WE: After school shooting in Connecticut, Piers Morgan blasts America’s ‘gun madness’

[stevemcqueen1]

Your summations are ridiculous.

Of course we should be polite.

What people are trying to convey to you is that we are entirely different cultures and trying to adapt their laws to our society probably isn't going to work. Clearly gun control laws should be reevaluated, but mirroring a strategy off a society with a completely different mindset isn't conducive to success.

How do you think Japan got their gun laws passed? Japan was a violent nation that was one of the leading gun manufacturers in the world prior to WWII. They made radical changes. They forcibly disarmed their population. It took about 50 years of work and legislation we would call completely Draconian but the result of their efforts was a total transformation into an ideally safe society.

I think too many people throw up their hands and give up on this issue because they fail to conceive of a big picture sea change in Amercian society regarding guns that needs to eventually happen. And/or they don't realize that so many other countries around the world have already undertaken this transformation and achieved dramatic results within a generation or two of doing so.

We are not some special people that has to have guns to survive. We're not a militia population with compulsory service requirements like Switzerland or Israel, and even those countries have taken dramatic steps towards gun control in recent years.

We've just stubbornly held onto our guns because our gun lobbies are powerful and it's been easy for us to do so and we've been able to overlook/rationalize away most of the problems our loose gun control laws and oversaturation of guns have caused. I hope that this attitude changes after Sandy Hook. I'm not sure that it will, but I hope Sandy Hook was enough for most people to start caring say the status quo is no longer acceptable and accept that change is necessary. It was for me personally.

The only way you get that change started is by starting to pass individual pieces of legislation that will eventually result in a cluster of laws that tightly control access to guns by our population. Radical change must begin at a certain point of action. Our society has made radical changes throughout it's history, we ended slavery and enacted Civil Rights. We can begin to make radical changes on guns and violence as soon as the population accepts that we have a huge problem and it's necessary for us to change.

[Thiebear]

SteveMcqeen1
They forcibly disarmed their population. It took about 50 years of work and legislation we would call completely Draconian but the result of their efforts was a total transformation into an ideally safe society.
--------------------------------------
is this what you are proposing?

http://www.miratelinc.com/blog/10-mo...-in-the-world/

[Mad Mike]

I certainly wouldn't arm the teachers, that is just asking for trouble. I don't think putting an armed person, perhaps a police officer, in schools is a terrible idea. Like Air Marshalls sort of. My high school had a police officer roaming the halls. I don't think I would want THEM packing assault rifles either though.

Pretty much every school has a security person of some type. Security cameras are cheap. Using the Conneticut school as an example, one armed security officer in a back room of the office area at the front of the school looking at camera views of the parking lot, doors and hallways, would never be seen by students but could have spotted an armed man with a rifle coming towards the door, hit an alarm, and acted to defend the school before the guy ever came through the front door.

We defend material property with armed guards without hesitation but our children?... We shouldn't "have to" protect money with guns. Why is it so terrible to suggest we give our children the same degree of protection that we give material things?

[Special K]

How do you think Japan got their gun laws passed? Japan was a violent nation that was one of the leading gun manufacturers in the world prior to WWII. They made radical changes. They forcibly disarmed their population. It took about 50 years of work and legislation we would call completely Draconian but the result of their efforts was a total transformation into an ideally safe society.

I think too many people throw up their hands and give up on this issue because they fail to conceive of a big picture sea change in Amercian society regarding guns that needs to eventually happen. And/or they don't realize that so many other countries around the world have already undertaken this transformation and achieved dramatic results within a generation or two of doing so.

We are not some special people that has to have guns to survive. We're not a militia population with compulsory service requirements like Switzerland or Israel, and even those countries have taken dramatic steps towards gun control in recent years.

We've just stubbornly held onto our guns because our gun lobbies are powerful and it's been easy for us to do so and we've been able to overlook/rationalize away most of the problems our loose gun control laws and oversaturation of guns have caused. I hope that this attitude changes after Sandy Hook. I'm not sure that it will, but I hope Sandy Hook was enough for most people to start caring say the status quo is no longer acceptable and accept that change is necessary. It was for me personally.

The only way you get that change started is by starting to pass individual pieces of legislation that will eventually result in a cluster of laws that tightly control access to guns by our population. Radical change must begin at a certain point of action. Our society has made radical changes throughout it's history, we ended slavery and enacted Civil Rights. We can begin to make radical changes on guns and violence as soon as the population accepts that we have a huge problem and it's necessary for us to change.

I agree change is needed, and probably more restrictive gun control measures enacted...but there will never, ever be a time when the government forcibly removes all guns from American citizens, so let's not even entertain that idea. Gun laws aren't the only aspect here either and I think people are largely ignoring that. We need to consider changes in our mental health system as well as protection of schools.

[PleaseBlitz]

Pretty much every school has a security person of some type. Security cameras are cheap. Using the Conneticut school as an example, one armed security officer in a back room of the office area at the front of the school looking at camera views of the parking lot, doors and hallways, would never be seen by students but could have spotted an armed man with a rifle coming towards the door, hit an alarm, and acted to defend the school before the guy ever came through the front door.

We defend material property with armed guards without hesitation but our children?... We shouldn't "have to" protect money with guns. Why is it so terrible to suggest we give our children the same degree of protection that we give material things?

Not following. First you say "Pretty much every school has a security person of some type." and then you go on to note that Sandy Springs DID NOT in fact have anyone like that.

As to your last sentence, it doesn't follow from my post at all, that I can see. /double Please explain.

[DjTj]

Not true. The law says I can go to jail for stealing. If I'm not stealing, it does not affect me.

It does mean that a lot of merchandise at stores have security devices attached to them. And you have to jump through a bunch of security hoops when you buy software. Mall security guards sometimes ask to check your receipts. The threat of other people stealing definitely does inconvenience us all.

Clearly cars kill lots of people. Even if that was not the intent, 2000 lbs pushed around by several hundred horsepower is a dangerous combination. Should we take away all cars because some people crash them and kill others? We could save a lot of lives....

And cars are probably regulated more strictly than guns. Car insurance is mandated by law. You must pass a test to get a driver's license. Your car must go in for regular inspection. We have speed limits and sobriety checks. You can get tickets from automated cameras.

Would you agree to similar regulation of firearms? Mandatory training and testing for anyone who purchases a firearm? Regular inspection of firearms? Limits on the amount of ammunition you can buy, or the number of rounds that can be in a clip? Mandatory liability insurance for gun owners? Trigger locks? Tickets for failing to properly secure your gun?

And please spare me the "guns are made to kill people" argument. No they are not. They are made to propel a chunk of lead towards whatever target *A HUMAN* points them at. Millions of law abiding gun owners prove this every day when they go to a range and point their guns at paper targets. A gun is an inanimate object. They can be used for good or for bad. Why are we targeting the tools MORE than the people who use them for evil?

And I'll keep bringing this up until it sinks in....The right to self defense. Sean Taylor was not allowed to own a gun due to a previous issue that to one degree or another he brought upon himself. And it's a damned shame because if he had been able to shoot the person coming through his bedroom door rather than confront a bad guy with a gun using nothing more than a big knife he might still be alive. I bring this up for one reason... The need for law abiding citizens to protect themselves is real. And it's a lesson that has touched us all.

I think there are very few (if any) people in this thread asking for a total gun ban. And in reality, that's not going to happen in America.

But can we have a conversation about reasonable restrictions? About certain types of guns? Limiting magazine sizes? Waiting periods and background checks? Certification and training? Gun control isn't a simple yes/no question.

[Mad Mike]

How do you think Japan got their gun laws passed? Japan was a violent nation that was one of the leading gun manufacturers in the world prior to WWII. They made radical changes. They forcibly disarmed their population. It took about 50 years of work and legislation we would call completely Draconian but the result of their efforts was a total transformation into an ideally safe society.

I think too many people throw up their hands and give up on this issue because they fail to conceive of a big picture sea change in Amercian society regarding guns that needs to eventually happen. And/or they don't realize that so many other countries around the world have already undertaken this transformation and achieved dramatic results within a generation or two of doing so.

So you think that martial law and the forced disarming of the population is the way to go? I'll pass.

Unless you want civil war and the millions of deaths that would result from the government forcibly trying to disarm the population.... Because if millions of people killed is what you want, by all means, let's do what japan did.

And BTW, autoidiodyssey didn't give the full story. The Japanese are quite used to being disarmed even before the example he gave. Common people were not allowed to own swords either. That's where so many martial arts weapons come from. They used farming tools instead.

[Duckus]

I mentioned this before, but it got no response. For the conservatives who would like the discussion to focus less on gun control and more on mental health - what is the conservative small government solution to providing more mental heath services? I just don't see them or understand how conservatives can in good faith be calling for improvements while attempting to slash government social programs at every turn.

Are conservatives willing to come to the table and really discuss increasing government spending and government programs (state/national) to address the issue of mental health access?

[Jumbo]

I mentioned this before, but it got no response. For the conservatives who would like the discussion to focus less on gun control and more on mental health - what is the conservative small government solution to providing more mental heath services? I just don't see them or understand how conservatives can in good faith be calling for improvements while attempting to slash government social programs at every turn.

Are conservatives willing to come to the table and really discuss increasing government spending and government programs (state/national) to address the issue of mental health access?

Cynical Bob says the people you address mainly use the mental health angle as a device to take the heat of any gun focus.

[Bang]

That sounds good in theory(but then I think requiring ID to vote sounds good in theory). How does it actually work? You go see a mental health professional and your records are automatically put into a "No Gun Purchase" database? Or...you are required to show a proof that you have been checked out?

I don't know, but it would seem to be an idea to explore.
Doctor / patient privilege would seem to be in question there, but I think maybe an exception for the mental health eval for gun ownership could have a disclosure clause.

~Bang

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I mentioned this before, but it got no response. For the conservatives who would like the discussion to focus less on gun control and more on mental health - what is the conservative small government solution to providing more mental heath services? I just don't see them or understand how conservatives can in good faith be calling for improvements while attempting to slash government social programs at every turn.

Are conservatives willing to come to the table and really discuss increasing government spending and government programs (state/national) to address the issue of mental health access?

It's simple. Conservatives want asylums - ie prisons.

And it makes perfect sense because why wouldn't people who fear government intrusion want a system where people who have never committed a crime are locked away. That kind of system could never be abused.

[Corcaigh]

Serious question ... should the murder of 20 elementary school children in one incident be far, far more important than the ten times more who are killed one-by-one at home each year, and the many thousands of older children and young adults?

The more I think about it, the more I believe focusing on school massacres is completely the wrong issue. Dogs kill more people each year than mentally-ill school shooters. It's the proliferation of weapons and the violent culture that is much more important.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

And I just want to add - not directed at any one person...

The level of animosity directed towards gun owners or anyone not on board with a complete ban is getting out of hand. Just because someone owns a gun, that does NOT make them responsible for those children's death.

Frankly, I'm not completely willing to accept that any longer.

The only reason we don't have reasonable gun laws in this country is because we have far too many gun fetishists out there. "Look...I'm sorry those kids got killed, but that has nothing to do with the freaking arsenal I have in my basement."

Here's a general tip that has proven correct over and over again throughout human history. The worst decisions we make are in the heat of passion where even the most noble intent can be the motivation for bad decisions. The emotional response to "do something.. do ANYTHING" may make you feel good, but rarely solves any problem other than to punish the innocent for the actions of the evil or insane.

Oh for God's sake. We've been having this same dialogue about gun control in this country for fifty years. We've known what we've needed to do for fifty years. If this massacre is the tipping point, so be it. If it's finally dawned on millions of white suburban soccer moms that's it not just black and Hispanic youths in the cities or the occasional emo teenager who are in danger, it's their first graders.....that's something good that has come from this nightmare.

[SkinsHokieFan]

3 things I would support. 1) Ban gun shows. It is incredibly easy for a woman to go there the day after breaking up with a long term boyfriend and purchase a sig sauer (true story!).

2) National registry of all manufactured guns. The "well regulated militia" part of the 2nd applies here.

3) Per purchase limitis. If someone is coming in buying enough guns/ammo for a mini war, I don't want that person with a weapon.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Serious question ... should the murder of 20 elementary school children in one incident be far, far more important than the ten times more who are killed one-by-one at home each year, and the many thousands of older children and young adults?

The more I think about it, the more I believe focusing on school massacres is completely the wrong issue. Dogs kill more people each year than mentally-ill school shooters. It's the proliferation of weapons and the violent culture that is much more important.

White suburban voters don't care about the murder rate in Chicago. In America, you are never going to get a reasonable gun control law passed by holding up pictures of black 18-year-olds.

If this is what it takes to finally wake up the Soccer Moms whose husbands are the ones who have kept reasonable gun control laws from being passed in this county....it's cynical as hell...but so be it.

Diane Feinstein has had her bill written since 2004. It had no chance of getting passed until now.

---------- Post added December-18th-2012 at 07:29 PM ----------

3 things I would support. 1) Ban gun shows. It is incredibly easy for a woman to go there the day after breaking up with a long term boyfriend and purchase a sig sauer (true story!).

2) National registry of all manufactured guns. The "well regulated militia" part of the 2nd applies here.

3) Per purchase limitis. If someone is coming in buying enough guns/ammo for a mini war, I don't want that person with a weapon.

This may apply to #1 on your list, but we need to make the background check an across-the-board background check. No loopholes. And it needs to apply to family members as well.