CONNECTICUT SHOOTING

author=Sailerius
You can build a hydrogen bomb at home, too. Are you saying we should make owning them legal because anyone can do it?

No one has ever missed a point as much as you just did.

(Also, I doubt anyone can build a hydrogen bomb.)

My point is that you yourself said that these people are "incurable." Assuming killers are indeed born that way, they'll find a way to kill. One way or another. Legal or illegal. Guns or no guns. Is there something confusing about that?

author=Solitayre
Something everyone conveniently forgets about the Second Amendment is that it specifically specifies that the right to bear arms is for a "well-regulated militia." Did you all know that? Not many people do! The Second Amendment specifies that the government can regulate arms! It's right there in the Bill of Rights!

The "well-regulated militia" clause has had varying interpretations over the years. One interpretation is that a "militia" is an official, sanctioned, organized, trained group of people not directly in service to the military; another interpretation is that a "militia" basically means any physically fit person able to fight in combat; I'm sure there are also many other interpretions beyond this.

Moving on, general consensus by the Supreme Court as of today seems to fall largely on the latter, as shown here, though this is obviously subject to possibly change over the years to come.

author=Solitayre
I do think guns should be more regulated, much like cars.

Much like driving, you should be required to pass a basic gun training and safety class, teaching owners how to properly handle and fire a gun safely, in order to own a gun. If you cannot pass this class, you have no business owning a gun.

You should be required to pass a written exam specifying that you understand your rights and responsibilities as a gun owner, understand the legal ramifications of owning and using a gun, and that you understand the moral and ethical responsibilities of gun ownership. If you cannot pass this test, you have no business owning a gun.

Gun owners should be required to demonstrate that they know how to properly store and secure their gun from being used by someone else. If you cannot demonstrate this, you have no business owning a gun.

You can tell anyone I said these things.

I completely agree with you, actually! I have no problems with making sure that people who obtain guns are people who can take responsibility for their possession of firearms, just like how with cars we expect drivers to be responsible for the cars they own and/or drive. It's just when the topic of gun control moves to "Prohibit citizens from legally owning firearms, period." when words of objection are justifiably heard because it runs afoul of the Second Amendment's Right To Bear Arms.

author=Solitayre

author=harmonic
My point is that you yourself said that these people are "incurable." Assuming killers are indeed born that way, they'll find a way to kill. One way or another. Legal or illegal. Guns or no guns. Is there something confusing about that?

Perhaps the solution is to focus on mental health issues in order to identify these individuals before they cause harm?

You think you're arguing against me (probably because I'm me and you're so used to disagreeing with me) but you're actually arguing with me. Go back and read Sail's convo with me. He said they're "incurable." I'm saying that cultural and societal factors are to blame, not guns.

Regarding your longer post, yes, most people agree with you that regulation is fine. However, it is a band-aid, not a cure. Adam Lanza did not legally own a gun, he had to steal one. Again proving that all it takes is a willing killer.

*Crossly* There is no magic bullet. All puns intended.
Gun regulation is a good step. Mental health treatment and screening is a good step. Societal reform is a good step. None of these alone is sufficient, but in combination they might well decrease the odds of deadly shootings. As long as violence and hatred remain in the heart of Man, that is the best we can do.

“We know that the sheep live in denial; that is what makes them sheep. They do not want to believe that there is evil in the world. They can accept the fact that fires can happen, which is why they want fire extinguishers, fire sprinklers, fire alarms and fire exits throughout their kids’ schools. But many of them are outraged at the idea of putting an armed police officer in their kid’s school. Our children are dozens of times more likely to be killed, and thousands of times more likely to be seriously injured, by school violence than by school fires, but the sheep’s only response to the possibility of violence is denial. The idea of someone coming to kill or harm their children is just too hard, so they choose the path of denial.

The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog. He looks a lot like the wolf. He has fangs and the capacity for violence. The difference, though, is that the sheepdog must not, cannot and will not ever harm the sheep. Any sheepdog who intentionally harms the lowliest little lamb will be punished and removed. The world cannot work any other way, at least not in a representative democracy or a republic such as ours.

Still, the sheepdog disturbs the sheep. He is a constant reminder that there are wolves in the land. They would prefer that he didn’t tell them where to go, or give them traffic tickets, or stand at the ready in our airports in camouflage fatigues holding an M-16. The sheep would much rather have the sheepdog cash in his fangs, spray paint himself white, and go, “Baa.”

Until the wolf shows up. Then the entire flock tries desperately to hide behind one lonely sheepdog.”

– Lt. Col. Grossman

author=Solitayre
I do think guns should be more regulated, much like cars.

Much like driving, you should be required to pass a basic gun training and safety class, teaching owners how to properly handle and fire a gun safely, in order to own a gun. If you cannot pass this class, you have no business owning a gun.

You should be required to pass a written exam specifying that you understand your rights and responsibilities as a gun owner, understand the legal ramifications of owning and using a gun, and that you understand the moral and ethical responsibilities of gun ownership. If you cannot pass this test, you have no business owning a gun.

Gun owners should be required to demonstrate that they know how to properly store and secure their gun from being used by someone else. If you cannot demonstrate this, you have no business owning a gun.

You can tell anyone I said these things.

Yes, I agree with you on the points you have made; many Americans object to any form of gun control, but a gun is not a frivolous purchase, and only responsible individuals with a use for them should own them, in my opinion.

As with the last public shooting, and all the shootings before that, people are going to wonder about the psychological disposition of the gunman, but frankly that is entirely irrelevant; when you strip away all the politics and media sensationalizing, you have the incontrovertible fact that the gunman could not have carried out the shooting without access to his mother's gun collection. Without the guns, he could not have killed so many people.

Even at the best of times, guns are dangerous to have in the house. I'm Canadian, and just to prove that gun-related deaths are by no means exclusively American, a student my mother taught once witnessed his father shoot himself in the face due to his being careless with a loaded rifle. Yes, guns can kill people all by themselves. There are all kinds of stories about children finding their parents' gun, or family arguments that go too far, or neighbours who are mistaken for burglars and shot.

As with every shooting, there will be heated debates between gun control advocates and gun support groups regarding what the proper course of action is now; some have suggested arming all schools and training staff with the use of guns, but I think this is a poor solution, personally; a deranged individual determined to kill people and then kill himself is not going to be deterred by the presence of a weapon, and even if a security officer was present he couldn't be everywhere at once. No, statistically prevention is more effective than increased security in reducing the number of shootings.

Advocates of unrestricted access to guns will point out cases where gun control has had no effect, or even cases where the number of gun-related crimes increased after legislation was passed. However, there are just as many recorded cases where gun control appears to have reduced the number of shootings; Britain's Firearms (Amendment) Act of 1988 had some of the strictest gun control legislation in the world, which required mandatory registration for owning shotguns, and banned semi-automatic and pump-action weapons. Despite a peak of gun violence in the 90s, the number of shootings has continued to fall afterwards. In 2010/11 there were 11,227 offenses, 53% below the peak number, according to the official crime figures. Crimes involving handguns also fell 44% (from 5,549 in 2002/03 to 3,105) in 2010/11. The success of this gun legislation where other legislation has failed has been linked to better policing against gangs and increasingly updated and revised legislation. Obviously legislation by itself doesn't do anything; it requires public support and the will to change.

I think that it would be entirely beneficial to reduce casual sale and access to guns while still maintaining the right to bear arms; it would of course not stop all shootings, but logically it would reduce the number of shootings simply by denying the deranged easy access.

It's up to us.

author=Solitayre
I do think guns should be more regulated, much like cars.

Much like driving, you should be required to pass a basic gun training and safety class, teaching owners how to properly handle and fire a gun safely, in order to own a gun. If you cannot pass this class, you have no business owning a gun.

You should be required to pass a written exam specifying that you understand your rights and responsibilities as a gun owner, understand the legal ramifications of owning and using a gun, and that you understand the moral and ethical responsibilities of gun ownership. If you cannot pass this test, you have no business owning a gun.

Gun owners should be required to demonstrate that they know how to properly store and secure their gun from being used by someone else. If you cannot demonstrate this, you have no business owning a gun.

You can tell anyone I said these things.

Good answer! Solitayre for president!

It's the lack of gun control and regulation, I don't think that america should get rid of guns because that would make a lot of sheepdogs unhappy, however I don't know why any civilian would need an assault rifle or any automatic weapon for that matter. Otherwise why don't we all go legalize rocket launchers too, I'm sure we all need a rocket launcher to protect ourselves. However in my opinion I would certainly not have had guns legalized in the first place and I come from the UK, where even knifes are somewhat regulated(children are not allowed to buy knives) so don't start bashing me.

Does anyone ever notice that it's always kids that are shunned by their peers that turn out like this?
Maybe we need to change the way society thinks and change how schools operate because, clearly no one gave this guy the help and support he needed. I mean he even shot his our mom in the head 4 times...

author=kentona
Also, I understand how comforting the illusion of safety that carrying or having a gun can have, but statistically having a gun on the premises of a school is more dangerous than the risk of an isolated and rare gunman rampaging through the school.

How is a gun in the hands of trained personnel dangerous? You're citing statistics that reference common civilians with unsecured firearms and that isn't applicable. I also aim to not be governed by fear, which is why I am okay with guns existing and being available to most people.

author=Shinan
Are most people trained?

This was specifically about armed security in schools. Yes, I assume they would be trained. They are also two separate points. I don't disagree that the world is more dangerous people have guns. I just don't care, because the degree of safety ensured by gun bans isn't significant enough to justify dictating what I am allowed to and not allowed to own.