Crap! A "Gun Control Task Force"

Lame excuses.

James Holmes's Smith n' Wesson semi-automatic rifle jammed up after 25 rounds. You think he could have made a home made nail gun that killed better than that? Imagine how many more would be dead if that manufactured semi-automatic worked better.

It takes time and planing to make home made weapons and bombs. They could Kill themselves in the process or be discovered, get tipped off from buying supplies ect... The skill and tools and planning and knowledge and resources needed would discourage most nutbars. The simple fact is these guns and insane amounts of ammo are too easily accessible. These corpses deserve better excuses and they deserve real changes.

 

Armed teachers would learn to shoot, and master it as well as any hobby gun owner. And in the case of Newtown, wouldn't a bad shot be better than what happen?

During a NRA news conferance, he had reminded the public that after the Virginia Tech mass killing, he had suggested armed guards at schools. Of course, I don't think any of us thought that would include a small elementary in a quiet Connecticut town.

No Roo, I am not a sociopath, and that was unnecessary. Use some restraint, please. If a person wants to own a gun and not join the militia, what would be the consequence?

 

Here is a story that illustrates exactly the crisis of mental health care in the US.
Even when someone is exhibiting extreme behavior, there is nothing done. This kid could be the next one to go off.
And then we can have this whole bullshit conversation about guns again.

http://now.msn.com/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother-says-mom-of-mentally-ill-son

 

They suggested an armed guard at every school. Columbine had one. My high school had a cop. You think he could have done a damn thing, being a sitting duck there, if someone came in to shoot the place up?

No, teachers would not, because they're teachers. Some like guns, some don't. Teachers should be chosen based on ability to teach, not to kill.

You sound like a sociopath to me, you're totally emotionless, your response to mass-murder is "crap, they might regulate guns". Of course they're not actually going to take your guns, or follow the constitution and make you join a militia. But your response is telling. You're strongly opposed to any life-saving measures, like forcing the packaging of gun-safety devices with guns. For no particular reason, other than that it's not a perfect solution. So you'd rather do nothing.

I already explained that with my proposal, if someone did not join up, but was known to have a gun, they would be required to surrender the gun (so that it could be sold at auction to legal owners), if they did not sell it within the period of the notice given to them, or to join. If they did neither, they would be criminally charged with an illegal sale of the gun to a criminal.

At first, there could be a grace period, but all gun sales must be recorded, etc. In fact, it would be fine to make it so that legal owners need not record where they GOT a gun, nor would anyone at any point who showed up to register: they only must record it's sale. In this way guns would trickle into the system, and could not be jumped back out without criminal proceedings against the responsible parties.

 

In a report I listened to today, mental health professionals are out there, can recognize danger and potential dangers, yet are restricted by law, and ACLU to do anything. So is this a systemic problem with mental health services, or those policies that block mental health services?

 

You know what? You display here is your own irritation that I'm unaffected by your ideas. So.....block me.

 

Well unless you want to be summarially declaired insane when you piss the wrong person off, a national "insane" database, other than a militia-mantained one, is a horrible, unconstitutional idea.

You would have "sociopath" next to your name, on that list.

 

I've pissed you off, you make insane accusations, but you're safe from institutuions. Seems the system is working.

 

I don't see anything insane about it. I'm not accusing you of being a sociopath, I'm saying that you're looking like one. Stop showing me sociopath and I'll stop saying sociopath.

It's interesting how, in the interest of YOU being able to own a gun and shoot things without bearing the (properly, and constitutionally) associated responsibility, you would be happy to dismantle every other type of civil liberty you can think of. You want a big-brotherly government that decides who is sane (damn that aclu, protecting rights n' freedom n' shit) and as long as you have a proper arsonal, it's fine n' dandy.

This is sociopathic behavior. You have no problem with others being hurt, be it by shooters or an abusive government (so long as it's on your side) as long as it all feeds your ultimate goal of being independant and free to use deadly force. And you see my admission of emotion as weakness.

Emotionless, and calculating ways to throw others under the bus, to retain and/or accrue personal killing capacity. Sociopathic.

 

Tim McVey blew up the fed. building in OK and killed 160 people with a bomb he made from fertlizer . A guy in China used a knife to kill a bunch of kids . Some guys took box cutter knives , hi jacked 3 planes , and killed over 3000 people on 9/11/01 . Some people in Japan used sarin ( not spelled rite) gas to kill a bunch of people in a sub way car . Take away the guns and crazy people will just find another wepon . desert rat

 

Your words not mine.

 

Shit happens.

The OK city bombing was in the US, and he easily could have gone shooting, but he did that anyways. It was not a reaction to gun control.

I think like 8 people died in the tokyo subway attack, out of many hundreds who where exposed. They could have killed many more with a single gun. Also, it was not one nutjob, but a group, I believe.

Yes, we know, 9/11. We didn't have safeguards because proir to that people hijacked planes to go to cuba, not commit mass-murder. Now we have safeguards. Arguing against gun control at the moment is like arguing against airport security on 9/12/2001.

 

Are you drunk or something?

Does that really seem like a rebuttal, to you?

 

You've broken any hope of having rational discussion.

 

"I don't like what you're saying, so it's irrational".

 

no it won,t. what,s it matter if it,s a semi auto, or a shotgun or a deer rifle?
it,s mental heath not the guns fault. thats like saying it,s the pencil,s fault you wrote the word wrong.

here,s another shooting in pennslyvina. http://wearecentralpa.com/fulltext-news/?nxd_id=423112

 

I'm not educated in the issues but that's my vague understanding. Until someone actually becomes violent and hurts or kill something there is nothing that can be done. In that story I linked, that woman is the minor childs mother and apparently she can't force mental care on him. Until he flips that is, then they'll throw him in prison.

And how much has the prison population gone up in that same time as a proportion of the general population?
http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/28/3/676.full

:2thumbsup: Apparently a point that's been missed.

Shit happens with insane people. He could have gone shooting, but if there was no guns, that shows how easy it is to kill anyways. You missed the point. I realize you're not arguing for banning guns tho.
And in a round about way it was a reaction to gun control. It was a reaction to overeaching of the govt and trampling constitutional rights. Oh so he said. It was just an attempt to make his insanity look reasoned.

A group of nutjobs.
I doubt any of those victims families said "at least it was a group and not just one person". Senseless killing is senseless fucking killing.
Missing the point again, it's much harder to get a gun in Japan. So they made saran gas and killed people anyway.

 

I don't mind your disagreement. I don't like the sociopathic bullshit talk and stuff you write like "It's interesting how, in the interest of YOU being able to own a gun and shoot things without bearing the (properly, and constitutionally) associated responsibility, you would be happy to dismantle every other type of civil liberty you can think of. You want a big-brotherly government that decides who is sane (damn that aclu, protecting rights n' freedom n' shit) and as long as you have a proper arsonal, it's fine n' dandy.".

Those are your words and you write as if they came from my mind. THAT is what I object to, and that is what I consider not rational.

 

When you make statements about, for example, the government being able to decide who, in a broad sense, is sane, or how schools should be full of guns, that's YOU saying those things, I'm just collecting them all into one place.

 

Gun control isn't THE answer, but it's part of an answer. I don't like the idea of giving mine up, but really, tough shit. Gun control is one reasonable societal/legal measure we can take. There will never be one or two complete answers - and every answer has flaws - but you do the best you can.

I'm personally overwhelmingly horrified by what happened in Connecticut. I've just now, yesterday and today, looked at photos of some of the children who were killed.

Besides supporting gun control and the far less likely improved mental health care, I've re-committed to living positively, being kind to others, and saying connected in my community. I'll do less than perfectly with those, but there you go - no THE answer where I'm concerned either.