Another school shooting

[MixBerryCrunch]

Guns don't kill people, psychopaths kill people. There should be mandatory testing for biological and genetic traits of psychopathy at the gun owners expense before a person can buy a gun.  There should be a certain ratio of teachers that should carry guns. And these teachers will be tested for psychopathy in the same way, but at the school districts expense. They will also have to go to firearm lessons once a month.  That is all.

Dear god, that is the last thing to do. More guns is not the answer, the only answer is fewer.

No. The answer is less guns in the hands of murderers but since no law could ever make that happen, contrary to what you naive gun banning proponents believe, I want teachers to be able to protect the children.

[steve dave]

The answer is less guns in the hands of murderers but since no law could ever make that happen

such a bullshit talking point

[nicname]

Guns don't kill people, psychopaths kill people. There should be mandatory testing for biological and genetic traits of psychopathy at the gun owners expense before a person can buy a gun.  There should be a certain ratio of teachers that should carry guns. And these teachers will be tested for psychopathy in the same way, but at the school districts expense. They will also have to go to firearm lessons once a month.  That is all.

Dear god, that is the last thing to do. More guns is not the answer, the only answer is fewer.

I would imagine that if schools, malls, college campuses, were not "gun free zones" that fewer psychopaths would see them as such inviting targets for their deeds.  I would also imagine that if responsible certified adults in these places were more likely to have guns that mall and school shootings would have a lower loss of life than they currently do.

[MixBerryCrunch]

Guns don't kill people, psychopaths kill people. There should be mandatory testing for biological and genetic traits of psychopathy at the gun owners expense before a person can buy a gun.  There should be a certain ratio of teachers that should carry guns. And these teachers will be tested for psychopathy in the same way, but at the school districts expense. They will also have to go to firearm lessons once a month.  That is all.

Absolutely not.  If anything, we can/should increase the number of trained law enforcement staff at schools (all levels) that are trained in situations that would require the use of a firearm. 

Never, under ANY circumstance should a teacher have a gun.  That sends so many wrong messages and puts the power of life and death in the hands of an underpaid, overworked school teacher.

The answer to the gun problem may not be easily identifiable, but it most certainly isn't arming more people that have no business being armed in the first place.

I agree with the law enforcement point. But trained and tested teachers could and would protect children.

[Cire]

yeah, states have all kinds of money to arm and train teachers with weapons.

[puniraptor]

Guns don't kill people, psychopaths kill people. There should be mandatory testing for biological and genetic traits of psychopathy at the gun owners expense before a person can buy a gun.  There should be a certain ratio of teachers that should carry guns. And these teachers will be tested for psychopathy in the same way, but at the school districts expense. They will also have to go to firearm lessons once a month.  That is all.

Dear god, that is the last thing to do. More guns is not the answer, the only answer is fewer.

I would imagine that if schools, malls, college campuses, were not "gun free zones" that fewer psychopaths would see them as such inviting targets for their deeds.  I would also imagine that if responsible certified adults in these places were more likely to have guns that mall and school shootings would have a lower loss of life than they currently do.

I'm certain they dont give a crap one way or another. These are just places where there is alot of people.

[HeinBallz]

The only reason I brought up TV & video games is for the parents that don't talk to their kids.  What bothers me are people that use TV as a babysitter for their kids and have no actual relationship or any discussion with them. 

And here's the irony - I've been saying the entire thread that this was a parenting issue. People were quick to dismiss that and say, "we can't just fix parenting, we have to remove guns" When I offer: "we can't fix parenting, maybe we could tone down the violence and focus on mental health."  I'm told, that's ridiculous - parents need to talk to their kids to discern between right & wrong.   WTF ever... I give up talking to you people.

I'll summarize my thoughts once more. I personally feel that in instances such as this last week, the person is planning a large event to kill people and will use whatever tools available to do so. There are hundreds, maybe thousands, of methods to create equal or worse damage - that may not be as easily available for some people - but may be easier to get a hold of for others.  Restricting guns will not stop what happened last week.  The only situation I can see where gun restrictions might help are crimes of passion.  Regardless of what anyone says, there are instances of guns being a successful means of self defense. You remove more civil liberties - people will rebel at a higher frequency.  I wouldn't be surprised if harsh or extreme gun laws being passed wouldn't start a path towards anarchy - which is why a knee jerk/emotional response to this feels really dangerous.

["storm"nut]

Guns don't kill people, psychopaths kill people. There should be mandatory testing for biological and genetic traits of psychopathy at the gun owners expense before a person can buy a gun.  There should be a certain ratio of teachers that should carry guns. And these teachers will be tested for psychopathy in the same way, but at the school districts expense. They will also have to go to firearm lessons once a month.  That is all.

Dear god, that is the last thing to do. More guns is not the answer, the only answer is fewer.

No. The answer is less guns in the hands of murderers but since no law could ever make that happen, contrary to what you naive gun banning proponents believe, I want teachers to be able to protect the children.

I want teachers to worry about getting there children to safety than worrying about trying to shot a guy with a gun while not hitting the others around him. Put the effort is find these psychos and make sure they can't have access to firearms.

[nicname]

The answer is less guns in the hands of murderers but since no law could ever make that happen

such a bullshit talking point

I think it is possible that a ban on "assault weapons" ie. semi-auto and automatic guns, and guns with high capacity clips, that included a grandfathering clause for current legal gun owners could probably reduce the number of these types of weapons over time.  It would take awhile, but would probably be effective.  An actual immediate ban including confiscation of already owned firearms would not be feasible and would likely result in increased violence and create an entire new class of "criminals" that otherwise wouldn't exist.

[MixBerryCrunch]

The answer is less guns in the hands of murderers but since no law could ever make that happen

such a bullshit talking point

Show me proof....If I had a choice there would be no guns in the world, period. I do not own one and I certainly don't care about anyone's right to own one. I do however believe that no law is going to stop a psychopathic killer from getting one. If these people gave a damn about laws they wouldn't kill anyone in the first place....If you want to ban guns all you have to do is look to the war on drugs to see how well it will work. I seriously do not understand the naivety of gun banning proponents.

[8manpick]

The answer is less guns in the hands of murderers but since no law could ever make that happen

such a bullshit talking point

I think it is possible that a ban on "assault weapons" ie. semi-auto and automatic guns, and guns with high capacity clips, that included a grandfathering clause for current legal gun owners could probably reduce the number of these types of weapons over time.  It would take awhile, but would probably be effective.  An actual immediate ban including confiscation of already owned firearms would not be feasible and would likely result in increased violence and create an entire new class of "criminals" that otherwise wouldn't exist.

Why?  I agree that lots of people would hate it and resist, but I see no reason that it isn't feasible.  Unless you mean that passing the ban isn't feasible.

["storm"nut]

The answer is less guns in the hands of murderers but since no law could ever make that happen

such a bullshit talking point

I think it is possible that a ban on "assault weapons" ie. semi-auto and automatic guns, and guns with high capacity clips, that included a grandfathering clause for current legal gun owners could probably reduce the number of these types of weapons over time.  It would take awhile, but would probably be effective.  An actual immediate ban including confiscation of already owned firearms would not be feasible and would likely result in increased violence and create an entire new class of "criminals" that otherwise wouldn't exist.

Any assault weapons and clip reduction legislation has to include to make it illegal resell them or otherwise transfer ownership outside of estate or direct immediate family. That is a no brainier. Also they need to make sure to ban the sale of kits to convert non-assault style guns into assault style guns.

[kstatefreak42]

Gun Control will lead to civil unrest imo.

[nicname]

The only reason I brought up TV & video games is for the parents that don't talk to their kids.  What bothers me are people that use TV as a babysitter for their kids and have no actual relationship or any discussion with them. 

And here's the irony - I've been saying the entire thread that this was a parenting issue. People were quick to dismiss that and say, "we can't just fix parenting, we have to remove guns" When I offer: "we can't fix parenting, maybe we could tone down the violence and focus on mental health."  I'm told, that's ridiculous - parents need to talk to their kids to discern between right & wrong.   WTF ever... I give up talking to you people.

I'll summarize my thoughts once more. I personally feel that in instances such as this last week, the person is planning a large event to kill people and will use whatever tools available to do so. There are hundreds, maybe thousands, of methods to create equal or worse damage - that may not be as easily available for some people - but may be easier to get a hold of for others.  Restricting guns will not stop what happened last week.  The only situation I can see where gun restrictions might help are crimes of passion.  Regardless of what anyone says, there are instances of guns being a successful means of self defense. You remove more civil liberties - people will rebel at a higher frequency.  I wouldn't be surprised if harsh or extreme gun laws being passed wouldn't start a path towards anarchy - which is why a knee jerk/emotional response to this feels really dangerous.

I agree with all of this.

[kstatefreak42]

The only reason I brought up TV & video games is for the parents that don't talk to their kids.  What bothers me are people that use TV as a babysitter for their kids and have no actual relationship or any discussion with them. 

And here's the irony - I've been saying the entire thread that this was a parenting issue. People were quick to dismiss that and say, "we can't just fix parenting, we have to remove guns" When I offer: "we can't fix parenting, maybe we could tone down the violence and focus on mental health."  I'm told, that's ridiculous - parents need to talk to their kids to discern between right & wrong.   WTF ever... I give up talking to you people.

I'll summarize my thoughts once more. I personally feel that in instances such as this last week, the person is planning a large event to kill people and will use whatever tools available to do so. There are hundreds, maybe thousands, of methods to create equal or worse damage - that may not be as easily available for some people - but may be easier to get a hold of for others.  Restricting guns will not stop what happened last week.  The only situation I can see where gun restrictions might help are crimes of passion.  Regardless of what anyone says, there are instances of guns being a successful means of self defense. You remove more civil liberties - people will rebel at a higher frequency.  I wouldn't be surprised if harsh or extreme gun laws being passed wouldn't start a path towards anarchy - which is why a knee jerk/emotional response to this feels really dangerous.

I agree with all of this.

Me to.

["storm"nut]

Gun Control will lead to civil unrest imo.

Gun ban would, no doubt in my mind but sensible gun regulation as I outlined supported by the NRA and the Brady people alike will not other than a few extreme nutj obs that should most likely not have the guns they are going to try and kill over in the first place.

[EMAWican]

The answer is less guns in the hands of murderers but since no law could ever make that happen

such a bullshit talking point

I think it is possible that a ban on "assault weapons" ie. semi-auto and automatic guns, and guns with high capacity clips, that included a grandfathering clause for current legal gun owners could probably reduce the number of these types of weapons over time.  It would take awhile, but would probably be effective.  An actual immediate ban including confiscation of already owned firearms would not be feasible and would likely result in increased violence and create an entire new class of "criminals" that otherwise wouldn't exist.

Why?  I agree that lots of people would hate it and resist, but I see no reason that it isn't feasible.  Unless you mean that passing the ban isn't feasible.

It isn't feasible because the vast majority of firearms aren't registered and have no record of ownership.

[star seed 7]

texas people are suggesting armed teams of volunteer parents roaming the halls, keeping the kids safe.   

[kstatefreak42]

texas people are suggesting armed teams of volunteer parents roaming the halls, keeping the kids safe.   

campus police sound better.

[star seed 7]

texas people are suggesting armed teams of volunteer parents roaming the halls, keeping the kids safe.   

campus police sound better.

aren't the police just the thug arm of the bilderbergs?

[MixBerryCrunch]

texas people are suggesting armed teams of volunteer parents roaming the halls, keeping the kids safe.   

People want to protect their children, and the government is currently failing at that. It may be extreme but I see their reasoning behind it.

[Cire]

My sister's school district had SRO's at every middle and high school for years now the middle school guys share schools due to budget cuts.  I think elementary schools always have had SRO's share.

[Institutional Control]

I would immediately pull my kids out of any school that had volunteer parents patrolling the halls with guns.

[Bloodfart]

Guns don't kill people, psychopaths kill people. There should be mandatory testing for biological and genetic traits of psychopathy at the gun owners expense before a person can buy a gun.  There should be a certain ratio of teachers that should carry guns. And these teachers will be tested for psychopathy in the same way, but at the school districts expense. They will also have to go to firearm lessons once a month.  That is all.

Dear god, that is the last thing to do. More guns is not the answer, the only answer is fewer.

No. The answer is less guns in the hands of murderers but since no law could ever make that happen, contrary to what you naive gun banning proponents believe, I want teachers to be able to protect the children.

I want teachers to worry about getting there children to safety than worrying about trying to shot a guy with a gun while not hitting the others around him. Put the effort is find these psychos and make sure they can't have access to firearms.

Won't work there are thousands of people walking around that fit the profile but never take the next step.  How would you differentiate between them?  I am in favor of taking hand guns, large capacity mags, and assault rifles off the shelves of dealers. 

[steve dave]

should we tax all gun owners like we tax booze, property, etc.? like a cross between a property and sin tax? then use that money to fund security measures at schools and other areas? could pass a law that requires the registration of all guns and the confiscation and destruction of all non-registered guns and then require a yearly tax on each gun someone owns? on top of all the good ideas about making high capacity guns, assault guns, etc. illegal including the ones already out there. just spit balling ideas here.