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

[Elessar78]

Someone who loves his gun.

Seriously, I think that's the major problem. People in this country love guns. Not because they want to feel safe, or they want to defend themselves, or that they want to hunt. They love the feeling of having a weapon in their hands. And it's sickening. Even the way some people in this thread talk about their guns, you can tell they truly love it. "Dude I got a 7.62mm with 5.59 caliber and a suppressor that shoots 700 m. A real beauty." It's like really? Guns are not something that should be praised or talked about in such a glowing fashion. They are a deadly thing. Is that admirable? I dunno....people love different things I guess. It's hard for me to see the fascination with something that is used to kill.

Sure. Love your gun. You need to tote it around with you? If you carry it concealed, is it still a deterrent? This d-bag probably loves the idea of him playing John Wayne when the **** goes down. No thanks. Eat your broccoli cheese soup out of the bread bowl, that's what you're good at. Someone not judicious enough to have to share "the good news". Like I said, daily we talk about the dumbasses we're surrounded by yet we won't restrict these same dumbasses from carrying a concealed weapon. At best Cowboy Johnny can unload six rounds into the bad guy or have 16 in the clip and one in the hole. Idiocy.

Yes. I make value judgments on people all the time. Yes, I feel they are pretty accurate.

[Mad Mike]

Sure. Love your gun. You need to tote it around with you? If you carry it concealed, is it still a deterrent? This d-bag probably loves the idea of him playing John Wayne when the **** goes down. No thanks. Eat your broccoli cheese soup out of the bread bowl, that's what you're good at. Someone not judicious enough to have to share "the good news". Like I said, daily we talk about the dumbasses we're surrounded by yet we won't restrict these same dumbasses from carrying a concealed weapon. At best Cowboy Johnny can unload six rounds into the bad guy or have 16 in the clip and one in the hole. Idiocy.

Yes. I make value judgments on people all the time. Yes, I feel they are pretty accurate.

Well unless you know the person, You don't know how long they have been thinking about getting a CCP, how long they actually waited for it, or how qualified and responsible they actually are. From what I can tell someone heard the guy say he got his permit and a bunch of people piled on to assume the worst.

On the flip side of this, I've taken a CCP class and I found it lacking in information about responsible ownership. In fact *I* was the one to speak up in the class and urge people to consider what and who is behind their target that might be hit, should they be forced to use their weapon. I would be the first one to say that more training than a single class should be required and that there are many people carrying who probably shouldn't be. I'm just not willing to pass judgement on someone I don't know and basically call them a POS because they got a CCP.

[MartinC]

Hey! Dontcha know that we need MORE people packing heat! We need more people carrying guns into our schools! That's the solution to our problem....this whole thing is an NRA wet dream and a law enforcement and safety nightmare..

It's absolute madness.

The idea that the answer to a problem with use of guns is more guns speaks volumes to me of the huge cultural problem that the US has in its attitude to guns. Teaching kids by example that the way to protect themselves is to arm themselves would be reinforcing the status quo not starting the necessary process of changing attitudes.

Now I can understand why it's a solution the NRA would promote - they are invested in the status quo.

[stevemcqueen1]

I don't trust the average person to drive their car in a safe, responsible manner that doesn't put lives at risk. I sure as all hell **** don't trust them to be responsible for a gun. The average person is depressingly dumb. The average person is too ****ing stupid to drive a car but we let them do it and accept the given loss because it's the only transportation available for them to function in society. Let's be real, the average person is far too ****ing stupid to own and handle a tool whose sole purpose is to near effortlessly kill a human being. And these tools of effortless killing hyper-saturate our society.

What's the upside of letting everyone have free access to guns? The downside of gun ubiquity is 11,000 gun deaths a year. What's the good reason for maintaining anything even remotely approaching this egregious status quo? It's too much of a pain in the balls to make legit changes? 200 some odd years of moronic ****ing precedent?

[OU_skins]

What is a feasible plan to take guns away from crazy people? What is a feasible plan to take a significant amount of guns off the streets? Yelling about it accomplishes absolutely nothing, yet everyone seems hellbent on doing so.

[nuposse87]

attempt away, just don't use weak ass arguments and justifications.

if the threat to kids is real I expect you to act like it.

Once again..WTF is stopping a teacher now from shooting kids?
My suggestion allows them to be screened and tested

I don't see how any argument against guns is a weak one since guns seem like an inherently unnecessary part of of a civilized population unless your job demands you utilize one for w/e reason.
The threat has BEEN real imo, there's just too many special interests and bureaucracy to push any reform through. Maybe not enough dead yet for enough on the right to see that guns really are an unnecessary component and hardly have anything to do with being "American."

I realize an outright ban on all guns will never happen, but they ought to start somewhere, and hopefully as society gets a bit more educated the gun culture will become an inconsequential minority...one can dream at least.

[PeterMP]

Again. THIS IS NOT JAPAN.

However much you may wish that all of the guns will go away, they won't without the government declaring the second amendment void, declaring martial law and forcibly taking the guns away, at which time we will be in a full scale civil war in which millions could die.

And you think one regulation is going to stop a killer? Please, name this magic regulation.

IN THE REAL WORLD no matter how much we wish it were not so, the best way to defend against a crazy person with a gun is with a trained professional with another gun.

No, the best way to defend against a crazy person with a gun is not to let them have a gun.

I asked before in this thread, but I'll ask again.

Over the last 40 years in an elementary school setting, does anybody know of another situation where an armed person would have saved a life?

Over the last 60 years?

If not we're averaging somewhere less than 0.5 deaths/year.

If you put armed guards in every elementary school what is the accident rate going to be? What is the rate of people losing control in schools and because a gun is present are able to kill people?

It seems to me that we have enough issues getting good qualified police people with stories of abuse.

Is there any real reason to believe that adding armed guards or arming anybody is going to really decrease the death rate of kids in elementary schools?

Your making huge changes at large costs to MAYBE stop or diminish a once in a life time event, while not doing anythig to fix the larger problem.

[Thiebear]

How about we comprimise:

School Administrators can have tasers.


And teachers can have foaming bear pepper spray that will go 35'.

[twa]

How about we comprimise:

better than nothing,but not much

a long, but interesting look at the issues.


...perhaps someone can fact check it
An opinion on gun control
The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by law enforcement: 14. The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by civilians: 2.5. The reason is simple. The armed civilians are there when it started.

http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/20...n-gun-control/

[Redskins Diehard]

I don't trust the average person to drive their car in a safe, responsible manner that doesn't put lives at risk. I sure as all hell **** don't trust them to be responsible for a gun. The average person is depressingly dumb. The average person is too ****ing stupid to drive a car but we let them do it and accept the given loss because it's the only transportation available for them to function in society. Let's be real, the average person is far too ****ing stupid to own and handle a tool whose sole purpose is to near effortlessly kill a human being. And these tools of effortless killing hyper-saturate our society.

What's the upside of letting everyone have free access to guns? The downside of gun ubiquity is 11,000 gun deaths a year. What's the good reason for maintaining anything even remotely approaching this egregious status quo? It's too much of a pain in the balls to make legit changes? 200 some odd years of moronic ****ing precedent?

You have a pretty low opinion of the "average person". The average person doesn't consider themselves to be average....something to consider.

A reasoned discussion is what is needed. Too bad nobody is really interested in that. No, I'm not a "gun freak". Yes, I believe in regulation. No, I don't think a citizen "needs" a weapon with equivalent functionality of what our soldiers in Afghanistan carry...nor can they currently own one.

---------- Post added December-22nd-2012 at 09:37 AM ----------

What is a feasible plan to take guns away from crazy people? What is a feasible plan to take a significant amount of guns off the streets? Yelling about it accomplishes absolutely nothing, yet everyone seems hellbent on doing so.

That is the million dollar question. I think an important first step is not categorizing everyone with a mental illness as "crazy". Certainly it would be easy to apply that label to some of the more notorious/well known mass-shooters. I think it is relatively easier to prevent someone to legally obtain a weapon after they have been identified of having a mental illness. I'm not sure how appropriate it would be to establish some sort of "no buy" list for everyone that seeks mental health assistance. And if we did decide to do that then would it have the effect of discouraging someone with a minor depression from seeking mental health assistance? I could definitely be on board with having to submit to some sort of "psychological evaluation" along with the fairly standard criminal background check. And this might screen out some people. But probably(and I am way out on a limb here) would identify more people prone to hurt themselves and not necessarily someone that wanted to carry out something like we saw. The other issue is what do we do with people that pass all psychological screening now, purchase weapons legally, and then are found to be mentally unstable later?

As far as taking guns off the street I think some of the buyback programs do a decent job of taking guns out of circulation. But that is likely more for people that view the firearm as a commodity more than something they would want to use anyway.

I would have no problem with even a 30 day waiting period for the purchase of weapon(except under some extenuating circumstances that would require an appearance in front of a judge), a limit on yearly/quarterly/monthly purchases or whatever, criminal background check and psychological screening, and limits on magazine capacity(although that would be very hard to track/prevent). These things might help in some scenarios but there has to be more done.

[PeterMP]

better than nothing,but not much

a long, but interesting look at the issues.


...perhaps someone can fact check it
An opinion on gun control
The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by law enforcement: 14. The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by civilians: 2.5. The reason is simple. The armed civilians are there when it started.

http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/20...n-gun-control/

But how many people a year do armed civilians kill?

How many people a year die because the guns of civilians were stolen?

To look at rare events and say this solution helps solve the problem, while ignoring the people that are killed every day by guns is dumb.

Go back to my post above to MadMike.

Arming people in elementary schools is an emotional response. There is no real evidence that it will REALLY save lives.

[Qdeathstar]

Only way to prevent this school shooting via gun control would be to end gun sales..

Assault weapons bans, magazine size, background checks, ect wouldn't have prevented this massacre.


What about gps technology which would make guns inoperable in certain zones?

[twa]

But how many people a year do armed civilians kill?

How many people a year die because the guns of civilians were stolen?

To look at rare events and say this solution helps solve the problem, while ignoring the people that are killed every day by guns is dumb.

Go back to my post above to MadMike.

Arming people in elementary schools is an emotional response. There is no real evidence that it will REALLY save lives.

you want more people killed by armed civilians to justify it?

I have no problem punishing gun owners that don't reasonably secure their weapons, that liability already exists(I'm open to a discussion on expanding/defining reasonable )

to look at rare events like this shooting and ignore the millions of times a yr guns are used to prevent crime is wrong

from link
So how often are guns actually used in self-defense in America? http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html

On the high side the estimate runs around 2.5 million defensive gun uses a year, which dwarfs our approximately 16,000 homicides in any recent year, only 10k of which are with guns. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm Of those with guns, only a couple hundred are with rifles. So basically, the guns that the anti-gunners are the most spun up about only account for a tiny fraction of all our murders.

if you want to argue the risk is not high enough to justify arming trained ,screened responsible citizens ,then the risk is not high enough to justify disarming

[TD_washingtonredskins]

better than nothing,but not much

a long, but interesting look at the issues.


...perhaps someone can fact check it
An opinion on gun control
The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by law enforcement: 14. The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by civilians: 2.5. The reason is simple. The armed civilians are there when it started.

http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/20...n-gun-control/

But the people committing the crimes are also armed civilians too. So, that's similar to an arson putting out his own fire (big picture).

[twa]

But the people committing the crimes are also armed civilians too. So, that's similar to an arson putting out his own fire (big picture).

so disarm the criminals, maybe we should make crime illegal

and ban civilians from using fire...that arson and risk of injury and property damage thing ya know