are for situations where a product malfunctions and hurts somebody. If you intentionally use something in an illegal fashion, the manufacturer is not held liable. No one sued the nitromethane race fuel that tim mcveigh used to build his bomb in OKC. If I buy a steak knife and stab somebody with it, you cant sue the knife manufacturer for them being "too deadly and too abundant and too easy for criminals to get their hands on them." Youre being rediculous if you think that every time someone gets a DUI we should sue jack daniels. We send the driver to jail, not the president of budweiser. Is there no room for holding an induvidual responsible for their own actions? Answer me this question Gort. If the Seals hadnt been there, would the guns have still killed Bin Laden? No? Well then why blame the gun for sandy hook.
Renault, let me point out my objections to your examples. A steak knife has an indented purpose of cutting steak not kill people.
The McVeigh bomb was made of fertilizer, diesel fuel, and a rental truck. The intended purpose of fertilizer, diesel fuel, and a rental truck is not to kill people.
Alcoholic beverages are intended to bring pleasure to the drinker, not intended to kill people. (At least the alcohol industry spends some money in their advertising to promote responsible drinking and designated drivers.)
On the other hand, assault style weapons and high capacity magazines are designed to kill people. These weapons have an alluring appeal that enhances the mental fantasy of a lunatic determined to go on a killing spree.
I don’t have any problem blaming the person that does the killing but, in my opinion, weapons manufactures and their lobbying group do not take enough responsibility for the products they sell and promote to the public. Blaming just the killer isn’t enough.
Are you satisfied with things they way they are? What do you suggest?
...at times Gort. So the alternative is what? A Complete gun ban with confiscation. Let's be honest here Gort. There are already Tens of Millions of guns in America... What Law or Ban would have stopped the killer?
The answer NONE.
Unless you are advocating for seizure of ALL guns nothing short of that would have worked. However it still would have occurred one way or another. Intent to do harm simply cannot be eradicated by a LAW. No matter how many "GOOD INTENTIONS" you may have.
A Free Society depend on personal responsibility. Not a Government Nanny-State.
So let's act now.. Let's put another "SCARY" gun ban in place. Let's put a Hi-Cap mag ban in place... and ... when the next mass killing occurs will you accept responsibility or will you just say we need to do more... Like seize all guns?
Then let me welcome you to the next American Civil War.
...I just viewed a montage of the worst mass gun killings since 1960, worldwide; more than half occurred OUTSIDE the U.S. - we just don't remember those news clips as well... Given, we're ONE country and this was the rest of the world. Point being, it can happen anywhere, any time.
On the other hand, assault style weapons and high capacity magazines are designed to kill people. These weapons have an alluring appeal that enhances the mental fantasy of a lunatic determined to go on a killing spree.
In discussing this with devoted hunters and concerned parents - the allure of the assault weapon has been enhanced by violent war game videos and movies. The culture of learning to use skills and weapons for HUNTING has almost been put on the back burner. Arming teachers? Policeman are armed - and too many die in the line of duty. Guns are part of the problem. Is more guns part of the solution? Will settling the division of Second Amendment rights help solve the problem of mass killings in our schools and streets? I just don't think this is a one solution problem. Very grateful to those parents who are sharing their difficulties in getting help for their children who exhibit mental illness. One should not have to have their child criminalized before getting that child help for a mental disorder. The country has united in support of this town and the parents of the victims of this tragedy. I hope we use this unity to move forward towards solutions. IMO, banning assault weapons from private ownership is a start.
Where does it state that only "APPROVED" weapons may be privately owned?
What part is confusing? The part of " the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
Where does it state that "arms" means only approved guns.. who get's to approve them? Who is the arbiter of what it means?
Do you realize what kind of doors this opens? What if you could only buy "approved" foods.. or "approved" cars..or "approved" alcohol and on and on and on...
why didnt we just ban assault weapons from private ownership in Iraq and Afghanistan? Im sure if we had done that and put up "gun free" zones all over the country the taliban and saddam jihadists would have promptly turned in all their AK's to the authorities. Everyone knows, as soon as you ban something, no one does it anymore, right? We learned that in the 20's with prohibition. Man, that worked great. And banning cocaine and heroin and marijuana? yep! you guessed it! Problem solved! Thanks Nancy Regan, I WILL say no!! Gosh, Think of all the money we could have saved on armored humvees in Iraq if we had just thought to ban roadside bommbs and assault rifles! Gee I wish i had thought of that! Good Plan DM! This changes everything!
If you and I had the answer, we would be heroes!! I think we can have the conversation without rancor - don't you?
Lord knows, I wish I had the answer. I have no plan - just some thoughts towards a solution. Do we cancel the conversation because we don't have an answer to a serious problem? You rightly fear home invasions and mass killings - I fear random shootings on street corners in urban areas. It does appear that putting armed guards at schools has helped in the LA area. I see armed guards at the banks that I use in Fayetteville. (I don't know if that has been a deterrent or not - but I know I feel safer.) I do not carry here in Georgia - but I did carry in my car in Los Angeles. I never owned an assault weapon. Received training so that if I had to shoot, I would hit the target, even under duress. I do think this is a 'right' that I cherish. Hunters don't use assault weapons because of the damage it does to the hunted (So I'm told). Does one really need an assault weapon to protect their home? I first encountered men with assault weapons for the protection of civilians in Mexico and France. (And the Watts Riot in 1965) What price freedom? Assault weapons are to be used to kill humans. We started with muskets and six shooters. Where do we end?
Because im better with it, thats why. its my personal choice. many people have tried to ask what the best gun is, and the knowing man will answer that the gun you shoot the best is the best gun for you. After a decade of military service I am an expert marksman with a rifle and pistol. I own both. But any cop or soldier will tell you that a pistol is just what you use to fight with until you get to a real gun, i.e., battle rifle/assault rifle. If I am to defend my home, I want a gun that I am good with, and holds lots of bullets. No one, anywhere, ever, after winning a gun battle, said "dang, i wish i had brough less bullets" or "man, i wish i had used smaller capacity magazines so i could have reloaded more." As someone familiar with firearms, you know that is silly. Of coure, i dont take my rifle to the mall....., but thats just me. I do take my pistol, because it is convenient and concealable, tradeoffs i accept in exchange for accuracy, lethality and capacity. I also have a shotgun with which i am more than competent, but even being heavily modified for competition shooting, still only holds eight rounds. Not enough. There is an old pashtun saying i learned in my first trip to the desert. "there is no substitute for more." There is a reason the taliban and jihadis dont fight with pistols and shotguns. for fighting, they arent as good. period, end of sentence. I am not one of these "black helicopter in the sky, the UN is trying to take over illuminati" nutjobs. I want to be able to defend myself with the tools i am most comfortable with. If you are going to ban assault rifles, the criminals will not obey. you have already agreed with me ont hat point. Why must I be required to defend my life with firepower inadequate to that which the criminal has? why do they get high cap magazines and I do not? You dont bring a pistol to a rifle fight. Not if you want to be standing at the end of it anyway. Thats why
I just heard this conversation. A little scary - but worth noting.
It has been reported that a gang in an urban area has a 'tank' . An individual has purchased a bazooka to protect his family.
I think we need a clear definition of assault weapons.
Because I'm better with it
There may be a great number of young men and women who feel they're better with some type of assault weapon. Where can one find a definition of assault weapons? Military definition/ civilian definition - are they the same?
Assault weapons are used in hunting all the time. The AR-15 and the AR-10 (same gun, bigger bullet) have become wildly popular inthe national hunting scene over the last 10 years. the ar-15 (civilian semi auto only version of m-16) will take any small or medium game in north america. But its modularity makes it popular for other things. You dont need a whole new gun to shoot deer, elk or bear. You just swap out the top part (called the upper) and you can use different, bigger bullets and shoot big game as well. the AR-10 is just an ar-15 that specifically shoots the .308 (7.62 NATO) high power hunting rifle cartridge. The ONLY requirement to hunt with these guns is that you must use a 5 round mag, no more. these can be had for $10. This has nothing to do with the destruction to the animal (killing them quickly as possible to avoid suffering is the point), just a way to make it a little more fair and limit the number of animals you can take at one time. when you go home, pop out the 5 round mag, drop in a 20, 30 50 or 100 round drummag and you have your good 'ole assault rifle back. But let me be clear, just by changing the magazine, assault rifles are perfectly legal to hunt with. This includes ak-47's, fn-fals, cetmes, ptr-90's, sks's, all the usual stuff.
Dmom, you are correct, it will take more than one thing to happen to increase the safety of the general public. If you want to read a sane website on the topic, try the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence:
Personally, I don’t agree with a ban but that is only a part of their approach. Gun violence is not limited to mass murders in our country and more must be done to protect the general public.
Wouldnt have changed anything. I have written to both of you several times now in the last few days pointing out that columbine didnt have any assault rifles. They had pistols, shotguns and homemade explosives. Virgina tech, pistols. Arizona shooting, pistol. The deadliest school killing in American history, homemade bombs. The deadliest mass murder in american history, OKC homemade bomb. Yes, the Sandy hook shooter had an assault rifle, but he also had two pistols. If he hadnt have had one, nothing would have been different, he would have just used his pistols. Aurora shooter had one, but if he hadnt have had one, nothing would have been different, he would have just used pistols. one of the Columbine shooters used mags with only 10 round capacity. But he had 13 of them, thats still 130 bullets. The point is that there are already laws in place against all this stuff! Using instructions acquired upon the Internet, Harris and Klebold constructed a total of 99 improvised explosive devices of various designs and sizes. They sawed the barrels and butts off their shotguns to make them easier to conceal. The perpetrators committed numerous felony violations of state and federal law, including the National Firearms Act and the Gun Control Act of 1968, even before the massacre began. PLEASE ANSWER THIS QUESTION EITHER OF YOU! all of these shooters already commited crimes just to get to the places where the massacers occoured? Clearly, they dont care about the law! What will passing more laws do, except create aditional burdens on people who are already law abiding and were never going to break the law in the first place?
I understand. Why do you feel you need an assault weapon?
you didnt answer the question! man you are bad about that!
What will passing more laws do, except create aditional burdens on people who are already law abiding and were never going to break the law in the first place?
I am not a proponent of passing more laws - but doing something about the cause of this increase in violence. Do you have the answer to that?
Whew! the testosterone is overwhelming. Calm down. This is just a discussion.
wellll, personally i blame gangster rap. if you need to know why, i can expound. its not a racist thing, just an observation of the message in that particular medium, and a hard look at the statistics of who unfortunatley commits the majority of gun crimes and the music and gang subculture they prefer to emulate. As for this recent guy, its a long tradition in america for serial killers and mass murderers to be white males. But they are all unquestionalble nutjobs. Clearly, the mental health screening in this country leaves much to be desired. Im just so upset that every lib on TV has the knee jerk reaction to ban guns. It wont happen, so they are just wasting time distracting away from what could be a meaningful conversation. i dont think its movies or video games. Other than the Grand Theft Auto series, i dont see a lot of video games that have you run around performing mindless violence. And none of them glorify shooting up a school. Clearly something else is at work here.
Again, I think we are on the same page. Except for the video games. They are ghastly, and show too much glorified gun carnage either in war games or gang warfare. Hey / it's not only 'Libs' who have joined the ban guns bandwagon. . . But many politicians who feel uncomfortable about 2014. Lots of posturing , and little action depending on what they are hearing from their constituents. We need to stop ignoring the pleas of the parents who are dealing with 'weird' kids. Let's look on the other side for a minute. Most of our kids are doing OK. We need to focus on how to better protect them. Taking away rights of law abiding citizens is not the answer -But focusing on banning guns is not the answer either IMO.
. . . are fighting, and have been for a long time, I would propose. Thoughtful analysis of girls vs boys finds that girls tend to interact in ways that are cooperative, collaborative, in a community and collective fashion. Sounds a lot like the principles you favor, doesn't it?
Boys, on the other hand, tend to be aggressive, individualistic, self-reliant and solitary problem-solvers, as reflected in the political principles of our founding fathers.
There are exceptions, of course. Girly-men like Bloomberg and Obama for example. But maybe girly-men aren't entirely to blame for their femaleness, as our culture has been replacing masculinity with feminism for decades now.
All this is just good-natured food for thought. Consider this - maybe a different way to look at your debates on this board is you may be struggling to persuade men to adopt your feminine view of the world.
Could be! The human has both male and female attributes. Is it 'girly' to express compassion and sympathy? I think the men have had long enough to try to solve problems without female input. Now come on - who presents a more 'girly' persona than your weeping Speaker of the House? There are some very manly men who agree with me about the gun situation. Just saying. LOL!
. . . in that I forgot to include in the exceptions strong, independent-minded women. So let me fess up before some of them tear into me.
I suppose many would agree with you about the Speaker leaking tears with quivering voice when speaking on issues he cares deeply about. I see it differently. A wise man once told me about manhood that you know you're a real man when you are strong enough to be gentle. What the Speaker's emotions tell me is that his passion on those conservative principles runs very deep, and to me that's a strength, not a weakness.
Go ahead and try to convert buttheaded, independent men into collectivists ready to sit in a circle holding hands to sing "Feelings," but don't hit that brick wall too hard with your head!
I think you're a little biased. Aren't we all? The Speaker can emote over his conservative principles but the president can't emote over the death of 20 first graders. Interesting. I feel humans all have 'feelings'. Thank heavens. Real men are 'gentle'. My father taught me that.
. . . projecting onto me something I did not say. When Obama said "Our hearts are broken" he was speaking for all of us, and I would have had a hard time speaking to a group about this mass murder of kids without blubbering like a baby.
Obama will always be a girly-man to me, but not because of choking up over the murder of kids.
Girly men!? A discussion for another time.
Renault, stop lying about what I said. I never said I wanted to ban assault style weapons or anything else.
This is what I said:
Make military-style semi-automatic assault weapons along with high-capacity ammunition magazines, less readily available to the general public.
Improve background checks and close loopholes including all sales by unlicensed sellers.
Enact laws to help law enforcement combat firearms trafficking that supplies guns to criminals.
Use microstamping that can match bullet casings found at a crime scene to the gun used.
All this can take place and I wouldn’t have to worry about anyone taking my guns away.
If you can read half way past the first sentence, I do believe that answers your question.
Do you have any recommendations for reducing gun violence?
guns did. Said nobody, ever. Because it was the other way around, wasn't it. Even Obama said so, so it must be true. Therefore, you cant blame guns (whatever kind) for the actions of stupid people.
every State including Federal has laws regulating the sale of firearms...
So why don't you tell us what you really want to do...
You are right, we should just ignore the "Shall Not Be Infringed" part of our Constitution. http://onsecondopinion.blogspot.com/2009/02/meaning-of-shall-not-be-infr... -GP
There are young human beings in all of our communities and schools who have challenges that we are puzzled about how to handle. The article 'Meeting Matthew" gives some insight into how one chid was provided assistance.
The newly re-elected president offered few specifics about how he planned to proceed, saying only that he will engage with law enforcement, mental health professionals, parents and educators in the coming weeks. Just days after the shooting at an elementary school, Obama is already facing pressure from fellow Democrats and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg to tackle gun control legislation, a contentious issue he avoided as he sought a second term.
From the media: this doesn't sound like a one solution answer to this problem. This is a contentious issue, that does not need a knee jerk reaction. What are the states doing?
"Entertainment moguls do not have an absolute right to glorify murder while spreading mayhem in young minds across America," he said. "And our Bill of Rights does not guarantee gun manufacturers the absolute right to sell military-styled high-caliber semi-automatic combat assault rifles with high capacity magazines to whoever the hell they want."
"Politicians can no longer be allowed to defend the status quo," Scarborough said. "They must instead be forced to defend our children."
Only five months ago, following the mass shooting at the Aurora movie theater in Colorado, Scarborough had resisted wading into a gun control debate.
At the time he said it was "unfortunate" that activists on both sides of the issue were talking politics while the victims' families were in mourning.
He also suggested that gun control advocates had lost the debate for good back in the 1990s, when conservative Democrats "killed" gun control legislation pushed by former President Clinton.
"I think this debate has been had," he concluded.
On Monday morning, however, he said that Sandy Hook "changed everything. It must It must change everything. We all must begin anew and demand that Washington's old way of doing business is no longer acceptable."
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/conservative-joe-scarborough-st...
...sorry Larry I know the Left likes to show off their token Conservative but I know Conservatives and Joe isn't one.
kids that if anything happens at school they should follow the teacher's directions. The teachers know what to do in this kind of situation, their training goes like this: First hide preferably in a locked and secure room, second stay calm and quite, attempt to reach out via phone to someone on the outside of the school and at the last resort fight back. Of course it will be a little hard to fight back, won't it? I think that is what the principal at Sandy Hook Elementary attempted to do, too bad she wasn't trained and equipped with an appropriate weapon.
There are 300 million firearms in the United States. Since it's not politically correct to call someone "crazy" and take preemptive action to get them help, the odds are good this will happen again. We certainly wouldn't want to offend the insane or their families. After all, they have "feelings". The shooter in Sandy Hook according to what I have read was more than just a little wacky. Yet no one in this town did anything about it. Why?
So, Lion with that many weapons floating around in the States, can we say it's the weapons or the wackos? I say it's the wackos we need to be worried about because they will find a weapon whether it's a firearm or something else. The best way to protect our kids is to make certain that our children are protected by well trained and armed teachers/administrators. At least this will even the odds.
In the meantime, we need to study the profiles of these psychopaths and get them help before they take out our kids and friends. Even if it means getting "involved" in someone else "problems".
The best way to protect our kids is to make certain that our children are protected by well trained teachers/administrators in secure buildings with an armed guard IMO. In high schools, there are too many scenarios where a student can overpower a 'teacher' and get a gun, knife, etc. The classroom needs to be gun free.Years ago, after my school had been 'locked down' as was the practice, a deranged person came to the front door brandishing a knife! (Thanks to Ronald Reagan). The office staff called LAPD, and within one minute - there were officers at the door. (There had been an undercover drug operation going on in the neighborhood, and many undercover officers were on the street). I think each state and district needs to involve parents, community and law enforcement in this discussion. Everyone wants to protect our children. I don't believe there is a one size fits all solution. . .and I don't think that local communities will take a long time in developing plans to protect the kids. Lets keep the politicians out of this! The staff of Sandy Hook was prepared. It might have been different if the principal had the support of an armed guard. . .and again, it might not have made any difference. I doubt if the principal or anyone else expected to be greeted by an assault rifle.
"I don't believe there is a one size fits all solution"
I believe this too, but I also believe that teachers can show good judgment and also even the odds.
Would you have shot the guy at the door? I doubt it. Will kids throw their teachers to the ground and use their weapon against others? Maybe, but then again they can just steal their parent's weapons and come to school. The world is not a perfectly safe place. All we can to is rationally prepare for the worst.
I volunteer. You dont have to wear it on you. Just keep it in a fingerprint or key safe discreetly in a cabinet or closet. Have someone on every hall, only the resource officer and the admin knows who they are, certainly not the kids. I am a 10 year vet and deployed to the sandbox three times. I also shoot competitively as a hobby and am an expert marksman with a pistol. Ill go through whatever training and classes the sherrifs dept requires. Ive already passed extensive background checks, though Im crazy enough to teach, ha! I dont ever want to have to shoot somebody, but I would do it without hesitation before I let someone like that Sandy Hook freak harm a hair on any kid at my school. I know the principal at Sandy Hook felt the same, and she tried to do what she could, but was not allowed to have a gun, so we all know how well that worked out for her. Would Larry and Gort really prefer I not have a gun when someone tries this in Fayette? Are you willing to go on record and say now, in hindsight, your'e still glad that neither the principal nor any teachers had a gun and only the criminal did? Seriously? Because if so, I bet there are 26 familes in Ct who might disagree with you.
Renault, you don’t need my permission to volunteer. The public schools in Fayette County are run by a School Board. You can write them directly or show up at a meeting and offer your service. I have no idea how they will respond.
I have no doubt you’re sincere and want to protect children. We just don’t agree on how. Generally speaking, this is how I understand the two approaches.
I want regulations put in place at the ‘point of sale’, before weapons get in the hands of a criminal. On the other hand you don’t want to act until after the killing has already started.
Neither method is foolproof but there is nothing stopping us from doing both except for the politics.
the shooter at Sandy Hook a criminal before he shot all those kids?
The problem with your approach Gort is it won't work, it didn't stop this shooter and all the regulations you put in place going forward won't stop the next one either. You can even disarm the entire population and it won't work Gort. Psychopaths will always find a way to kill people. The real question is how do we change our society to minimize the production of psychopaths, identify them and neutralize them, before they neutralize us. We need to understand that there is a correlation between this string of mass murders and something in our society. Video games? TV? Movies? I certainly don't know but based on the frequency, I would say something has changed. We need to identify it and minimize its impact on our culture.
Now do you really think Mr. Biden can do that? Nope, he can only force upon us useless regulations to make the masses feel better that the government is doing something.
PTC_0, from what I read, yes he was a criminal before he killed those children at Sandy Hook. He killed his mother earlier that same morning. I don’t mean to speak ill of the dead but, that fact is, it was her negligence that allowed her son to get his hands on the weapons. It cost her, her life, and the lives of many others.
A general commendation of society sounds like something out of some lame “juvenile delinquent” movie from the 1950’s. At lease I never heard of anyone killing someone with a video controller or a ticket stub from a “Clint Eastwood” movie.
On Friday the NRA is supposed to make a press release on the Newton massacre. I don’t know for sure but, I got a feeling I’ll be siding with Biden on this one.
True but it was all the same event, this boy had no prior criminal charges.
I believe there are reasons for individual actions like this, you can minimize it if you want, but there are underlying societal reasons we have people like this among us.
As to the mother of the shooter, I agree. However, I would say it was her inaction to seek professional help for her son that lead to this tragic event. If you or I had such a child I don't think we wouldn't simply hang out at bars crying in our beer. We would get him some help and do whatever it took to resolve it. The fact that she had firearms around an unstable kid says a lot about her judgement. IMHO, it's the mother and father that deserve a lot of the burden of blame. Sounds like the father simply gave the former wife a lot of money and washed his hands of both his ex-wife and his children.
Let's resolve to find the correlations based on the facts and not jump to cause. Regulations on firearms won't get us there Gort, it simply isn't possible give the numbers. They certainly didn't help in this case.
PTC_0, I’m a little surprised you can’t see right through the position of the conservative arguments on this subject. It’s pretty clear to me, the conservative argument, for no restriction to gun sales, is their way of having their cake and eating it too.
Gun manufactures make all the money and the total cost of the gun culture is passed on to the rest of society. Sounds a lot like taking the money from one group of people for the benefit of others, don’t it? They call that ‘wealth redistribution’ don’t they? 8 - )
Perhaps Fed, State and Local governments should start thinking about “Fee’s” and “Licenses” to help offset the cost of having all these weapons in circulation. Little Tax stamps on ammo, like cigarettes do now, or bales of tea did in colonial times.
I don’t care what the odd are, I’m not ready to give up on a good cause because the numbers are against me. Just call me a Rebel ! 8 - )
twist, but there's just one thing wrong with it, gun ownership is a protected Right. It's not tea, it's not cigarettes, it's not cars, or torches, or swords, or gasoline, or even fertilizer. As far as fees are concerned, I suppose you could make each bullet cost $5,000 but here's the contents of the 2nd Amendment
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
U.S. Constitution Online, Quick Links:, FAQ, Topics, Forums, Documents, Timeline, Kids, Vermont Constitution, Map, Citation, USConstitution.net
The Constitutional Dictionary
This document contains words, phrases, and concepts used in the United States Constitution. Links to this document can be found on the U.S. Constitution Page. Note that some words are defined only as they apply to the Constitution itself. You may also wish to see the Popular Names Page, the Notes Page, and the Advanced Topics Page.
American Heritage Dictionary
The New Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Funk and Wagnall's Encyclopedia
adjourn v. 1. To suspend until a later stated time. [
PTC_0, I thought that might get your attention.
Every state, in the United States, already has a “well regulated militia,” it’s called the National Guard or Army Reserve, etc.? Is that not so?
For the life of me, I could never understand how people could interpret, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” applies to any yahoo that can afford the price a gun. Besides, what do you think the words, “well regulated” mean?
If I accept your interpretation of the second amendment, we would have to hand out guns and ammunition, like food stamps, to people that can’t afford to buy their own. Even crazy people!
But what do I know, I’m just a working guy, living on a cul-de-sac in Coweta County.
8 - )
Did you see the NRA press conference, (infomercial really,) on TV yesterday? Wayne LaPierre ‘demanded’ the congress to provide all the funds necessary to put armed police officers in every school in the country. That would grow the size of government wouldn’t it?
the difference is that your regulations are already in place. Every firearm i own, i had a background check run on me, even for rifles. The only exception is a pistol i bought through a private party sale, but he would only sell it to me becasue i had a valid concealed carry liscence, thus proving i had undergone the background check already. Dealers at gunshows ALWAYS do background checks. loosing their buisiness is not worth the $20 profit they get on guns. Most people dont realize margins on guns are razor thin. they make all their money on ammo and accessories. The pistols that were used in Sandy Hook, were purchased legally by the mother. Additional background checks would not have stopped this incident, since the guns were stolen after their legal purchase. I have proposed a law be passed stating that you cannot keep firearms in a home that has a mentaly unstable person living there, but again, if this law existed and the mother chose to ignore it, we would be in the same place. The truth is, no matter what laws you pass, people can just ignore them. Pasing laws does not keep you safe. It just gives you the illusion of saftey.
I have no doubt you’re sincere and want to protect children. We just don’t agree on how.
Are you willing to go on record and say now, in hindsight, your'e glad that neither the principal nor any teachers had a gun and only the criminal did? Please dont give me a copout answer like "I wish none of them had guns." No matter what we tell ourselves, or how many laws we pass, that is not in our control. Proof? The war on drugs. Hows that going? I dont think you disagree with me on that, just want you to answer the question.
Renault, actually I wish the hand of God reached down from heaven and smashed the killer like a cockroach before he ever entered his mother’s home that morning. But He didn’t, and the teacher’s weren’t armed, and playing “what if” isn’t going to bring anyone back to life or save the next victim..
The mother was armed, yet she couldn’t stop her son. If the teachers, (or administrators,) were armed you are making an assumption they could have stopped the killer. Perhaps they could but then again, maybe they could have made things worst.
Like I told you before, if you want to volunteer your services to carry a weapon in your school, go for it. You don’t need my permission. Be sure and check with your schools underwriter and attorney first.
IMHO, I think it's you trying to sell the “illusion of safety.”
Would you have shot the guy at the door? I doubt it
I asked my husband what he thought I would have done. First: I would not have had time to get my gun and unlock it given the situation that confronted the principal. He was right - I would never have been in my classroom/office with an unlocked gun within easy reach. Second: If I had the time to get my weapon, and get my students in a safe place - anyone coming through that door would have received an accurate shot to the middle of their body (based on my training). Wearing a bullet proof breast plate - this might have slowed him down - and I still may have been injured from the bullets flying around. However, I also may have been able to get off more shots - and render him DEAD. Frightening scenario! I would prefer to have my armed guard deal with the immediate situation of a crazed gunmen - and give my teachers and staff an opportunity to deal with what they had to do (including possibly trained teachers using weapons) What a sad situation. Glad I'm retired.
was that you would have shown good judgment. Based on this scenario I believe that I am right, you would have.
Through your reasoned discussion, a reasonable solution seems possible, (Armed teachers) Thanks for sharing.
. Ban the sale of military-style assault weapons
. Ban the sale of high-capacity ammunition clips
. Require criminal background checks for all gun buyers by removing loopholes that cover some sales such as at gun shows.
We are going to need to work on making access to mental health care at least as easy as access to guns.
I hope that the educators and physicians on his special committee headed by the Vice President will at least begin plans to change the culture of violence in our country by teaching non-violent methods of settling disputes and having more tolerance and understanding of those who 'appear weird' and stop the bullying and making fun of those who are 'different'.
“We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.”
Face it, many in this country have an obsession with violence. Look at he video games, look at the movies, look at the tv shows. Guns and violence, the great American obsession.