As a gun enthusiast, I don’t know if I could 17 speedloaders set out in front of me, I don’t think I could load a revolver 17 times in a minute even if I didn’t have to bother with firing rounds. But yeah, the capacity argument is silly especially if you aren’t going to get rid of anything that uses clips.
DC requires gun registration, in fact they require registration fro ammunition. The only place you can buy a gun is from a gun store in the basement of police headquarters. You can only have a loaded gun in your home. So I’m thinking the debate is only over in your mind.
“Guns in the schools” is not the problem. “Guns in the schools killing people” is the problem, and “guns in the schools defending people” is Human Action’s proposed solution. Not at all an unreasonable line of thinking, since that is precisely the solution we use today to resolve these situations, just with a significant amount of lag time. Reducing that lag in the application of what is currently the best working solution is not an unreasonable approach to take.
Weren’t the Columbine shootings carried out by kids who had access to guns legally owned by parents?
Maybe harsh penalties for not properly guarding your weapons and keeping them from kids/unlicensed people?
'course the Columbine shooters also had pipe bombs on them.
I think we just have to live with he fact that crazy people will be crazy, and if they want to kill a bunch of people they will.
Perhaps we should focus on getting troubled people the help they need asap.
Visits to a Psychiatrists are expensive, subsidizing mental care for the poor might help!
I hardly think the answer is to have armed third grade teachers.
I don’t think Heller says what you think it says. We can still impose very severe restrictions on guns as long as the restrictions are not an effectively a prohibition on guns.
What excluded middle would allow guns in elementary schools but not in the shopping mall? Shit I think people would much rather have guns at the mall than elementary schools.
In order to have a mass shooting, you need a mass of people in one place. Most such places are considered “gun free zones” (malls, airports, schools, most restuarants, all bars, etc. etc.). Therefore, I’d say that the vast majority of mass shootings happen in places where guns are off limits and you have a mass of people present.
So, eliminating gun-free zones would have precisely zero impact on where shootings like this happen. Either that or maybe they just need to make the print on the “Gun Free Zone” signs bigger so next time a potential shooter will actually be able to read it from a safe distance.
Seriously - there is no way to prevent acts like this short of educating children in maximum security prisons with no outside access or visitors allowed. Apparently this district in CT recently implemented at least medium-security prison like measures this year (all doors loced at 9:30am, visitors have to ring a bell and be visiually identified to be let in aftert that, photo ID, etc.) - clearly they just didn’t go far enough.
Almost all mass shootings are carried out by people who had legally purchased fairly run-of-the-mill guns. This is a lousy plan, because it would drastically limit the freedom of law-abiding gun owners while doing almost nothing to actually solve any problem. It sounds to me like you just dislike gun owners as a group and would like to make things difficult for them out of spite.
Things like mass shootings are simply the price of freedom. We certainly could drastically limit everyone’s freedom in order to slightly improve safety. Most “liberals” are against such tactics in other arenas, when we’re talking about government surveillance, police power, airline security, etc., but somehow have absolutely no problem calling for a draconian crackdown when it comes to guns. Remember that overused Ben Franklin quote everyone was bandying about after 9/11? “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
There is really no effective way to determine who is going to turn crazy. Short of banning guns outright, we’ll never stop this. And that will never happen, nor should it.
The common thread in most of these shootings, it seems to me, is mentally disturbed people getting guns. It seems like sometimes the mass-shooters are legally acquiring them, and sometimes not.
Because there are already so many guns here, banning guns (or even just banning certain types of guns) won’t have much of an effect, except perhaps in the very, very long term (it would only have a significant effect once existing guns become unusable- and with good maintenance and care, guns can last decades). It’s also politically untenable.
I’m not sure what the answer is, but I think it’s more in the realm of mental health-care than gun policy.
Unless we repeal the second amendment, the answer to these massacres is to de-stigmatize mental illness. That way we can detect and treat the mentally ill before something horrible happens.
I wonder about this. I’ve spent some time in Colorado, and I just cannot believe that in a crowded theatre for the batman premier their were not several people in the audience carrying. Even if there was a no carry policy at the theatre, I suspect there were guns in purses, bags and shoulder holsters.
We just escorted someone from premises at my work because they were concealed carrying at work despite the sign on the door, but I bet that in this building at this moment in time, there are guns being held by people not stupid enough to share.
Just like criminals get guns when they shouldn’t, ordinary citizens break laws that they don’t agree with and carry. Them when they shouldn’t.
Gun-carrying teachers as a solution? According to ABC News the gunman carried four weapons and wore a bullet-proof vest. Unless your hypothetical teacher was a trained sniper already set up to take a head shot…
The obvious answer is to pass a federal law issuing a gun and a federal concealed weapons permit to every kindergartner in the country. Of course, they should be require to take classes on how to use weapons responsibly. We want to do this safely, naturally.
Outlaw ownership of all guns except for hunting rifles and shotguns. Shooting ranges could rent out handguns but they would remain there and be owned by the shooting range. Sure criminals could still easily get guns - but I’m not seeing the drug gangs as being the ones going in and shooting up elementary school classrooms or random people at malls. They usually are just shooting at their rivals - not random innocent.
Since the ‘profile shooter’ is often a 15-25 year old male suffering depression, institute widespread high school level counselling nationwide to try and help kids from becoming dangerous and to help all depressed kids become more productive members of society.
The bottom line is that giant purple butterflies will fly out of my ass singing Free Bird before that happens. Seriously proposing it is political suicide pretty much anywhere other than very urban areas. It only takes 14 states to block a Constitutional Amendment. Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas, Tennessee, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virgina, West Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri, Montana, Idaho, Colorado, Alaska, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Arizona, Nevada…none of these states are likely to ratify such a whackadoodle proposal.
It is completely possible that public opinion will change on that issue over time - particularly if we have more elementary school children shot up. For every “gun rights” advocate out there, there is an opposing “think of the children” voice.
And it doesn’t need to take long - look at the public opinion shift on marriage equality.