Screening and restricting the rights of people just because someone has deemed them to be "mentally unstable" (what does this even mean? who decides where the line is? etc.) is a really bad path to go down.

So, I kept away from this thread this weekend. I pretty much kept away from anything related to this tragedy but it was obviously on my mind and I talked quite a bit with my wife about it. We have a son in Kindergarten so this type of thing hit really close to home as it did for millions of others. I'm not ashamed to say that I shed a tear this weekend and my heart truly breaks for what these parents are going through. This news story has been the most hard-hitting for me of my entire life. I can't even watch the coverage. I don't want to know the details. It's too hard.

That brings me to my point. I've argued vehemently against gun ownership in this thread and I still truly believe that the Country would be a better place if we could take guns away from citizens as a means to an end to prevent these things from happening. However, I cannot deny that my hope and dream is just not possible or plausible or even reasonable. Guns are not going anywhere.

So, I'm forced to think that in this particular instance it may have actually been better if teachers were able to have access to guns to hopefully be able to stop this mentally deranged person from getting to so many kids. This is tough for me to say as it's against a lot of what I've stood for my entire life.

I'm just not sure anymore. All I know for sure is that there is no easy answer or easy solution. In fact, there may be no solution at all.

1. Sure I guess, there are already added charges for this. Usually made under gang member laws.
2. CA has a 5 year ban on people found mentally unstable/sick/etc, usually the person was committed to a hospital. Which might suck for a dude that breaks up with his girlfriend and she calls the cops caliming he is suicidal. Then an evaluation when you apply again. Don't know about other states.
3. Already exists
4. Up to 10 years for a straw man purchase already exists.
5. You already have to keep guns out of the reach of a prohibited person. Punishable if you knowingly or negligently allowed them.
6. It's already a felony.

I'm just offering up suggestions that try to address the ACTUAL problem.

Feel free to pitch in with suggestions that don't further restrict current law abiding gun owners.

I'm not going to give up an individual's right to self-defense due to concerns about violence before other, more effective measures that do not impede on anyone's individual rights are attempted.

I said its ok to own it, so you can figure that I don't consider it an assault gun.

lol wat.

it shocks me how little most urban americans know about guns. the chances of an accident occurring due to a few teachers carrying concealed weapons is minuscule.

most americans who don't live in the city own guns or are at least used to seeing them as an every day occurrence. they aren't particularly dangerous.

That's the point a lot of anti-gun people are making.

You can't prevent these things from happening without restricting law abiding gun owners.

I don't think any civilian has a need, or should have a right to own a gun, in the same way no civilian has a need or a right to own a flamethrower, hand grenade, land mine, or any other advanced weaponry. No matter the restrictions you place on it, as long as a huge chunk of the population has easy, legal access to guns, the unsavory people who know somebody will also have access to those same guns.

I believe he thinks the gun will go off in the holster when the teacher bumps against a desk.

then you either have no idea what you're talking about, or define "need" such that no one has a need for anything other than food, water, shelter, medication.

These are hard laws to break, tho, and usually could only result in a civil lawsuit AFAIK.

IMO, prohibited people should be the rule, not the exception. Licensing should be required just to shoot a gun, not just to own one. And the burden should be much, much, heavier on the licensed owner. These are the people itt that we like to refer to as "law abiding gun owners", so let's take advantage of the opportunity to actually deter them from contributing to easy gun access for personality disordered ****tards, etc.

That percent would have been much bigger if guns were legal.

Taking a guess (because you dont know, even I can only take a guess and I lived through that increase) on what caused the increase (that is now dropping) is as relevant an exercise when discussing gun control as asking whether god could microwave a burrito so hot he couldnt eat it.

What makes you virtually certain a kid will get hurt or killed in an accident? I mean I think the odds of that are quite low.

cite?

also more people live in cities and this is a democratic country, so I (and many others) don't give a **** that Bubba in rural Alabama likes to kill animals for fun

fyp

That's your opinion.

I don't think tobacco, alcohol, or vehicles that go faster than 70 mph should be legal, even though those 3 things kill many more people than firearms do. And they serve 0 positive purpose to boot.

But I don't lobby against those things, because I believe in personal responsibility.

"Shall not be infringed" is pretty self explanatory. Any other amendments you want to repeal?

.

You realise this wouldnt have done anthing to stop the shooting this thread is now based around, right?

And that alone, according to many pro gun people, is enough to dismiss your ideas outright.

I don't think anyone is talking about taking away self defense.

Are you part of a militia necessary to the security of our free state? Otherwise, shall not be infringed doesn't apply.

quote the whole sentence. i said own guns or are used to seeing them as an every day thing. i have no idea of the actual percentages, but where i come from (Minnesota), it's a rare farmer who has zero guns in the house.

also, i don't care that you don't care. because i care.

A gun is designed for one sole purpose. It is to inflict harm or damage on a person, animal, or other object.

This has two purposes when stated by the pro-gun crowd. For self defense (from other armed people, intruders, animals, what have you) or recreation (hunting). Guns also cause collateral damage when an unintended target is hit, someone irresponsible gets their hands on legal guns, and many other examples.

For self defense, which is the only thing I can see that people would rationalize a "need" to have a gun, there are other ways to defend yourself from intruders. On the two extreme ends, there are much more effective ways to defend yourself from intruders that cause a lot more collateral damage. Things like explosives and other advanced weaponry would cause more damage than guns, but also cause more collateral damage.

Things like knives, swords, and bows would cause much less collateral damage, and would be slightly less effective at their purpose of self-defense.


Why is the line clearly drawn at guns and not before? Even the most ardent pro-gun people do not advocate that more advanced weaponry than guns is necessary for civilians to own. Why then are guns necessary to own, when other methods of self-defense fulfill the need for self defense and home protection, albeit less effectively?

Do we know that the firearms were locked up safely?

Yes, we all are.

I don't see the relevancy as many more Americans live in cities than in rural areas, and as I said, it's a democratic country. You are arguing like the vast majority of Americans either own guns or see guns on a regular basis and you need to support this claim with more than anecdotes.

If you cannot think of a way to defend yourself without shooting a piece of led at high speed then you probably should not be able to own a gun.