O/T feel sick inside - CT Elementary shooting

[Peter_Spaeth]

So what's the difference between us and Western Europe where this doesn't seem to happen? If it's not the accessibility or pervasiveness of guns, then what is it?

[yanks12025]

Also he used two handguns, not a assault rifle which was left in the car.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by yanks12025

Also he used two handguns, not a assault rifle which was left in the car.

And the fact that by some fortuity he did that, and it wasn't even worse than it was, means assault rifles are a good thing?

[yanks12025]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

And the fact that by some fortuity he did that, and it wasn't even worse than it was, means assault rifles are a good thing?

Again the guy would have found other ways to kill people without guns.

[Peter_Spaeth]

"If the guy didn't have a gun, he would have found other means to kill people."

Other than McVeigh, how many of these mass murderers have used any means other than guns? Just curious.

[William Todd]

This is horrific but it has happened in Western Europe, many times.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I thought when we went through this last time we found data showing the murder rates were much much lower in Western Europe and places like Canada and Australia, and weren't some of the Western European episodes terrorism, but if I am wrong I stand corrected.

[Texxxx]

Taking a SHIT on the Bill of Rights is not going to fix the problem. There have been mass murders in this world since the beginning of time. It didn't start when the US gave the people the right to bear arms.

[oldjudge]

Times are different than when the Bill of Rights was written. Maybe it needs to be updated. There is no reason for private citizens to own assault rifles or semi-automatic weapons (which by the way didn't exist when the Bill of Rights was written).

[yanks12025]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Times are different than when the Bill of Rights was written. Maybe it needs to be updated. There is no reason for private citizens to own assault rifles or semi-automatic weapons (which by the way didn't exist when the Bill of Rights was written).

Why shouldn't a private citizen be able to own a assault rifle. I would like to own one and someday I will buy one. But it doesn't mean I plan on killing others with it.

[oldjudge]

Brock-why do you want to own an assault rifle? What would you do with it?

[yanks12025]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

"If the guy didn't have a gun, he would have found other means to kill people."

Other than McVeigh, how many of these mass murderers have used any means other than guns? Just curious.

What about the Bath School Bombing where 45 people were killed(38 kids).

[yanks12025]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

"If the guy didn't have a gun, he would have found other means to kill people."

Other than McVeigh, how many of these mass murderers have used any means other than guns? Just curious.

http://news.yahoo.com/children-stabb...084449002.html

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by yanks12025

http://news.yahoo.com/children-stabb...084449002.html

Yes it can be done, not saying it can't, but which do you think is more likely to result in more deaths all things being equal: a guy with multiple guns or a guy with a knife?

[yanks12025]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Yes it can be done, not saying it can't, but which do you think is more likely to result in more deaths all things being equal: a guy with multiple guns or a guy with a knife?

Well you're talking about banning assault rifles. Even though he didn't use a assault rifle. Either way, what ever weapon he used or the other people have used before too many innocent people have died for nothing.

[oldjudge]

Brock--obviously, the violence of video games doesn't affect everyone who plays. However, even if it affects a small minority of the people, it is contributing to the increase in violence in our society. Is it the sole cause, no.
The news is reporting that the killer had some sort of mental disorder. Why were guns allowed in a house where someone like that would have access to the guys?
Apparently, the mother of the killer purchased these guns legally. Did anyone question why a teacher would need two hand guns and an assault rifle?

[oldjudge]

"Again the guy would have found other ways to kill people without guns."

I don't believe this reasoning!

[Vintageismygame]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

"Again the guy would have found other ways to kill people without guns."

I don't believe this reasoning!

What part do you have problems comprehending? It is a pretty simple reasoning.

[Gecklund311]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Brock--obviously, the violence of video games doesn't affect everyone who plays. However, even if it affects a small minority of the people, it is contributing to the increase in violence in our society. Is it the sole cause, no.
The news is reporting that the killer had some sort of mental disorder. Why were guns allowed in a house where someone like that would have access to the guys?
Apparently, the mother of the killer purchased these guns legally. Did anyone question why a teacher would need two hand guns and an assault rifle?

Video games are simply another outlet among many - you could ban or severely restrict them and there would be no shortage of comic books, movies, or internet sites that would fill the void quickly. The problem is that in a number of families, the kids are spending a great deal more time with the television and video games than they are with their parents. Nothing can substitute for having parents who are involved in a child's life.

Peter made a good point previously about old western shows actually being quite violent, and toy guns being prevalent. The violence is certainly more graphic these days, but I would argue that the lower level of parental involvement is a much larger factor.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

So what's the difference between us and Western Europe where this doesn't seem to happen? If it's not the accessibility or pervasiveness of guns, then what is it?

I think Cy made a good point regarding the media attention.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

So what's the difference between us and Western Europe where this doesn't seem to happen? If it's not the accessibility or pervasiveness of guns, then what is it?

That's the big question.

Western europe has a range of gun laws.

I worked for a machinist from Switzerland. One day we were talking about the differences between here and there.

One thing that amazed me was that all men able to serve a brief time in the military. I think 1-2 years. Followed by a long period of being considered a reserve. The guys on reserve, and remember this is nearly everyone is required to have their issued weapon available. That means a fully automatic machine gun in nearly every home. They don't have much in the way of problems, and I'm convinced it's a matter of training and attitude with the attitude aspect being more important.

Steve B

[CowboysGuide]

Originally Posted by steve B

That's the big question.

Western europe has a range of gun laws.

I worked for a machinist from Switzerland. One day we were talking about the differences between here and there.

One thing that amazed me was that all men able to serve a brief time in the military. I think 1-2 years. Followed by a long period of being considered a reserve. The guys on reserve, and remember this is nearly everyone is required to have their issued weapon available. That means a fully automatic machine gun in nearly every home. They don't have much in the way of problems, and I'm convinced it's a matter of training and attitude with the attitude aspect being more important.

Steve B

Okay...I get that, but it's not really people in homes that have the need for protection. Sure 'bad guys' break into homes to steal stuff and do on occasion commit murder, but what gun law could be changed to allow firearms in schools? Schools that have our childeren and young adults. Should admin. staff be trained and pack heat? How about shopping malls, or movie theaters? I doubt any laws would deter the mentally ill.

[jhs5120]

It will be a very sad day in this country when you need to carry a firearm to feel "safe."

It's like putting out a fire with gasoline.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by CowboysGuide

Okay...I get that, but it's not really people in homes that have the need for protection. Sure 'bad guys' break into homes to steal stuff and do on occasion commit murder, but what gun law could be changed to allow firearms in schools? Schools that have our childeren and young adults. Should admin. staff be trained and pack heat? How about shopping malls, or movie theaters? I doubt any laws would deter the mentally ill.

I at least want to give my view on this. My daughter is a sophomore in high school in N.Texas. I love her more than anything in this world. If I got to vote for her principal and asst. principal to be able to carry a gun on campus I would vote YES all day long. Why limit the guns to people doing bad stuff? I don't get it. Is it a perfect answer, no, but there isn't a perfect answer. And if some crazy person goes to her school with a gun to shoot my daughter, I would want the admin to be able to defend her, the other students and themselves. Just my opinion and I know there are as many against it as are for it.

[Runscott]

Just the principal at your daughter's school, or every principal of every school, in the entire nation?

If so, I bet you would have many, many more deaths under such a scenario than you would ever have if they all remained unarmed. I could give you plenty of examples, but I would start with irate students locating such a gun that was accidentally left out (or not), principals 'going crazy' (either emotionally over an ex-spouse,etc. or literally a mental disorder), etc., etc.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Just the principal at your daughter's school, or every principal of every school, in the entire nation?

If so, I bet you would have many, many more deaths under such a scenario than you would ever have if they all remained unarmed. I could give you plenty of examples, but I would start with irate students locating such a gun that was accidentally left out (or not), principals 'going crazy' (either emotionally over an ex-spouse,etc. or literally a mental disorder), etc., etc.

I politely and completely disagree. Every Principal and Asst.Principal goes through extraordinary background checks AND (most importantly) already has 100% access to our kids. Even if not permitted to carry a gun a wacko principal or asst. could do the same thing. I say let them be armed. I know it's unpopular to some,...but if the day ever came and your son or daughter was about to be killed, and your vote to have the administrator carry a gun, saved their life, you would be thankful. As for irate students.....not really anything stopping them from going crazy already. My vote goes to being able to defend ourselves. This is one of those issues where there will be very good arguments on both sides, for me though, the scale tips to the side of having the good guys armed.

[drc]

My general opinion is someone who seriously anticipates having to fight off a US Government invasion is someone who should probably not own firearms. Beyond the idea of the United States mounting an invasion, the Swedish army could crush you.

[CowboysGuide]

Originally Posted by Leon

I politely and completely disagree. Every Principal and Asst.Principal goes through extraordinary background checks AND (most importantly) already has 100% access to our kids. Even if not permitted to carry a gun a wacko principal or asst. could do the same thing. I say let them be armed. I know it's unpopular to some,...but if the day ever came and your son or daughter was about to be killed, and your vote to have the administrator carry a gun, saved their life, you would be thankful. As for irate students.....not really anything stopping them from going crazy already. My vote goes to being able to defend ourselves. This is one of those issues where there will be very good arguments on both sides, for me though, the scale tips to the side of having the good guys armed.

Understood. The main point I was trying to make was that not everyone is capable of being trained to properly handle a gun. So, do we then get rid of principals and staff that can't or won't be able to use a gun, or re-assign them a different job? I'm for the properly trained personell to be present at all schools as a deterrant, not the staff.

If this gunman went to shooting ranges with his mom, which has now been reported, he did know how to load and handle the guns - which was a question of mine. Not to start another debate, but I haven't heard anything about the gunman owning any violent video games. Some of those first-person shoot 'em up games are pretty scary. It's like training to kill in the imaginary sense. Some forms of mental illness can not distinguish from real or imaginary.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Leon

I politely and completely disagree. Every Principal and Asst.Principal goes through extraordinary background checks AND (most importantly) already has 100% access to our kids. Even if not permitted to carry a gun a wacko principal or asst. could do the same thing. I say let them be armed. I know it's unpopular to some,...but if the day ever came and your son or daughter was about to be killed, and your vote to have the administrator carry a gun, saved their life, you would be thankful. As for irate students.....not really anything stopping them from going crazy already. My vote goes to being able to defend ourselves. This is one of those issues where there will be very good arguments on both sides, for me though, the scale tips to the side of having the good guys armed.

No - I would not want a principal to be armed so that he could be available to save my children's lives, if that meant that arming principals could result in more lives being lost than if they weren't armed. Not sure of any other way to state this, so I'll just politely disagree and bow out.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Leon

I politely and completely disagree. Every Principal and Asst.Principal goes through extraordinary background checks AND (most importantly) already has 100% access to our kids. Even if not permitted to carry a gun a wacko principal or asst. could do the same thing. I say let them be armed. I know it's unpopular to some,...but if the day ever came and your son or daughter was about to be killed, and your vote to have the administrator carry a gun, saved their life, you would be thankful. As for irate students.....not really anything stopping them from going crazy already. My vote goes to being able to defend ourselves. This is one of those issues where there will be very good arguments on both sides, for me though, the scale tips to the side of having the good guys armed.

Maybe people buying guns should have to go through similar background checks. Or is that too great a restriction on our precious freedom? Or does that make it too easy for our government to invade?

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Leon

I at least want to give my view on this. My daughter is a sophomore in high school in N.Texas. I love her more than anything in this world. If I got to vote for her principal and asst. principal to be able to carry a gun on campus I would vote YES all day long. Why limit the guns to people doing bad stuff? I don't get it. Is it a perfect answer, no, but there isn't a perfect answer. And if some crazy person goes to her school with a gun to shoot my daughter, I would want the admin to be able to defend her, the other students and themselves. Just my opinion and I know there are as many against it as are for it.

Agreed. If nothing else, why coudn't we have armed guards at the entrances of the schools? It's sad that it has come to that, but you have to do what you have to do to protect the kids (and teachers too).

Edited to add: Or better yet, we could have armed military personnel at the schools. As we bring them back from Afghanistan and Iraq, let's put a few in each of our schools. It may sound extreme, but unfortunately I think it's come to that.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Agreed. If nothing else, why coudn't we have armed guards at the entrances of the schools? It's sad that it has come to that, but you have to do what you have to do to protect the kids (and teachers too).

Edited to add: Or better yet, we could have armed military personnel at the schools. As we bring them back from Afghanistan and Iraq, let's put a few in each of our schools. It may sound extreme, but unfortunately I think it's come to that.

I was at lunch with Rich Klein a little while ago (approximately 30 minutes ) and we were discussing this. His wife is a teacher here at a High School in North Texas. They have an armed guard every day at their school. And the school isn't even in a bad part of town, so to speak.

[jhs5120]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Edited to add: Or better yet, we could have armed military personnel at the schools. As we bring them back from Afghanistan and Iraq, let's put a few in each of our schools. It may sound extreme, but unfortunately I think it's come to that.

All you need is one veteran with untreated PSTD to go on a rampage.. or a principle/teacher who had a really bad day.

It seems to me everyone is looking for a solution without taking guns out of the picture. Why don't we create a world where guns are no longer needed or readily available? Is that so bad?

[Texxxx]

Originally Posted by jhs5120

All you need is one veteran with untreated PSTD to go on a rampage.. or a principle/teacher who had a really bad day.

It seems to me everyone is looking for a solution without taking guns out of the picture. Why don't we create a world where guns are no longer needed or readily available? Is that so bad?

You dream of a utopian world. As long as humans are involved utopia can not happen. We are a flawed species and that want change.

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by jhs5120

All you need is one veteran with untreated PSTD to go on a rampage.. or a principle/teacher who had a really bad day.

It seems to me everyone is looking for a solution without taking guns out of the picture. Why don't we create a world where guns are no longer needed or readily available? Is that so bad?

Ideally, that would be nice. But as soon as we put ourselves in a position where they are no longer needed or readily available, we will find ourselves in a position where they ARE needed...

I'm gonna throw out an idea, and if it comes to be used. I want f*cking paid..Because our government clowns have yet to think of a good system..

Now, for the teachers/administrators with guns thing. I for one like the idea, but am willing to admit that there will be enough people opposed to it that it'll probably never happen. At the very least, why can't a stun-gun system be implemented though.. Maybe an electronic lock system with one in every room. Teachers and other school personnel can each carry a universal electronic swipe card that will only be "active", once a master code is punched in from the principals office. Cards never leave the school, and would be handed in and the system reprogrammed at the end of every school day.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by CowboysGuide

Okay...I get that, but it's not really people in homes that have the need for protection. Sure 'bad guys' break into homes to steal stuff and do on occasion commit murder, but what gun law could be changed to allow firearms in schools? Schools that have our childeren and young adults. Should admin. staff be trained and pack heat? How about shopping malls, or movie theaters? I doubt any laws would deter the mentally ill.

The point was that even with very available fully automatic weapons there are few incidents of this nature there. It does happen.

It's more likely the overall attitude of the people. Some very solid training in civics at the practical level, and a solid foundaton in what's "proper".

Our society the last several years seems more "me" centric, with everyone else to blame for anyones failings, and little patience or respect for others. Or even for doing a good job of anything.
The bike shop I work at is along a path and at least 2-3 times a year there's an accident where a racer wannabe plows into a small child. All easily avoidable if they would simply realize that kids around 5 don't follow a straight line and don't look behind them, and Slow down. Instead there's plenty of yelling about why parents don't control the kids, and the inevitable accident. One time while the ambulance was loading the adult with a broken collarbone, (Somehow the kids are always ok) Another dummy sped by at about 25-30 mph and gave the finger to the cop who waved at him to slow down.

That's a fine example of what's messed up here.

Steve B

[kmac32]

Originally Posted by steve B

The point was that even with very available fully automatic weapons there are few incidents of this nature there. It does happen.

It's more likely the overall attitude of the people. Some very solid training in civics at the practical level, and a solid foundaton in what's "proper".

Our society the last several years seems more "me" centric, with everyone else to blame for anyones failings, and little patience or respect for others. Or even for doing a good job of anything.
The bike shop I work at is along a path and at least 2-3 times a year there's an accident where a racer wannabe plows into a small child. All easily avoidable if they would simply realize that kids around 5 don't follow a straight line and don't look behind them, and Slow down. Instead there's plenty of yelling about why parents don't control the kids, and the inevitable accident. One time while the ambulance was loading the adult with a broken collarbone, (Somehow the kids are always ok) Another dummy sped by at about 25-30 mph and gave the finger to the cop who waved at him to slow down.

That's a fine example of what's messed up here.

Steve B

100% agreement n your "me" society. I have worked with the public most of my professional life and the bulk of society is all about "me". People in general have very little consideration for anybody but themselves. If they don't get their way, they look for someone to "tell on". In general, they don't accept responsibility for their own actions. In general, people tend to be disrespectful like the guy who flipped off the cop in your story.

If they do not or will not accept responsibility for their own actions, how can we trust people with powerful semiautomatic guns? I'm not talking about hunters or the average Joe with a handgun. I'm talking about people with high power rifles and handguns that can get off hundreds of rounds in minutes. Way too much power for any one person to have in public.