. Brewing a beer can be done in a bath tub with stuff from the supermarket. You cannot make a gun anywhere as easy.

---

Its not making the guns, its buying the guns illegally. People who want guns can get guns. Our southern neighbors have plenty and Im sure the cartels would love to open another form of business if the cash and situation is right. Just like with the drugs.

3D printing of firearms will be an incredible thing. I look forward to the arguments we'll have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

3D printing of firearms will be an incredible thing.

---

Actually has been tested. The receiver fell apart after a few pulls of the trigger.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

What has always fascinated me about the gun grabbers is their complete silence on alcohol.

---

Yay for the strawman.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catiline

Yay for the strawman.

---

Explain please.

Drinking yourself to death is much more pleasurable than being shot in kindergarten class

It's not difficult. Just because two things are, or can be, bad for us doesn't mean that's an instant equivalence that means because you wish to restrict or prohibit one should you wish to restrict or prohibit the other to the same extent.

More people are killed by cars, you don't see anti gun people trying to ban them.

THe illegal guns argument doesn't really stand up either. They're still all fed into the market at the top end legally - take that supply away and over time the number of illegal guns, certainly working and properly maintained ones, will go down.

How many of these shooters actually obtain their guns illegally anyway. At most they're 'stealing' them from friends and family. It's not like some LAN party attending goth misfit is going down to his local illegal gun cartel and say, 'hey I'm thinking of doing a massacre, give me a gun dude'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump

Drinking yourself is much more pleasurable than being shot in kindergarten class

---

blood or urine? I prefer my white really chilled

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

And yet, in all the years that I've been reading Pap's and some of the others' posts, I've never read a word written about the social costs of alcohol. This leads me to believe that the immediate jump to ban guns, as opposed to say, trying to understand why society keeps letting mentally disturbed individuals fall through the cracks, is not out of a genuine concern for the teh childrenz. If it were, such posters would be calling for a return to Prohibition in the states and abroad. Instead, the urge to ban instead of understand reveals deep rooted fear or ignorance about guns and/or general disdain of the mindset that leads people to desire gun ownership.

---

"Why do you have a military compound in the middle of the city?"
"It's a school."

Simply comparing the number of school shootings in the US to Europe tells that something is off. And since you do have an unusually aggressive gun culture (guns for defense (and therefore aggression) is seen as normal) it's what the focus will be.

It is more factors involved, but that's more subtile and harder to see if they are influential or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

What has always fascinated me about the gun grabbers is their complete silence on alcohol. Alcohol related deaths claim the lives of millions of people each year, hundreds of thousands of them being innocent children - far more than firearms. Even infallible Australia isn't immune to the misery caused by the substance. And the typical arguments about guns are uniquely interchangeable. Consumable alcohol serves absolutely no beneficial social good. It's sole purpose is to alter people's mental state, which leads to all manner of terrible outcomes. The fact that millions consume it responsibly each year does not negate the fact that millions also die each year because of it.

And yet, in all the years that I've been reading Pap's and some of the others' posts, I've never read a word written about the social costs of alcohol. This leads me to believe that the immediate jump to ban guns, as opposed to say, trying to understand why society keeps letting mentally disturbed individuals fall through the cracks, is not out of a genuine concern for the teh childrenz. If it were, such posters would be calling for a return to Prohibition in the states and abroad. Instead, the urge to ban instead of understand reveals deep rooted fear or ignorance about guns and/or general disdain of the mindset that leads people to desire gun ownership.

---

Says the guy who was in favor of invading two countries, killing hundreds of thousands of people and taking a whole lot of freedoms away over a statistically insignificant terror attack... Statistical significance can obviously not be a deciding factor.

A moderate amount of shots of alcohol can increase ones lifespan.

How many shots to the head with a gun can increase ones lifespan?

There is a risk vs reward/utility of an object or action. Not only equally risky actions have an equal payoff.

Cars kill people regularly. And I for one think a drunk or drugged driver should be prosecuted harsher then a non-addled driver. However I do not support a ban on vehicles for everyone as they have a utility that if driven correctly far outweighs their problems. I do support banning those with medical conditions such as epileptics passengers only, and those who need glasses should be wearing them.

A lot, not all alcohol related injuries and deaths are to the user. Unfortunately a lot also hurt those around them. I'm not pro-alcohol, I've had my share of bad mentors in that field. I chose not to get a car license until I felt I was more mature and could handle the responsibility, I also did not even touch alcohol until 22 and even then not very regularly at all (legal age is 18). I do drink now, but my rule is only when I am happy and in general have achieved something.

I'm also not against hunters and farmers having access to firearms.

“What has always fascinated me about the gun grabbers is their complete silence on alcohol.” Never heard of a mass killing imposed by binge drinking against the victims’ will… None of victims in firearms mass killing were willing (we don’t speak of accidents here).

Deaths due to drink are legion. The most obvious example is drink driving. Violence would be another one.

But back to the topic...

Since the Supreme court in 2008 decided the right to bear arms in a state militia meant the right for individuals to bear arms it appears a lost cause, frankly. Even if some states were to tighten laws then people will just drive over the border. If you are about to slaughter a bunch of kids and then yourself I doubt a citation for having an illegal weapon is high on the list.

A system of ID tagged weapons or even better weapons linked to a ring for example would eventually help. After decades. And since the last small step was revoked a few years after it started I doubt it is realistic.

~:smoking:

A tragedy of this proportion affects an entire nation, so I'd like to offer my condolences to all US citizens here. I sincerely hope none of you knew the victims or their families personally.

This thread has been an interesting read so far, but there's one thing that surprises me. Apparently, the killers' mother was a gun fanatic. Now, I know that that in itself isn't much of an issue to our US residents, but I find it hard to understand that this woman took her children, among which a son with serious mental issues, to the shooting range and, apparently, kept deadly weapons in her house in a place where her mentally ill son could acces them. She paid for it with her life and I know this is a harsh thing to say, but I think part of the responsibility lays with the killers' own mother. Also, what good would a very strict law on gun ownership be if parents of mentally ill children let their guns laying around in the house? No guns in a house where a mentally ill lives? That won't work, since that would mean you touch on an individuals' rights because of another individual. It's also very easily circumvented. How does the government know where person X lives de facto? Or are you going to invade the houses of gun owning parents of mentally ill on a random basis to check if their son/daughter doesn't live there?

I think Fragony is right that tragedies such as these can never be completely prevented. But perhaps there are ways to reduce the risk. I don't think you can stop somebody who planned everything ahead, like the Norway nutter Breivik. Somebody who is determined to do such a horrible act and is able to prepare himself during years; you can't stop him, it's impossible. But somebody who would do such a thing during a moment of frenzy, on impulse, perhaps it's possible to prevent slaugherts of this scale if guns aren't as accessible as they apparntly now are in the US. Sure, a knife kills too, but it's not as deadly as a firearm.

Perhaps there is something to say for changing your gun laws, but I don't think this event should be the basis to start from with legislative work. It's a terrible idea to drasticially change legislation because a nutter went nuts. It's as absurd as banning buses after a major bus incident. Banning guns after this event, would be legislation made by your underbelly. It's understandable and it's a human reaction, but it's not a good basis to go on for writing new laws.

For starters, you need to find out if the legislation on guns is a direct cause for a higher amount of killing involving guns. It's not because statistic A says US citizens more often than other countries' citizens own a gun and statistic B says there are more killings involving guns in the US than abroad, that A is a cause of B. There's a connection, sure, but that in itself is not evidence. How many of the killings with firearms in the US are committed with guns bought on the black market and how many with legally obtained guns, for instance? Are there any figures or statistics about that? And how many of the guns acquired on the black market started their career as a legal gun? Also, how many crimes have been prevented because a citizen had a gun? Does gun ownership really help to prevent crime/to safe your own life, or is that a fable? Are there numbers on people who survived a murder attempt, because they were carrying a gun at the time? Numbers of people who succesfully stopped a bank robbery because they had a gun? Stuff like that? What I'm trying to get at: does having a gun really help or is that just something you believe?

Related: How safe is the US? Do you have to carry a gun, because your state doesn't provide you a secure country (is it really necessary to have a gun in the US in order to sruvive the every day life, is your country that dangerous?) ? In case of the latter, how comes? Not enough resources or are your resources used inefficiently? What are the priorities for your policemen and women? Do they have to keep themselves busy with insane amounts of paperwork or are they allowed to do their jobs on the streets?

How serious is the argument that people need to have the right to carry a gun in case the government oppresses them? Do you live in constant fear that your government is going to oppress you? Where does that fear come from? Is it justified anno 2012?

The US is a country with no national healthcare worthy of the name. It's a country that is generally speaking very harsh for people who are not succesfull in life. Isn't somebody who gets left to rot when he's unhappy in life more keen on committing crime, or even murder, than somebody who gets supported and provided a house, food, heating and a wee bit of pocket money? Who commits these murders with guns? If you take all people who killed somebody with a gun in the last 10 years; would they be a blueprint of society or would there be a disproportiate amount of poor people/mentally ill people/drug addicts etc.? If there's a disproportionate amount of a certain group, say mentally ill, perhaps you can then go and compare how the mentally ill are treated in the US compared to countries with lower numbers on killings involving guns? And perhaps also look at the numbers of mentally ill in other countries' statistics.

Then there's also the fact that the US shouldn't put its' head in the sand. Perhaps guns are not a direct cause for the amount of murders, but maybe they are an indirect cause. Perhaps it's true that you have more killings, because you treat your poor bad, but that doesn't have to mean guns aren't a factor and that you should stop the debate right there. Would your murderers have committed murder if they didn't have a firearm? That's a question you need to ask and answer, not simply brush away, because it's not the main cause. Perhaps it's not the main cause for the amount of killings, but if it has something to do with it, you need to act on it.

Imo, if the US banned gun ownership for citizens, the numbers of succesfull people committing murder will drop drastically. Without having looked up stats, figures, studies, however, I think most murders in the US are probably committed by people living on the other scale of society and I don't think banning guns will make the figures there drop.

Anyway, you can't have this debate with taboos, nor can you have this debate without looking at all different angles. You cannot simply reduce this to a debate about gun laws or a debate about mental healthcare in the US.

It would be moronic to instantly change gun laws because of this event, but it would also be moronic not to take the event as an opportunity to have a very open debate about your society as a whole. Perhaps gun laws need a few changes, but you most likely need a lot more changes as well, both in legislation as in mentality.

My :2cents:

There are approx 310 million firearms in circulation among civilians in the USA. Good luck registering them. The third-most powerful lobbying group (after AARP and AIPAC) is a 2nd Amendment absolutist which has been hysterically screaming about how Obama will derk er guhns for four years. The courts have repeatedly demonstrated that they are uninterested in regulating gun rights in any way, and there is, so far, insufficient public outrage to change that equation.

I would like to see gun ownership about as regulated as motor vehicle operation, but a school full of dead children ain't gonna make it happen. The Founders kinda screwed us with the phrasing of the Second Amendment. Yes, the "well-regulated militia" part is pretty obvious, but so is "shall not be infringed."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

There are approx 310 million firearms in circulation among civilians in the USA. Good luck registering them. The third-most powerful lobbying group is a 2nd Amendment absolutist which has been hysterically screaming about how Obama will derk er guhns for four years. The courts and public are approx 50% 2A absolutists.

---

As long as you have such powerful absolutists, backed by such a large part of the population, clinging on to this Amendmenet as if it were some holy rule written in stone by Supreme Beings, you can't have an open debate. And gun legislation is only one aspect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

I would like to see gun ownership about as regulated as motor vehicle operation, but a school full of dead children ain't gonna make it happen.

---

A teenager can take his/her fathers' car for a ride without the father knowing... Juste like a young lad can take his mothers' guns and shoot her before going on a rampage with her guns...

If your legislation on guns is the main reason for events such like these happening, then only outright banning private gun ownership will help, imo. Even if you add extra regulation, it'll still be too easy for a deranged individual to get his hands on a gun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

A teenager can take his/her fathers' car for a ride without the father knowing... Juste like a young lad can take his mothers' guns and shoot her before going on a rampage with her guns...

---

The car is registered, and has a license plate. The ownership of the car is tracked at the State level. The parent had to pass a minimal driving and safety test before being allowed on the road, and is required to have insurance for the vehicle in most states.

Moreover, the car is required by law to have a host of safety features, such as locks, airbags, brakes, etc.

I don't see a meaningful comparison between motor vehicles and firearms, at least not in the USA. That's because vehicle operation is treated as a privilege, while gun ownership, due to the phrasing of the Second Amendment, is a right. Unless/until we modify the Second Amendment, I don't see much meaningful change happening. And the political will just isn't there.

Truthfully, I think any change is going to need to come from gun advocates themselves. Fun little fact: The NRA was originally founded to support the regulation of firearms. It's true, look it up. So when the NRA can move past Obama's gunna derk uhr gehns and get into some sort of workable regimen of gun regulation, ain't nothing gonna happen.

https://i.imgur.com/JhTMr.png

Many years ago I was a member of the NRA but let my membership lapse because their stance on gun shows irked me. They are absolutists. Thats the problem. Not unlike the ACLU in a sense, but the ACLU does not deal wth instruments of killing.....

I've been away for a good while, so pardon me if the laws have changed, which I don't think they have....

For decades we have seen reasonable (and unreasonable) laws put under the axe by the NRA. The mere fact that at a gun show (or in a person-to-person sale in a newspaper classified) a weapon can be transferred from one person to the other with not paper trail is absolutely absurd. No background check, no requirement for either party to inform anyone of the purchase and transfer....

The most common argument I hear supporting this is how gun show vendors are doing this to make a living and cant afford to pay for background checks, invoking that golden goose the Small Business Man, ma and pa farms, just a regular guy trying to make some money.....

If you can't afford to meet the health department criteria, you dont open a restraurant. If you cant afford insruance, you dont practice medicine. If you cant afford a license, you dont drive a semi rig. I dont see why this thing with gun shows is any different. There are more administrative hoops to jump through for selling real estate, an automobile or a boat than they are for selling a gun to a random stranger at a gun show.

Gun absolutists..... lets see, IIRC (i was just a boy) the NRA was none to happy about the automatic weapons ban after the mcdonalds massacre in 1984, and they saw Reagan as a cop-out for signing the law. The NRA supported the original bill as it offered gun owner protections, but the automatic weapon clause was added at the 11th hour, and some of the fringers did not care for it....I still remember the old men in my family making a fuss about it.... Curious what the NRA says about it today.....I could only imagine what the states would be like today if people could legally own and purchase MAC 10s....

And this recent rule where veterans deemed unfit by the VA cannot buy guns.... republicans and the NRA are fighting this, trying to pass legislation to kill it. Some of them are saying because the right needs to be revoked by a judge, not a bearaucrat. Not sure I understand the reasoning. The doctor says the guy is crazy, I don't see what it matters who takes away the right to own a gun..... a lot of the right wing nutters are saying this is just a ploy to begin taking or guns, the beginning of the end, typical NRA, anyway, I see this issue maybe being shelved for the time being

On a related note, most people arguing about guns -- including Rupert Murdoch -- still think Assault Weapon means Automatic Weapon, and the liberal media is none to forthcoming about striaghtening this out. So we get all this round and round about assault rifles, which are really only more useful than a pistol at long longer range, and no massacres in recent memory involved a guy at range, it was all up close. I could definitely see it making a difference in a long building like a mall, though, if you are an exerienced shooter with the rifle, which in most cases the person is not. Nonetheless, the debate focuses on assault rifles....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

There are approx 310 million firearms in circulation among civilians in the USA. Good luck registering them. The third-most powerful lobbying group is a 2nd Amendment absolutist which has been hysterically screaming about how Obama will derk er guhns for four years. The courts have repeatedly demonstrated that they are uninterested in regulating gun rights in any way, and there is, so far, insufficient public outrage to change that equation.

I would like to see gun ownership about as regulated as motor vehicle operation, but a school full of dead children ain't gonna make it happen. The Founders kinda screwed us with the phrasing of the Second Amendment. Yes, the "well-regulated militia" part is pretty obvious, but so is "shall not be infringed."

---

At least you can register most of them, over here that's much harder because most come from former Yugoslavia. Better to accept things like this happening sometimes than to have no overview whatsoever. Carrying a gun on the street is utterly unacceptable imho but if you make it legal for those who don't have a criminal record to own a registered gun you at least are in control of the situation a whole lot more. It isn't hard to get a gun really, I can easily get you an AK-47 if you hand me 500 a 600 euro. What's the better situation really, some control or none at all?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

What's the better situation really, some control or none at all?

---

According to the 2A absolutists, none at all. That's pretty obvious.

Again, I think proposals for change would be best if they came from the bastions of 2A absolutism, such as the NRA. Anybody who suggests we need any regulation at all is going to be crucified if they aren't a "conservative" Republican.

Obama? Man, forget about it. After four years of hysterical squealing about how he's gonna be a gun-grabber? After all of the right-wing reality-free froth and paranoia about how the OBUMMER is going to become a dictator? Due to the unhinged nature of the wingnuts, he has zero room to maneuver.

So if 2A absolutists such as Panzer want to propose something, anything more realistic than turning our schools into armed camps, let's hear it. 'Cause the left and center are hamstrung on this issue. So let's hear what the right has to say. If anything.

I have absolutely nothing meaningfull to say really, I have no idea how to fix things like this

Just checked the NRA's blog. They got nothing. Their news feed? Nothing. Their Facebook page? They took it down. In fact, their only acknowledgement seems to be this one twitter statement: "Until the facts are thoroughly known, NRA will not have any comment." What an unbelievable bunch of tools.

On the bright side, seems there are a few "conservative" Republicans willing to at least have a conversation. We'll see if they get body-slammed by their own right-wing media complex or not.

-edit-

Sorry, my bad, the politician asking for a conversation about gun regulation is a Dem. My mistake. He will now be flogged in public as the SOCIALIST GUN GRABBER he clearly is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Just checked the NRA's blog. They got nothing. Their news feed? Nothing. Their Facebook page? They took it down. In fact, their only acknowledgement seems to be this one twitter statement: "Until the facts are thoroughly known, NRA will not have any comment." What an unbelievable bunch of tools.

On the bright side, seems there are a few "conservative" Republicans willing to at least have a conversation. We'll see if they get body-slammed by their own right-wing media complex or not.

---

Sorry but why should they have the obligation to response, why volunteer for the association.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Sorry but why should they have the obligation to response, why volunteer for the association.

---

Oh, I don't know, it's just this thing I have, where I expect the most powerful group advocating unrestricted 2A for everyone might want to show leadership in a crisis.

Silly, I know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Oh, I don't know, it's just this thing I have, where I expect the most powerful group advocating unrestricted 2A for everyone might want to show leadership in a crisis.

Silly, I know.

---

I don't know what 2a means but if it means armed guards at schools it's stupid. Just an extra gun for who planned ahead.

2A = shorthand for Second Amendment.

@Fragony: armed guards at schools are already a fact of life in the inner city. It has to be done, too many illegal guns and shootings. There are also armed guards and metal detectors cropping up at various rural schools. The key to thwarting the "plan ahead and take his gun" scenario is that you have guards woking on teams, not solo.
@Andres: a persons right to own a gun can already be thwarted inderectly by having a felon in the house. In these cases, its not the gun owner that is typically punished, its the felon. I don't see why the same cannot be done with people with mental health issues. If there is a gun in the house, they have to go elsewhere, even if that means state custody

All these calls for increased mental healthcare are inevitably going to conflict with our national apprehension towards involuntary commitment for mental patients. While it still does happen when people pose a clear and violent threat, gone are the days where someone could be committed for far less, IIRC a few of the past shootings involved parents who tried to send their adults kids to mental healthcare but they could not be forced to go because there was no clear pattern of violence, etc.

2012 has been a very busy year, not just for homicide in general hotspots like chicago and detroit, but also mass shootings. I am sure many here have already forgotten about the middle aged Korean nutter in california who killed 6 people and then himself, mostly vibrant young women. We also had the racist revenge killings in Tulsa.

Andres made some good points. I'm also not sure why people brush the issue of the second amendment as a right allowing us preparation to overthrow or resist a tyrannical government. Notice that I didn't say "the government" as I don't believe that it is currently tyrannical. We arm ourselves for many reasons, but sport is the least legitimate one to defend the practice, by my reasoning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

the second amendment as a right allow[s] us preparation to overthrow or resist a tyrannical government.

---

Okay, given that premise, is there any form of regulation that would make sense to you? We routinely restrict our other Constitutionally-enshrined freedoms. The obvious example would be speech, no need to go into that.

Are there any restrictions or regulations on private ownership of firearms that would make sense from your perspective? Anything at all?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Okay, given that premise, is there any form of regulation that would make sense to you? We routinely restrict our other Constitutionally-enshrined freedoms. The obvious example would be speech, no need to go into that.

Are there any restrictions or regulations on private ownership of firearms that would make sense from your perspective? Anything at all?

---

Sure. States should be allowed to ban full auto weapons. States can also more strictly enforce prohibitions on people with serious mental illness or a violent criminal record owning weapons. High capacity mags you can try to restrict. Some mandatory gun and storage safety courses are a possibility

I don't really understand what anyone expects to do with the second amendment protected weaponry if they do end up under a tyrannical government, they're not gonna win against the US army with civilian grade weaponry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

I don't really understand what anyone expects to do with the second amendment protected weaponry if they do end up under a tyrannical government, they're not gonna win against the US army with civilian grade weaponry.

---

Classic. Tell it to the Vietnamese, Irish, Afghans and American revolutionaries

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

Classic. Tell it to the Vietnamese, Irish, Afghans and American revolutionaries

---

...The american revolutionaries were operating out of a time where a bunch of hillbillies with rifles could actually make a difference due to the lack of defense against a rifle bullet. The Irish, Vietnamese and afghans where fighting against people who did not like hearing about the constant casualties reports and really didn't want to keep sending people to die. You think a tyrannical government is going to pull out of defending it's home or allow the media to create tension by reporting every single death that occurs complete with flowery prose and heartrending university graduation photograph?

Not to mention for the first three they relied on homemade bombs, black market munitions and the ability to evade the enemy, be it in a jungle, cave or urban sprawl, rather than a few handguns and uncle Jim-bob's collection of licensed shotguns. It would be attrition and hiding amongst the masses, not an abundance of small arms that would be the deciding factor in winning a revolution. If an american militia group tried to go toe to toe with the US army in any form of open combat today it would be a five minute massacre.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

Classic. Tell it to the Vietnamese, Irish, Afghans and American revolutionaries

---

Sorry - but that is utter nonsense on so many levels.

And by way of full disclosure - I couldn't give a **** how many guns you yanks have.

Ok, you are right. Guns really are ineffective at killing and disrupting things. I guess we should just give them all up then

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

Ok, you are right. Guns really are ineffective at killing and disrupting things. I guess we should just give them all up then

---

When fighting an occupying force? Yes you should. Trade it in for some bathtub C4 or a DIY molotov kit, It's easier to explain away to mister military policeman than a small arsenal of handguns. Try to take on the US army in open combat as the civilian weaponry are designed to do and you will quickly become a pink mist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

When fighting an occupying force? Yes you should. Trade it in for some bathtub C4 or a DIY molotov kit, It's easier to explain away to mister military policeman than a small arsenal of handguns. Try to take on the US army in open combat as the civilian weaponry are designed to do and you will quickly become a pink mist.

---

I dunno, Iraq and Afghanistan tells otherwise. Counter-insurgency is a :daisy:.

Um... Are you agreeing with me or disputing it? I honestly cant tell with that.