Surely the analogy of arming teachers to building arks/floods was not meant to be serious? I may have missed something but I have not noticed a plethora of global floods recently.

 

The established fact is that the shooter had the rounds to kill at least a hundred more children, yet he did not. He stopped the massacre and killed himself the moment someone with a gun arrived on scene. Had a few of the staff been armed, professionally trained and immediately confronted the perpetrator we would almost certainly have far fewer deaths and conceivably none among the children.

 

Is that the ideal and permanent solution, probably not. But 300 M guns are not going away overnight nor is the 2nd amendment. New laws and bans will only serve to further handicap law abiding citizens since guns can easily be obtained illegally here; it's amazing some seem to think criminals and mentally unstable people bother to check the law before acting. There is plenty of research proving that crime/murder rates are lowest in the US where legal gun ownership and CC permits are highest. Washington D.C., Chicago and other markets have experienced on average a 300% increase in crime when legal ownership has been severely restricted; there is no better place for a criminal or unstable person intent on murder to go than a "gun-free zone."

 

Thanks to Stephen and Tom for allowing this discussion to continue. I don't have the ultimate answer, but I would hope for facts and reflection in such a discussion rather than dismissing any opposing view with naive, flawed and disrespectful analogies or characterizations. This is a complex set of variables which will take time and hard work to unravel the primary root causes and best remedial actions. For example, all (best I can determine) of these recent mass murderers were white, upper-middle class young kids with dysfunctional or broken relationships with their fathers. This is not an issue that can be legislated away with a policy signature.

 

To our friends around the world.....the 2nd amendment is not primarily about guns for most law abiding citizens...it is about the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which would prima facie include the right to defend your life. We are well aware of the costs of these rights in global, national and local conflicts as well as the tremendous benefits not only to our citizens but to those across the pond when their very existence was threatened. It's challenging to always be trying to walk the fine line and adjust to cultural and political winds. I wish all those bad guys didn't have access to guns, but they do for now and absent a miracle will have for years to come no matter any new legislation, so any thoughtful contributions are appreciated no matter the perspective. I take them as motivated by "human" rather than "political" considerations.

 

Roy

Yeah, it will most likely break up from inside just like Ancient Rome did, sooner or later, or alternatively unify with some other areas into even bigger superpower, maybe even world government...

 

Seems like a good argument to be armed.

 

 

Randy, as I've said - you have a legitimate reason to have your weapons and I fully respect that.

 

But drunk drivers have determined that you will be committing a crime if you drive with your blood alcohol level above a certain amount and hijackers have determined exactly what you can take on board an aircraft and where you can go inside the aircraft.

 

My legitimate reason is the Second Amendment.

 

Should I let Westboro Baptist Church determine the First?

Should I sit back and say nothing about the excuse of terrorism eroding the Fourth?

 

Wether or not people who live else where understand it or not makes no difference. We have the right, confirmed through the highest court, backed by our founding fathers, to keep and bare arms. We don't need any reason what so ever to have them other than we can. And that to me is as important as any other right afforded as an American. Freedom is dangerous. Some people use it to do evil. But it's no excuse to sit back and try to legislate morality. You can't stop criminals by making more laws.

 

Yeah yeah, well in the end it's about what you value more, human lives or freedom to easily obtain a gun. I would choose human lives but of course that's just my opinion.

 

But even if limiting freedom to create a safer society isn't an option there's still one thing that can be done to prevent this kind of things from happening so often, and that's improving mental health care system. Majority of these people doing this kind of attacks seem to be people with serious mental issues and no criminal history. If these people with risk of doing something like this were detected before and got proper care things like this probably wouldn't happen so often.

My legitimate reason is the Second Amendment.

 

Should I let Westboro Baptist Church determine the First?

Should I sit back and say nothing about the excuse of terrorism eroding the Fourth?

 

Wether or not people who live else where understand it or not makes no difference. We have the right, confirmed through the highest court, backed by our founding fathers, to keep and bare arms. We don't need any reason what so ever to have them other than we can. And that to me is as important as any other right afforded as an American. Freedom is dangerous. Some people use it to do evil. But it's no excuse to sit back and try to legislate morality. You can't stop criminals by making more laws.

 

Good post.

In an attempt to lighten things up a wee bit without being disrespectful of the primary heartbreaking theme of this thread, nor intentionally disagreeable with those taking strong opposing positions on important matters...

 

The right to bare arms, USA vs Canada

 

In Canada it's far too cold and fiscally irresponsible to have the right to bare arms, especially in the winter, which unnecessarily increases the burden on the state subsidized health care system with pneumonia related illnesses.

 

Average Low / High Temperatures for Major Cities across Canada in January

• Vancouver, BC: 32 / 43°Fahrenheit (0 / 6°Celsius)
  
• Edmonton, AB: -2 / 18°F, (-19 / -8°C)
  
• Yellowknife, NWT: -24 / -9°F, (-31 / -23°C)
  
• Inukjuak, NU: -17 / -4°F, (-27 / -20°C)
  
• Winnipeg, MB: -9 / 10°F, (-23 / -12°C)
  
• Ottawa, ON: 5 / 23°F, (-15 / -5°C)
  
• Toronto, ON: 14 / 28°F, (-10 / -2°C)
  
• Montréall, QC: 7 / 23°F, (-14 / -5°C)
  
• Halifax, NS: 16 / 30°F, (-9 / -1°C)
  
• St. John's, NF: 19 / 32°F, (-7 / 0°C)
  

A national policy of wearing long sleeves also has certain benefits during Canada's moderate summers as a shield from ultraviolet radiation, associated skin diseases, and dangerous bites from large mosquitos.

 

Below: Canadian (on the left side of things, in red and white, of course) and American (on the right of things, in true blue of course) display the constitutional differences between the two neighbours (or neighbors).

 

Kind regards, ^_^

We have the right, confirmed through the highest court, backed by our founding fathers, to keep and bare arms.

 

And that freedom results in you having something over 40 times as many firearms murders per head of population than we do in the UK.....

 

We all value freedom but some we're better without. It certainly doesn't seem to be keeping you safe.

 

 

And that freedom results in you having something over 40 times as many firearms murders per head of population than we do in the UK.....

 

We all value freedom but some we're better without. It certainly doesn't seem to be keeping you safe.

 

You're free to elect and run your country how you like. We don't just give up rights because someone goes mad. Like I stated the Westboros, KKKs etc of the world don't get to dictate the First Amendment. We have different rights different beliefs and different values where I'm from. They obviously don't jive with yours and that's ok. I'm not willing to allow my rights to be eroded by morons and psychopaths.

You can bet that our politicians will respond in a way that pays them the best. On another note, we are very different from the UK. We share a similar language and have always (except in Viet Nam) mutually defended each other. Between fighting the British in the revolution and the Native Americans to gain westward growth, the gun became imbedded in society, for better or for worse. The other part of the equation is that Americans don't really trust nor want to rely on government for their existence. Remember, many of the immigrants that came to America felt they were escaping government oppression. That's my take.

In an attempt to lighten things up a wee bit without being disrespectful of the primary heartbreaking theme of this thread, nor intentionally disagreeable with those taking strong opposing positions on important matters...

 

The right to bare arms, USA vs Canada

 

Thanks Stephen. At this point of the thread, I really needed that :smile:

 

Randy,

 

You mentioned in this thread owning several AR15s, 20 or so semi-automatics and who knows what else. Why so many ?

 

 

Thanks Stephen. At this point of the thread, I really needed that.

 

Randy,

 

You mentioned in this thread owning several AR15s, 20 or so semi-automatics and who knows what else. Why so many ?

 

Some were handed down. I purchase 2 or 3 firearms a year. I have several setups for different tasks. I have suppressed AR 10's which are for 7.62mm for hogs. I carry a couple with me at night since they run in packs. Some are setup with night vision optics some basic. I also have my daughters setup. Mine are all used for different things. Some for nothing more than target shooting. I enjoy them. I'm not in a bunker waiting for zombies. I was raised around them, I enjoy them responsibly. I also have several vintage firearms. Muzzle loaders, revolvers, World War One and Two variants. I've also got a gun safe the size of a walk in closet that's fire proof.

I just hope this new panel has some sense to not restrict assault weapons like they did in the 90's. It proved ineffective and certainly didn't prevent two major school shootings. I say arm the teachers just like they arm pilots. Why not? The guns should be just like armed airline pilots, gun is always to be in immediate control and out of sight as to prevent alarm. Nor is it to be disclosed to anyone but crew on flight, federal marshal, or captain (if its a passenger pilot carrying). Same thing if a cop travels with a signed document on board a plane.

 

BTW, did anyone ever hear about how a assistant principal saved his school from a shooter because he had a gun? That would have been CT years ago but a gun saved everyone. The shooter even killed his mom before going on the rampage, just like CT.

 

http://www.davekopel.com/2a/othwr/principal&gun.htm

We don't just give up rights because someone goes mad

 

You wouldn't be doing that. You'd be giving up one of your rights so that people that go mad can't slaughter children with firearms.

 

And before we go back to "he could have done it with a knife or a fence post etc etc", you can run away from someone with a knife, the lunatic looked like a weed so an average teacher could have a reasonable go at him bare handed, the police who are armed would have no problem dealing with someone with a fence pole. You can't do much against someone with two semi-automatic pistol and a rifle.

 

Neither is it an argument to say that's why we need guns to defend ourselves. Firstly, the fact you have 40 times as many gun murders as we do proves guns don't keep you safe, Secondly, he could have gone as mad as he liked and not killed many, if any, if his mother hadn't had three firearms - yes you guessed it - to defend herself.

The president is going to have to work fast to push through anything significant before gun lobbyists get over their momentary paralysis and get to work on the legislators again. I posted a report from the ATF earlier in the thread, showing some of the extent of illegal gun trafficking through the "Gun show loophole"

 

Partially in response to reports like that, some believe, the ATF has been under relentless attack, and is so emasculated at this point that it can barely enforce the laws already on the books, much less handle any large new initiatives. It should be noted that Congress removed ATF from the treasury department in 2006 and then added its director to the list of people that had to be confirmed by the senate.........

 

After that move, even George Bush could not get a nominee appointed. Then-Senator Larry Craig, also a member of the NRA's board of directors, blocked Bush's nominee, arguing that the nominee was anti-gun) The power and influence of the American gun lobby was and is so pervasive that not a single director has been appointed to the agency since that time.

 

Consistent with that theme, ATF's funding has been slashed year after year to the point that the agency now employs fewer people than it has in 40 years, even as guns continue to proliferate. Welcome to American gun politics.

 

Move fast Mr president. Maybe you can get something better than an "acting director" for a once proud agency.

Like I stated I don't let criminals dictate my rights and ill make sure my legislators that I vote for in the country I live in know how I feel. I understand you don't agree or don't get it but quite frankly it's not for you to decide. It's this countries decision and this countries alone.

 

Rights get stripped one at a time until there's none left. I'm sorry if you don't understand why I refuse to give in to hysteria. Politicians never let a tragedy go to waste. We've sat around and accepted warrant less wiretapping, patriot acts, and other silly garbage in the name of safety. One by one. It's only one little right. Well wake up and realize we've legislated ourselves out of just about everything.