My pony might be slow, but here is a photo of the type of gun reportedly used.

Ruh roh

But yes, I side with you against the NRA on this issue. The gun show/private sale loophole is a significant issue. Though, it's still federal law not to sell to people you think might be nuts.

24 tho. This is why talking about if he got the guns legally or not without any info is dumb.

Like a driving test or a mental evaluation test? There are people who have murdered using guns who owned them for years and then snapped.

I would do it this way:

Commit any crime - permanently banned from owning a gun
History of mental health - perma'd
Low grades in school - too stupid to own gun (can join police force though)
Anti-social tendencies as youth (ie, no friends, very mopey) - never own a gun

sorry what part of this would have prevented the shooting?

I suppose I need to make it clearer when I'm being sarcastic.

Thanks. it said 20 on an article then it got taken down.

Except you know that's not the argument you want to make based on the other things that harm children that we don't ban.

So you're just determined to hang your hat on emotional arguments?

FWIW *I* don't use the "because I want to defend my children" argument. I mean hey "I want to use bad arguments because some other guy did". OK.

Not exactly sure. I'd look to experts in the field of psychology for guidance for something like this. But I am okay with putting up hurdles and radically changing the USA gun policy.

Yearly tests and mandatory psychological examinations by a govenment-employed specialist at the gun owners expense.

Eventually people will realize that owning a gun isn't worth it because everyone will just think you're a ticking time bomb.

If teachers were armed he wouldn't have even gone to the school in the first place.

He killed himself. He was okay with dying. How would them potentially being armed have stopped this?

poe's law and all that?

I don't want everyone to have a gun, nor do I want anyone to use them as toys.

I mean what the **** kind of post is this? You're LITERALLY taking the most ******ed caricature of your opposition that is possible to imagine, one that has zero basis in reality, and just assuming it's the truth.

It would be like me just assuming anyone with any amount of gun opposition at all must necessarily be a Stalinist.

Is that what you want to see in this thread? Yes or no?

it would be better if you just didn't make ****ing ******ed posts

A way to deter these types of crimes that might actually be effective: torturing the perpetrators.

Hear me out here. The death penalty is clearly not a deterrent to a crime that ends with the perpetrator committing suicide. torture? That's a deterrent. That's a deterrent to even the nuttiest nut who is still capable of a tragedy like this. Something of this sort requires PLANNING. It requires some degree of cunning. The perpetrators are still displaying rationality in many ways - they chose the school for a reason, they knew how to find the school, they didn't forget how to drive the car to get there, and then of course they rationally kill themselves.

My point being that, even to a crazy person, they must be capable of enough rational thinking just to be capable of doing something like this, that they would be DETERRED by the possibility of being captured and tortured.

I'm not arguing this as a moral solution, since it ends with the govt torturing a person with some degree of mental illness. But would it be effective? Would it save lives? I think it would.

Of course, the obvious problem here is we're giving the govt the power to torture people, which I as a matter of principle could never support, but...aren't we pretty much there already? (see: Obama administration) Most in this forum have no objections to giving govt the power to do all kinds of things that are ineffective to begin with but are nonetheless huge blows to civil liberties...why not give them the power to do something to be effective?

That issue aside - would anyone ITT thread actually be bent out of shape or feel empathy solely at the thought of people who commit these kinds of crimes being tortured? I wouldn't.

No, he would have instead shown up with a tank that he is leasing with a stolen credit card and driving with an expired driving license.

We need more regulation.

He killed his dad at home then killed his mother and her classroom. Jesus.

I'm trying to come up with a PVN-approved style response, but I'm not enough of a troll to move goalposts or post strawmen. I can only aspire to be like you, in that way.

What I want the dialog in this thread to look like is, a simple answer to my question: If now is not the time to talk about reasonable gun control legislation, then when?

You haven't answered that. Nor have you actually asked an honest question of your own.

Like cars and swimming pools? And you think the guns for family protection argument is bad? Wow.

Oh, tell me more about this. Because you just made a blanket assertion that guns are bad. Now you're telling me "oh well, maybe not all the time, maybe there are some instances where they're not bad"??? Keep going here.

Oh, so you mean you were just talking out of your ass. I see, yes that makes more sense.

Not sure if your serious.

Im not a big gun control guy, but arming teachers seems terrible on so many levels. I've heard being a teacher can almost be psychological torture at times, I bet at least once a week we would have some teacher whipping out the gun to get the class silent somewhere in the country.

Well, this one killed himself. So not a big deterrent.

.