Is this guy serious?!
-
The truth is that in a chaotic situation, even highly trained police officers often kill bystanders like recent shootings in New York. The idea that some teacher who spent a few hours at the range would suddenly turn into Jason Bourne and take out the killer without doing more harm than good has no basis in reality.
-
It's absolutely utopian (~ Superman movie) to assume a teacher (or anyone else) would have direct access to the weapon when it is needed (what if it is at home, or in another room, or you are not at the desk drawer). Would we really want to arm teachers for such a very rare case, at the cost that there are more weapons that can be abused or lost/stolen? (not yet to think about how pubescent teenagers treat their teachers)
-
@unknownuser said:
http://gunowners.org/a12152012.htm
He's entitled to his opinion, obviously, however devoid of commons sense it may be, but the timing!
Let me ask you this. If you could magically transport a man of firmness and virtue into this situation which would you hope he was carrying a book or a gun?
All that is nessasary for evil to prevail is for good men to stand idlely by.
Arm yourself!
-
-
I guess our cohort who suggests that a man of firmness and virtue (I wonder if a woman could possibly be such an individual?) didn't take the time to watch the videos of the college students attempting to do just that and failing miserably. A few of them appeared to be of real firmness and virtue. Even the young lady who acquitted herself remarkably well failed to really have an effect on the situation.
I grew up in a very rural place in northern New England and used to hunt for food. When I was a hunter, the fish and game department rules for semi automatic weapons were that they could not have more then five rounds in the clip (or have a clip that held more than 5 rounds). I never needed more than two. Why anyone would argue they need a twenty/thirty etc round clip for any weapon used for hunting is beyond my understanding. If you can't take it down in under five you need to spend a lot more time at the range.
Sadly in this case no amount of gun control legislation would have solved the problem of keeping this individual from getting a weapon: he had no record of any kind to keep him from successfully getting any weapon he desired. Had he been properly treated for his mental illness he would have been much less likely to have felt the need to perform this heinous act and his mother would have known she had to keep those guns locked up, as all guns should be, away from the mentally infirm. Appropriate treatment would also have generated a record/paper trail that would show up in a proper background check keeping him from easily getting such a weapon.
Ultimately we will try and treat the effect and not the causes of this and all those other tragedies. Gun control is one of the answers, as in not having military grade killing tools all over (AK47 M16 etc related weapons).
Taking proper care of the mentally ill which requires not only a change in the care, but a change in the social attitude about such care, so those who need it will receive it, is a critical action on a national and state level to solve. This is not only a legislative change but a social engineering change so people who are clearly not normal or "right" need to be assisted by their families and the communities they live in, not leaving them to molder in homes or their apartments to descend into a madness the rest of us cannot understand or control.
-
Hi folks.
A lot has been written in this thread and some posts are very good.
I dont think I am to add a lot, especially since my native language is not English but here are my views on that subject.
The only important point, IMHO, is CONTROL.
If the possession of weapons is controlled, this will limit their number in circulation and should also limit the number of really dangerous weapons like assault guns, that can kill dozens in a few minutes if not a few seconds.
If someone is determined to kill and want to do it with a powerfull weapon, this person will probably be able to find such a weapon, control or not. But, for the ordinary person that becomes fool enough to kill, limited access would mean that it would take so much time and paper work before this person get the weapon, that it may calm itself and reconsider its idea or, if the person pusues its action and actually get a weapon, it will be a less dangerous one like a hunting riffle or a small 22 caliber or whatever. Yes, even a small 22 riffle can kill but it is less powerfull that an AK47 and the life toll shall be less.
CONTROL = LESS PROBLEM.
There will still be shootings but they will be of smaller amplitude.
To do that, some legislations must be changed. To change these, there must be less lobying from the arms manufacturers. I just hope it doesn't happens but if someone in the arms lobby loose a kid from a shooting, maybe this person will realise that its actions are wrong.
In the meantime, lets hope that the monneymakers that live because other persons die will evolve and becomes real homo sapiens. Right now they are no better than vultures.
Just ideas.
-
@ccaponigro said:
@unknownuser said:
http://gunowners.org/a12152012.htm
He's entitled to his opinion, obviously, however devoid of commons sense it may be, but the timing!
Let me ask you this. If you could magically transport a man of firmness and virtue into this situation which would you hope he was carrying a book or a gun?
All that is nessasary for evil to prevail is for good men to stand idlely by.
Arm yourself!
No.
- The gun would need to be in easy reach at all times.
- To meet requirement #1, the person would need to be seated near, or have on their person, the gun at all times in order to be ready to defend against a threat.
- In a school full of little kids, do you want an easily accessible gun?
The answer is responsible ownership, and owners who are accountable and held responsible. Seeing as many of the most recent shootings have been conducted by people with mental health issues the standard background checks required to purchase a weapon are not sufficient. We also need to look beyond the owner and look at the household; maybe the owner is a model citizen but how about the family members? Do you need guns in a household with a paranoid schizophrenic? A history of chronic depression? Maybe it's fine in most situations, not every person with these problems will be a killer or commit suicide with a gun, but there have been enough cases now where this needs to be on the table.
-
-
just am here to console the US people about what I heard.
Here in Iran school bus or oil fire place kills innocent children too.
each day about 70 people are killed by car accident and yearly about 24000!!! a calm war...
hope one day no weapon kills humankind anymore -
@solo said:
[attachment=0:13ppy21y]<!-- ia0 -->156101_516506085049333_433782282_n.jpg<!-- ia0 -->[/attachment:13ppy21y]
Service members are not allowed to carry firearms on base, stop spreading ignorance using dead soldiers as an example. That's pretty low even for you.
For the record, I had a friend who was one of the soldiers killed so I take it personally when a liar like you uses this type of low-down-dirty lie to further your agenda. Try doing a little research before you post these types of stupid blurbs, I thought you were smarter that this.
-
Ever heard of MP's?
get off your high horse teabagger
-
-
Well at least now we know you're a liar that thinks repeating the same thing makes it true. I'll just grab my popcorn now and watch you post you little images that make you feel smart.
-
Lemme guess, you are an assault rifle owner that's disgruntled Obama may ban them? I don't want to feel smart, I just want the killing of innocent citizens by assholes armed to their teeth to end.
Can you even give me one reason why a citizens should need armor piercing rounds, extended clips and assault rifles?
-
@o2bwln said:
[
For the record, I had a friend who was one of the soldiers killed so I take it personally when a liar like you uses this type of low-down-dirty lie to further your agenda. Try doing a little research before you post these types of stupid blurbs, I thought you were smarter that this.I think most people know that general service weapons on any domestic army camp are without a breach block, but MP'S DO carry active, charged weapons.
I find it very strange that you would point out your right to subjectivity in this matter ignoring the many who find the death of 20 grade one children and their teachers repugnant and vile.
But, it seems just about everyone else on this thread at least tries to be objective offering arguments and views based on logic.I do not think any posts on this site that I have noticed have stooped to call someone a liar, especially for no good reason, that I can see.
"we need more guns to save us from guns".............The relevance of that stupid, ill conceived concept easily resonates with me.
Lets not bring logic and rational argument into this though
-
There is no argument for anybody to own a gun. We've done fine for millions of years without them.
-
@Oli
Gunchester?
@unknownuser said:
Had a few of us been available with guns at the Newtown school, most of the victims might still be alive.
This man should be a poet...
-
Mental health is a topic that could be pushed around the barn for a long time with no particular result. The majority of opinions seem to come the the mad book of statistics and we do seem to like our statistics.
The rational for carrying ANY kind of weapon has been torn to shreds on many occasions and STILL folk spout about a need and rights, the rights of the victims get mislaid. I do not know what problems that guy or any of those who use guns to thrash out a difference or supposed injustice have but if we were to get rid of the so called defensive weapons I for one would feel safer. Can it be done though, even with the NRA apparently being willing to agree concessions.
As for weapons on military bases, well that is easy. Most of the time soldiers do not carry weapons, the weapons are stored in the armoury, a very well protected site that would be impossible for the average soldier to break into. As for the block being absent, well that's a new one on me as we used to store weapons complete and ready to go for ranges etc.
As far as folk getting argumentative, well not a problem but I think we all could do with setting an example and cutting it back a notch or two. The debate needs to be a thorough one for proper resolution and I think it will only get hotter. Please think it through when contemplating flaming folk? Ta.
-
"As for weapons on military bases, well that is easy. Most of the time soldiers do not carry weapons, the weapons are stored in the armoury, a very well protected site that would be impossible for the average soldier to break into. As for the block being absent, well that's a new one on me as we used to store weapons complete and ready to go for ranges etc"
Just curious, my experience was not with the US military but with the Australian, New Zealand, Brit's Etc, so I incorrectly made an assumption. But I am curious, In most domestic training environment we do have our weapons in our personal lockers with the breach block held in the armory so we can easily access the weapons for parade,training, cleaning, handling etc.
What state of readiness are your weapons in for these purposes? (breach block deficient)?
I am assuming that this difference is because unlike the US, components to activate such weapons are available trough civilian sources unlike most other advanced Nations. I am not making any particular point here just curious.[/size] -
guns are just way too powerful to be so accessible during impulsive acting situations.
i assume (hope?) that with most gun murders, the murderer feels genuine remorse afterwards and wish they didn't do it.. (-or- most murderers aren't psychopaths)
give those people tasers instead
Advertisement