The NRA Solution is an insult to the Dead

[chance1]

And not too long ago, we had the same "studies" and baseless accusations about Comicbooks. They will always be looking for a scape goat.

Civilized life has grown altogether too tame, and, if it is to be stable, it must provide harmless outlets for the impulses which our remote ancestors satisfied in hunting. (Bertrand Russell Nobel Lecture, Dec. 11th 1950)

scape goat

what an inappropriate term

jews in germany were scapegoats

videogames are not scapegoats

as for comic books - they're static - u read them - there's no killing by the reader

many videogames glorify violence - w/o consequence - it's sick

http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/famil...ids/index.html

[Corny]

Inappropriate? Why? English might not be my first language, but I do know the words

a : one that bears the blame for others
b : one that is the object of irrational hostility

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scapegoat

Also see the examples for its usage.

[JayHawk]

The only thing Sandy Hook having a armed security type person there would have done is added that persons name to the list of dead. A officer of the law is not impervious to bullets. A person KNOWING that someone like that existed would ensure they went there first. The armed police office at Columbine engaged the two killers TWICE and still how many people died?

Every mall has security. How many mall shootings have you read about.

Today they laid to rest two police officers who were shot in the line of duty in Topeka. They carried guns, knew there was a threat every day and were shot to death with those guns in their holsters.


The point is that guards are not the answer to this problem.

[Peterdragin]

The answer is simple, just put your TRUST in GOD and pray that it will not happen again. He'll jump right on it!

[rareboy]

The only thing Sandy Hook having a armed security type person there would have done is added that persons name to the list of dead. A officer of the law is not impervious to bullets. A person KNOWING that someone like that existed would ensure they went there first. The armed police office at Columbine engaged the two killers TWICE and still how many people died?

Every mall has security. How many mall shootings have you read about.

Today they laid to rest two police officers who were shot in the line of duty in Topeka. They carried guns, knew there was a threat every day and were shot to death with those guns in their holsters.


The point is that guards are not the answer to this problem.

sigh.

This.

This is why La Pierre's statement is so unbefuckinglievably offensive...not only to the dead and the families and friends of the dead at Sandyhook...but honest to Christ people....when I listened and then read the remarks...I actually did almost get sick to my stomach because he seemed to be somehow insulting all the dead....and their families.....and the two armed officers who were at Columbine that day......it was just like he had taken a semi-automatic weapon and opened fire on the sensibilities and emotions of everyone.

And now he's going to spend the Sunday before Christmas appearing on Meet the Press to try to justify his remarks.


This man is garbage, Human garbage.

[chance1]

The only thing Sandy Hook having a armed security type person there would have done is added that persons name to the list of dead. A officer of the law is not impervious to bullets. A person KNOWING that someone like that existed would ensure they went there first. The armed police office at Columbine engaged the two killers TWICE and still how many people died?

Every mall has security. How many mall shootings have you read about.

Today they laid to rest two police officers who were shot in the line of duty in Topeka. They carried guns, knew there was a threat every day and were shot to death with those guns in their holsters.


The point is that guards are not the answer to this problem.

More faux certainty

So now the argument is having a gun having security is no security at all

Because having a gun is ideological poison

[andysayshi]

I think the point is that we KNOW, through observable evidence, that placing armed guards in a given location does not guarantee a massacre won't take place.

We also know, through observable evidence, that restricting weaponry reduces death tolls. This is true state-to-state in the US, and it is true internationally.

There's no faux certainty here. There is observable scientific evidence that gun restrictions are more effective than armed guards at reducing gun deaths.

[JayHawk]

What is a faux reality is when you lose an argument and therefore must resort to fantastical theory. We saw it in the trouncing Mitt Romney took that the true ideologues could not grasp therefore they created an alternate reality devoid of facts. We saw it when science pulled the rug out from under creation theory. We see it when demonstrative proof shows praying away the gay doesn't work. In fact, that sort of thing does more harm than help besides not 'curing' homosexuality. We see it now. Their desire to make reality match there ideology requires a suspension of disbelief. It is all the republican party holds as a value anymore.

[Kulindahr]

I am a gamer and I've never heard of such a game. Do you have any sources for this? I'm curious. It's not a mainstream project.

By the way, people didn't "sweep" the videogame violence thing "under the rug", it's just laughable and a classic go-to topic for old ladies who have no idea of how human psychology works. Suspension of disbelief is a part of every mentally healthy individual's psyche and if a videogame can influence you to kill people, then you are already damaged to the point that something WILL influence you to kill people one way or the other.

There was a study done on the topic of children and violence a few years back that tracked what their daily activities were instead of just sticking to games of violence. The results were interesting especially for the activity that most highly correlated with the study subjects engaging in real violence. It was one that no one had ever guessed: watching the evening news.

Playing games of violence wasn't even close in the degree of correlation.

[Kulindahr]

Okay.. well I have a question for you Kuli that i just read on Huffington Post i think...

Columbine had an armed police officer on duty at the school.

Go back and read that again.

Now tell me what does hiring 25000 peace officers do if it is already proven NOT to solve the problem?

That's why I'd rather arm the teachers. When you put someone there in uniform, you may as well paint a target on him/her saying, "Shoot me first! Then do what you want!"

This is why concealed carry is more a deterrent to crime than open carry. If everyone who wanted to carry a weapon had to wear it where it was visible, criminals would know who to avoid. With concealed carry, the criminal has no way to tell who is armed, and so tends to play it safe and switch to crimes where/when no one else is around.

If teachers could carry, there would be a deterrent even for schools which didn't have any armed, so long as they didn't advertise it. Anyone deciding he wants to kill a lot of people would know that at a school there would be good odds someone would shoot back, ruining the shooting spree perhaps even before it really started.

[Kulindahr]

Keep in mind most of these shooters end up killing themselves. The idea that they will be scared be scared of an armed guard when they don't fear death is absurd.

They won't be scared, except of the presence of an armed guard meaning they might not get to shoot many people.

[Kulindahr]

It's a question of chicken and the egg.

Some studies might show that people who play violent video games and watch violent movies are more likely to become violent.

But for all we know it's simply people with a more violent nature who seek this material more than the average person.

That's what you get when the only thing you have is correlation.

I think this type of material is more likely to effect how violence is executed... but not so much the amount of it.

Now that's an interesting notion!

This is an example of pro-gun ideology trumping rational thought more like.
Your example considers a Lanza with an unrestricted firearm. Teachers in the UK provide an adequate practical defence for their pupils in a nation WITH guns restricted. As was the case when the last such attack involved a machete, a close combat weapon that enabled the female teacher to take a serious injury to save the lives of her children, some of whom were also attacked. All survived the incident.

Guns worsen such incidents, restricting them reigns in the excess of such incidents when acknowledging, like Obama does, that you'll NEVER have guarentees of any restriction working. You just have to look north of your border to see that restriction seems to do a damn fine job.

There's no way this country is ever going to authorize the sort of house-to-house search making the US match Canada would take -- it violates too many individual rights protected by the Constitution.

If it was tried, jurisdictions would run out of police long before they found a significant fraction of the guns.

The point is that with adequate tyrannical gun regulation, the Lanza has no gun when he enters the school, and likely doesn't enter at all. I am all for having UNarmed guards in schools. Many schools already have some anyway. And adequate gun regulation costs less than arming the world against the world, not to mention the other develop countries show us that the result would be superior.

So he throws pipe bombs through windows instead.

BTW, arming teachers would be a LOT cheaper than setting up a bureaucracy to try to enforce tyrannical gun laws.

[Kulindahr]

I know it's not ideal on many levels

But from a protecting life standpoint it's clearly better

Columbine is one specific instance that does not set the standard

Arming teachers would be better than having a cop there, but of course it's not ideal, either.

There is no one "solution", so whatever is done is going to have to have "layers" of protection. Restrict the use of large magazines to shooting ranges and/or gun clubs, open the NICS system to private sellers -- heck, require it for on-line sales! -- bolster the basic mental health system, give public institutions the authority to report dangerous people to the NICS... all these should be done.

Then a potential shooter may be prevented from snapping in the first place by better mental health care availability; may be caught by a college or trade school and reported, and can't buy online, so it's harder to get a gun; can't use a large magazine outside a shooting range and so is more limited in slaughter; and if he gets through all that and thinks about a target, the idea of armed teachers would make him think twice about hitting a school because, after all, he wants a free hand to make a "big splash".

[Kulindahr]

So the guard deters the shooter from shooting a school and he just goes to another high populated area and shoots there instead. Problem still exists.

Yep. That's another reason hiring armed guards is silly -- that's a lot of money just to make shooters go somewhere else.

[opinterph]

This is why concealed carry is more a deterrent to crime than open carry. If everyone who wanted to carry a weapon had to wear it where it was visible, criminals would know who to avoid.

I'm not convinced that teachers should be armed; however, the concept reminds me of the Federal Air Marshals that may or may not be present on civilian commercial aircraft. In that situation, the uncertainty is itself a deterrent.

Federal Air Marshals … blend in with passengers

[Transportation Security Administration]

[Kulindahr]

See? Two completely out-of-touch options that completely miss the point: Children raised in communities with few or no guns don't have to worry about a Lanza, and neither do their parents.

Except the statistics someone posted about Europe show that mass shootings still happen just about as often.

These are the freaks shows that aren't going to be stopped unless we require everyone to wear only skin-tight clothing. And that's worrisome, because as I understand it Europe has much better mental health infrastructure.

[Kulindahr]

sigh.

This.

This is why La Pierre's statement is so unbefuckinglievably offensive...not only to the dead and the families and friends of the dead at Sandyhook...but honest to Christ people....when I listened and then read the remarks...I actually did almost get sick to my stomach because he seemed to be somehow insulting all the dead....and their families.....and the two armed officers who were at Columbine that day......it was just like he had taken a semi-automatic weapon and opened fire on the sensibilities and emotions of everyone.

And now he's going to spend the Sunday before Christmas appearing on Meet the Press to try to justify his remarks.


This man is garbage, Human garbage.

Yes. He has written some decently scholarly books about firearms, but he doesn't know crap about tactics in the real world.

[Laufey]

Now that's an interesting notion!

Like the shootings at the movie theater this year.

Nobody is gonna tell me that guy wouldn't have killed anyone if the movie had never been made. He would have just done it differently.

[Kulindahr]

I think the point is that we KNOW, through observable evidence, that placing armed guards in a given location does not guarantee a massacre won't take place.

We also know, through observable evidence, that restricting weaponry reduces death tolls. This is true state-to-state in the US, and it is true internationally.

There's no faux certainty here. There is observable scientific evidence that gun restrictions are more effective than armed guards at reducing gun deaths.

There is also observable scientific evidence that arming teachers would be more effective and far cheaper.

[Kulindahr]

I'm not convinced that teachers should be armed; however, the concept reminds me of the Federal Air Marshals that may or may not be present on civilian commercial aircraft. In that situation, the uncertainty is itself a deterrent.

Exactly. The uncertainty of knowing which teachers were armed (if any) would add an element of uncertainty which deters more than absolutely knowing people at the school were armed. Shooters in such situations don't like the element of gambling on the whole thing; they want a nice situation where at least for a time they can kill at will.

Statistics on the effects of concealed firearms suggest that only about one school in five would actually have to have armed teachers, so long as :

1. the first school attacked in this fashion after arming teachers was establish had some who took down the shooter quickly, and
2. there was no way to know which schools had armed teachers.

The image that would come to mind of any shooter would be going down ignominiously at the hands of a normally quiet person such as a teacher. That is so contrary to the desired burst of "glory" the shooter would go somewhere else.

Of course that wouldn't help society, but it would protect the kids.

[chance1]

What is a faux reality is when you lose an argument and therefore must resort to fantastical theory. We saw it in the trouncing Mitt Romney took that the true ideologues could not grasp therefore they created an alternate reality devoid of facts. We saw it when science pulled the rug out from under creation theory. We see it when demonstrative proof shows praying away the gay doesn't work. In fact, that sort of thing does more harm than help besides not 'curing' homosexuality. We see it now. Their desire to make reality match there ideology requires a suspension of disbelief. It is all the republican party holds as a value anymore.

Tangent much

Back to topic

I suppose next you'll say bad guy bullets work good guy bullets don't

Lol

And please no pms unless you're gonna be nice - haha

[JayHawk]

Not a tangent at all. Reality. It is a special place the rest of us live in.

Why forever more would I have anything bad to say to you? I simply tell you the truth.

Your response is another classic case of Chance argument style 101. When you have no point address the user.

So go ahead and debunk the already proven fact that security does not work to prevent mass murder. Would love to hear how you come to such a conclusion.

[Kulindahr]

Not a tangent at all. Reality. It is a special place the rest of us live in.

Why forever more would I have anything bad to say to you? I simply tell you the truth.

Your response is another classic case of Chance argument style 101. When you have no point address the user.

So go ahead and debunk the already proven fact that security does not work to prevent mass murder. Would love to hear how you come to such a conclusion.

I'm not sure there's enough data to call it a proof -- but it is of dubious utility, at least when it comes to uniformed security, because they're just obvious targets. If you want uniformed security that's actually going to protect a school, you'd probably want one for each hundred kids or so, but with never less than three. And that's ridiculous....

because . . .

According to the census, there's about 64 million kids in schools (excluding colleges). That's 640,000 groups of one hundred. Since the populations are going to come out uneven, and because there are schools with less than 200 students, let's round that up conservatively to 650,000. So we need 3,850,000 cops to cover it. That's over five times as many law enforcement personnel as the nation has already.

Uniformed security is not workable.

[JB3]

What you're saying is that the daily visuals of murder and blood in video games, TV, and movies have no influence on people?

You come off as a small man when you continually insult me and other with remarks like "old ladies".

Video games don't. Countless studies have proven that they do not increase violent tendencies in anyone. The mere suggestion of it by anyone in a serious discussion means that they don't know what they're talking about.

[Just_Believe18]

I am currently traveling and my Internet access is sporadic, but I have been lurking and reading posts. Here's a summary response to this topic:

1. The NRA's Response was a Joke - LaPierre's rant was so out of touch, that it is being near universally panned by the American public. Just look at some of these covers media publications responded to the press conference:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2352203.html
When my family heard the excerpts of the press conference, they were disgusted. I was disgusted. It was so insensitive to the victims of Sandy Hook and irrational to the realities school face when it comes to safety. So I will address it point by point.

2. NRA Solution is Big Government-Police State - I find it hypocritical from some who have responded to this topic that they feel the NRA is making a rational solution. To put a police officer in every public elementary, middle, and high school is absurd both in the nature of safety, and of cost. Just *who* is going to pay the $7+ billion per year to pay for a police officer for every year? The local government? State government? Is this a federal expenditure? When we're arguing over the national deficit with the nation about to go over a fiscal cliff, I find it absolutely absurd that the nation's largest conservative lobbying organization would demand the government to pay for hundreds of thousands of new police officers on a national scale!

3. NRA Solution Ignores the Symptoms - Rather than address preventative matters that have lead up to these mass shootings, the NRA's solution is just to have more guns. Another shooting? More people just need guns! The reality is we have assault weapons that are selling like hotcakes throughout this entire country. Weapons that can kill massive quantities of people in a short amount of time. We have ammunition designed not to deter a perpetrator, but to technologically inflict the most damage possible inside a human body. We have clips that can unload dozens of bullets before the gun needs to be reloaded. This needs to change. We must have a "well-regulated militia" as the Constitution dictates. Citizens have the rights to arm but there does come a point where the weapons available becomes a threat to the common society. The NRA also ignores part of the solution being addressing mental health. We need to also address the mentally ill in this country. We have too many of them wandering the streets aimlessly and in great pain and suffering. No one is taking care of them. We have families who are too overwhelmed with taking care of their mentally ill children. They need more help. Another reality is that state budgets have cut special education funding all across the country. My state included. These mentally ill students need the most help and have faced the most cuts when it comes to education. There was no call from the NRA to help these people.

4. NRA Blames Video Games - It is the exhaustive mantra of the NRA to say, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." Yet, in the NRA's press conference, and with the support of some here, they believe video games are responsible for causing these mass shootings. Well let me just say to all of you, "Video games don't kill people, people kill people." I grew up on video games. Hell, my brother and I just played a round of Halo. Video games have never given me an impulse to harm other human beings. None of my cousins or friends that I played Goldeneye and Call of Duty games with have ever picked up a gun to shoot someone.

5. Nobody wants to ban all guns - Nobody is saying this. It isn't on the table. Stop making paranoid statements that any gun regulation is the end of all gun ownership for Americans. It's not. Stop fear-mongering and derailing the discussions we have on this topic.

[Rolyo85]

There is also observable scientific evidence that arming teachers would be more effective and far cheaper.

Is there? Where?

[Ninja108]

Here's a big issue for me. We keep hearing how armed guards etc will deter mass shooters. The problem is when most of them plan their shooting sprees,them coming out alive is NOT part of the plan.
Kinda hard to scare someone who isn't afraid to die don't you think?

[JB3]

Here's a big issue for me. We keep hearing how armed guards etc will deter mass shooters. The problem is when most of them plan their shooting sprees,them coming out alive is NOT part of the plan.
Kinda hard to scare someone who isn't afraid to die don't you think?

They wouldn't be there to scare them, they'd be there to kill them.

Its a ridiculously unserious proposal. Most highschools already have a police officer in them. Many middle schools do as well. (ours was called a 'resource officer') One person is not enough to protect a large building, and more than one just multiplies the instances where something could go wrong.

Take my high school, for example: 4,200 students. Four wings connected by a ring of locker bays and offices in a horse-shoe shape. 4 gyms. One large cafeteria. One full-sized auditorium. An arts wing with four huge rehearsal spaces. An athletics wing nearly sealed off from the rest of the building, with all of the auxiliary facilities you would expect. At least 14 stair-cases.

There is not a chance in hell that a police officer in that school could do a damn thing if there was a shooting. Someone could, theoretically, go on a shooting rampage in the athletics wing, inflict mass casualties, and commit suicide before the officer even had a chance to get to the athletics wing. Even if a shooting occurred in the common areas or academic areas the likelihood of the officer being able to do anything before other students were shot would be slim to none. (Think bays and bays of 4 foot tall lockers that an attacker could easily hide between)

As has been said before: NRA suggestion=idiotic and insulting.

[Jack Springer]

Video games don't. Countless studies have proven that they do not increase violent tendencies in anyone. The mere suggestion of it by anyone in a serious discussion means that they don't know what they're talking about.

OK, we'll just blame guns and the NRA for the deaths -- even though no NRA member has done any of the shootings.

No personal insults from me -- but have a question -- If you watch porn, what does it make you want to do?

[HenryReardon]

Is there? Where?

Recently reetired libertarian talk show host Neal Boortz mentioed this on his website yesterday. No links are given but there's probably enough information provided that the articles could be located. He sometimes exaggerated, but never lied. Of course, we we all realize that you're not interested in anything which would dare to conflict with your preconceived liberal notions.

http://www.boortz.com/weblogs/nealz-...nd-sandy-hook/

[Just_Believe18]

OK, we'll just blame guns and the NRA for the deaths -- even though no NRA member has done any of the shootings.

No personal insults from me -- but have a question -- If you watch porn, what does it make you want to do?

Oh, unbelievable. Seriously, Jack! Comparing teenagers playing video games to watching pornography and wanting to have sex is absolutely ridiculous. The porn I watch and the sex I have is irrelevant to the video games I've played and the violence-free life I've lived.

[iwantbig]

Well not surprisingly, the NRA position on all of this is to not have fewer guns in the schools. It is to have more.

Conservatively, there are almost 120,000 public and private schools in the US.

The cost of a single policeman in every school at salary and benefits of $65,000 per year will be $7.8 billion dollars.

So it is offering a solution that will be unaffordable unless the taxpayers decide that either their education dollars should be spent on armed guards who might be lucky and not be the first person a crazed gunman would kill.

Jesus wept.

No surprise that the intellectually bankrupt LaPierre is just tone deaf.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle6632036/

how many banks with armed guards do you have ?
its obviously more important to guard your money than your kids

[rareboy]

how many banks with armed guards do you have ?
its obviously more important to guard your money than your kids

Well If you'd bothered to actually read all of the rest of the responses, you'd know. But apparently you are too lazy to do this and seem to also be someone who thinks that armed guards are the answer.

[iwantbig]

no i just got on and read the first post and that occured to me so knock off with the too lazy bullshit ( or is there a rule with your threads that one must read the entire story before being allowed to comment ? )

[rareboy]

OK, we'll just blame guns and the NRA for the deaths -- even though no NRA member has done any of the shootings.

No personal insults from me -- but have a question -- If you watch porn, what does it make you want to do?

It makes me want to jack off....not go out and have sex with 40 other people.

So if some kid watching a first person shooter game wants to put the end of an assault weapon in his own mouth...well...that is another problem.

But typically.....you've missed the essence of the entire discussion. No one is saying that the pervasive and corrosive culture of violence against others that has become the hallmark of the US over the last 200 years isn't a big part of the problem here. You are one of those who seems to imply that violence solves every problem in foreign policy, for instance. It is no wonder, with the glorification of military assaults and weaponry in the wars fought by the US in the last 50 years...that the culture of shooter games and shooter movies has become such an insistent and soul damaging part of American kids' psyches.

And no one here is saying take away all the guns. And no one is pointing the finger at the NRA moms, pops and little Jimmies and Janeys who are in love with their guns.

But the NRA...as an organization almost solely under the control of the gun manufacturers and the extremist right wing...has delivered an unbalanced response....not to say arrogant, aggressive and ill timed.

I don't expect you to get this, based on your own perception of the world around you as expressed in all your posts and threads. I don't expect Rearden to get it either because he makes you look rational by comparison to the stuff he posts on this topic.

Forunately, there are millions of Americans who do get it....and understand that something has to be done that balances everyone's interests in this matter.

[iwantbig]

check my post in the other thread you'll love it

[rareboy]

no i just got on and read the first post and that occured to me so knock off with the too lazy bullshit ( or is there a rule with your threads that one must read the entire story before being allowed to comment ? )

No. You just would have possibly have provided a more nuanced and thoughtful response.

[iwantbig]

So the guard deters the shooter from shooting a school and he just goes to another high populated area and shoots there instead. Problem still exists.

the problem still exists because you still have a lunatic , remove all guns if you could and he wont be able to shoot 20 kids , he'll probaly go to an old peoples home and kill as many as he can with a pointy stick

[iwantbig]

havent seen anything yet

[andysayshi]

There is also observable scientific evidence that arming teachers would be more effective and far cheaper.

Please provide a reputable cite for this evidence.

[iwantbig]

no , still found nothing that answers that !

[rareboy]

no , still found nothing that answers that !

Well to be simple about it, my estimate was even way low. As someone else pointed out...to get even the same degree of coverage as you would in banks...you would need more than a million armed officers.

And you still apparently are too lazy to read why armed officers in schools don't work.

So I'll repeat it:

COLUMBINE HAD 2 ARMED OFFICERS ON DUTY, WHO ACTUALLY FIRED ON THE GUNMEN, BUT COULDN'T PREVENT THE MASSACRE.

So is that clear enough for you sunshine?

[HenryReardon]

Please provide a reputable cite for this evidence.

Try this on for size. School official retrieves gun from his vehicle and apprehends gunman.
Maybe if he'd been allowed to have the gun on premises, lives might have been saved. An
instance of responsible gun ownership working despite irresponsible restrictions at the school.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_High_School_shooting

The incident began on the morning of October 1, 1997 when Luke Woodham fatally stabbed and bludgeoned his mother, Mary Woodham, as she prepared for a morning jog. At his trial, Woodham claimed that he could not remember killing his mother.

Woodham drove his mother's car to Pearl High School. Wearing a trench coat, to hide his rifle when he entered the school, Woodham fatally shot Lydia Kaye Dew and Christina Menefee, his former girlfriend. Pearl High School's assistant band director, Jeff Cannon, was standing five feet away from Dew when she was fatally shot. Woodham went on to wound seven others.[2][3][4][5][6][7]

The school's assistant principal, Joel Myrick, retrieved a .45 pistol from his truck and, spotting him near the parking lot, shouted for Woodham to stop. Woodham instead got into a his mother's car and tried to escape. Myrick, a US Army Reserve commander, detained Woodham until authorities arrived.[8][9]

[andysayshi]

There's no way this country is ever going to authorize the sort of house-to-house search making the US match Canada would take -- it violates too many individual rights protected by the Constitution.

If it was tried, jurisdictions would run out of police long before they found a significant fraction of the guns.

You're right. The only way to combat the large scale gun ownership that plagues US society would be multi-generational - little by little year by year. I/m not aware of a gun control initiative in any nation post-WW2 nation that performed house to house searches.

So he throws pipe bombs through windows instead.

Can you cite an example of this happening in a US state with gun restrictions, or a nation with gun restrictions?

SBTW, arming teachers would be a LOT cheaper than setting up a bureaucracy to try to enforce tyrannical gun laws.

Can you provide a cite or the mathematics to justify this statement?

[rareboy]

the problem still exists because you still have a lunatic , remove all guns if you could and he wont be able to shoot 20 kids , he'll probaly go to an old peoples home and kill as many as he can with a pointy stick

So all you are doing now is trolling. If you have nothing to contribute of any value to the discussion, then this thread in CE&P isn't a good place for you to show us the size of your intellect.

[iwantbig]

tell ya what ? when i open a page and have a thought at the original post , i'll answer it , if other people had the same thought before me then good on them ,but i haven't seen any thing of the sort , his comment was about the cost ( among other things and i'm not arguing the point ) and i made an observation on that , must have hit a nerve !
my thoughts are that it is way too late to bother with gun control for the states , you cant come up with a solution for a buy back without bankrupting your country , haven't got the balls to ban them altogether and you've got so many illegal weapons it would hardly make a difference

[iwantbig]

So all you are doing now is trolling. If you have nothing to contribute of any value to the discussion, then this thread in CE&P isn't a good place for you to show us the size of your intellect.

wow you really got me there ! still didn't address my thought on your original post though !

[rareboy]

Try this on for size. School official retrieves gun from his vehicle and apprehends gunman.
Maybe if he'd been allowed to have the gun on premises, lives might have been saved. An
instance of responsible gun ownership working despite irresponsible restrictions at the school.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_High_School_shooting

The incident began on the morning of October 1, 1997 when Luke Woodham fatally stabbed and bludgeoned his mother, Mary Woodham, as she prepared for a morning jog. At his trial, Woodham claimed that he could not remember killing his mother.

Woodham drove his mother's car to Pearl High School. Wearing a trench coat, to hide his rifle when he entered the school, Woodham fatally shot Lydia Kaye Dew and Christina Menefee, his former girlfriend. Pearl High School's assistant band director, Jeff Cannon, was standing five feet away from Dew when she was fatally shot. Woodham went on to wound seven others.[2][3][4][5][6][7]

The school's assistant principal, Joel Myrick, retrieved a .45 pistol from his truck and, spotting him near the parking lot, shouted for Woodham to stop. Woodham instead got into a his mother's car and tried to escape. Myrick, a US Army Reserve commander, detained Woodham until authorities arrived.[8][9]

Oh yeah, Like no one would ever get caught in the crossfire and the shooter wouldn't just as likely take out the SWAT team of Teachers with pistols first.

At the end of the day, no teacher would fire on a gunman if there was another student at risk in the vicinity.

But what this whole scenario demonstrates is what I've pointed out about the paucity of balanced thinking. You and LaPierre and the other fringe right wingers on this just immediately jump to the automatic response of more violence being the solution to violence. My bomb is bigger. My assault weapon is better. I'm the good guy.

This is the culture of violence that makes the portrayal of first person shooter games and violent movies using military assault weapons so palatable and ingrained in North American culture.

You...like Lapierre and Springer...just don't get it. Never will.

[andysayshi]

the problem still exists because you still have a lunatic , remove all guns if you could and he wont be able to shoot 20 kids , he'll probaly go to an old peoples home and kill as many as he can with a pointy stick

As was ironically demonstrated in China last Friday, on the same day that Mr Lanza murdered so many children in Connecticut, a man in a nation with tight gun restrictions made a horrific attack on a children's school. He injured 20 staff and students with a knife before school staff attacked him with brooms, driving him out of the school until police apprehended him.

The result: no deaths, criminal apprehended.

What do you suppose the result would have been if the attacker had access to a Bushmaster .223 rifle, capable of firing its 30-round magazine in less than half a minute?

[iwantbig]

As was ironically demonstrated in China last Friday, on the same day that Mr Lanza murdered so many children in Connecticut, a man in a nation with tight gun restrictions made a horrific attack on a children's school. He injured 20 staff and students with a knife before school staff attacked him with brooms, driving him out of the school until police apprehended him.

The result: no deaths, criminal apprehended.

What do you suppose the result would have been if the attacker had access to a Bushmaster .223 rifle, capable of firing its 30-round magazine in less than half a minute?

dont hear me arguing the point ,my post said what it said very clearly .
as i said in another post , youve got so many guns there i'm wondering how much of a difference it would make for the states?
we dont have the same proportion of mass shootings here and it may be well because the average person ( or lunatic ) doesn't have a gun handy when he looses it ! ( just a pointy stick ) but our typical gangsta shooting each other stuff hasnt changed , the bad guys kept their guns !