GreekChat.com Forums - School Shooting Newtown CT

GreekChat.com Forums (https://greekchat.com/gcforums/index.php)

- News & Politics (https://greekchat.com/gcforums/forumdisplay.php?f=207)

- - School Shooting Newtown CT (https://greekchat.com/gcforums/showthread.php?t=130857)

Quote:

Originally Posted by TonyB06 (Post 2194141)

<snip>

The problem is probably more on the mental health side, but it's the guns that escalate the carnage.

So what to do? Personally, I don't think assault-style weapons should be allowed outside the military.

-renew assault weapons ban
-close gun show loopholes
-limit/eliminate high capacity automatic clips.

let's start with that.

The "assault" weapon differs from a hunting rifle in looks only. Add a pistol grip to make the firearm easier to control (accuracy is not good?) or a carbon-fiber black stock instead of old-growth walnut, and there you have it. In fact, the "assault" weapon designated AR-15 is illegal for hunting in my state - because it's not considered powerful enough.

There is no such thing as a gun show loophole. NOTHING is legal at a gun show that is not legal in my living room. And I'll be happy to take you to gun shows where I can show you the "unlicensed" dealers. Only problem is, "unlicensed dealers" are NOT selling firearms.

Automatic weapons are already highly regulated. They require additional permissions from law-enforcement agencies, a tax stamp, and permission from BATFE. Therefore, the "clips" you refer to are useless without the highly regulated firearm to go with it.

So while I appreciate that you're trying to put forth solutions, in fact, none of these are solutions.

Question for the Americans with elementary school age kids in your lives (as I live in Canada and I haven't been inside an elementary school in a while)

I've read on some news stories that the gunman "broke into" the school; I'm not sure that I understand "broke into".

Every elementary school that I know of (i.e. here in Canada), yes, visitors have to "report" to the office, but unless the office is "right there" at the front entrance, someone could stroll into the unlocked front entrance & easily bypass the office and wander around the place until someone inquired, "May I help you?"

Are American elementary schools generally kept "locked"? (In particular, the front entrance?)

Please explain / advise.

In many towns around me, school doors are automatically locked once the bell rings for classes to begin. I believe in the case of Sandy Hook, the gunman shot his way through the glass of the locked front doors of the school building in order to enter.

Been a while since I've stopped by, but since I teach at an elementary school (K-8 charter) I've been reading most of the discussions on this topic in various forums I frequent.

CutiePie2000 - I can only speak for the schools where I've taught, had children attend, or visited - none were locked (well except for the juvenile detention facility where I taught - it obviously was and MAYBE an alternative school where I taught - I can't remember for sure on it). You could walk into any of them and while you were supposed to check into the office - at the bigger schools (primarily high schools) this rarely happened.

After several school shootings in the past (as a sad aside - I graudated from Columbine and student taught at Thurston HS), most schools talked about heightened security and for a while many did lock up and get stricter about checking in at the office, issuing visitor passes etc., but as with most things like this-as time goes by and people calm down - they get sloppy. Sandy Hook actually was locked and you had to show ID and buzz to get in - several stations noted this was unusual particularly for that area. This is why they said he broke in.

This week we started locking down our school again which has presented some challenges with our aftercare program which I also oversee. It's worth it to feel somewhat secure; it's also led to a lot of questions from the kids who are, of course, wondering about why we are suddenly changing procedures. They notice any little change in their routine.

**** A little off the subject but a point of clarification- A poster mentioned why trust teachers with guns if they don't trust us to unionize - Not that I want a gun, but we do, in fact, have unions in every state that I'm aware of and a strong national union.

My children's elementary school is not locked, and when.I stopped in on Wednesday, it was business as usual.

The schools in my hometown have had police there all week just in case because of the risk of "copycat" incidents. Not a bad idea.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AXOmom (Post 2194271)

**** A little off the subject but a point of clarification- A poster mentioned why trust teachers with guns if they don't trust us to unionize - Not that I want a gun, but we do, in fact, have unions in every state that I'm aware of and a strong national union.

Continuing the side track just a bit, but in my state collective bargaining is (and always has been) prohibited for public employees, including teachers. The state organization affiliated with the NEA operates as a professional association.

Quote:

Originally Posted by adpimiz (Post 2194321)

The schools in my hometown have had police there all week just in case because of the risk of "copycat" incidents. Not a bad idea.

I think I said this upthread, but where I live, all middle and high schools have at least one law enforcement officer in them. They're there not just for security in case of incidents like this, but also for drugs, violence from students, etc.

The most reasonable, facts-based response against gun control arguments I've seen:

http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/20...n-gun-control/

Quote:

Originally Posted by CutiePie2000 (Post 2194264)

The doors at the school are locked at 9:30. All visitors must be buzzed in. The perpetrator (I will not give him the respect of using his name) buzzed the door and was refused. He then shot a glass door and climbed through the hole.

The noise of the shots is what brought several administrators to the hallway where he shot them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MysticCat (Post 2194326)

And there have been a string of states recently that have tried to either elminate or remove almost all power from the teacher's unions. There was a period of time here in Idaho where a teacher could be terminated from their contract and they didn't have to be given a reason why. Essentially they were held liable to the contract, but the schools weren't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 33girl (Post 2194147)

This just means that Kevin, like the media, is blowing those incidents off because they didn't involve a large number of sweet innocent children, just grimy old everyday grownups, and are therefore unimportant.

Thank you for giving me a good jumping off point for me to vent what is really chapping my hide about the coverage of this story. The references to "20 angels" are particularly unfeeling and offensive to the friends and family of the 6 adults that were killed.

Not really sure what news you're watching, because the stories I've seen (locally in CT and on the national news) have discussed the deaths of the teachers and principal as part of the horrific tragedy in all of this. I've seen lots of discussion about the adults who were murdered. So, we must be watching different news reports.

That aside, I was in Newtown today for the first time since this all happened. The community has really come together, but there is a tremendous amount of shock and hurt. It's all so incredibly sad.

FWIW, the funeral homes in the area at full capacity, which is why the funerals are being spread out over the week. Ana Marquez-Greene will be buried on Saturday.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle (Post 2194333)

The most reasonable, facts-based response against gun control arguments I've seen:

http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/20...n-gun-control/

This is wonderful and I'm sharing it with everyone I know. It's scary to see people demanding changes in the law based on nothing more than their emotional response to a scary incident. The whole country could use some actual facts right now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle (Post 2194333)

The most reasonable, facts-based response against gun control arguments I've seen:

http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/20...n-gun-control/

That in no way, shape or form is reasonable or fact based. I'll give you that he has a lot of experience with guns, but the vast majority of that is OPINION.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MysticCat (Post 2193968)

In any event, I think most of us in this thread have been pretty clear that we don't think "banning guns" is the answer, and that the discussion and action we think needs to happen involves a whole lot more than guns.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MysticCat (Post 2194024)

This, I think, is where the rub comes in. I'll absolutely agree that empathy and sympathy are not the reasons to write laws.

But I don't think anyone is in search of a problem. There is without question a problem, and it is not in the least off the mark to discuss what can reasonably be done to make it less of a problem.

Not every suggestion will be reasonable. Not every suggestion will be feasible. Not every suggestion will be effective. That's no reason not to have the discussion.

You are correct, all options need to be examined for effectiveness. One BIG problem that I have had is that the shooting was on Friday morning. By Friday evening the media and some politicians were calling for gun control. Diane Feinstein made an announcement on Monday that she was going to reintroduce her 1994 gun control legislation. THEY HAD NOT EVEN BURIED THE FIRST VICTIM!! They were just waiting in the wings to dance in the blood of children to promote their political agenda. For some reason the media contacted the NRA for comment. As far as I know the shooter was not an NRA member, but the NRA response was basically our thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families. No politcal content or comment, just sympathy. It was not the time for political commentary despite the media baiting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito (Post 2194044)

I do not know your situation so I won't comment on it specifically, but many people who carry a firearm for defense have no substantial chance that they will be in a life or death situation that requires a firearm.

True, just like the majority of cops never find themselves in a life or death situation and they intend to go in harms way. Just like I have home owners, auto, and health insurance, but I never intend to use them. Sure was nice to have health insurance last year when my hospital bill was $315,000, not including doctors, just hospital. Bette to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito (Post 2194044)

And here is where things get tricky. First off, the Bill of Rights was written to restrict the power of the federal government, not the state governments.

The Bill of Rights DOES restrict state governments. If fact it restricts any government entity even at the city level. A state nor city may restrict your rights.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito (Post 2194044)

Second it is argueable that the right to keep and bear arms is restricted to what is need to maintain a militia. Discussion of the Second Amendment is difficult because a militia in the sense that it existed in the several states before federation does not exist any more. Keeping that in mind, there have been legal opinions issued stating that the right to keep and bear arms only applies to military duties as part of the militia.

I am afraid that you are not familiar with any of the Supreme Court rulings in the 20th or 21st century regarding the 2nd Amendment. First, if you use the 'militia' as the basis for your argument you need to know what the militia is. 10 USC 311:

'(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.'

So you may be a member of the militia and now even know it. It really doesn't matter be cause Heller vs DC (2008) decided that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to own firearms for lawful purposes. If you read the Bill of Rights the word 'people' or 'person' is used throughout. How could it possibly mean an individual in the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 10th Amendments, but a collective group controlled by the government in the 2nd Amendment? It has to mean the same thing everywhere it is used. If guns are controlled by the government then so is the press, speech, and religion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DubaiSis (Post 2194046)

Here's my 2 cents:
1-any gun for private ownership should have to be reloaded after 6 shots.

Why six? Why not two, eight, eighteen? You need to see a guy I know shoot a six shot revolver. I have met Jerry, I do not know him, but he seemed like a nice guy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLk1v5bSFPw

Quote:

Originally Posted by DubaiSis (Post 2194046)

2-a person should only be able to buy a limited amount of ammo at one time. Yes, they could stock pile it, but that would mean they'd have time to think if this plan is really a good one, and maybe reconsider. If you have to take out 9 boxes of ammo to go hunting, you might want to try lessons before hunting again.

That is going to put a crimp in shooting sports for alot of people. When I was shooting IPSC in the 1980's I knew guys shooting 1000 rds a week. That can get expensive so reloading was very popular. Now Walmart has gotten so cheap for the amount I shoot it is easier to buy it there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DubaiSis (Post 2194046)

6-teaching civility and conflict resolution has to be another thing changed in our society. Would it solve anything? No. Would it help? I believe it would.

In fact conflict resolution is taught as part of the concealed handgun licensing class in Texas. I think it is a good idea.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TonyB06 (Post 2194141)

The problem is probably more on the mental health side, but it's the guns that escalate the carnage.

So what to do? Personally, I don't think assault-style weapons should be allowed outside the military.

-renew assault weapons ban
-close gun show loopholes
-limit/eliminate high capacity automatic clips.

let's start with that.

So you admit that the problem is more on the mental health side, but we should do something about the guns. None of the recommendations would have changed last Friday. All the assault weapons ban did was banned cosmentic features. Bayonet lugs, flash hiders, pistol grips, folding stocks, and others. Nothing addressed the function of the gun, so compliant guns were made. Magazine capacity is not an issue when you are unopposed. Just change using mulitple mags. There is no gun show loophole. The federal laws apply to gun shows. Individuals can sell guns at gun shows or in the newspaper locally. The federal government has no authority to something that I own to keep me from selling it to a neighbor provided that neighbor is not a prohibited owner.

Quote:

Originally Posted by knight_shadow (Post 2194167)

Who would be paying for the teachers' guns and licenses? If a teacher is in an "armed" school, can s/he opt out? Can a parent opt out of his/her child being in an "armed" classroom?

#RandomThoughts

Interesting. The teachers would pay for their own guns and licenses as they do in Texas, but the opt out is interesting. If a parent opts his child out of an armed classroom, is the child then not under the protective umbrella of the armed teachers? Maybe isolate those children in less secure classrooms or in modules outside the main school?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito (Post 2194170)

What I think would be a good possible solution would be for there to be a member of the local law enforcement at all schools, and for that matter other soft targets like movie theathers. Of course that brings concerns of a police state, so *shrugs*

Good news in Oklahoma City. The Deer Creek School district in far NW OKC and NW Oklahoma County will now be protected by armed Oklahoma County Sheriffs Deputies until further notice.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle (Post 2194333)

The most reasonable, facts-based response against gun control arguments I've seen:

http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/20...n-gun-control/

Larry has been a friend of mine for many years and I always make time for he and the wife when I am in Salt Lake City. I look forward to meeting with him in Las Vegas in January. Good stuff.

A friend told me that he saw on the news that CT actually has a ban on assault weapons. Does anyone know if that's true?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff OTMG (Post 2194421)

You are correct. Guns and gun laws should certainly be examined and included in any discussion of possible solutions for the problem. No reason that they should be excluded. I think that the problems occur when 'solutions' are suggested that would have had no affect on the shooting and/or when rights are infringed upon, and I don't just mean gun rights. There are privacy issues with health records, including mental health records. Those are not available for examination. This is a problem in book, but am I willing to allow any health records to become part of a national government controlled database? I am just not there. We are not now, nor should we be, able to incarcerate someone for something someone might do nor should you be able to deny someone a right for a potential future issue. Under existing law you must commit a crime AND be convicted by a jury before you are put in jail. I think that it is a great idea. Frequently we know who is going to cause trouble. One problem is where do you draw the line? Over 30% of black males have been covicted and incarcerated by the time they were 29 years old. Black males make up about 6% of the total US population yet account for over 40% of the US prision population. If we are using a criteria for preventing potential future crime do we start incarcerating black males at age 12? No, that is a violation of their rights, but where do we draw that line when charging people for crimes that they might commit?

You are correct, all options need to be examined for effectiveness. One BIG problem that I have had is that the shooting was on Friday morning. By Friday evening the media and some politicians were calling for gun control. Diane Feinstein made an announcement on Monday that she was going to reintroduce her 1994 gun control legislation. THEY HAD NOT EVEN BURIED THE FIRST VICTIM!! They were just waiting in the wings to dance in the blood of children to promote their political agenda. For some reason the media contacted the NRA for comment. As far as I know the shooter was not an NRA member, but the NRA response was basically our thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families. No politcal content or comment, just sympathy. It was not the time for political commentary despite the media baiting.

True, just like the majority of cops never find themselves in a life or death situation and they intend to go in harms way. Just like I have home owners, auto, and health insurance, but I never intend to use them. Sure was nice to have health insurance last year when my hospital bill was $315,000, not including doctors, just hospital. Bette to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.

The Bill of Rights DOES restrict state governments. If fact it restricts any government entity even at the city level. A state nor city may restrict your rights.

I am afraid that you are not familiar with any of the Supreme Court rulings in the 20th or 21st century regarding the 2nd Amendment. First, if you use the 'militia' as the basis for your argument you need to know what the militia is. 10 USC 311:

'(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.'

So you may be a member of the militia and now even know it. It really doesn't matter be cause Heller vs DC (2008) decided that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to own firearms for lawful purposes. If you read the Bill of Rights the word 'people' or 'person' is used throughout. How could it possibly mean an individual in the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 10th Amendments, but a collective group controlled by the government in the 2nd Amendment? It has to mean the same thing everywhere it is used. If guns are controlled by the government then so is the press, speech, and religion.

Why six? Why not two, eight, eighteen? You need to see a guy I know shoot a six shot revolver. I have met Jerry, I do not know him, but he seemed like a nice guy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLk1v5bSFPw

That is going to put a crimp in shooting sports for alot of people. When I was shooting IPSC in the 1980's I knew guys shooting 1000 rds a week. That can get expensive so reloading was very popular. Now Walmart has gotten so cheap for the amount I shoot it is easier to buy it there.

In fact conflict resolution is taught as part of the concealed handgun licensing class in Texas. I think it is a good idea.

So you admit that the problem is more on the mental health side, but we should do something about the guns. None of the recommendations would have changed last Friday. All the assault weapons ban did was banned cosmentic features. Bayonet lugs, flash hiders, pistol grips, folding stocks, and others. Nothing addressed the function of the gun, so compliant guns were made. Magazine capacity is not an issue when you are unopposed. Just change using mulitple mags. There is no gun show loophole. The federal laws apply to gun shows. Individuals can sell guns at gun shows or in the newspaper locally. The federal government has no authority to something that I own to keep me from selling it to a neighbor provided that neighbor is not a prohibited owner.

Interesting. The teachers would pay for their own guns and licenses as they do in Texas, but the opt out is interesting. If a parent opts his child out of an armed classroom, is the child then not under the protective umbrella of the armed teachers? Maybe isolate those children in less secure classrooms or in modules outside the main school?

Good news in Oklahoma City. The Deer Creek School district in far NW OKC and NW Oklahoma County will now be protected by armed Oklahoma County Sheriffs Deputies until further notice.

Larry has been a friend of mine for many years and I always make time for he and the wife when I am in Salt Lake City. I look forward to meeting with him in Las Vegas in January. Good stuff.

If the solution is to arm teachers, shouldn't they be teachers who possess military or police training? I think I said it upthread, but a shooter is an active target. When there are children running around, a shooter running around shooting... That's not an easy target to hit. I don't think that a teacher who's taken one gun class would be able to hit an active shooter who was possibly firing back. I've been shooting with my parents before, and have grown up around guns, but I highly doubt I would be much help in that kind of situation, even if I was armed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by adpimiz (Post 2194451)

When there are children running around, a shooter running around shooting... That's not an easy target to hit.

Au contraire. Aim higher.

No. Not even a shot needs to be fired in order for it to be effective.

This never made the mainstream news because Newtown happened just a few days later.

http://www.easybakegunclub.com/blog/...he-Full-S.html

My brother is a teacher. He has signed up to get his CCW permit in our state. His wife is also a teacher, and he'd like for her to do the same. If it ever becomes legal for a teacher to carry at school in our state, my brother will do so. (He was Army ROTC and planned on being an Army lifer until a medical issue lost him his scholarship).

^ What I'm saying, though, is that if teachers are armed, they should have extensive training. Trust me, I'm very anti gun control.

Who is to say they wouldn't? I don't disagree, but I would trust a teacher/aide/custodian/school bus driver with zero military or law enforcement background if they had the proper concealed carry training (and whatever else the powers that be may deem worthy). If all it takes is a shooter seeing a CCW holder pointing their sidearm at them to make them stop, and "burst their bubble" and kill themselves faster or surrender, then I'm for it. All they have to be willing to do is show their weapon, and slow the shooter down. It's been shown that even just seeing another firearm is enough to stop a shooter, not a single shot even needs to be fired by the CCW holder.

The last school where I taught had several men who had been hunters for years. I would trust them with my life.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff OTMG (Post 2194421)

I think that the problems occur when 'solutions' are suggested that would have had no affect on the shooting and/or when rights are infringed upon, and I don't just mean gun rights.

I'm going to disagree just a bit with this. The problem doesn't come when "solutions" that aren't really solutions are "suggested." The problem comes when solutions that aren't really solutions are adopted. It's a distinction that matters, I think, because the former is focused on inhibiting the discussion while the latter focuses on effective decision-making.

NPR had what I thought was a good interview with Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-WV), who has a A-rating from the NRA, on Wednesday. This part particularly resonated with me:

SIEGEL: Can you go so far as to say there should be a real limit, as there used to be, on how big a magazine you can use?

MANCHIN: What I will say is I want to sit down with the people that want 10 or more rounds. I want to hear. I don't know. I want to hear their reasoning, and I think that's a conversation that we need to have, Robert, and I keep saying that.

SIEGEL: What I hear you saying is it's time to sit down and talk with people on all sides, but I don't hear you saying that you're bringing a strong belief in what could or should be banned right now into those talks.

MANCHIN: Robert, I think if we have people coming with preset notions and basically their minds made up, the wrong people are coming to the table. . . . You know, if you can't have - and I told Senator Feinstein. I said, Dianne, you've been working on this for quite some time. It's very near and dear to you, and I respect that. And I want to learn more and see where you're coming from. On the other hand, I want my friends at the NRA and all of us sitting down so you can hear what they're coming and what they see around this country.

I think he's right. If people come to the table with their minds already made up, whether about what the answers are or what the answers aren't, then the wrong people are at the table.

Quote:

The Bill of Rights DOES restrict state governments. If fact it restricts any government entity even at the city level.

Not quite. The Bill of Rights itself only restricts the powers of the federal government, and courts consistently held that until the end of the 19th Century.

But starting the 1920s, courts have held the Fourteenth Amendment, which does apply to the states, "incorporates" some of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights and imposes on state and local governments the same restrictions imposed on the federal government. It was not until 2010 that the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment applies to the states.

So the Bill of Rights applies to the federal government. Most, but not all portions of the Bill of Rights have been held to have been incorporated against the states by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by carnation (Post 2194458)

The last school where I taught had several men who had been hunters for years. I would trust them with my life.

Men who have been hunting for years =/= man who has never even picked up a gun in a video game who freaks out over this shooting and decides he needs to carry a gun to his classroom.

In other words I agree with adpimiz. Like anything else, I would assume the concealed carry training "takes" better with some than with others.

Oh, I do too. I was just commenting about people who would be great defenders. Dang, my little brother should be one. He's a high school teacher/former Army sharpshooter/avid hunter. I hope he never has to face a crazy school shooter, though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 33girl (Post 2194460)

Exactly. I'm not sure what training is required to get a concealed carry permit, but I wouldn't want a teacher who has taken one class being armed with a weapon.

Quote:

Originally Posted by adpimiz (Post 2194462)

Exactly. I'm not sure what training is required to get a concealed carry permit, but I wouldn't want a teacher who has taken one class being armed with a weapon.

Every state is different. However, any school district can set its requirements (or the state can set them for them) in order to carry ON SCHOOL PROPERTY.

Quote:

Originally Posted by adpimiz (Post 2194451)

Anyone who carries a firearm has extra responsibility. In Harrold, TX there have been armed personel since 2007
http://news.yahoo.com/texas-town-all...081017416.html

These shooters tend to be cowards. They choose gun-free zones to commit these attacks. I remember an attack at a church in Ft Worth, TX a few years ago, but when a church was attacked in Colorado there was a volunteer 'security guard' who shot the attacker and stopped the attack. We look at the school shooting in Pearl, MS. The assistant principal had to retrieve his gun from the car which allowed more students to die, but when faced with an armed teacher the student surrendered before he could get to the middle school to continue his shooting. I was living in Austin when there was a shooting at the Luby's cafeteria in Killeen, TX. There was a lady, Suzanna Gratia-Hupp, in there with her parents. She watched her parents die because she was a law abiding citizen and left her gun in the car and could do nothing. I have defended myself without having to fire a shot. I saved a girlfriend from an abduction using my gun. I didn't have to shot anyone then either. It was me against 5, but the gun made the difference. A moving target is harder to hit, but they tend to stop moving to shoot and distance is a factor in hit probability. Even if the armed teacher shoots high over the shooters head it will distract them from killing the kids. You don't hear about these guys going in and trying to shoot up police stations, gun shows, gun stores, or schools with armed guards. They want unarmed victims.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MysticCat (Post 2194459)

SIEGEL: Can you go so far as to say there should be a real limit, as there used to be, on how big a magazine you can use?

I don't see magazine capacity as being an issue. The Browning HP (P-35) has been equiped with a standard 13 round magazine since its introduction in 1935. The S&W mod 59 had a 15 round magazine in 1970. In rifles the M14 went into service in 1959 and the BAR in 1919, with 20 round magazines. How can it be that nearly 100 years later it is a problem? The previous magazine ban sunsetted in 2004. A report was prepared by the Attorney General Office that found that the law had no effect on crime at all and isn't crime what we are trying to effect? Sadly that is not the case for many people. They want guns gone regardless of the effect on crime.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MysticCat (Post 2194459)

I think he's right. If people come to the table with their minds already made up, whether about what the answers are or what the answers aren't, then the wrong people are at the table.

Open minds are important. The other thing to realize is that large population centers on the east and west coast is where you see the anti-gun sentiment. Here in Oklahoma not one county voted for Obama and I know that in Oklahoma and Texas it is not appreciated when the government passes legislation that pleases the coasts. It doesn't always go over here in the middle of the country.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MysticCat (Post 2194459)

The 14th was passed in 1868 and was the result of some of the enumerated rights be stepped on. IMO the states could not void rights under the Constitution, but it took the 14th Amendment to make it official. I think that the 10th Amendment should have been recognized to identify the rights of 'the people', and the rest were for the states. The 14th was a restatement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MysticCat (Post 2194459)

It was not until 2010 that the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment applies to the states.

About time too.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2116162.html

That guy shot up a police precinct in Detroit. I don't know why you think it only happens in gun free zones.

That situation sounds like suicide by cop.

What bothers me is that people refuse to look at mental illness. I think we can all agree that guns don't kill people, people kill people. It's time we look at the people behind the guns. Why are mass shootings becoming so frequent? What has happened in society that these things happen now, but not thirty years ago? (besides the very rare isolated incident)

Media. Fame. Immortality. Coddling. The closing of mental health institutions. Violence in video games and movies. The sense of entitlement we see during recruitment. On and on and on.

I know, but I wish people would realize that's what the issue is, not a gun. Because someone who is determined to kill will find a way. Look at the Oklahoma City Bombing. Mass casualties without a gun. Getting rid of guns isn't the answer, because a killer will find a way if he or she is determined to do so.

As I have said before, with the exception of the attacks on 9/11 and the truck bomb in OKC, the biggest mass killing was when 87 people were killed in a Bronx nightclub fire using 5 gallons of gasoline.

One thing that REALLY irks me is that the media promotes their own agenda. Journalism is non-existent today. It is all about sensationalizing events for ratings at the expense of the victims. I always wondered why the shooter at the mall in Portland only managed to kill two people in a gun free zone before taking his own life. Here it is a week and a half later and I get my answer. I hear about Nick Meli. A 22 year old concealed permit holder who ignored the no gun signs. He took cover and drew his weapon. The shooter had a malfunction and saw Meli with a gun. The shooter retreated into a store. The next shot the shooter fired was when he took his own life.
http://www.examiner.com/article/medi...-armed-citizen

• A 1997 high school shooting in Pearl, Miss., was halted by the school's vice principal after he retrieved the Colt .45 he kept in his truck.
• A 1998 Parker middle school dance shooting ended when James Strand apprehended the shooter with his shotgun. Police arrived 11 minutes later.
• A 2002 terrorist attack at an Israeli school was quickly stopped by an armed teacher and a school guard.
• A 2002 law school shooting in Grundy, Va., came to an abrupt conclusion when students, after retrieving firearms from their cars, confronted the shooter.
• A 2007 mall shooting in Ogden, Utah, ended when an armed off-duty police officer intervened.
• A 2009 workplace shooting in Houston, Texas, was halted by two coworkers who carried concealed handguns.
• A 2012 church shooting in Aurora, Colo., was stopped by a member of the congregation carrying a gun.

Why argue against something that has proven effective and still argue for something that, from 1994 to 2004, proved ineffective?

Jeff, you can find just as many anecdotal incidents for the opposite argument. You can also find many more instances of people being accidentally injured or killed or robbed of their own guns. It is extremely easy for people who want to carry weapons to carry them, if they can pass a background check. I know some extremely hotheaded people with no common sense at all who have CCWs. That scares the hell out of me.

If you force all teachers to be armed, what happens when a teacher is like me and KNOWS that no matter what, they could not pull that trigger and take another human life? What do you do when a teenage boy physically overtakes a teacher and steals her gun and then uses it on her and the other kids in her classroom?

The frequency of mass shootings has dropped adipimiz. You may find this article interesting. http://news.discovery.com/history/ma...ry-121220.html
I think they seem more frequent because we have all these 24 hour news coverage sources and the world in general is smaller as a result.

Everybody carrying a gun everywhere they go isn't the answer. Nobody having guns ever isn't the answer. There is no answer. The world is imperfect. These kinds of things are going to happen. It is sad, it is awful. Some stuff in this world is sad and awful.

Our mental health system does stink. Nobody wants to pay for mental health treatment. If it was better, these things could still happen.

^^ but, I truly do believe that better education about mental illness and more access to mental health care would make a big difference when it comes to preventing these shootings. For instance - why would the shooters mother have firearms in a home where she has a mentally ill child?

Interesting article. I do agree, the media definitely makes them seem more frequent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AGDee (Post 2194578)

I know some extremely hotheaded people with no common sense at all who have CCWs. That scares the hell out of me.

That scares me. A hot headed person CANNOT be allowed to carry a firearm. That is when the risk of a fender bender or road rage incident turns deadly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AGDee (Post 2194578)

If you force all teachers to be armed

I do not want all teachers armed for the very reasons you mention. I would like to see it as has been done in places like Harrold, TX. Maybe not even all the teachers who are qualified to carry should carry, but that opens up another can of worms.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AGDee (Post 2194578)

There is no answer. The world is imperfect. These kinds of things are going to happen. It is sad, it is awful. Some stuff in this world is sad and awful.

Unfortunately, that is the truth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff OTMG (Post 2194713)

That scares me. A hot headed person CANNOT be allowed to carry a firearm. That is when the risk of a fender bender or road rage incident turns deadly.

I do not want all teachers armed for the very reasons you mention. I would like to see it as has been done in places like Harrold, TX. Maybe not even all the teachers who are qualified to carry should carry, but that opens up another can of worms.

Unfortunately, that is the truth.

And how, pray tell, do you propose we keep guns out if the hands of the "hot heads"? It's not a medical diagnosis. It's a character flaw.

I've noticed this photo, complete with spelling mistake, cropping up in Facebook, and other websites.

Please.....if you're wanting to honor the memories of the deceased, at least spell the name of their town correctly. It is NewtoWn, not Newton.

http://www.internationalforgiveness....k-Candle_1.jpg

Quote:

Originally Posted by AOII Angel (Post 2194723)

And how, pray tell, do you propose we keep guns out if the hands of the "hot heads"? It's not a medical diagnosis. It's a character flaw.

I have no idea. I might suggest that all permit holders or even gun owners be required to complete an MMPI and have it evaluated. I voluntarily took one some 30 odd years ago. Unfortunately we get into privacy issues, innocent until proven guilt, proving competency before exercising a right, there are many problems that need to be addressed. If we do this regarding 2nd Amendment rights then they must be applied equally to rights of free press, speech, expression, religion, and lawful assembly. A slippery slope.