CT tragedy

[Bill V]

Protecting children is about the most "Grown up" thing a man can do.

Freeport, on that point, I'll agree with you. The only problem is that you have no clue on how to do it. Bringing more--check that, bringing ANY--weapons into a school environment is only going to increase the amount of tragedy occurring.



That's what so many of the people who are responding to this by wanting to arm every adult in the schools don't get. They think that arming those people will prevent tragedies like last Friday from occurring; when in actuality, it's the fact that there aren't guns on every adult hip in the schools which has kept events like last Friday rare.



You spout off about being a Ladder Company Lieutenant like I'm supposed to be impressed, or like it somehow qualifies you to have a clue about this subject. It doesn't. In fact, the fact that your job is so distant from the field of childhood education only makes you completely unqualified to know what would work in that situation.



I'll make you a deal--I won't tell you how you should be a ladder company lieutenant, if you don't tell America's principals and teachers how they should be doing theirs. Sound good?

 

[H D]

That's what so many of the people who are responding to this by wanting to arm every adult in the schools don't get. They think that arming those people will prevent tragedies like last Friday from occurring; when in actuality, it's the fact that there aren't guns on every adult hip in the schools which has kept events like last Friday rare.

I don't necessarily disagree with you that not every adult should have a gun on their hip in a school. Many teachers could easily be overtaken by a student, especially in high schools. I do think one or two armed officers at schools is a good idea, though.



Your last sentence is impossible to support, though. There is no evidence to support that a fully armed staff would cause mass shootings in schools. That's just your opinion. I respect it, but I don't think it's very accurate.



I think the reason school shootings are rare because extreme mental illness is rare. We're still blaming the tool and ignoring the mental health crisis. Every mass murder has one thing in common and it is not the weapon used...it's mental instability. Hundreds of thousands of gun owners, even those with "assault" weapons, live their daily lives without ever having a mentally unstable thought of mass murder pop through their mind. It's the mind, not the weapon. It's the mental activation switch, not the gun's safety or magazine size.



You prevent school shootings by providing help when students need it. You prevent mass murders by recognizing and treating mental health issues. You cut mass shootings short with responsible and well trained police officers and maybe even civilian gun owners when necessary. Common sense can be applied to guns; the fact that the shootings are rare yet the guns are so plentiful should give you some clue where to look for the problem. It's not in my gun safe. It's in a small number of very unhealthy minds of people who are hurting.

 

[Richard L]

Earlier, I had typed a very detail response but for some reason I lost it, so I am posting a much abbreviated reply just to clarify my position.



CobraXP, My compliments on an excellent post. For the most part I agree with your assessment of need to address the mental health issues since the vast majority of these kinds of mass shooting are done by people who are in some way, mentally disturbed. Addressing these mental health issues must be included as part of the solution to stop these mass shootings but are not the only issue, just as Assault weapons are not the only issue.



]Mental Issues:



I agree with many of the experts who claim that violent movies and video games have desensitized a lot of our younger population to violence and senseless killings

I think teachers and parents need be aware of the problem and to be educated in how to recognize these kinds of anti-social behavior and not just hide or sweep them under the rug. They need to get these kids the help they need rather than wait until they become sociopathic time bombs.



In addition, we need to establish some limit or restrict the violence in movies and video gamesNot only for children but for adults as well. I think young people from kindergarten to perhaps 20 years old should not be exposed to fantasy violence provided by current movies or video games. Movie and video game ratings have not done much to prevent young people to be denied access to this type of violence.



Why more gun laws and restrictions



A few years ago, my thoughts were much like everyone elses here.We should stop making more ineffective gun laws. I have previously stated that there are over 10,000 existing Federal, State, and local gun laws across the nation related to some level of gun control, and yet these senseless shootings continue. So, for the most part this strategy alone is not working. It needs to be part of a whole package nationwide.



So why did I change my position?



I no longer believe there is a single solution. Any solution will require a multi pronged approach of identifying and treating those with mental health issues, reducing the amount of fantasy violence our children are exposed to, and some restrictions to the sale and manufacture of high rate of fire weapons or components, that are most often used in these mass shooting incidents.



Why ban Assault type weapons?



I agree that an Assault styled weapon is not any more deadly than any more conventionally designed semi-automatic weapon. However, I do think that Assault styled weapons can and do trigger some form of a Rambo-syndrome with some people who have either mental or anti-social issues. I am convinced that these weapons create a strong attraction, and psychological link to the violent movies and video games they grew up with.



Why limit magazine capacities?



Reducing the amount of rounds the magazine can hold has a major impact on the number of rounds per minute that any weapon can fire. Anything that requires more frequent reloading or more steps to reload creates a delay or pause in shooting and that creates time for innocent victims to disperse, escape, or seek cover which will reduce the number of victims shot or killed.



And I continue to repeat this, but nobody has been able to provide legal or reasonable situation that would justify why more than a 6 round magazine would be needed?



How does Caliber and muzzle velocity matter?



Small caliber weapons can certainly kill but often require a direct hit to a vital organ or artery. Small caliber weapons typically are lower velocity and do not usually have the impact or penetrating power to cause the tissue damage seen with large caliber or high velocity ammo.



We may be justified in keeping larger magazine capacities for smaller caliber, lower velocity weapons, but for the killing power of larger caliber, high velocity ammo, we need to limit the rate of fire by reducing the magazine capacity.



...Rich

 

[Robert Thomas]

Ok, ok, I got it. You hiking along the Texas border and you come under attack by Mexican drug smugglers. You only have 6 rounds, I am standing in front of you. It would ok if I had 7 rounds

 

[Thomas Rogers]

There's a reason why post offices don't have "Take your gun to work" days. More guns may make people feel safer, but I'd sooner think that the more guns there are in the workplace, the more likely some otherwise rather sane person might get fed up and just shoot someone. Workplace violence does happen. Stress is a real thing. Confrontation happens. There are those that feel that more guns would make people more civil. I don't believe that is the case.



Something has to give. We are become a country of less civility, more brutality, less personal responsibility and less respect for our fellow man. I'm not sure how MORE guns helps those issues.



TJR

 

[Richard L]

Redfish,

:bwahaha: No, that's not reasonalbe, but it is funny :bwahaha:



I have all but given you the answer in my last post?



....Rich

 

[Bill V]

Wait for the Army to show up like Bill V wants to do?

Again, freeport--Grow up. I never said anything of the sort.

You prevent school shootings by providing help when students need it. You prevent mass murders by recognizing and treating mental health issues.

Well said, I agree with these completely. Although I do find it interesting how so many of the conservatives who are now saying this, in part as a way to try to ward off the people who wish to limit firearm availability, are the same people who at any other time are so strongly in favor of slashing educational and health care spending. Providing help to students costs money. Recognizing and treating mental health issues costs money. Stationing policie officers in schools costs money. If you (and by "you", I'm not necessarily talking to any specific person on this site--I'm talking to those conservatives who take this stance in general) truly want all these things, and see benefit to them, start supporting increases--not slashes--to government funding in these areas.

 

[Richard L]

Bill V,

I think the frequency of these kinds of mass shootings and the number of victims has been increasing and now the horror of kids killed in this latest shooting adds a level of urgency to this problem that was never there before. Simply saying it's a mental health issue, and not a gun issue ignores at least half of the problem. It's gun issue, it's a mental health issue, its our kids being exposed to so much violence in movies and video games, it's a lack of security in our schools. Its the availability of high powered weapons with nearly limitless amounts of ammo available with just the pull of the trigger.



It's also, people who assume that banning or limiting something that is contributing to the high death count in these shootings is somehow assuming that it is a violation of there Constitutional rights to bear arms. There are already many types and kinds of arms that civilians are not allowed to own...including nuclear arms.



I just notice that the IRA is recommending Armed Police officers in every school. That is a good start. However, like you mentioned who is going to pay for this. I think that it should be an added state and Federal tax of fee added on to the sale of all guns and all ammo. These taxes must not go into the general revenue funds, but be specifically used only for adding necessary security to our schools.



I think all schools should have armed guards, security cameras inside and outside the buildings, lockable steel doors on each classroom, and bars on all first floor windows. I also think that schools should have a single main entrance and multiple, monitored fire exit doors that only open from the inside. The main entrance should require an armed security guard, contain a secure Sally Port type entrance with metal detectors, cameras and bullet proof glass. Yes this would be expensive but if paid by taxes on firearms and ammo, it will not increase the general taxes for those who do not purchase weapons, and will pay for the protection against those that do purchase weapons and ammo.



...Rich

 

[H D]

I'm all for paying for any number of governmental services. Even as a conservative, fiscally mostly, I don't think there is a limit to how big government can or should be as far as it's ability to provide services and the number of services provided. They have to be paid for, though, not borrowed for. If there were security cameras, armed officers at every entrance, bullet proof windows, kevlar walls, etc., I'd be ok with that. As long as it's paid for, not borrowed.



The whole predicament of government is deciding what services to provide and who pays for them. Unfortunately, we are now in a time where everyone wants every service but nobody wants to pay for any of it Some things have to go. Some things are more important than others.



So, protect the schools. Provide mental health care. Heck, provide all health care. But we can't spend billions on the frivolous stuff we do at the same time. At my low wages, I'd gladly pay 50% of my income if I knew it was going to actually solve real societal problems. Currently, I feel like I just throw away most of the money I pay in taxes. Whole other issue, but I think it is relevant.



It goes back to my issue with the current discussions. How much time and money are we going to devote to taking certain guns out of law-abiding citizens' hands (because the illegally owned ones will continue to be so) but we won't spend a dime or 10 minutes on the congressional floors to talk about mental health? Priorities are screwed up. That's my problem. Realistically, a ban on certain types of guns or ammo isn't going to affect my life, for better or worse, but I'm having freedoms limited unnecessarily and ineffectively while the real common denominator in these situations goes unsolved or even discussed.



Btw, every gun store at least within 150 miles of me is reportedly out of AR15s and ammo. Not really the intended consequence of this type of talk, was it? Kinda counterproductive don't you think. Funny how the market works.

 

[Richard L]

Hugh,

I agree with you 100%. We want the protection and the mental health treatment, and the security in our schools, etc...but nobody is willing to pay for them. That's why I suggested that we continue to head in the direction of taxing the users. If you drive a car you have to pay the taxes to use the roads. If you buy a gun as your Constitutional right, then you should be willing to pay the additional taxes on the gun and the ammo to insure that society is protected from those who will abuse their rights to own guns and intentionally harm others, even if you are not part of the problem.



I also recognize that whenever one of these mass shooting incidents occur, people panic, thinking that there will be some laws passed to restrict their ability to purchase a gun, and results in a run on the gun shops to purchase any gun, and every gun, and all the ammo they can get.



Tha't why I thought it would have been good idea for Obama to freeze the sale of guns and ammo for a minimun of 90 days to allow time for Congress and the Senate to come up with some reasonable legistlation the encompasses all the things discussed here.



...Rich

 

[Robert Thomas]

Rich, I'm not sure your president has any authority that would hold up to do what you want. It might be accomplished by a commerce regulation or a EPA regulation.



A federal tax designated for a specific action is not really a sum of money that goes to that action.



Any action by the government that requires spending includes funding and fte's (people). A bill sometimes includes funding estimated to cover the action. After it is all approved that is the end of it. All the money collected goes to Treasury. The approved funding is given to the agency. The two fund not are connected. If to much money is collected it is spent somewhere else. If not enough is collected the gov prints money.

 

[EddieS'04]

Gun free and worse than the US........

 

[H D]

I would gladly pay taxes, registration fees, whatever with the purchase of guns or ammo if I knew it was going directly to something tangibly relevant to preventing gun violence (not banning them). Along with the good point Redfish provided, I take issue with the way taxes supposedly are earmarked for particular things. I use earmarked in the nonpolitical and derogatory way; basically just the way new taxes or fees are promised to go directly to a particular issue.



I pay fees to hunt every year, usually don't even need it because I usually hunt family land that doesn't require it, but I pay for a hunting/fishing/outdoor recreation license (the full works one). It supposedly goes toward the conservation of wildlife and their habitats. Well, Georgia has since outsourced collection to a private company in Alabama and now the proceeds go toward the prosecution of dead-beat dads.



So now, wildlife conservation, wetlands preservation, habitat protection, etc. suffers (visibly) to imprison dead-beat dads. My education taxes are probably paying for their incarceration. Sales tax probably paying for their job skills training post-incarceration. Even so-called special purpose taxes can't even be trusted to be used for their initial and intended causes.



So, when I'm told my taxes are going up AND there are things I'm not allowed to buy and I already know that neither of those actions are going to make a difference, I at least try to recognize what the true problem is so we could at least pretend to provide the same level of attention we do for the current hot-topic political football.

 

[EddieS'04]

Maybe we should allow a 30% tax placed on clothing items and 20% on food. That way the whole nation pays for the security of the kids. Instead of targeting the 99.99% of law abiding citizens in a certain group..



Plus while we are at it why dont we give the president complete excutive power. To over ride and place moritoriums and freezes on any thing in our free market system, and constitution. Sounds like a good start to totalerism and dictatorship to me.



Doe's any but me see how stupid and dangerous that is..............



Want to raise taxes for school security. Have only the people that actualy have kids in school pay more school and property tax. Than those of that dont have kids in school.

Oh wait that might be considered unfair also. Or should I say also dumb.



BTW, driving and using public roads is not a right. It is a privledge. No comparision can be made in that.



I have only followed this thread. I cant believe how dumb it has gotten. Almost like someone sitting in a beer joint. Drinking and disagreeing until one falls off the bar stool. The one that falls off the stool first. Looses the argument....



Just my 2 cents of the nonsense and the mass blame game.......of who should pay for it.



I said, it was getting weird so I was getting out. Now I will also have to quit reading it.:smack:

 

[Robert Thomas]

Eddie,



Try this I only read and post while I drink.:haveabeer::haveabeer::haveabeer:

 

[Richard L]

Eddie,

Have you been drinking??? :grin:



I think much of what everyone here is saying is that we are all fed up with all these senseless mass shootings, knowing that probably little if any real progress will be made in ending them unless citizens are willing to make some change and some tough sacrifices.



There are a few old saying that think apply in this situation:



"If you always do what you've always done, You'll always get what you've always got".



Or put another way:



"The definition of Insanity is doing the same thing over an over again, and expecting the results to be any different"



Everyone here has made some good points, but nobody seems to be committed to resolving the problem if it involves them giving up something or changing something. Most people have had disagreements with my proposals, but often don't have any solutions themselves...They only are interested in a solution that does not impact them in any way.



I hate to repeat myself, but how can people object to banning large capacity magazines when they cannot give a legal, rational and realistic situation where they can justify the need for more than 6 rounds?



I know of one very real justification, and there may be more, but nobody wants to think beyond the simple fact that they feel they have the right to buy or own anything they want, even when they have no justifiable need for that item.



...Rich

 

[Carey Frennier]

Why don't you just take 10 teachers and reduce their income a few grand and then the school can negotiate their own salary with a prospective armed security guard?

 

[Richard L]

Cary,

That is just the attitude that I was talking about! Everybody should make sacrifices, and bear the burden of responsibility...just as long as it's not you. That only alienates people and is probably the biggest cause of this problem. Nobody wants to pay more, be inconvenienced, or be denied or limited to anything they desire or that they feel is their right. It's never their problem, it's always someone else's problem.



Any solution to the problem will require a lot of changes to Mental Health, limiting exposure to Violence, Civilian access to Assault styled weapons, reducing magazine capacity in semi-automatic weapons, and better security in our schools. No one single issue will alone solve the problem as we have seen over the years as the mass shooting continue to escalate.



...Rich

 

[Nick Miller]

"The definition of Insanity is doing the same thing over an over again, and expecting the results to be any different"

Farcry 3?

 

[Robert Thomas]

I hate to repeat myself, but how can people object to banning large capacity magazines when they cannot give a legal, rational and realistic situation where they can justify the need for more than 6 rounds?

Yes, you have repeated yourself several times. No problem, you have presented your valid reasons for your feelings and pushed for changes/standards you feel will help cure the problem. I respect this but, don't think it is realistic for a number of reasons.



The problem with replying to your questions is that no one is going to be able to meet your legal, rational, and realistic standards. You have set yourself up as judge, if one is unable to meet them you have pre classified them as a psycho. You fail to realize that others may have a different views of the presented situations. My standard is legal, rational and realistic to me. It doesn't have to be acceptable to you. If your President chooses to come after my M4 and 20 round magazines. OK, as long as he takes them all. It is estimated that there are in excess of 1.5 Million weapons of the type in the United States and over 20 Million 20 round magazines.



Legal - It is presently legal to own these magazines and weapons. It is presently legal to use these magazines and weapons for a number of activities.



Rational - I have a lots of training with many types of weapons. My weapons are secured. I have a CWP for 13 years, I have never carried a firearm on my person since I retired. But if I feel the need I will. I find no need to ever Assault, (unprovoked), anything or anyone with any type of weapon. I don not have a Assault Weapon I have a Defensive Weapon. I do see the need to defend myself, my family, my friends, an any other number of defenseless others that are being unjustly assaulted, and to defend my property under some conditions with a weapon of the type in question. I further feel, as stated before, that if an assaulter has one bullet, I would like two. If they have 6, I would like to have seven, ect, ect.



Situation - As an example, in a Natural Disaster where Law Enforcement is not responding and I am put in the situation where heavily armed individuals are threatening those individuals listed above. Furthermore that a handgun or a weapons with only 6 round may not deter said heavily armed individuals. In this case, I feel a weapon with 20 rounds or over would be acceptable, to slow an assault and allow for a safe withdrawal, if possible, of individuals being threatened.



Attack my position as you wish and or classify me as you wish. But, I stand by my position and will help any and all that are in need, including you and yours.



Merry Christmas to all.