It wasn't picked out of the air. It's a fact.

 

You're wrong, it does apply, it just doesn't fit what you want to hear.

:lol: :lol:

 

That's not it at all. Unlike you, I am willing to listen to things from BOTH sides of the aisle on the issue. You have a firm, "you'll pry my gun from my cold dead hands" stance...

I understand this. My point is the bad people that want guns are going to get guns regardless of the legality of them. The good people are most likely going to follow the law. Guns aren't the issue, the user is the issue.

Bad people don't seem to be getting guns in Japan...

Dude, you missed the point, but that's no big deal.

 

The problem is we have gun control. Connecticut has the 4th strictest gun laws in the country and it still happened. Chicago had banned guns for a long time and it solved nothing. That's what you all don't seem to get. I want this madness to stop, maybe more so then most for obvious reasons. It's just that more gun control isn't likely to affect the ones that are going to commit these murders. We need something that will work. I don't know what that is at this time.

What do you think of the Japan article Hatz shared earlier?

^He could have achieved the same results with a handgun. IMO, the issue isn't guns, it's lack of security/training for schools on how to deal with crisis.

Definitely a point of discussion as well. I would probably also include mental health care as something else to consider and evaluate.

 

I may not agree with Obama on much but I have hope that he will look into what CAN be done and make an effort to help the issue. Seems many on here think we just need to roll over and accept what we have...

What do you think of the Japan article Hatz shared earlier?

 

I think everyone that wants a gun should have to go through an extensive background and psych-eval.

 

Wouldn't be opposed to everyone in a gun owner's immediate family having to go through one as well.

:lol: :lol:

 

That's not it at all. Unlike you, I am willing to listen to things from BOTH sides of the aisle on the issue. You have a firm, "you'll pry my gun from my cold dead hands" stance...

Except you're not willing to listen if it's not something you agree with. You want to dismiss all the shootings in cities that have bans and pretend I pull numbers out of the air. I'm willing to listen to common sense, I'm willing to listen to viable solutions. It's been explained ad nauseam that more of the same old isn't working, it never worked in the past. Mental health issues aren't being addressed and even a complete outright gun ban won't stop this madness from happening. We need to find something that will work.

I don't care if they limit magazine capacity, it won't help, but fine. The can ban mean looking guns. Again, fine, but it won't stop the next idiot from doing this again. That's the problem.

Yes, I believe in our Constitutional right, sue me.

^He could have achieved the same results with a handgun. IMO, the issue isn't guns, it's lack of security/training for schools on how to deal with crisis.

 

 

Okay. Let's see.

 

Door is secured electronically and one has to be buzzed in to gain access? Right.

 

Guy shoots out window to gain access, right?

 

Adults follow the shots and go after the shooter (see principal and counselor).

 

Teachers begin to "hide their children" and bar doors with their bodies or locks.

 

Hate to say it, and I don't think you intended it to sound that way but, THEY were trained. They did their job to the last one. The school was probably more secure than any you will find and the staff did an excellent job of protecting the children the way they were trained.

 

As to the handgun statement, you might be right but we will never know.

Definitely a point of discussion as well. I would probably also include mental health care as something else to consider and evaluate.

 

I may not agree with Obama on much but I have hope that he will look into what CAN be done and make an effort to help the issue. Seems many on here think we just need to roll over and accept what we have...

 

Many WANT everyone to roll over and accept what we have. Many more, to their credit, want change.

 

I'm all for creating an ad-hoc, bipartisan commission on violence to examine a multitude of issues. Heck, I've got some sort of dessert riding on it.

 

 

 

My greatest fear is that if the slaughter of 20 children and six of their mentors cannot effect reasoned discussion and debate as well as some ATTEMPTS at change, nothing will.

What do you think of the Japan article Hatz shared earlier?

I think law abiding citizens will be the only ones that will be affected. Why? You have to realize how many guns are in this country at this point. The intention is admirable, I just don't see it working here.

Seems many on here think we just need to roll over and accept what we have...

This, by far, is the most inaccurate comment you've made thus far in this thread. I don't think anyone feels that way. What many want, I certainly know I do, it solid solutions to the problem. Knee-jerk solutions don't save lives.

I've asked this before: if gun laws actually proect people from their neighbor and other criminals, would an increase in criminals mean less guns on the street?

Okay. Let's see.

 

Door is secured electronically and one has to be buzzed in to gain access? Right.

 

Guy shoots out window to gain access, right?

 

Adults follow the shots and go after the shooter (see principal and counselor).

 

Teachers begin to "hide their children" and bar doors with their bodies or locks.

 

Hate to say it, and I don't think you intended it to sound that way but, THEY were trained. They did their job to the last one. The school was probably more secure than any you will find and the staff did an excellent job of protecting the children the way they were trained.

 

As to the handgun statement, you might be right but we will never know.

 

Right, but where's the security guard/officer?

 

If the entrance to the school is that way, why can't the classroom doors be that way?

 

Why can't a couple teachers be designated "carriers" that have a gun on their person at all times?

 

That's what I was referring to.

I'll be the first to admit, when it comes to health care I don't know much about the mental health care field. What I know is from direct personal experience with the local state hospital and from one of the private institutions I deal with somewhat frequently. Here's my non-linked, personal experience with those facilities: They over medicate more patients than they should. Again, just my opinion, but the problem doesn't seem to resolve or doesn't seem to have a manageable end for many patients I see, only meds on top of meds. So, based solely on my experience with patients I see personally, the climate where I live is that the problems either are misdiagnosed or masked by meds.

 

With that said, I don't know what the situation with diagnosed or perceived aspergers and this particular kid, but I have a feeling he may have been misdiagnosed or mistreated. And again, this is my opinion only, mental health is the biggest stab in the dark in health care. I think there's a definite lack of education for parents or caregivers to potential very serious problems with behavior.

Except you're not willing to listen if it's not something you agree with. You want to dismiss all the shootings in cities that have bans and pretend I pull numbers out of the air. I'm willing to listen to common sense, I'm willing to listen to viable solutions. It's been explained ad nauseam that more of the same old isn't working, it never worked in the past. Mental health issues aren't being addressed and even a complete outright gun ban won't stop this madness from happening. We need to find something that will work.

I don't care if they limit magazine capacity, it won't help, but fine. The can ban mean looking guns. Again, fine, but it won't stop the next idiot from doing this again. That's the problem.

Yes, I believe in our Constitutional right, sue me.

 

Magazine could be an issue. I know you don't think it will help but most high round magazines have not been that available to the general public till about 20 or so years ago, right?

 

In the Columbine Shooting; one gun had a 15 round capacity I think and the other semi-auto could hold many rounds.

 

Same with this week.

 

Same with the Aurora Theater shooting.

 

In fact, in the Columbine Shooting the other two weapons were shotguns and inside were used far less than the above rifle and semi-auto pistol. In fact they fired 55 and 96 from the 9mm weapons and only 12 and 21 from the shotguns.

 

I think the VA Tech shooter had 2 pistols with 10 and 17 shot mags I believe.

 

My point is that large volume means fewer pauses to reload. Fewer chances to "jump" the assailant or get away.

 

In my opinion, it's worth noting and discussing.

 

http://www.acolumbinesite.com/weapon.html

 

http://www.vpc.org/studies/vatechgunsbackgrounder.pdf

BTW, with technical changes the possibility of making your own gun at home will be coming soon.

 

3D printers. Yes, 3D printers can make almost anything.

 

Morality Of Making Guns On A 3D Printer - Business Insider

 

Making guns in your garage: how 3D printers will revolutionise the manufacture of deadly weapons – Telegraph Blogs

 

Ban the sale of guns today....but they will be made by 3D printers in the (near) future.