The NRA Solution is an insult to the Dead

[Kulindahr]

As usual they see no need to ban weapons.

It can't be done. As was posted... in one or another of these threads -- kids in Afghanistan make AK-47s by campfires in caves. People in the US make revolvers in their garages and basements. A good eighty percent of people in nations which have bans ignore them.

Put that together, and add in the evidence that when guns are banned, organized crime finds ways to get or make what they want anyway, and it's self-evident that banning them would be lots of money spent and lots of fanfare to little effect.

[Kulindahr]

I think even gun-nuts actually balk when presented with the crystalized form of what they are ACTUALLY saying in more words and vaguer terms. Because whatever moral notions and social expectations you paint it with, the end result is a police state where everyone is treating everyone else as potential attackers.

No, it's far less a police state than the left is advocating, and one where instead of believing in magic laws keeping us safe people have taken steps to provide for their own safety, from those few who we know are going to strike because they just keep doing it.

[Kulindahr]

There was a lot of confusion in the initial reporting. There was a gun left in the trunk of the car in addition to the two pistols and rifle he carried. The rifle (technically a popularly called assault weapon, it seems an assault rifle is fully automatic military version and this was not) was the primary weapon he used for the killing as confirmed by the coroners report.

His mother was not an full time employee of the school but appears to have occasionally worked there either as a volunteer or substitute but nobody seems real clear on that. There is some speculation, though everything about his motives are very murky at the moment, that he targeted the school out of jealousy of the children getting his mother's attention.

Yes -- "assault rifle" is a term with an actual meaning; "assault weapon" means "whatever guns look scary to me", and so its meaning depends on the speaker.

[Kulindahr]

Yes you are and it isn't for individual liberty if you are proposing guns for people that most likely want nothing to do with them. These people wouldn't have a choice to whether they want to handle a gun or not if what you're suggesting became mandatory. And that would be hypocritical of you.

And you are forcing them when you are trying to use intimidating excuses that if they din't carry a gun they are putting their children at risk.

You're just making stuff up -- you're not talking about what I've said.

And stating reality isn't intimidation. People intimidated by reality have a problem.

[Kulindahr]

The irony that you criticize the Government for treating it is citizens like "cattle" while at the same time running to the constitution when it comes to point out why you are allowed to own a gun.

What irony? The Constitution is supposed to protect us from the government.

[Kulindahr]

On the balance I am marginally thankful for ObamaCare - no, not enthusiastic - it's of course not the SINGLE PAYER system that I had hoped for. (OTOH, would the single payer model work within the rubric of the broken American-style partisan bureaucracy? I don't know how to answer that.)

God help us if we get a "partisan bureaucracy" such as occurred in part of the Byzantine Empire's history, where one faction of bureaucrats actively worked to thwart to thwart another's work....

[Kulindahr]

Actually if you comprehended what I said you would understand it takes a functioning government and therefore republicans embracing Obamacare and making it a working single payer system that provides healthcare to all Americans.

It is obvious by the disgraceful lack of leadership and the banshee like support of the foaming mouthed right wingers has caused a four year stint of one party doing everything it can to hamstring American success and bankrupt her social programs.

But hey as long as you can name it whatever you want... we are in agreement what we need is adequate health care for America paid for by partially by tax monies to ensure accessibility for ALL.

Critical reading means comprehension of all factors and not placing your own assumptions on others. try it out.

I could go for a single-payer system for everyone with mental health issues. Merely dealing with the crap of multiple providers and overlapping insurance and all the crap those generate is enough to kick people into insanity.

[bankside]

Kulindahr, you've not brought one fact to bear on this discussion; it's just a constant stream of NRA prattle.

You can haggle all you want over whether "cultural attitudes" are the real problem or not, but the reality is the US has a numerical gun problem, and it will never be solved by more guns. Every statistic shows that more widespread ownership of guns creates a death problem for that society. Every effort to show the "ineffectiveness" of gun registration only points to the futility of half-measures. Societies that control guns and restrict their prevalence are safer to be in, and more civilized to boot. Your second amendment is a dud. It's bad law, badly interpreted and badly mythologised in what can only be described as a paranoid and short-sighted culture. It bears repeating that anyone who would be willing to live in a community only on condition of being able to shoot his neighbours because he feels a legitimate need to do so, is living in one of Danté's circles of hell. What a pointless and grotesque parody of what a neighbourhood should actually be. The worst condemnation of your country would be to actually convince me you are not paranoid but that your neighbours really do need occasionally to be shot at in self defence.

And that is, to be blunt, "stating reality." I mean Elmer Fudd was not real ffs.

Bottom line, "Gun Nut: NRA Loon in Bizarre Rant Over Newtown" should probably win a Pulitzer for concise reporting - and not just on the state of one loon, but of the entire country that tolerates it.

[Kulindahr]

I almost forgot why i returned here... in my hopefully helpful response to frank and the corrections applied to JB3's errors.



Kuli I would be interested to hear your defense of this video. You will at least have a reasoned response.

I for one could not agree more with the video. I have trained for Close Quarters Shipboard Security for almost my entire career along with other shipboard emergencies such as fires and flooding. Something many folks do not understand about the military is ALL we do is train. Drill after drill after drill. It removes that hesitation being scared out of your fucking skull will do to you. Still people freeze up in crucial moments.

I cannot see how a civilian would react properly without such training.

Already commented in another thread -- wherever you put it.

But briefly, it's bogus because the students were set up for failure. But it does point up some problems....


Okay, I found my response:

I didn't see any evidence they gave those kids proper training. They also set them up with shirts that made it hard to draw.

Ergo, it's bogus.

If you're going to carry concealed, you customize your wardrobe to facilitate access to your weapon -- that's one big error they imposed. But any course on carrying concealed should drill into the students' heads that to try to react immediately is suicide: first you drop and cover, assess the situation, and only then draw and engage. The only time you should even think about reacting the way they had those students do is if there is no cover at all -- but even then there's the possibility of playing dead until you have a chance.

This got me thinking, though, about how far Congress' authority to discipline the militia could be pushed. Would a national law setting standards for concealed carry training fly? If so, I'd suggest the following standards:

• initial training minimum four hours classroom, two hundred rounds firing, two hours tactical
• minimum of two hours per month on the firing range with an instructor available
• annual re-training

Right now I wouldn't qualify to carry, and neither would half the people I know who have concealed licenses. Time to get busy.....

http://www.justusboys.com/forum/thre...=1#post8589247

[Rolyo85]

"Proper training" is given to professionals. In long periods of time. Civilians have... yunno... civilian stuff to do. They have jobs and families that they have to deal with, and going through rigorous military training is just not going to happen.

And will you address the gun death ration difference between civilized "slave/sheep" societies and the States... um... ever? Preferably without propaganda talk about freedom and evil government? I mean, will you explain how exactly are the slave/sheep countries worse off when fewer people get killed in them?

[xbuzzerx]

You're just making stuff up -- you're not talking about what I've said.

And stating reality isn't intimidation. People intimidated by reality have a problem.

Tombastep raised a completely valid point. You're being sufficiently vague to avoid allowing anyone to pin down exactly what you're proposing-- you haven't flat out said everyone, everywhere-- teachers, theater ushers, etc., should be mandated to be trained and carrying firearms for potential situations-- but you've castigated any of them who don't as being irresponsible, not taking their duty seriously, or being dependant and suicidal in expecting that a proper authority like the police should perform this role of public safety.

I don't get how you can say with a straight face that the solution is for armed, trained, responsible, law-abiding people to be carrying guns everywhere including in grade schools and kindergartens, yet shy away from saying this should be a mandated, regulated, properly trained/certified process which would basically involve a huge government bureaucracy overseeing the training and certification of people in firearms to carry to every sort of civilian dayjob-- and requiring those people to do so.

It doesn't make any sense, you're either proposing a huge increase in government regulation of private life insofar as mandating people to carry arms everywhere with the proper training and certification, or you're not. And if you're not, then you haven't proposed a solution at all. Just a bunch of judgments and criticisms about people who don't already do this in all their normal jobs as an ordinary matter of course--- ignoring the fact that carrying guns around is both dangerous and inappropriate in the vast majority of civilian jobs.

[Rolyo85]

This. In addition to avoiding the subject of the sheep/slave countries in Europe.

[tombastep]

You're just making stuff up -- you're not talking about what I've said.

And stating reality isn't intimidation. People intimidated by reality have a problem.

How am I not talking about what you said when you are one who is for arming Teachers? That is what I am talking about and the affects this could have.

What am I making up? I don't think it is far fetched to assume that not every Teacher is going to want to handle a gun one way or the other. And I am not making anything up when it comes to being hypocritical about pushing something like this on Teachers while at the same time going on about individual rights. If you have a right to bear arms, fine but not everyone wants to and that is also fine and their right.

My comment isn't talking about people intimidated by reality. I am talking about your emotional intimidation to try and make it sound convincing that one is gambling lives because they don't want to own a gun or don't feel the gun is the solution for protection. You are making someone feel guilty because they don't feel that way and you're attempting to influence them to the way you think.

What irony? The Constitution is supposed to protect us from the government.

I explained it very clearly, you can keep dodging if you want I am not going to repeat it.

[bankside]

People do not need to be protected from their government. It is theirs. It is of themselves. People need to have their government protected from falling into the hands of tyrants. But the principle remains that one of the methods of exercising freedom is to establish a government that governs.

[frankfrank]

Wrong. Jerry Garcia died from a heart attack. His death had nothing to do with guns.

The NRA Solution is an insult to the Dead

[Jack Springer]

Wrong. Jerry Garcia died from a heart attack. His death had nothing to do with guns.

It just had to do with drugs, drugs, and more drugs.

[xbuzzerx]

It just had to do with drugs, drugs, and more drugs.

This sounds made up out of thin air. He was also older and overweight. Both preconditions for heart attacks.

[Kulindahr]

"Proper training" is given to professionals. In long periods of time. Civilians have... yunno... civilian stuff to do. They have jobs and families that they have to deal with, and going through rigorous military training is just not going to happen.

And will you address the gun death ration difference between civilized "slave/sheep" societies and the States... um... ever? Preferably without propaganda talk about freedom and evil government? I mean, will you explain how exactly are the slave/sheep countries worse off when fewer people get killed in them?

I'll address that when you admit that the difference is not the presence of guns.

[Kulindahr]

Tombastep raised a completely valid point. You're being sufficiently vague to avoid allowing anyone to pin down exactly what you're proposing-- you haven't flat out said everyone, everywhere-- teachers, theater ushers, etc., should be mandated to be trained and carrying firearms for potential situations-- but you've castigated any of them who don't as being irresponsible, not taking their duty seriously, or being dependant and suicidal in expecting that a proper authority like the police should perform this role of public safety.

I don't get how you can say with a straight face that the solution is for armed, trained, responsible, law-abiding people to be carrying guns everywhere including in grade schools and kindergartens, yet shy away from saying this should be a mandated, regulated, properly trained/certified process which would basically involve a huge government bureaucracy overseeing the training and certification of people in firearms to carry to every sort of civilian dayjob-- and requiring those people to do so.

It doesn't make any sense, you're either proposing a huge increase in government regulation of private life insofar as mandating people to carry arms everywhere with the proper training and certification, or you're not. And if you're not, then you haven't proposed a solution at all. Just a bunch of judgments and criticisms about people who don't already do this in all their normal jobs as an ordinary matter of course--- ignoring the fact that carrying guns around is both dangerous and inappropriate in the vast majority of civilian jobs.

Already done.

And I get tired of repeating myself for people who lie about what I've said and can't even keep basic concepts straight.

[Kulindahr]

How am I not talking about what you said when you are one who is for arming Teachers? That is what I am talking about and the affects this could have.

What am I making up? I don't think it is far fetched to assume that not every Teacher is going to want to handle a gun one way or the other. And I am not making anything up when it comes to being hypocritical about pushing something like this on Teachers while at the same time going on about individual rights. If you have a right to bear arms, fine but not everyone wants to and that is also fine and their right.

What you're making up is in the phrase in bold.

Besides which, Congress could pass a law requiring teachers to be armed and it would be perfectly constitutional: they are part of the militia, and the Congress has authority over the militia. Requiring the militia who work at schools to be armed in order to keep school shootings from happening is completely legitimate.

My comment isn't talking about people intimidated by reality. I am talking about your emotional intimidation to try and make it sound convincing that one is gambling lives because they don't want to own a gun or don't feel the gun is the solution for protection. You are making someone feel guilty because they don't feel that way and you're attempting to influence them to the way you think.

Having a firearm and training with it gives a high likelihood of being able to stop a shooter at a school.
Stopping a shooter would protect the students.

Knowing those two things and choosing no to be armed is a conscious choice to not protect one's students.

I explained it very clearly, you can keep dodging if you want I am not going to repeat it.

You haven't explained a thing. You keep stating things that go together and calling it irony. It's like seeing that a friend who likes peanut butter and jelly sandwiches keeps the peanut butter right by the jelly and calling it irony.

[Kulindahr]

People do not need to be protected from their government. It is theirs. It is of themselves. People need to have their government protected from falling into the hands of tyrants. But the principle remains that one of the methods of exercising freedom is to establish a government that governs.

There are so many egregious instances every month collected by REASON magazine of people being abused, persecuted, hounded, betrayed, and so on by their own government that they have to choose which ones to print or fill the entire magazine. In this over-regulated society where most law is actually generated by faceless bureaucrats, citizens need protection from their government on a regular basis. For that matter, lower government needs protection from upper government; at least twice this last year, our county commissioners found themselves faced with a situation that the only choices the State of Oregon allowed them on a certain matter would put them in violation of federal requirements -- but to not act would have put them in violation of both! On another matter, it cost the county tens of thousands in legal fees to get an error in FEMA floodplain mapping corrected -- an error FEMA refused to admit was an error until a judge threatened action, at which point they suddenly "realized" what had been obvious to people here all along. And the county was going to bat to protect people from the federal government, because the maps as FEMA originally "certified" them would have put dozens of companies out of business and caused a pile of environmental problems.

The government will not be ours until all legislative power is returned to Congress and the state legislatures, and the commerce clause stuffed back into its proper jacket.

[Rolyo85]

It is really quite simple - the right to bear arms means also the right to NOT bear arms. If one can't be infringed, than neither can the other.

[tombastep]

What you're making up is in the phrase in bold.

Besides which, Congress could pass a law requiring teachers to be armed and it would be perfectly constitutional: they are part of the militia, and the Congress has authority over the militia. Requiring the militia who work at schools to be armed in order to keep school shootings from happening is completely legitimate.

It isn't made up you just avoid an actual answer to it. You haven't said anything that proves that it is made up. Running around claiming people should have individual rights while proposing something that forces ones rights over another is hypocritical. How am I making this up? Are you claiming that every Teacher would be in favor of this and want to carry a gun? That is highly doubtful.

Having a firearm and training with it gives a high likelihood of being able to stop a shooter at a school.
Stopping a shooter would protect the students.

Knowing those two things and choosing no to be armed is a conscious choice to not protect one's students.

You missed the point or are pretending to so you don't have to answer it.

You haven't explained a thing. You keep stating things that go together and calling it irony. It's like seeing that a friend who likes peanut butter and jelly sandwiches keeps the peanut butter right by the jelly and calling it irony.

You haven't explained anything, you keep repeating the same points being made from the beginning when I already addressed them and pointed out why they are a problem. All you do is avoid because you don't have an answer for it. You are a child in class who looks around the classroom dumbfounded when called on because you were too busy doing something else instead of paying attention.

[rareboy]

It isn't made up you just avoid an actual answer to it. You haven't said anything that proves that it is made up. Running around claiming people should have individual rights while proposing something that forces ones rights over another is hypocritical. How am I making this up? Are you claiming that every Teacher would be in favor of this and want to carry a gun? That is highly doubtful.



You missed the point or are pretending to so you don't have to answer it.



You haven't explained anything, you keep repeating the same points being made from the beginning when I already addressed them and pointed out why they are a problem. All you do is avoid because you don't have an answer for it. You are a child in class who looks around the classroom dumbfounded when called on because you were too busy doing something else instead of paying attention.

It is not only highly doubtful....from the liability standpoint is is just an absurd notion.

It doesn't take much to understand that the vast majority of teachers will not be in favour of packing heat in the classroom. They are teachers, not your kids' bodyguards.

The idea that they would be required to carry and store a weapon in the classroom is an anathema to the many teachers that I have sounded out on this subject over the last few weeks at the various parties, gatherings and online discussions. Maybe one in ten (if that) has said that it might be needed in US schools....but oddly enough, it was because they are more worried about protection from one of their colleagues than from some outsider massacring their students.

The right to bear arms is not an obligation to bear arms.

[bankside]

There is no self-evident right to deadly weaponry that flows from natural justice. i.e. the American constitution is wrong. There is a right to self-defence - an entirely different thing, with incredibly different consequences for a society and for the death rate within it.

[xbuzzerx]

Already done.

And I get tired of repeating myself for people who lie about what I've said and can't even keep basic concepts straight.

You aren't listening. You throw out vague, ambiguous judgments and 'suggestions' which you then immediately spin around and accuse us of being emotional liars for accepting at face value.

Why don't you lay out your plan, clearly and concisely, with no wiggle room. I've seen you say everything from get rid of laws banning guns in classrooms to teachers should be armed to volunteer Minutemen type people should be posted in schools to everything else. I have no idea what your solution is. I only know that whenever I repeat anything YOU HAVE SAID, you come back and say I'm lying. So explain what your solution is, and don't give me this lame excuse about "you're tired of repeating yourself", you've never once been clear, you spend most of your responses telling people they're "lying" or "aren't reading" when they repeat what they believe you have proposed.

[xbuzzerx]

The right to bear arms is not an obligation to bear arms.

This.

Though I'm waiting for us to be called liars, again, for pointing out that Kul's suggestions have all basically led us to the conclusion that he's saying it's everyone's obligation to be armed and ready for combat in their normal day to day life.

[Rolyo85]

You aren't listening. You throw out vague, ambiguous judgments and 'suggestions' which you then immediately spin around and accuse us of being emotional liars for accepting at face value.

Why don't you lay out your plan, clearly and concisely, with no wiggle room. I've seen you say everything from get rid of laws banning guns in classrooms to teachers should be armed to volunteer Minutemen type people should be posted in schools to everything else. I have no idea what your solution is. I only know that whenever I repeat anything YOU HAVE SAID, you come back and say I'm lying. So explain what your solution is, and don't give me this lame excuse about "you're tired of repeating yourself", you've never once been clear, you spend most of your responses telling people they're "lying" or "aren't reading" when they repeat what they believe you have proposed.

I second that.

[Kulindahr]

It is really quite simple - the right to bear arms means also the right to NOT bear arms. If one can't be infringed, than neither can the other.

Exactly. But what is this supposed to be a comment on?

[Kulindahr]

It isn't made up you just avoid an actual answer to it. You haven't said anything that proves that it is made up. Running around claiming people should have individual rights while proposing something that forces ones rights over another is hypocritical. How am I making this up?

You did it again.

[Kulindahr]

It is not only highly doubtful....from the liability standpoint is is just an absurd notion.

It doesn't take much to understand that the vast majority of teachers will not be in favour of packing heat in the classroom. They are teachers, not your kids' bodyguards.

The idea that they would be required to carry and store a weapon in the classroom is an anathema to the many teachers that I have sounded out on this subject over the last few weeks at the various parties, gatherings and online discussions. Maybe one in ten (if that) has said that it might be needed in US schools....but oddly enough, it was because they are more worried about protection from one of their colleagues than from some outsider massacring their students.

It sounds as though there are an awful lot of teachers out there who don't belong in a classroom. Any teacher who seems a threat to other teachers should be fired immediately, but from your report, all those teachers know someone like that.

The right to bear arms is not an obligation to bear arms.

Right. But since Congress has authority over the militia, this is very arguable if a law called for it.

[Kulindahr]

There is no self-evident right to deadly weaponry that flows from natural justice. i.e. the American constitution is wrong. There is a right to self-defence - an entirely different thing, with incredibly different consequences for a society and for the death rate within it.

The right includes the means. To assert that someone can tell others what those means may be restricted to is to make those others into slaves. The only rational limitation others may impose on someone's selection of means is to say it must not inherently endanger bystanders -- that's why the ban on automatic weapons is legitimate, if wrongly done; it's also why a limitation on the free use of large-capacity magazines would be legitimate.

[tombastep]

You did it again.

Then explain to me what I am making up. You say this over and over but you aren't willing to explain anything at all.

If you are proposing that Teachers should carry because of incidents like this, are you proposing that it should be mandatory for Teachers to carry? Because if you are then that is what I am arguing. If it isn't, then state it instead of saying I am making stuff up and dodging the point by stating Teachers that don't carry don't care for protection of the kids.

I have been very clear and there are people who have understood what I have said. Apparently you are the only one that doesn't and just resort to just trying to slap my argument down by saying I am making things up.

I have asked you questions, because you can't answer those questions doesn't mean I am making anything up. If you're going to selectively cherry pick things to answer then maybe you shouldn't be in a discussion when you can't back up your own points or opinions.

[tombastep]

It sounds as though there are an awful lot of teachers out there who don't belong in a classroom. Any teacher who seems a threat to other teachers should be fired immediately, but from your report, all those teachers know someone like that.

What an incredibly ridiculous statement to make. A Teacher who wants to Teach instead of standing guard doesn't belong in a classroom? Really?

[Kulindahr]

You aren't listening. You throw out vague, ambiguous judgments and 'suggestions' which you then immediately spin around and accuse us of being emotional liars for accepting at face value.

Why don't you lay out your plan, clearly and concisely, with no wiggle room. I've seen you say everything from get rid of laws banning guns in classrooms to teachers should be armed to volunteer Minutemen type people should be posted in schools to everything else. I have no idea what your solution is. I only know that whenever I repeat anything YOU HAVE SAID, you come back and say I'm lying. So explain what your solution is, and don't give me this lame excuse about "you're tired of repeating yourself", you've never once been clear, you spend most of your responses telling people they're "lying" or "aren't reading" when they repeat what they believe you have proposed.

Apparently you didn't read it before:

short version of my proposals:

1. on the "last resort" end, arm willing teachers; all information concerning who is armed and who isn't, at which schools, is confidential, so would-be shooters can't know ahead of time if they'll manage their 'blaze of gory' or get taken out promptly

2. use Congress Art I Sec 8 authority to discipline and organize the militia to specify that while magazines of over twenty rounds capacity may be owned, they are to be stored and used only at a gun club, shooting range, or other such facility, except for competition events

3. authorize all colleges and other public institutions to report individuals deemed dangerous, and require that reporting if federal funds are being received, to the NICS system so a flag will prevent the person from buying firearms

4. open the NICS system to all sellers, whether dealers or not

5. begin federal funding for mental health care aimed at restoring levels to whatever maximum a given locale had in the last thirty years, plus adding ten thousand beds in "casual care" facilities, to which the mentally ill can be diverted instead of sent to jail, and where people feeling destructive can drop in for refuge



As an addendum to #1, I'd like a bill to include that the NRA is the designated training organization, something for which it will receive only Congressional thanks -- no funds -- and that teachers may be charged no more than $10 per course. It would never fly, but I'd love to see the faces of LaPierre and his ilk if they got required to actually help instead of grandstand.

Regarding #2, there's a whole discourse on the militia concept integral to the Second Amendment involved; suffice it to say that under that system, militias (and individuals) could have weapons considered not appropriate for common (everyday) use, but they had to be stored at an arsenal. We don't have arsenals, but gun clubs can take their place.

For #5, I know there's no chance Congress will do that, but if they don't, the rest is pointless.

[bankside]

The right includes the means. To assert that someone can tell others what those means may be restricted to is to make those others into slaves. The only rational limitation others may impose on someone's selection of means is to say it must not inherently endanger bystanders -- that's why the ban on automatic weapons is legitimate, if wrongly done; it's also why a limitation on the free use of large-capacity magazines would be legitimate.

The gun itself endangers bystanders. And the hyperbolic nonsense about slavery just sounds like LaPierre. Please keep talking; it's unintentionally good for the debate.

[xbuzzerx]

1. on the "last resort" end, arm willing teachers; all information concerning who is armed and who isn't, at which schools, is confidential, so would-be shooters can't know ahead of time if they'll manage their 'blaze of gory' or get taken out promptly

And what would be your proposed fallback plan if 80, 90, 95% of teachers opted not to carry in the classroom for the whole host of reasons people have given? (The biggest one to me beyond their desire not to would be liability, if a student steals a teacher's key and gets into their guns who is responsible? No teacher will want to deal with that kind of liability imo.)

2. use Congress Art I Sec 8 authority to discipline and organize the militia to specify that while magazines of over twenty rounds capacity may be owned, they are to be stored and used only at a gun club, shooting range, or other such facility, except for competition events

I'm sure someone about to take out a classroom or movie theater will respect this law that he can't use his high capacity ammo clips because he's not intending to do his shooting in a gun club or shooting range.

3. authorize all colleges and other public institutions to report individuals deemed dangerous, and require that reporting if federal funds are being received, to the NICS system so a flag will prevent the person from buying firearms

I am not against this per se and actually I believe to a fairly high degree this already happens whether it's required by law or not, but let's be clear. Not everyone was someone who gave everyone around them ample time to realize they were dangerous-- VA Tech for example, who really didn't have many friends and wasn't close with his roommate and suddenly went off his anti-psychotic medications. Let's also be clear that the sort of witch hunting that tends to go on after these accusations turns into those stories where kids get expelled because they pointed a finger at a classmate and said "bang" or "brandished a stapler like a weapon while playing." Overreactions do happen and I get the feeling in other circumstances you'd be against someone being called upon to prove their clean mental state or psychological state because a classmate or colleague labelled them dangerous.

4. open the NICS system to all sellers, whether dealers or not

5. begin federal funding for mental health care aimed at restoring levels to whatever maximum a given locale had in the last thirty years, plus adding ten thousand beds in "casual care" facilities, to which the mentally ill can be diverted instead of sent to jail, and where people feeling destructive can drop in for refuge

While these are good suggestions the scuttlebutt I've heard is that what kicked off Newtown's killing starting with the shooter's mother was the mother talking about committing her son because of his mental issues. The VA Tech shooter was getting psychiatric help. So if we say "there's more healthcare out there", how does that help prevent situations like these two where the killing happens before the help process starts, or even AFTER they're already receiving help? How does it address that people this mentally ill have access to high capacity semiautomatics and ammo clips?

[Kulindahr]

And what would be your proposed fallback plan if 80, 90, 95% of teachers opted not to carry in the classroom for the whole host of reasons people have given? (The biggest one to me beyond their desire not to would be liability, if a student steals a teacher's key and gets into their guns who is responsible? No teacher will want to deal with that kind of liability imo.)

If there are two or three in each school, that would be a vast improvement. The big point is that a potential mass shooter is going to hesitate to attack a school because there would be a good chance someone there would be able to kill him right off, ruining his bloody scene, and he'd have no way to tell who -- so unless he was dead set on shooting at a school, odds are he'd choose another place.

The idea would be for the teacher to engage in concealed carry. If some wanted to store the firearm in their desks, number-pad combination locks should be supplied -- there are a couple of good ones that use a five-digit sequences that has to be entered in the right order.

I'm sure someone about to take out a classroom or movie theater will respect this law that he can't use his high capacity ammo clips because he's not intending to do his shooting in a gun club or shooting range.

He wouldn't have a choice -- the only place he could even have a high-capacity magazine in his possession would be at the facility where it's stored. For buying one, the facility's address would have to be given and it would be delivered there, not to the buyer to take along. He wouldn't be able to break into a home to get one for the same reason: all large capacity magazines would be at approved facilities, under penalty of law (whether misdemeanor or felony would depend on details).

I am not against this per se and actually I believe to a fairly high degree this already happens whether it's required by law or not, but let's be clear. Not everyone was someone who gave everyone around them ample time to realize they were dangerous-- VA Tech for example, who really didn't have many friends and wasn't close with his roommate and suddenly went off his anti-psychotic medications. Let's also be clear that the sort of witch hunting that tends to go on after these accusations turns into those stories where kids get expelled because they pointed a finger at a classmate and said "bang" or "brandished a stapler like a weapon while playing." Overreactions do happen and I get the feeling in other circumstances you'd be against someone being called upon to prove their clean mental state or psychological state because a classmate or colleague labelled them dangerous.

It doesn't happen, because there's no mechanism under the law for the NICS to get or pay attention to such data.

But it would have nothing to do with a "classmate or colleague", it would have to do with the institution , as where the college expelled the Arizona shooter because he was considered dangerous. I don't know what their process was, but plainly it was a formal and official one. So this would be a matter of a person clearly showing himself a danger in such a way that it came to official notice and was determined by official investigation.

While these are good suggestions the scuttlebutt I've heard is that what kicked off Newtown's killing starting with the shooter's mother was the mother talking about committing her son because of his mental issues. The VA Tech shooter was getting psychiatric help. So if we say "there's more healthcare out there", how does that help prevent situations like these two where the killing happens before the help process starts, or even AFTER they're already receiving help? How does it address that people this mentally ill have access to high capacity semiautomatics and ammo clips?

With a decent basic system in place, the mother could have just taken him for an evaluation without giving any warning that was what she was doing. The problem here was that she had to hunt for how to do it, then plan ahead, which let him be warned.

A decent system would also have allowed these guys to get care earlier and given them a good chance to get stable before reaching such extreme straits.

And with the above provisions, they wouldn't be able to have access to the high capacity magazines for public use. Besides which, they only have "access" now by theft.

[andysayshi]

If there are two or three in each school, that would be a vast improvement. The big point is that a potential mass shooter is going to hesitate to attack a school because there would be a good chance someone there would be able to kill him right off, ruining his bloody scene, and he'd have no way to tell who -- so unless he was dead set on shooting at a school, odds are he'd choose another place.

You seem to be applying some kind of maniacal, calculated Dr Evil-style persona to these shooters, but the vast majority of mass shootings occur in a venue relevant to the shooter, usually motivated by revenge, anger, displacement, dismissal etc. And generally they walk into these places with the knowledge that they won't be walking out alive. They aren't going to be dissuaded because a few teachers may have guns. If anything, it may even stimulate the act of anger or revenge more. They're walking into a place to make a statement. Guns are not going to dissuade a shooter who wants to wreak havoc on the people he blames for his troubled life.

[JB3]

People do not need to be protected from their government. It is theirs. It is of themselves. People need to have their government protected from falling into the hands of tyrants. But the principle remains that one of the methods of exercising freedom is to establish a government that governs.

You apparently haven't read any of the founding documents of the United States or the documents that they used as the basis for their philosophies. They state precisely that people need to be protected from their government, and the constitution exists precisely to do that.

[JB3]

There is no self-evident right to deadly weaponry that flows from natural justice. i.e. the American constitution is wrong. There is a right to self-defence - an entirely different thing, with incredibly different consequences for a society and for the death rate within it.

The constitution is not wrong. Your understanding of it is.

[JB3]

Right... were you on planet earth when the democrats were pushing a single payer plan and got all kinds of throw back from the conservatives who pretended at that point that they were going to be big grown up legislators.

So that all aside your method for increased mental health services works out to what exactly?

I mean anyone can offer ideas they find absurd to implement but the difficulty is finding something both sides will agree to and can accomplish the required service. So what say you? Besides saying what every everyone is saying. You know, that we need better health care but only in the mental health portion.

What a fucking joke.

The throw back didn't matter. The democrats had the votes to pass it.

[JB3]

Let's be clear that nearly all of the shortcomings of the program were the result of nearly 4 years of Republican filibustering and dealbreaking after being repeatedly given concessions in the bill that they demanded.

You don't get to support the Republican party and then criticize a bill that is weaker than progressives wanted it to be because of REpublican filibustering. Some logic, please.

Who's supporting the republican party? I really would like to know where you're pulling that lie from. They fucked with a process just to fuck with it. The democratic proposal, single payer and all, would have not only been preferable to what we actually got, but also preferable to any of the republican counter proposals. Every single legislator that voted for the final bill, or refused to support a bill that actually fixed the system, deserves our scorn.

[tombastep]

I'm sure someone about to take out a classroom or movie theater will respect this law that he can't use his high capacity ammo clips because he's not intending to do his shooting in a gun club or shooting range.

It's funny to me that the same people who argue against more laws or restrictions say so because they say criminals will obtain the guns anyway, but at the same time arguing for Teachers or armed Guards at schools. Realizing that this wouldn't completely stop shootings, only deter them. Which is in fact what laws and restrictions would do.

[xbuzzerx]

Who's supporting the republican party? I really would like to know where you're pulling that lie from. They fucked with a process just to fuck with it. The democratic proposal, single payer and all, would have not only been preferable to what we actually got, but also preferable to any of the republican counter proposals. Every single legislator that voted for the final bill, or refused to support a bill that actually fixed the system, deserves our scorn.

You've apparently missed my point which is that the only reason we didn't get a better healthcare bill was because Republicans spent almost 4 years engaging in 100% "we're against anything Obama is for, let's make him a one-term President who accomplished nothing" and not because they had legitimate, sensible, or reasonable problems with the better healthcare proposal.

How is that infantile style of obstructionism Obama's fault exactly?

[xbuzzerx]

If there are two or three in each school, that would be a vast improvement. The big point is that a potential mass shooter is going to hesitate to attack a school because there would be a good chance someone there would be able to kill him right off, ruining his bloody scene, and he'd have no way to tell who -- so unless he was dead set on shooting at a school, odds are he'd choose another place.

The idea would be for the teacher to engage in concealed carry. If some wanted to store the firearm in their desks, number-pad combination locks should be supplied -- there are a couple of good ones that use a five-digit sequences that has to be entered in the right order.

#1 You're ignoring the fact that many schools-- possibly even most-- would still have no armed teacher-vigilantes in a 100% voluntary carry system.

#2 I fail to see how a gun secured in a combination lock is a practical defense against someone walking into the room and firing.

He wouldn't have a choice -- the only place he could even have a high-capacity magazine in his possession would be at the facility where it's stored. For buying one, the facility's address would have to be given and it would be delivered there, not to the buyer to take along. He wouldn't be able to break into a home to get one for the same reason: all large capacity magazines would be at approved facilities, under penalty of law (whether misdemeanor or felony would depend on details).

So this would limit public spree killers to how many weapons they could carry with standard ammo clips, perhaps cutting the number killed in large sprees from pushing 30 to pushing what.... 20?

If semiautomatic guns THEMSELVES had to be kept at these approved facilities when not in use the whole ability to carry out a spree shooting dramatically drops off, doesn't it?

But it would have nothing to do with a "classmate or colleague", it would have to do with the institution , as where the college expelled the Arizona shooter because he was considered dangerous. I don't know what their process was, but plainly it was a formal and official one. So this would be a matter of a person clearly showing himself a danger in such a way that it came to official notice and was determined by official investigation.

This doesn't address the issue I raised of what if the space of time between someone appearing dangerous and carrying out their spree is too short for an official response from the institution in question-- again, see Virginia Tech.

With a decent basic system in place, the mother could have just taken him for an evaluation without giving any warning that was what she was doing. The problem here was that she had to hunt for how to do it, then plan ahead, which let him be warned.

A decent system would also have allowed these guys to get care earlier and given them a good chance to get stable before reaching such extreme straits.

And with the above provisions, they wouldn't be able to have access to the high capacity magazines for public use. Besides which, they only have "access" now by theft.

I don't disagree with you that this is true. However the Virginia Tech student WAS receiving help, and went off his meds-- and many mentally ill people do this from time to time for any variety of reasons. I've heard everything from "The meds taste bad" to "I don't like how I feel on them" to "they decrease my sex drive" to "I just don't like being dependant on meds" to "I was feeling better.." And others. The answers you're giving me wouldn't have stopped even VA Tech let alone a future spree killing so that's why despite your constant claims that I'm not listening to you, these responses and solutions just aren't cutting it for me.

[Kulindahr]

#1 You're ignoring the fact that many schools-- possibly even most-- would still have no armed teacher-vigilantes in a 100% voluntary carry system.

I addressed this elsewhere. We'd just have to hope that the first guy who decided to risk hitting a school anyway would hit one with a couple of armed teachers who would take him down before he killed more than a couple of people -- that would ramp up the psychological deterrent.

#2 I fail to see how a gun secured in a combination lock is a practical defense against someone walking into the room and firing.

It's not, very, but you suggested it. I specified a keypad combination because one can be opened and defense weapon in hand within two seconds plus whatever it takes the teacher to get to the desk, if she isn't at it.

I also like something a friend told me about: someone has designed decorative Kevlar covers for several standard styles of school chairs -- it would be one more thing no bullets would go through. The same piece recommended a kind of window glass that has high-strength, very fine steel wire inside so even if someone shot out the glass, entry wouldn't be possible (the drawback of course being that exit would be more difficult in emergencies). I can't see schools going to the expense of replacing all their windows, but as some windows needed it they could do the upgrade.

So this would limit public spree killers to how many weapons they could carry with standard ammo clips, perhaps cutting the number killed in large sprees from pushing 30 to pushing what.... 20?

If semiautomatic guns THEMSELVES had to be kept at these approved facilities when not in use the whole ability to carry out a spree shooting dramatically drops off, doesn't it?

Requiring all semiautos to be stored at approved facilities wouldn't fly with the courts; it would be deemed an unreasonable burden. High-capacity magazines are a different matter, because a semiauto doesn't need one to be useful for self-defense.

And there is no way on this green earth that limiting magazine size to under sixteen is going to happen in the near future, so there's no point in trying -- remember "the art of the possible". If the high-capacity magazine storage law got passed and upheld, maybe in ten years raising the issue of storing all semiautos there might have a chance, but not now.

This doesn't address the issue I raised of what if the space of time between someone appearing dangerous and carrying out their spree is too short for an official response from the institution in question-- again, see Virginia Tech.

I don't disagree with you that this is true. However the Virginia Tech student WAS receiving help, and went off his meds-- and many mentally ill people do this from time to time for any variety of reasons. I've heard everything from "The meds taste bad" to "I don't like how I feel on them" to "they decrease my sex drive" to "I just don't like being dependant on meds" to "I was feeling better.." And others. The answers you're giving me wouldn't have stopped even VA Tech let alone a future spree killing so that's why despite your constant claims that I'm not listening to you, these responses and solutions just aren't cutting it for me.

There is no magic solution to any of this. But as with the budget problem, if we sit around whining for a complete solution, we'll never get anywhere. What I'm looking at is what could be done, now, within the concept of militia, because doing it that way will give it a darned good chance of standing up in the courts despite Wayne LaPierre and his elite parasites.

The situation at Virginia Tech and elsewhere is why the last ditch solution has to be part of the deal: if someone is there to shoot back, his spree won't go as long -- with, of course, proper training, which is why somewhere else I put out a training scheme requiring annual retraining and regular practice, etc. for concealed carry licenses.

[Rolyo85]

You apparently haven't read any of the founding documents of the United States or the documents that they used as the basis for their philosophies. They state precisely that people need to be protected from their government, and the constitution exists precisely to do that.

There have been a good 200+ years of societal evolution (including the fall of open imperialism, the rise and fall of Communism and two World Wars) since then, so what those documents say about protection from the government is about as relevant as what the Bible has to say about gays.

[Rolyo85]

So, yeah, I am gonna quote that, because Kuli skipped it:

It's funny to me that the same people who argue against more laws or restrictions say so because they say criminals will obtain the guns anyway, but at the same time arguing for Teachers or armed Guards at schools. Realizing that this wouldn't completely stop shootings, only deter them. Which is in fact what laws and restrictions would do.

Does the answer boil down to "yeah, but I'd still have my gun"?

By the way, with 95% refusal to carry guns, there would be vast territories of the country with no guns in a school at all. And as was already stated, the mindset of a suicidal mass shooter is not at all certain to be deterred by the knowledge of their presence to begin with. Those aren't some Dr Evil schemes, they're irrational rage-sprees that care very little for logistics.

[xbuzzerx]

Okay I'm holding my head in pain. Kul, seriously, we're talking about building things in school out of kevlar and installing keypad-controlled storage lockers for guns for teachers on school campuses and then hoping for the best.

Can you explain to me how this is a more sensible solution than stopping crazy people who can't pass background or mental health checks from buying guns and ammo.

It's not a sensible solution unless someone is working backwards from the pre-conclusion that we absolutely must at all costs not restrict firearms more than they already are. And I see absolutely no compelling reason whatsoever why any solution must pass through that goalpost for anyone other than you.