I want everyone to hate me, apparently.

[Scruit]

How about the government worries about fixing the economy and getting this country out of debt and leaves my fucking guns alone.

Because protecting lives is a higher goal than protecting money.

Just because we have not yet found a solution doesn't mean we should stop trying.

[conn-e-rot]

And how would any of your suggestions other than armed teachers have stopped the Connecticut shooting? The guns were all legally purchased and owned by his mother he killed her and stole her legal guns. It's not your fault or my fault or glock's fault that he killed his mother and stole her legal guns. He planned this out it was going to happen the only thing that would have stopped him was a bullet.

[Scruit]

And how would any of your suggestions other than armed teachers have stopped the Connecticut shooting? The guns were all legally purchased and owned by his mother he killed her and stole her legal guns. It's not your fault or my fault or glock's fault that he killed his mother and stole her legal guns. He planned this out it was going to happen the only thing that would have stopped him was a bullet.

Did she store them in a safe? News reports indicate that she was worried about him before the shooting.

One common theme I hear is "It's not MY fault" "It's not the GUN'S fault" or whatever. The ultimate responsibility falls upon the shooter. Sure, I get that. That is of no consolation to the families of the dead, and no reassurance to the rest of the parents in the country. Politically, that is a problem for us.

I would draw a parallel between gun ownership and defensive driving on the road... Knowing the accident was the driver's fault is of no consolation to the rider who is killed, or their families. We all have to ride defensively because we know we can't stop bad drivers. Similarly, we must learn to "drive defensively" in gun ownership.

What does that mean in practical terms? I dunno. let's talk about it. Stonewalling on both sides will get nothing done, except a crap-load of ineffective feel-good laws that Obama might just have the political backing to introduce right now, that won't stop mass shootings but will tear the 2a to shreds.

[conn-e-rot]

No one knows where those guns were stored for certain but him and her oh maybe the brother knows. News reports indicated the brother was the shooter. News reports indicated he didn't use the AR15 then said he did. News reports indicated the mother was killed in the school then they weren't sure then she was killed in the house. News reports said he killed his brother and girl friend... fuck the news reports

[TheBrown57]

I hate the media.

I come here for my facts more often than not.

My thoughts are this:

-Stricter enforcement of current laws

-Add mental health history to the background check when purchasing a weapon (If not already)

That is all I see that needs to happen.

[2fat2fly]

fuck the news reports

He's right^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^.

The news screwed the pooch on this whole incident. They initially reported the shooter's mom worked at the school and he killed her to get her access badge for the school as well. When they finally changed their story, they never apoligized for spreading false info.

Because protecting lives is a higher goal than protecting money.

Just because we have not yet found a solution doesn't mean we should stop trying.

Scruit is right about this but our whole world runs on money. No matter what anyone else says this is the cold hard truth.

Armed security at schools is a great idea but how are school districts that are already cutting jobs going to afford $50 or $60K per year for an armed and well trained security guard. What if that guy calls in sick? Do they hire 2 full time guards? what about the sporting events and school dances, etc... Now we're talking at least 4 full time armed security guards. That's maybe $200k per year? I'm sure somebody will say "hey, let's offer $20K per year to the guards as a salary". My question is this: Do you want someone who's willing to do it for $20K per year to guard your kids with loaded weapons? You get what you pay for. I like the idea of the armed and trained teachers much more than the armed guard deal. Whatever solution comes from this it has to be cost effective to work. Otherwise it will be quickly abandoned.

[redkow97]

I agree with the vast majority of what you posted, but I really struggle with the mental health aspect of things.

We require doctor/patient confidentiality for a reason. The line about when that can be broken in the name of protecting third parties (tarasoft duty) is relatively clear right now: "I want to kill people" is not something that can be reported without legal ramifications for a violation of the patient's privacy rights. "I want to kill Scruit" CAN be reported, and scruit's family can sue the doctor if he is harmed as a result of a failure to report.

The basic distinction is that an identified victim creates liability for th doctor and allows reporting, but general feelings of anger or violence do not.

I really struggle with how we should treat people who have a general desire to kill or destroy. If we're being honest with ourselves, we all have the capacity to be enraged to the point of making bad decisions and acting violently toward other people. For 99% of the world, those instances are rare, and generally don't escalate beyond simple assault or a gist fight.

Identifying those who MIGHT be calculating violent acts is far more difficult, and it's even harder still to identify the people who would actually ACT on such a plan. Personally, I get really queasy when I think about institutionalizing people based on things we fear they MIGHT do...

I have no doubts that we could reduce incidents of violence by institutionalizing more mentally ill people, but at what cost? Financially, and morally, we give up a lot.

[buildit]

How about banning violent video games?

[TheBrown57]

[conn-e-rot]

I would be willing to bet that you could find a lot of out of work vets that would happily take the job for $20k after all $20k is more than $0 and would be qualified on the weapons. Or if Washington is so worried about school safety then cut some of the bullshit foreign aid and give schools money to hire and/or train and give vets top priority when hiring.

[TheBrown57]

I would be willing to bet that you could find a lot of out of work vets that would happily take the job for $20k after all $20k is more than $0 and would be qualified on the weapons. Or if Washington is so worried about school safety then cut some of the bullshit foreign aid and give schools money to hire and/or train and give vets top priority when hiring.

That was an idea I heard being tossed around on the radio. Have them as a janitor or something but be an Marshall type figure as well

[conn-e-rot]

How about banning violent video games?

While were at it we should ban all movies that aren't "G" rated oh and ban all cable channels and only allow PBS to broadcast. Oh and don't forget to ban the radio shows.

[ScubaCinci]

Ban everything and change the country name to North Korea!

[conn-e-rot]

That was an idea I heard being tossed around on the radio. Have them as a janitor or something but be an Marshall type figure as well

We have thousands of soldiers returning and not being able to find jobs the government should be helping them out before they help any other country period.

[2fat2fly]

I would be willing to bet that you could find a lot of out of work vets that would happily take the job for $20k after all $20k is more than $0 and would be qualified on the weapons..

You have a good idea and you're mind is in the right place but I have to partially disagree with you on this. As a veteran myself I can speak for my reasoning for going into the military. I joined to give myself the best possible opportunities I could get when I got out of the military. Those being the G.I. Bill for college and to learn a skill I could fall back on in case the college and other career choices didn't work out. I didn't join to qualify for a job when I got out that barely paid more than welfare and when you figured in transportation costs and other job related costs you fell below what welfare paid you for sitting on your @55 and doing nothing. All our Veterans are worth much more than $20k/year. That being said, extreme times call for extreme measures and a man that has a family to feed might be willing to jump all over $20K.

Or if Washington is so worried about school safety then cut some of the bullshit foreign aid and give schools money to hire and/or train and give vets top priority when hiring.

I agree 100% with this. Cut foreign aid altogether.

We have thousands of soldiers returning and not being able to find jobs the government should be helping them out before they help any other country period.

My sticking point is this^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^. Why do they have to be janitors?

[conn-e-rot]

I only mentioned $20k because someone else brought up that figure

[2fat2fly]

I only mentioned $20k because someone else brought up that figure

I threw that figure out there as an example in a previous statement. I apoligize for derailing your train of thought. I do agree with most of what you're saying, but there's no cheap fix to this in my mind.

[conn-e-rot]

Another plus I see to hiring combat vets is they are less likely to hesitate to pull the trigger than your average teacher if need be.

[2fat2fly]

Another plus I see to hiring combat vets is they are less likely to hesitate to pull the trigger than your average teacher if need be.

100% true in my opinion. I know many who can't go into a place without looking around and sizing up where they're at just out of habit. It's not that they're looking for trouble. They just want to be aware of their surroundings.

[CBBaron]

Eh....I doubt anything the govt does during the knee-jerk reaction to this shooting will have any basis in common sense or our rights as a free society. The old adage is 'never waste a good tragedy' and Obama and Pelosi are going to ride this one till the wheels fall off.

+1

Law makers seem to be nearly as opposed to "making sense" as they are to compromise.

Unfortunately the most vocal advocates on both sides kinda of drive the discussion and they tend to be the "out of my cold dead fingers" or "ban all guns" crowd

As much as I hate to see govt impose more on freedoms I expect that closing the "gun show loophole" will be a necessary compromise to avoid further restrictions.

Proving you are mentally sane will be too invasive of privacy to ever fly in the US. It would be more likely to pass a ban on all removal magazine firearms which I dont think it will come to either.

I like the School Marshal plan. It might work in some areas but in many locals teachers tend to be on the more liberal side of the fence and are more likely to be completely anti-gun. Means that it will be hard to have a reasonable deterrent or effective response in most schools.

I think I need to go pick up a decent off the shelf AR before they become unavailable. Unfortunately I think its quite possible that will happen again.

Craig

[redkow97]

How about banning violent video games?

I'm not for banning violent video games or violent movies, but I do think that seeing a behavior repeatedly makes people more comfortable with that behavior.

That kind of comfort has a stronger relationship with actual violent acts than the tools used.

With that said, I still believe that there is a LARGE gap between being okay with seeing someone brutally murdered on TV, and committing such an act.

Real as it may appear, I know TV and movies are not real. I can laugh at things in movies that I would vomit watching on the news. The consciousness of real versus make-believe is significant. If there is concrete evidence that that significance is being diminished in young people by exposure to FPS video games, then okay, ban them. But until that evidence exists (and I mean causation, not just correlation), I'm opposed to banning things without just cause.

[Bad324]

How about the government worries about fixing the economy and getting this country out of debt and leaves my fucking guns alone.

because this needs said again

[Brownsfan1]

because this needs said again

About as much as "guns need to be banned"

[CBBaron]

Requiring locked storage of firearms not on the owner would be a reasonable law. However it is only enforceable post event. Most gun lockers are reasonably easy to defeat for a determined person and requiring a heavy safe for storage I would deem unreasonable.

So I don't that type of law having much effect other than perhaps slightly reducing the accidental deaths among curious kids.

$20k a year for an armed vet to protect a school is an very unreasonable suggestion. $40k is still underpaid.

The school marshal concept could(should) be opened to janitors, office assistants, teachers aids and other non teachers within the school building. as mentioned of the suggested changes this is the only one that would have made an impact on the Conn tragedy.

Craig

[Tpoppa]

The school marshal concept could(should) be opened to janitors, office assistants, teachers aids and other non teachers within the school building. as mentioned of the suggested changes this is the only one that would have made an impact on the Conn tragedy.

Agree on non-teacher staff.

It is a first reposnder that can take action before police can get there.

If a School Marshall plan ever actually happened, just knowing they exist would make schools a less-soft target. That might be enough to deter a lunatic from entering a school.