O/T feel sick inside - CT Elementary shooting

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Bpm0014

"The number of weapons in the arms of private citizens is the number 1 reason why we have not been invaded, whether it be a foreign or domestic government."

"Hmmm, maybe we should withdraw our nuclear missles from Cuba. Do you know how many citizens are armed over there???" -Kruschev 1962

"Will someone set up a meeting with Reagan ASAP? Maybe we should re-think this arms race. I heard many of the citizens are armed over there..." - Gorbachev 1984

You didn't comprehend the statement. He did not say that is the number 1 reason we haven't been attacked, he said that is the number 1 reason we haven't been invaded. I'm not saying I agree (or disagree) with his comments, but there is a difference between an invasion and an attack.

[Vintageismygame]

"This year will go down in History. For the first time, a civlized Nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient and the world will follow our lead into the future." Adolph Hitler 1935

[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.

[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 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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Runscott

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.

I certainly respect your opinion very much...and actually do agree with you somewhat, just not enough to sway my vote. Good people will see this differently. And not to belabor the point but a principal already has complete access, so one that wants to go crazy, already can, whether permitted to carry a gun or not. (pray and knock on wood that one doesn't)

And yes, I agree with the point about what has this society come to if we have to carry guns to be safe. To that I say, the cat is out of the bag 300 million guns later. Now we just have to find the best, albeit not perfect, solution. I don't have the perfect answer.

[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?

[barrysloate]

I'm not sure that very many principals would want to take the enormous responsibility of carrying a gun and being expected to use it in a crisis. And while in a perfect world the prinicipal might kill the bad guy before he hurt any children, so many things could go terribly wrong. The principal could aim the gun at the bad guy and miss, hitting and killing a student instead. Not a really great plan IMO.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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?

Peter, they are going through background checks. Even if the background checks were more extensive (which I believe they could/should be), the problem is there is nothing in their background that would keep them from obtaining these weapons.

Please tell me, what in James Holmes' or Adam Lanza's background would have been discovered that would have made them fail the check?

Edited to add: I know the guns in the Midtown shooting were registered to the mom, but my point is that even if Adam had obtained them legally himself, nothing would have come up in the background check that would have prevented him from purchasing them.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Leon

I certainly respect your opinion very much...and actually do agree with you somewhat, just not enough to sway my vote. Good people will see this differently. And not to belabor the point but a principal already has complete access, so one that wants to go crazy, already can, whether permitted to carry a gun or not. (pray and knock on wood that one doesn't)

And yes, I agree with the point about what has this society come to if we have to carry guns to be safe. To that I say, the cat is out of the bag 300 million guns later. Now we just have to find the best, albeit not perfect, solution. I don't have the perfect answer.

I think a good solution is a combination of everything we've discussed here: better control of guns, better security, addressing mental health. Brushing off any of those is a mistake. The ratio and implementation is tough, because personal rights are affected, but after hearing the President's speech Sunday night, I'm convinced that we will see some detailed proposals very soon.

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

I'm not sure that very many principals would want to take the enormous responsibility of carrying a gun and being expected to use it in a crisis. And while in a perfect world the prinicipal might kill the bad guy before he hurt any children, so many things could go terribly wrong. The principal could aim the gun at the bad guy and miss, hitting and killing a student instead. Not a really great plan IMO.

Exactly, why a non-lethal stun gun system could be implemented. It would also hopefully keep these people alive, so that more insight can be had into what exactly was going on in their heads. That knowledge alone could potentially lead to preventing these type of things. Instead we're stuck with dead bodies, and simple guesses as to motive.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Peter, they are going through background checks. Even if the background checks were more extensive (which I believe they could/should be), the problem is there is nothing in their background that would keep them from obtaining these weapons.

Please tell me, what in James Holmes' or Adam Lanza's background would have been discovered that would have made them fail the check?

Holmes was under psychiatric care at the time, was he not? And no check was required for him to buy hundreds of rounds of ammunition, was there? Perhaps some reform there is warranted, although again, we may make ourselves vulnerable to invasion by the Feds.

[Leon]

One small district in Texas already has teachers with guns....I know there isn't a perfect solution....but as I have said, if a bad person goes into my daughters school to cause tragedy I would rather the staff be able to defend our kiddos and themselves than not ....It's really just a preference. I am certainly open to better solutions.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/...174238129.html


.

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by Vintageismygame

We, the people must be armed to keep our government in their place. End of story. And please do not continue to confuse Automatic weapons with Semi-Automatic weapons.

This, I believe, is the reason our Founders wrote the second amendment. They had just fought off an out of control tyrannical government, and understood that it could happen again. In this day and age of uncertainty, I think the trust in government is extremely low. Tyranny sneaks in, it doesn't announce itself. It was not about "hunting" (the right of the people to bear arms)

The Khmer Rouge (The Communist Party of Cambodia) won power from a right wing military government in 1975 after a five year long bloody civil war. The people of Cambodia were tired, and hoped for times of peace. They were terribly disapointed, as the Khmer Rouge's fanatical leader Pol Pot instituted social and agricultural reforms that ravaged the country.

Under Pol Pot & the Khmer Rouge, with their extreme Marxist philosophy, only the uneducated workers and the peasants were to be trusted. The skilled workers, the middle class, the rich, and the intellectuals of Cambodia were all potential threats/ counter-revolutionaries in the eyes of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge. They were systematically arrested and tortured. Those that survived, were forcibly "re-educated" as agricultural laborers (slaves).

They were forced to work and live in total squalor, usually denied tools to do their work, and made to use their bare hands. Thousands were executed on the slightest pretext, or they simply lay down and died in what became famously known as "The Killing Fields".

It is estimated that over 1.5 million people were slaughtered in this way, before Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge were given the boot in 1979 by an invading Vietnamese army. Cambodia's intellectual classes and skilled workers were almost destroyed by less than four years of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge's repression.

This is just one instance in our not so distant past that an out of control government slaughtered their own people. It's called democide. If you disarm the public, this is what can possibly happen (not saying it will, but look back at world history to see for yourself).

Can it happen here? Who the hell wants to find out ????? People want to be able to protect themselves *from any danger*. God Bless America.

Sincerely, Clayton

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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?

When did I ever say people shouldn't have to go through background checks? Look, if you don't want to protect yourself, no problem. Others that do want to protect themselves, and meet the qualifications, should be able to. On the invading of our government, silly argument and I have no comment. I don't think the world is ending in 3 days or the sky is falling either.

And Clayton- I see we are on opposite sides of the invading government debate. Sorry, my opinion, which is exactly equal to yours (they both count as 1) is that is a silly debate. It won't happen regardless of Pol Pot.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by novakjr

Exactly, why a non-lethal stun gun system could be implemented. It would also hopefully keep these people alive, so that more insight can be had into what exactly was going on in their heads. That knowledge alone could potentially lead to preventing these type of things. Instead we're stuck with dead bodies, and simple guesses as to motive.

We still have the Aurora and Arizona killers, and there is one here in Washington who recently was moved from Western State to prison. All still alive, all probably able to give their reasoning for the murders they committed. But I don't think you would be able to figure out much - the 'manic state' is a different reality and they either remember very little, remember things incorrectly, or realize that what they did made no sense.

Emotional, 'sane' killers are a different thing, but they generally do commit suicide - distraught fathers, screwed-over office-workers, etc.

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by Runscott

We still have the Aurora and Arizona killers, and there is one here in Washington who recently was moved from Western State to prison. All still alive, all probably able to give their reasoning for the murders they committed. But I don't think you would be able to figure out much - the 'manic state' is a different reality and they either remember very little, remember things incorrectly, or realize that what they did made no sense.

Emotional, 'sane' killers are a different thing, but they generally do commit suicide - distraught fathers, screwed-over office-workers, etc.

If their ultimate goal is to commit suicide, then wouldn't the strong possibility of being disabled and apprehended using a stun gun, be more of a deterent.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Leon

One small district in Texas already has teachers with guns....I know there isn't a perfect solution....but as I have said, if a bad person goes into my daughters school to cause tragedy I would rather the staff be able to defend our kiddos and themselves than not ....It's really just a preference. I am certainly open to better solutions.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/...174238129.html


.

Interesting.

I'm thinking back to the teachers I had, and considering which ones I'd want to be in class with if things went bad.

Maybe 1/4 of them? probably much less. And I was in HS when a decent percentage of the male teachers were veterans of either WWII or Korea. The headmaster was a Marine reserve colonel, so he'd probably be ok.

The difficulty with guns for protection is that unless you're well trained, not just target, but simulations with moving and surprise targets and non-targets.
AND
You're absolutely willing to use it to kill someone.

If not, then it's a major liability. Many people react by freezing up or running.
Either takes the defending yourself out of the picture.

Steve B

[kmac32]

Originally Posted by Runscott

We still have the Aurora and Arizona killers, and there is one here in Washington who recently was moved from Western State to prison. All still alive, all probably able to give their reasoning for the murders they committed. But I don't think you would be able to figure out much - the 'manic state' is a different reality and they either remember very little, remember things incorrectly, or realize that what they did made no sense.

Emotional, 'sane' killers are a different thing, but they generally do commit suicide - distraught fathers, screwed-over office-workers, etc.

The idiot that shot congresswoman Giffords would not have passed a mentle health background check. The problem in Arizona is that guns have invaded every level of society and there is little checking done. I remember working at an animal hospital in Tucson and 2 Saturdays in a row we had men in their mid 70's show up with hand guns strapped to their sides. Why do people feel the need to bring a handgun into a veterinary hospital other than the reason "because I have it and can do it"? Arizona still thinks the Wild West is still alive and nobody can take their guns away. Glad I do not live there any more
.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Leon

When did I ever say people shouldn't have to go through background checks? Look, if you don't want to protect yourself, no problem. Others that do want to protect themselves, and meet the qualifications, should be able to. On the invading of our government, silly argument and I have no comment. I don't think the world is ending in 3 days or the sky is falling either.

I actually feel safer without a gun, but I'm all for people having the right to protect themselves with a gun if they choose to. I just question guns outside of the home, when not used for hunting (non-human hunting). I see too many angry poor-decision makers walking around town - even policemen, who are supposedly well-trained on use of force.

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by Leon

When did I ever say people shouldn't have to go through background checks? Look, if you don't want to protect yourself, no problem. Others that do want to protect themselves, and meet the qualifications, should be able to. On the invading of our government, silly argument and I have no comment. I don't think the world is ending in 3 days or the sky is falling either.

And Clayton- I see we are on opposite sides of the invading government debate. Sorry, my opinion, which is exactly equal to yours (they both count as 1) is that is a silly debate. It won't happen regardless of Pol Pot.

No problem Leon I am not saying it will happen, and hope it never does. But, alot of gun owners feel their guns are a sort of "safety net" from something like this happening here. I do not own a gun, but I feel responsible people have the right to own any type of firearm they want. It's part of being "free".

Group punishment never works. That is what some people seem to be for.

Sincerely, Clayton

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by novakjr

If their ultimate goal is to commit suicide, then wouldn't the strong possibility of being disabled and apprehended using a stun gun, be more of a deterent.

I disagree with your hypothetical, but my answer in such a scenario would be 'no'.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by teetwoohsix

No problem Leon I am not saying it will happen, and hope it never does. But, alot of gun owners feel their guns are a sort of "safety net" from something like this happening here. I do not own a gun, but I feel responsible people have the right to own any type of firearm they want. It's part of being "free".

Group punishment never works. That is what some people seem to be for.

Sincerely, Clayton

Sure Clayton, if you could make sure that only the responsible people got them, that would be great. But as things stand, mentally ill people capable of a psychotic rampage, and sane but evil people can get them too.

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by Runscott

I disagree with your hypothetical, but my answer in such a scenario would be 'no'.

I'll have to start by stating that I don't believe this is always the case. But sometimes.....Now if someone's goal is to ultimately kill themselves, but also become famous in doing so. You're telling me, that if there's a good chance that they'll be apprehended before being able to kill themselves, that they'd still do it anyways?

[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

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Sure Clayton, if you could make sure that only the responsible people got them, that would be great. But as things stand, mentally ill people capable of a psychotic rampage, and sane but evil people can get them too.

Very true Peter.

I think society is stressed out, and we are seeing the results. The media seems to love pumping the public with fear and tragedy, financial devastation and endless wars, it isn't much of a suprise to me that people who aren't mentally stable are begining to snap.

I hope we as a country can start figuring out a way to heal and find some compassion for everyone who is hurting and struggling. Not just when a horrible tragedy strikes.

Sincerely, Clayton

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by novakjr

I'll have to start by stating that I don't believe this is always the case. But sometimes.....Now if someone's goal is to ultimately kill themselves, but also become famous in doing so. You're telling me, that if there's a good chance that they'll be apprehended before being able to kill themselves, that they'd still do it anyways?

No offense, but that wasn't what you previously asked, and you just put an awful lot of words in my mouth that I didn't say.

Also, I really have no idea what a stun gun is, does, or how effective it would be in deterring anything - I've never given it any thought. My original response was simply to give you examples of mentally ill killers who are still alive and could be questioned, and the type of thinking you might encounter if you tried to do so.

I respectfully need to bow out of re-joining the 'guns or not in the school' debate. I've already stated my thoughts in detail.

[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.

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by Runscott

No offense, but that wasn't what you previously asked, and you just put an awful lot of words in my mouth that I didn't say.

Also, I really have no idea what a stun gun is, does, or how effective it would be in deterring anything - I've never given it any thought. My original response was simply to give you examples of mentally ill killers who are still alive and could be questioned, and the type of thinking you might encounter if you tried to do so.

I respectfully need to bow out of re-joining the 'guns or not in the school' debate. I've already stated my thoughts in detail.

It's exactly what I previously asked. We were both obviously on different pages though. It's happens. My comment was specifically geared towards those who ultimately wanted to kill themselves, and not toward the "just make as big a mess as possible" people.. Those people will still be out there, but stun-guns could help reduce the carnage.

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by Vintageismygame

"This year will go down in History. For the first time, a civlized Nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient and the world will follow our lead into the future." Adolph Hitler 1935

Matt - what is the primary source for your comment? Everything I can find on this subject indicates that Hitler never said that (or anything similar), and that in fact the Nazis inherited restrictive gun laws from the previous democratic Weimar government. The Nazis did not enact new gun restrictions until 1938 (outlawing silencers & hollow point ammo, adding an age requirement of 18, and outlawing Jewish gun ownership after Kristallnacht). By that point in time they already had overwhelming popular support.

Why are you so prone to just accept such fantasies?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by teetwoohsix

Very true Peter.

I think society is stressed out, and we are seeing the results. The media seems to love pumping the public with fear and tragedy, financial devastation and endless wars, it isn't much of a suprise to me that people who aren't mentally stable are begining to snap.

I hope we as a country can start figuring out a way to heal and find some compassion for everyone who is hurting and struggling. Not just when a horrible tragedy strikes.

Sincerely, Clayton

There are certainly a lot of loading factors, I agree, although it's still unclear what went awry in this particular case, or in the case of Holmes and Loughner, among others.

[kmac32]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

There are certainly a lot of loading factors, I agree, although it's still unclear what went awry in this particular case, or in the case of Holmes and Loughner, among others.

In the case of Loughner, it's pretty clear what happened. There was a severe case of non parental supervisiion in this kids upbringing. The police found all kinds of clues in the family garage that the parents "had no idea their son was up to". He was a very troubled kid and many things in his high school pointed to it. The parents refused to accept any responsibility for his actions in school and it continued frm there. If the parents had been involved and paid attention, none of that incident would have ever happened. Loughner had even written hate mail to congresswoman Giffords before and nothing was done. Tha scary part is he was still able to get weapons and buy ammo from a local Walmart. Typical for Arizona is getting a gun with little or no questions asked.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by novakjr

It's exactly what I previously asked.

No, it is not. The first question has to do specifically with a stun gun. I answered it. You then put words in my mouth, re-stating your question to involve apprehension that might or might not involve a stun gun. As I said before, I know almost nothing about stun guns and don't want to get into the gun debate further. I responded to your additional questions out of politeness, but I'm really not interested in going off on a tangent involving a straw man that I am not. I'm through responding to this line of discussion, as it's getting ludicrous.

"If their ultimate goal is to commit suicide, then wouldn't the strong possibility of being disabled and apprehended using a stun gun, be more of a deterrent."

"You're telling me, that if there's a good chance that they'll be apprehended before being able to kill themselves, that they'd still do it anyways?"

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by Runscott

No, it is not. The first question has to do specifically with a stun gun. I answered it. You then put words in my mouth, re-stating your question to involve apprehension that might or might not involve a stun gun. As I said before, I know almost nothing about stun guns and don't want to get into the gun debate further. I responded to your additional questions out of politeness, but I'm really not interested in going off on a tangent involving a straw man that I am not. I'm through responding to this line of discussion, as it's getting ludicrous.

"If their ultimate goal is to commit suicide, then wouldn't the strong possibility of being disabled and apprehended using a stun gun, be more of a deterrent."

"You're telling me, that if there's a good chance that they'll be apprehended before being able to kill themselves, that they'd still do it anyways?"

Like I said, we were obviously on different pages. The original statement was perhaps less specific, due to implied connection with previous statements. You're original answer was perfectly appropriate without being taken in that context.