Yep - I think this is it (more the first paragraph than the second). If you are doing this as a murder suicide - you gotta be committed to the suicide part.
The notion of requiring our teachers to pack heat is preposterous and nothing more than a wet dream of the NRA types. If you want less gun violence, then you need fewer guns- simple as that.
And if we all had pie, no one would be hungry.
I have a very simple question for you. How do you incentivize giving up their guns to people who use their guns illegally, some of which use them to make their living?
Does anyone make their living firing off say 50 rounds in 15 seconds? Does anyone outside of law enforcement or the military have to fire more than 6 rounds in a minute? If not, then we don’t need to allow mass murderers this capability, either. I have nothing against hunters, let them go ahead and get their meat, within sensible wildlife management policies. If you’re making your living using guns illegally, than I think we should be providing you free room and board in an appropriate location apart from the population.
And no rational person wants to require teachers to be armed, only allow teachers to be armed.
So… Will this lead to it being considerably more difficult to get weapons like that if you want them?
Ban the manufacture, importation, and possession of such items. Owning such a weapon outside of law enforcement or military should result in prison time. I give it a better chance than expecting our kindergarten teachers to emulate Dirty Harry.
The generation that thinks like that is kind of on it’s way out.
Edit to add, this Arapaho guy just used a pump action shotgun, which for some reason you think is cool.
Just like the banning of the manufacture, importation and possession of cocaine, heroin, LSD, ecstasy, alcohol(during Prohibition)… has worked so well? I’m sure glad we now have no drugs on our streets.
ETA: Banning of items only works on law abiding citizens.
A pump action shotgun isn’t going to cause Newtownian level casualties. Younger Americans are abandoning the GOP, when there are solid Democratic majorities everywhere we can get some sensible laws passed and enough rational Supreme Court justices appointed to overturn Heller.
BTW, I guess I should lay out my solutions instead of just trashing his. We must treat the underlying problems in our society. Crime is a function of poverty. Poverty is a function of education. Our social climate mocks education, especially in crime ridden areas. That is where we need to start.
Also, our treatment of mental health issues is woefully lacking.
The problem with “fewer” guns is that you end up primarily going after the low-hanging fruit: the people who would be inclined to give up owning guns if they weren’t legally available. Similarly, Prohibition only stopped people from drinking who were at most casual drinkers. It did next to nothing to deter hard-core alcoholics- the very people whose drinking habits were the cause of the social ills Prohibition was meant to solve.
Yes. Drug dealers and gang members make their “living” by occasionally shooting up a rival’s car or home.
You think we haven’t tried?
That’s “fewer” guns? You should have said at the start that you meant a flat-out ban. Now in addition to all the gang members and drug dealers mentioned already, who seem to have no difficulty obtaining illegally imported narcotics, a gun ban would also have to deal with the countless Americans who are hardcore 2nd Amendment proponents who would be scofflaws against such a ban and who would turn to the tens or hundreds of thousands of people who have the skills and tools to manufacture guns illegally- like is very common in the Philippines. And then there are the people who are working night and day to try to perfect 3D printed guns, out of an anarchistic desire to nullify the possibility of a gun ban ever being effective.
I’m sorry, but saying “If only there just were no guns” is unrealistic bordering on fantasy.
Completely sensible approach. I wholeheartedly agree. But the party and its constituents that loves guns also hates to spend money on the initiatives you’ve outlined. So what we get instead is guns and then more guns to solve the problem of guns.
What needs to change is the political environment where more and more of the nation’s wealth goes to fewer and fewer people. Eventually the top 1% will own 100% of everything. When there is no upward mobility, violence is inevitable. And as long as schools tolerate bullying, the bullied will at times srike back with violence.
We are actually in 100% agreement here. See? There are ways to make the country better without branding large swathes of “Red State” America as criminals?
Then let’s start by implementing where we agree. Of course, what prevents that are the large number of red staters who willingly vote against their economic self interest in the misguided hope that giving more money to the Job Creators will somehow benefit them.
Do we know the socioeconomics of the shooter? I haven’t been watching the news, but i was under the impression this happened in a suburb full of comfortably incomed people.
How is addressing poverty going to fix the problem of middle-class disaffected males going out in a blaze of imagined glory?
If only we could just round up all the regressives, holdouts and obstructionists and send them somewhere to be reeducated. Then at last we’d have utopia! ( :rolleyes: )
(shortened for clarity)
Having armed personnel in schools is a good idea. Passing laws that allow authorities to deal with “gifted” (as you mentioned) students with a history of violent outbursts is a good idea. Passing laws that create gun-free zones is not. Mentally disturbed monsters still seem to realize that there will be little or no interference from an unarmed population while they throw their bombs and shoot at the defenseless.
Colorado, and other States, have changed their response tactics. It appears they no longer encircle the building and wait for the monster to transmit their demands. It’s now assumed that the monster is there to injure and kill as many people as possible and police/SWAT/onsite guards must confront the monster with lethal force. (However, it’s important to remember that the SCOTUS has ruled that officers are NOT required to risk their life to save yours. Being a police officer is just a job. That makes it a personal choice of the officer.) It’s similar to how airlines and passengers used to respond to hijackers. Don’t resist, don’t risk being harmed, wait for the monsters to issue their demands, and authorities will eventually handle the situation. Today, passengers and crews will be proactive and disarm and disable the terrorists/monsters.
Why did this particular monster decide to kill himself. Who knows? The guy was mentally disturbed. Maybe he didn’t want anyone to be treated as a hero for killing him. Maybe he didn’t want to die at the hand of another. Maybe he didn’t want to live in prison for the rest of his life. Who know? The guy was “nutz”.
Having an armed officer in the school forces the monster to deal with the officer instead of continuing their rampage unimpeded. Is it possible that more people would have been injured/killed if an armed officer had NOT been in the vicinity and taking control of the situation? Probably.
Addressing education and social mobility isn’t going to fix all the gun violence. We still have to address the caste system in our schools where some kids get away with bullying and ostracising the others.
Certainly political education is of prime importance. We’ve got dirt poor people who have been trained by their masters (Fox, Rush, Hannity, etc.) to become apoplectic at the notion of raising the estate tax, for example.