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

[Burgold]

Maybe we should make crime illegal

I think crime has already been made illegal.

[twa]

I think crime has already been made illegal.

yeeees .....which is why the arson/fire analogy no workee

[Bang]

yeeees .....which is why the arson/fire analogy no workee

None of the analogies workee.

Analogies minimize the problem.
This problem cannot and should not be minimized.

~Bang

[SpringfieldSkins]

I like guns.

But good lord these Facebook posts I see are getting excessive. If I read somebody post about how cars should be banned because they kill people or one of the other dozens of stupid Facebook posts again I might slap somebody. People are dumb, just completely dumb.

[PeterMP]

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

How many of those are by law enforcement? (Nobody is talking about disarming law enforcement.)

How many of those situations wouldn't happened if the other person hadn't had a gun?

How many of those situations have been altered if the person with the gun hadn't had a gun?

How many of those situations would have been altered if the person with a gun had legally only been able to buy clips that didn't contain more than 6 bullets?

Even with your other statistics about mass killings. If we pass a law that says single shot bolt and pump action rifles (i.e. traditional hunting files) are okay and handguns that can't house more than 6 bullets (either old fashion revolvers or newer guns, but the size of the clip is limited to holding 6 bullets) at a time are legal, but everything else is illegal.

Is there a known self-defense situation by non-law enforcement that is altered?

Is there a single one?

There's no doubt it would alter these mass shotting and most likely other types of shootings would be significantly altered.

[Painkiller]

I had to bow out for a while....I've given this whole thing some more thought. Let me spell out where I stand.

As for the guns, for me, I would be willing to enact some kind of restriction on the purchasing of certain types of weapons to civilians. I would even be willing to ban new sales of any large capacity magazines. With that said, there would have to be language placed in the legislation that does not criminilize ownership of any of these items purchased prior to a certain date. I will not get behind the criminalization of ownership of weapons and accessories purchased legally. For one thing, it would be impossible to enforce such a law. As I already stated...I am more than willing to enhance background checks that are already in place, and have mandatory sessions with a mental health professional before certain types of weapons could be purchased.

I would be willing to do this, not because I think it would accomplish anything,...but because it would offer concessions to the other side who feel that legislation of this nature would possibly prevent some event from happening.

Wayne LaPierre did make a whole lot of sense yesterday if you are looking at the big picture, (the type of things I talked about in post #578) The problem is that he didn't say what some of you want to hear (what the NRA is willing to give up) and that became your only focus.

[AsburySkinsFan]

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

Same ol BS argument
You'd arm/train teachers/guards/civilians/soldiers (whatever) in every school in the country in order to prevent something that has happened 13 times in 20 years while you have zero answers for how to prevent something that happens 13,000 times a year. So in the span of time that we've had 13 mass school shootings (20 years) in the US where maybe 100 people total have died there have been appoximately 260,000 people gun related homicides.
Just don't call yourself pro-life.

[twa]

nice pro life gig, I'm fine being called pro-death for those that need killing
I would ALLOW screened,trained ,armed people ,though I agree spending much to do so is not really needed......just as I support my own school police

how many of those homicides took their own life or needed killing?
the shooter that kills himself is even generally listed as a gun related homicide

you want to talk solutions, I'm open, if you want to prevent honest ,responsible citizens from having a firearm , I'm not

if you want to reduce the BS....... stop

[AsburySkinsFan]

I'm fine being called pro-death for those that need killing

No room for redemption in your world eh?
You want to ignore 260,000 lives lost because you've already written all of them off as "needin' killin'". That's BS. You approach solutions like the GOP does, eliminate actual options from consideration BEFORE the discussion even begins.

[Redskins Diehard]

No room for redemption in your world eh?
You want to ignore 260,000 lives lost because you've already written all of them off as "needin' killin'". That's BS. You approach solutions like the GOP does, eliminate actual options from consideration BEFORE the discussion even begins.

This thread is all about eliminating options or education before the discussion even begins.

[Jumbo]

People are dumb, just completely dumb.

Welcome. And I often talk about how much I love guns, too. I even admit I'm pro-death and don't object to shooting people when appropriate. I just think way too often it's the wrong ones who get shot.

---------- Post added December-22nd-2012 at 09:41 AM ----------

I'm going there tomorrow. My father has lived in Geneva my whole life. Where did you live?

The Swiss laissez-faire policy is one I wish we would apply to our own ways of doing things. Let other countries handle their own, don't interfere unless completely necessary.

I'll be honest, I've never encountered anything even remotely close to dangerous in Switzerland. Matter of fact, one couldn't tell anyone owns a gun, your statement that "Switzerland is just below us in terms of gun ownership in the world," astounds me. I would never have guessed that, and I've been there over thirty times and lived there for a year. Most peaceful and quiet place I've ever been.

Yes, because culture overall (and history is a big part of a society's culture---just check ours) is the biggest factor and it reflects the matters of the guns or video games or mental health services or media or general attitudes towards violence etc. within that culture--they are ALL pieces of a whole.

From many comments in the thread and the nation, it seems a lot of folks don't accept the idea that a real and honest discussion and debate is needed on extremism/excess/dysfunction in ALL these elements. The inclusion or acknowledgment of some with the rejection or denial of others is a progress killer.

Widespread themes of culturally accepted violence (its degree and pervasiveness--including video games etc), firearm and related tactical equipment availability, mental health concerns, security protocols for public places, and even media, are all among the legitimate pieces in play.

Within that list of matters, isolating any sacred cow out of the potential sacrifice (or focusing only on your personal peeve as a primary target of change) is crippling in terms of problem resolution.

I consider it vital that all of these topics be willingly offered up with openness to change. Then argue priorities, effectiveness, degrees of intervention, etc. There is not one of these matters where I think the status quo can be rationally, healthily (in any sense) defended.

I often get the sense that expecting "we the people" to cooperatively and intelligently reason our way through such complicated cultural issues to some sort of agreement (ala the WW II level of society-wide sacrifice and support) is pointless until (if even then) even much more severe levels of "tipping points" occur.

As I stated in early comments on this, it seems to usually come down to whatever "x" people in society at large are simply able to "inflict" of its will on those opposing, through whatever devices usable. That seems to be how we do it. The idea of large segments of the population with divided views actually "coming together" in reason and cooperation is more a pipe dream than not, even when the most tragic of reasons continuously emerge as prompts.

Many people are more committed to maintaining how impressed they are with their own untouchable "opinions" than to suspend their self-impressed nature and re-open those doors---to just suspend their "regular programming" on any side of any matter and reach "half-way" in the "other direction." This wonderful trait persists even in the face of these crises (not just the current one---all the serious and significant levels of all forms of violence in this culture).

If your head (or cup) is full of your own wisdom there’s no room else for anything else to get in….this yields “same ole same ole” as a result.

[Painkiller]

Great post Jumbo.

For me, my idea is not simply to put active duty police in the schools, but make it a job for retired police officers.

Retired state troopers and county deputies may apply as "school security officers." Pay these retired officers a reasonable salary with no additional benefits, as most will already have benefits with their retirement packages. Let's say no more than 25 to 30 thousand dollars a year. This income will supplement their retirement, and enable them to provide a much needed service to society. Let's say each and every school has a minimum of three working at any given time. Their purpose is simply to provide security to outside threats. Not get involved in school administrative decisions when it comes to the eduation of the students, and not to interfere with the educational process at all. These officers will only work when school is in session. (Monday through Friday, and have weekends and holidays off)

I can speak from experience when I say many would jump at an opportunity like this. If your retirement is bringing in 70,000 a year, add 30,000 to that and you are doing quite well.

For me, this is a "common sense" action.

[Jumbo]

Great post Jumbo. .

You may be the only one who thinks so (and that would be nothing new with my posts)...after I hit enter and read the post, I saw my word processor went nuts and somehow pasted several edits/versions from last night into one big Frankenstein glob with repeated sections and weird spell-corrections, and I tired to straighten it all out as fast as I could. And I'm not sure yet how well it went, or how it was in the original, which I now can't find on my PC

I suspect zoony.

[MartinC]

I like guns.

But good lord these Facebook posts I see are getting excessive. If I read somebody post about how cars should be banned because they kill people or one of the other dozens of stupid Facebook posts again I might slap somebody. People are dumb, just completely dumb.

There is a really bright guy at my work who posted along the lines above and including the car example and also even managed to bring in abortion (as in wondering why people are so keen to saves lives through gun control while allowing abortions to take place). It's a real head scratcher to me as a non American how many really intelligent and rational people in the US have such a blind spot when it comes to guns and the issues around them.

[Jumbo]

There is a really bright guy at my work who posted along the lines above and including the car example and also even managed to bring in abortion (as in wondering why people are so keen to saves lives through gun control while allowing abortions to take place). It's a real head scratcher to me as a non American how many really intelligent and rational people in the US have such a blind spot when it comes to guns and the issues around them.

Every society and individual has cultural and personal blind spots. Ours are many and glaring. Two of yours (society-wise) are dental hygiene and cuisine.