I don't want to start a huge thing: Gun Control

Andrewsgal

nowababy:

Andrewsgal:

nowababy:

KateB1984:

If it was true that in the absence of guns, these psychos would use other means to slaughter large numbers of people, you would see that show up when looking at all of the developed nations with better gun control. Except... you don't. You get sad things like in China when 20 people are injured because some psycho stabbed them. But they're alive. Mental illness was responsible for both attacks, but guns were responsible for the death toll in this one.

I think we should allow everyone to have atomic bombs. After all, atomic bombs don't kill people, people kill people. Responsible atomic bomb owners would properly lock up their bombs and only use them for an emergency apocalypse. Or... we could accept that people kill people and we should limit their ability to kill people.

I have a hard time picking up my jaw off the floor with the whole thing. One guy tried to make a shoe bomb and now TSA has EVERYONE remove their shoes to go through airport security. Psychos murder people over and over and over and over again, but we can't consider making productive limitations to access to weapons.

This is not politics. If a child is run over at a dangerous intersection, nobody would object and scream politics when people demanded a traffic light at that intersection. It honours that death to object to the danger and make change, before more people die. And more, and more, and more. At some point, I seriously hope the priorities change.

Good points all around.

Also BTW, the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms is in reference to well-regulated state militias to keep the federal government in check. Are you gun owners members of state militias? I didn't think so. Times have changed and the Constitution really doesn't protect your right to a recreational firearm. I really don't understand how there's an actual debate about the meaning of the 2nd Amendment. (And BTW, I don't have a problem with the actual meaning.)

Actually the United States Supreme Court ruled the second amendment disc apply to an individuals right to bear arms. I can't link on my phone. See what I mean about people being uneducated on all sides.

No I actually am well aware of SCOTUS's stance. Obviously that's their position if it's still legal for individuals to own guns. I just disagree with it based on my own research and understanding of law, history, and the constitution and its amendments. And it's hard for me to comprehend that SCOTUS or any constitutional historian would think otherwise. But then again, there are lots of laws and court outcomes that I disagree with.

but you don't get to interpret the constitution to your liking then deem anything you don't like unconstitutional. Our country does not work that way. As of right now that is the ruling, will it change? Maybe, but until then it is a right for an individual to bear arms.

Andrewsgal

ridesbuttons:

In North America bison and grizzy only.nbsp; But even the indiginous people hunted bison without the aid of guns of any kind.

Really? This is almost as silly as the cult comment. We don't live like the indigenous people in any other way, but should when it comes to guns?

wheelsonthebus

KateB1984:

If it was true that in the absence of guns, these psychos would use other means to slaughter large numbers of people, you would see that show up when looking at all of the developed nations with better gun control. Except... you don't. You get sad things like in China when 20 people are injured because some psycho stabbed them. But they're alive. Mental illness was responsible for both attacks, but guns were responsible for the death toll in this one.

I think we should allow everyone to have atomic bombs. After all, atomic bombs don't kill people, people kill people. Responsible atomic bomb owners would properly lock up their bombs and only use them for an emergency apocalypse. Or... we could accept that people kill people and we should limit their ability to kill people.

I have a hard time picking up my jaw off the floor with the whole thing. One guy tried to make a shoe bomb and now TSA has EVERYONE remove their shoes to go through airport security. Psychos murder people over and over and over and over again, but we can't consider making productive limitations to access to weapons.

This is not politics. If a child is run over at a dangerous intersection, nobody would object and scream politics when people demanded a traffic light at that intersection. It honours that death to object to the danger and make change, before more people die. And more, and more, and more. At some point, I seriously hope the priorities change.

You just said everthing I've been thinking. Every word

ridesbuttons

Point is,  you don't need a semi-automatic weapon to hunt anything in North America.  Both of those animals can be taken down with a single shot.  And frankly, getting permission to hunt either of thoses beasts is nearly impossible.

So the "BUT HUNTING!" rant is bubkis.

Andrewsgal

ridesbuttons:

Point is,nbsp; you don't need a semiautomatic weapon to hunt anything in North America.nbsp; Both of those animals can be taken down with a single shot.nbsp; And frankly, getting permission to hunt either of thoses beasts is nearly impossible.So the "BUT HUNTING!" rant is bubkis.

i don't know why I am arguing with you. I am way too caught up in this. I agree with you about the semi automatic. This whole post just proves my point that we as a society are so caught up in fixing half the problemgun control that we neglect the other halfmental health. Oh and I believe there is also no need for high capacity clips. We need to get rid if both because the shooting that happened could have had the same outcome with a high capacity clip for a hand gun.

ridesbuttons

Of course, the only thing a handgun is for hunting humans.  But I'll let that lie.

DevonPow

Andrewsgal:

ridesbuttons:

Point is,nbsp; you don't need a semiautomatic weapon to hunt anything in North America.nbsp; Both of those animals can be taken down with a single shot.nbsp; And frankly, getting permission to hunt either of thoses beasts is nearly impossible.So the "BUT HUNTING!" rant is bubkis.

i don't know why I am arguing with you. I am way too caught up in this. I agree with you about the semi automatic. This whole post just proves my point that we as a society are so caught up in fixing half the problemgun control that we neglect the other halfmental health. Oh and I believe there is also no need for high capacity clips. We need to get rid if both because the shooting that happened could have had the same outcome with a high capacity clip for a hand gun.

No one is arguing that this is a multi faceted problem that will take many different courses to fix. BUT a quick and easy first step - ban these weapons. Make the high capacity clips illegal. Do it NOW. Plus work on overhauling the mental health system. I don't think we are caught up in solving half the problem, just that some aspects are such a quagmire with no easy solution, wheras some aspects DO have an easy solution and we just won't do it.

Andrewsgal

ridesbuttons:

Of course, the only thing a handgun is for hunting humans.nbsp; But I'll let that lie.[;]

and for enjoyment at a shooting range just like any other sport. I don't understand it, but there it is.

eaglesfan700

I just saw on the news that the NRA put out a statement and said they are a planning a news conference for Friday.  They said they will offer "meaningful contributions to help make sure this never happens again"

I cannot wait to see this news conference

kcisthebombdotcom

ridesbuttons:

KC_13:

amy052006:

The whole "guns are used to hunt" is complete bullshit.

You don't need an automatic weapon to hunt a deer.  If you don't hit the deer, he is gone after the first shot is fired anyway.  Unless you plan to to spray the woods with bullets.

People hunt a lot more game than deer.

Also, in parts of the country feral hogs cause billions of dollars a year to the agricultural community and are a danger to humans/the environment.

Speaking of hyperbole...

Not to mention, a hunting rifle is more than adequate to take one down.

Not so much.

https://wildpiginfo.msstate.edu/damage-caused-by-pigs.html

kcisthebombdotcom

amy052006:

KC_13:

amy052006:

The whole "guns are used to hunt" is complete bullshit.

You don't need an automatic weapon to hunt a deer.  If you don't hit the deer, he is gone after the first shot is fired anyway.  Unless you plan to to spray the woods with bullets.

People hunt a lot more game than deer.

Also, in parts of the country feral hogs cause billions of dollars a year to the agricultural community and are a danger to humans/the environment.

OH FFS.  You are going to sit here and say everyone can have a Bushmaster because of feral hogs?

Listen, if it takes 30 rounds in ten seconds to kill a feral hog, maybe the hog should just win. 

I'm saying that people hunt more than just deer. And if you were relying on agriculture to feed your kids and those animals were killing your crops, I'm sure you'd want to shoot them too. They also move pretty quickly.

Andrewsgal

DevonPow:

Andrewsgal:

ridesbuttons:

Point is,nbsp; you don't need a semiautomatic weapon to hunt anything in North America.nbsp; Both of those animals can be taken down with a single shot.nbsp; And frankly, getting permission to hunt either of thoses beasts is nearly impossible.So the "BUT HUNTING!" rant is bubkis.

i don't know why I am arguing with you. I am way too caught up in this. I agree with you about the semi automatic. This whole post just proves my point that we as a society are so caught up in fixing half the problemgun control that we neglect the other halfmental health. Oh and I believe there is also no need for high capacity clips. We need to get rid if both because the shooting that happened could have had the same outcome with a high capacity clip for a hand gun.

No one is arguing that this is a multi faceted problem that will take many different courses to fix. BUT a quick and easy first step - ban these weapons. Make the high capacity clips illegal. Do it NOW. Plus work on overhauling the mental health system. I don't think we are caught up in solving half the problem, just that some aspects are such a quagmire with no easy solution, wheras some aspects DO have an easy solution and we just won't do it.

i agree with you, but it is not that simple. How do you ban them? Just the sale of new ones? Do you expect people to turn in the ones they have and not sell them on the black market? This is not an easy solution either, but one that we spend the majority of our time on.

Andrewsgal

nowababy:

Andrewsgal:

nowababy:

Andrewsgal:

nowababy:

KateB1984:

If it was true that in the absence of guns, these psychos would use other means to slaughter large numbers of people, you would see that show up when looking at all of the developed nations with better gun control. Except... you don't. You get sad things like in China when 20 people are injured because some psycho stabbed them. But they're alive. Mental illness was responsible for both attacks, but guns were responsible for the death toll in this one.

I think we should allow everyone to have atomic bombs. After all, atomic bombs don't kill people, people kill people. Responsible atomic bomb owners would properly lock up their bombs and only use them for an emergency apocalypse. Or... we could accept that people kill people and we should limit their ability to kill people.

I have a hard time picking up my jaw off the floor with the whole thing. One guy tried to make a shoe bomb and now TSA has EVERYONE remove their shoes to go through airport security. Psychos murder people over and over and over and over again, but we can't consider making productive limitations to access to weapons.

This is not politics. If a child is run over at a dangerous intersection, nobody would object and scream politics when people demanded a traffic light at that intersection. It honours that death to object to the danger and make change, before more people die. And more, and more, and more. At some point, I seriously hope the priorities change.

Good points all around.

Also BTW, the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms is in reference to well-regulated state militias to keep the federal government in check. Are you gun owners members of state militias? I didn't think so. Times have changed and the Constitution really doesn't protect your right to a recreational firearm. I really don't understand how there's an actual debate about the meaning of the 2nd Amendment. (And BTW, I don't have a problem with the actual meaning.)

Actually the United States Supreme Court ruled the second amendment disc apply to an individuals right to bear arms. I can't link on my phone. See what I mean about people being uneducated on all sides.

No I actually am well aware of SCOTUS's stance. Obviously that's their position if it's still legal for individuals to own guns. I just disagree with it based on my own research and understanding of law, history, and the constitution and its amendments. And it's hard for me to comprehend that SCOTUS or any constitutional historian would think otherwise. But then again, there are lots of laws and court outcomes that I disagree with.

but you don't get to interpret the constitution to your liking then deem anything you don't like unconstitutional. Our country does not work that way. As of right now that is the ruling, will it change? Maybe, but until then it is a right for an individual to bear arms.

But I do have the right to my opinion about it. Thanks.

You specifically said the constitution does not give people the right to bear recreational arms. That is not an opinion it is an untrue fact. An opinion would be I don't think the constitution should give individuals the right to bear arms.

Mrs.Hizzo

There needs to be some meaningful gun legislation passed after this event. Period. No, it's not a fix-all. But it's a component, and anyone that argues otherwise is delusional. (I say delusional because the bump won't let me say f***ing idiot.) Ban assault weapons. Get rid of the stupid gun show loophole. Do meaningful background checks. Can anyone seriously argue that these things are an infringement of 2nd amendment rights? My god, if the senseless loss of 20 first graders isn't enough to spur our politicians to action, what the hell is?

And yes, we need to address the mental health standpoint, and yes, we need to address the overall level of violence in our culture, and many other things, but that does NOT mean that we can afford to just sweep the issue of gun control under the rug. I'm so sick and tired of our elected officials pandering to the NRA. The NRA doesn't speak for me. 

etude de la vie

wheelsonthebus:

KateB1984:

If it was true that in the absence of guns, these psychos would use other means to slaughter large numbers of people, you would see that show up when looking at all of the developed nations with better gun control. Except... you don't. You get sad things like in China when 20 people are injured because some psycho stabbed them. But they're alive. Mental illness was responsible for both attacks, but guns were responsible for the death toll in this one.

I think we should allow everyone to have atomic bombs. After all, atomic bombs don't kill people, people kill people. Responsible atomic bomb owners would properly lock up their bombs and only use them for an emergency apocalypse. Or... we could accept that people kill people and we should limit their ability to kill people.

I have a hard time picking up my jaw off the floor with the whole thing. One guy tried to make a shoe bomb and now TSA has EVERYONE remove their shoes to go through airport security. Psychos murder people over and over and over and over again, but we can't consider making productive limitations to access to weapons.

This is not politics. If a child is run over at a dangerous intersection, nobody would object and scream politics when people demanded a traffic light at that intersection. It honours that death to object to the danger and make change, before more people die. And more, and more, and more. At some point, I seriously hope the priorities change.

You just said everthing I've been thinking. Every word

well said and very very true 

babypuplove

KateB1984:

If it was true that in the absence of guns, these psychos would use other means to slaughter large numbers of people, you would see that show up when looking at all of the developed nations with better gun control. Except... you don't. You get sad things like in China when 20 people are injured because some psycho stabbed them. But they're alive. Mental illness was responsible for both attacks, but guns were responsible for the death toll in this one.

I think we should allow everyone to have atomic bombs. After all, atomic bombs don't kill people, people kill people. Responsible atomic bomb owners would properly lock up their bombs and only use them for an emergency apocalypse. Or... we could accept that people kill people and we should limit their ability to kill people.

I have a hard time picking up my jaw off the floor with the whole thing. One guy tried to make a shoe bomb and now TSA has EVERYONE remove their shoes to go through airport security. Psychos murder people over and over and over and over again, but we can't consider making productive limitations to access to weapons.

This is not politics. If a child is run over at a dangerous intersection, nobody would object and scream politics when people demanded a traffic light at that intersection. It honours that death to object to the danger and make change, before more people die. And more, and more, and more. At some point, I seriously hope the priorities change.

All of this.  Exactly. 

nosoup4u

It just blows my mind that people think arming teachers or having guns in schools is going to make things *safer*. I'm a teacher, and I have NO interest in having to have a gun at school - would it be required? Would teachers have to take a training class? The logistics just seem insane. Having better gun control laws, severly restricting magazines and even bullets, having the government buy back high-powered weapons...all those things are more sane responses than putting more guns out there...

It's been shown time and time again, that having guns around (specifically in homes) makes it more likely for people to be hurt or killed by guns.

I live in a large city in the midwest. Most of the people I know are pro-gun control. 

nosoup4u

Andrewsgal:

DevonPow:

Andrewsgal:

ridesbuttons:

Point is,nbsp; you don't need a semiautomatic weapon to hunt anything in North America.nbsp; Both of those animals can be taken down with a single shot.nbsp; And frankly, getting permission to hunt either of thoses beasts is nearly impossible.So the "BUT HUNTING!" rant is bubkis.

i don't know why I am arguing with you. I am way too caught up in this. I agree with you about the semi automatic. This whole post just proves my point that we as a society are so caught up in fixing half the problemgun control that we neglect the other halfmental health. Oh and I believe there is also no need for high capacity clips. We need to get rid if both because the shooting that happened could have had the same outcome with a high capacity clip for a hand gun.

No one is arguing that this is a multi faceted problem that will take many different courses to fix. BUT a quick and easy first step - ban these weapons. Make the high capacity clips illegal. Do it NOW. Plus work on overhauling the mental health system. I don't think we are caught up in solving half the problem, just that some aspects are such a quagmire with no easy solution, wheras some aspects DO have an easy solution and we just won't do it.

i agree with you, but it is not that simple. How do you ban them? Just the sale of new ones? Do you expect people to turn in the ones they have and not sell them on the black market? This is not an easy solution either, but one that we spend the majority of our time on.

The Australian government bought back something like 600K semiautomatic guns from the populace. I think a program like that would work in the US - buy them back or have amnesty drop-off days to start getting them off the streets.

babypuplove

There's not much more to say after what's been said in this thread, but I want to add one more thing.  I am baffled at the outrage and the "This is not about gun control, it's about mental health!!!!" standpoint all over my FB feed and elsewhere on the internet.  Like others have stated, yes, it IS a mental health issue, but it is ALSO a gun control issue.  It is BOTH.  

I don't see large groups of people flipping out at the idea of assessing the state of our mental health system, so why is it that the mere mention of addressing and reassessing current gun control policies sends people into a frenzy?  Why the F did this disturbed individual have such easy access to these types of weapons?  Why was it ok for his mother, who knew her son had issues, to collect guns in the home she shared with him????  These small children were brutally murdered while attending school. While they should have been doing circle time and singing their ABC's and learning the months of the year.  It's sickening, disturbing, and heartbreaking, and anyone who thinks that guns are not at least a large portion of the problem has their head in the clouds.  

Temp174496125006552

eaglesfan700:

I am a lifelong Republican and this issue might seriously put me over the edge to becoming a Dem, or at least an Independent.  

This must please Mr.Eagles.    

Temp174496125006552

I only read the first few comments, but I live near eaglesfan and agree with what she said about the discussion heating up.

Also, it truly sickens me that so many people on FB are turning this into political arguments. Yes, I get that politics are involved, but how about let's just honor the innocent 20 children and 6 adults who were brutally murdered, instead of you standing on your goddamned soapbox about how you have the right to bear arms.  No one that I have seen is disputing that, but there is no reason that my neighbor or your neighbor needs an assault weapon, unless they are in law enforcement or active duty military.   And yes, we need to deal with mental health aspect of this too. 

 

Temp174496125006552

Mrs.Hizzo:

There needs to be some meaningful gun legislation passed after this event. Period. No, it's not a fix-all. But it's a component, and anyone that argues otherwise is delusional. (I say delusional because the bump won't let me say f***ing idiot.) Ban assault weapons. Get rid of the stupid gun show loophole. Do meaningful background checks. Can anyone seriously argue that these things are an infringement of 2nd amendment rights? My god, if the senseless loss of 20 first graders isn't enough to spur our politicians to action, what the hell is?

And yes, we need to address the mental health standpoint, and yes, we need to address the overall level of violence in our culture, and many other things, but that does NOT mean that we can afford to just sweep the issue of gun control under the rug. I'm so sick and tired of our elected officials pandering to the NRA. The NRA doesn't speak for me. 

Agreed, 100%.

duffmaker

I'm in CNY and I've been seeing a lot more about how our mental health system has to change and of course all of the "rednecks" in our area b!tching about how "no one is taking THEIR guns!"

I saw a clever post on FB showing two signs and asking which would be more effective, "all guns are prohibited on this premises" or "all staff are trained and armed and any effort to harm the kids will be met with deadly force" ... I loved that, and absolutely support the second one.

I do strongly believe that this has less to with gun control and more to do with the mental health system, which is severely lacking.

ETA: I also haven't read any of this thread, but I'll be back tomorrow to when I'm more awake. AND I do support putting a safe guard into our current gun control policy, something along the lines of a mental health background check and current psychiatric exam must be passed to obtain a license to purchase a gun and that it should be a reoccurring test, say every year or two... or our license and guns get pulled. Maybe even have it mandatory that every adult (16+, 16 is the current age to use a gun right? with a gun safety course passed?) in the household, have a license (in other words, had to have passed the mental health requirements), whether or not they plan to have guns registered under their name. I feel we need something stronger in place to limit access to guns by mentally ill individuals... and I fully support that every sane person should be allowed to be armed if they so desire, especially if they are a teacher or another person in a protective sort of job. And I believe we should have insane asylums again, if you didn't have to jump through a thousand hoops to have an adult committed to a facility then IMO the country would be a more stable place.

Mrs.Hizzo

clizh:

I'm in CNY and I've been seeing a lot more about how our mental health system has to change and of course all of the "rednecks" in our area b!tching about how "no one is taking THEIR guns!"

I saw a clever post on FB showing two signs and asking which would be more effective, "all guns are prohibited on this premises" or "all staff are trained and armed and any effort to harm the kids will be met with deadly force" ... I loved that, and absolutely support the second one.

I do strongly believe that this has less to with gun control and more to do with the mental health system, which is severely lacking.

ETA: I also haven't read any of this thread, but I'll be back tomorrow to when I'm more awake. AND I do support putting a safe guard into our current gun control policy, something along the lines of a mental health background check and current psychiatric exam must be passed to obtain a license to purchase a gun and that it should be a reoccurring test, say every year or two... or our license and guns get pulled. Maybe even have it mandatory that every adult (16+, 16 is the current age to use a gun right? with a gun safety course passed?) in the household, have a license (in other words, had to have passed the mental health requirements), whether or not they plan to have guns registered under their name. I feel we need something stronger in place to limit access to guns by mentally ill individuals... and I fully support that every sane person should be allowed to be armed if they so desire, especially if they are a teacher or another person in a protective sort of job. And I believe we should have insane asylums again, if you didn't have to jump through a thousand hoops to have an adult committed to a facility then IMO the country would be a more stable place.

WTF? 

Andrewsgal

amy052006:

I love how people (not here but pundits and whatnot) are advocating arming teachers.  Lots of these same people don't want teachers to unionize and want to cut their health benefits and pensions.

but meanwhile they want teachers who are trained marksmen who can shoot in the head to kill. 

Gotta love the respect of teachers from politicians. It is not, never has been, and hopefully never will be a part of my job to carry a gun. Especially since my last two classrooms I taught kids with emotional disturbances or in other words mentall ill. They could make weapons out of anything the las thing we need to do is put a weapon in their path. Oh and in Texas teachers don't get paid enough for that crap.

notkateanymore

Mrs.Hizzo:

clizh:

I'm in CNY and I've been seeing a lot more about how our mental health system has to change and of course all of the "rednecks" in our area b!tching about how "no one is taking THEIR guns!"

I saw a clever post on FB showing two signs and asking which would be more effective, "all guns are prohibited on this premises" or "all staff are trained and armed and any effort to harm the kids will be met with deadly force" ... I loved that, and absolutely support the second one.

I do strongly believe that this has less to with gun control and more to do with the mental health system, which is severely lacking.

ETA: I also haven't read any of this thread, but I'll be back tomorrow to when I'm more awake. AND I do support putting a safe guard into our current gun control policy, something along the lines of a mental health background check and current psychiatric exam must be passed to obtain a license to purchase a gun and that it should be a reoccurring test, say every year or two... or our license and guns get pulled. Maybe even have it mandatory that every adult (16+, 16 is the current age to use a gun right? with a gun safety course passed?) in the household, have a license (in other words, had to have passed the mental health requirements), whether or not they plan to have guns registered under their name. I feel we need something stronger in place to limit access to guns by mentally ill individuals... and I fully support that every sane person should be allowed to be armed if they so desire, especially if they are a teacher or another person in a protective sort of job. And I believe we should have insane asylums again, if you didn't have to jump through a thousand hoops to have an adult committed to a facility then IMO the country would be a more stable place.

WTF? 

I can't bold, so I'm going to jump on this and say WTF?? 

nosoup4u

clizh:

I saw a clever post on FB showing two signs and asking which would be more effective, "all guns are prohibited on this premises" or "all staff are trained and armed and any effort to harm the kids will be met with deadly force" ... I loved that, and absolutely support the second one.

Really? What if there's no one on staff who WANTS to be armed while working *in a school*? You do know there's pretty much no cases of an armed concerned citizen killing a mass shooter, right?

wheelsonthebus

Andrewsgal:

amy052006:

I love how people (not here but pundits and whatnot) are advocating arming teachers.  Lots of these same people don't want teachers to unionize and want to cut their health benefits and pensions.

but meanwhile they want teachers who are trained marksmen who can shoot in the head to kill. 

Gotta love the respect of teachers from politicians. It is not, never has been, and hopefully never will be a part of my job to carry a gun. Especially since my last two classrooms I taught kids with emotional disturbances or in other words mentall ill. They could make weapons out of anything the las thing we need to do is put a weapon in their path. Oh and in Texas teachers don't get paid enough for that crap.

I know!!!! They want those "lazy" teachers to raise our children, and defend them with guns. It's completely hilarious. They want more more more from teachers, but always want to take away their rights and benefits.

duffmaker

nowababy:

Mrs.Hizzo:

clizh:

I'm in CNY and I've been seeing a lot more about how our mental health system has to change and of course all of the "rednecks" in our area b!tching about how "no one is taking THEIR guns!"

I saw a clever post on FB showing two signs and asking which would be more effective, "all guns are prohibited on this premises" or "all staff are trained and armed and any effort to harm the kids will be met with deadly force" ... I loved that, and absolutely support the second one.

I do strongly believe that this has less to with gun control and more to do with the mental health system, which is severely lacking.

ETA: I also haven't read any of this thread, but I'll be back tomorrow to when I'm more awake. AND I do support putting a safe guard into our current gun control policy, something along the lines of a mental health background check and current psychiatric exam must be passed to obtain a license to purchase a gun and that it should be a reoccurring test, say every year or two... or our license and guns get pulled. Maybe even have it mandatory that every adult (16+, 16 is the current age to use a gun right? with a gun safety course passed?) in the household, have a license (in other words, had to have passed the mental health requirements), whether or not they plan to have guns registered under their name. I feel we need something stronger in place to limit access to guns by mentally ill individuals... and I fully support that every sane person should be allowed to be armed if they so desire, especially if they are a teacher or another person in a protective sort of job. And I believe we should have insane asylums again, if you didn't have to jump through a thousand hoops to have an adult committed to a facility then IMO the country would be a more stable place.

WTF? 

Yea, maybe that answers my question in the other thread. So no real mental health services, just lock 'em up.

Oh god no! Don't just lock them up and leave them there! Sorry, maybe I should have clarified that we need a modified insane asylum. I just do not believe that prescribing mentally unstable individuals drugs to take or having them see a psychiatrist all on their own accord is effective. People who suffer from severe psychiatric problems need to be essentially "locked up" in a safe place where they are closely monitored, given their medications and rehabilitated. I know there are homes available that do this but it is extremely hard to get an adult (18+)put into one of these environments unless they commit themselves voluntarily or they commit a violent crime and unless it is court mandated, just like in substance abuse rehabs, the individual can technically walk out/discharge themselves at any time.

duffmaker

KateB1984:

Wow, clizh. I'm pretty sure all the pro-gun people are hoping you stop talking. I don't think you're helping their cause. It's not everyday you hear someone praise "insane asylums" without a hint of irony. Wow.

I don't know a single pro-gun person who would be pissed about having to pass a mental health exam if the alternative meant not having any guns at all.

Yeah, the whole insane asylum thing wasn't said right, I probably should have written that when I wasn't half asleep... It isn't that I think we need insane asylums like they used to be, because those were just horrifying, more that there needs to be less hoops to jump through to get a mentally unstable person committed to the existing rehabilitation centers.

duffmaker

nosoup4u:

clizh:

I saw a clever post on FB showing two signs and asking which would be more effective, "all guns are prohibited on this premises" or "all staff are trained and armed and any effort to harm the kids will be met with deadly force" ... I loved that, and absolutely support the second one.

Really? What if there's no one on staff who WANTS to be armed while working *in a school*? You do know there's pretty much no cases of an armed concerned citizen killing a mass shooter, right?

Really? It was showing support of an umbrella concept, simmer down.

How does that last part even make sense? There's "pretty much no cases of an armed concerned citizen killing a mass shooter" because there aren't many "armed concerned citizens" walking around because that is slightly frowned upon in majority of the U.S.... maybe there would be more cases of mass killers being shot down if citizens were allowed to carry guns for protection.

Andrewsgal

amy052006:

clizh:

nosoup4u:

clizh:

I saw a clever post on FB showing two signs and asking which would be more effective, "all guns are prohibited on this premises" or "all staff are trained and armed and any effort to harm the kids will be met with deadly force" ... I loved that, and absolutely support the second one.

Really? What if there's no one on staff who WANTS to be armed while working *in a school*? You do know there's pretty much no cases of an armed concerned citizen killing a mass shooter, right?

Really? It was showing support of an umbrella concept, simmer down.

How does that last part even make sense? There's "pretty much no cases of an armed concerned citizen killing a mass shooter" because there aren't many "armed concerned citizens" walking around because that is slightly frowned upon in majority of the U.S.... maybe there would be more cases of mass killers being shot down if citizens were allowed to carry guns for protection.

wait -- are you actually arguing people don't carry guns around?  Really? while I think that would be all sorts of sane and delightful, it simply isn't true.

i mean Jesus, a poster last week just talked about how safe she felt because she lives somewhere with open carry laws.   

Obviously people carry, but I don't think a lot do. I live in the freaking gun capital, we love our guns in Texas. I know at least 10 people with their CHL, but I don't know anyone who actually carries.

nosoup4u

clizh:

nosoup4u:

clizh:

I saw a clever post on FB showing two signs and asking which would be more effective, "all guns are prohibited on this premises" or "all staff are trained and armed and any effort to harm the kids will be met with deadly force" ... I loved that, and absolutely support the second one.

Really? What if there's no one on staff who WANTS to be armed while working *in a school*? You do know there's pretty much no cases of an armed concerned citizen killing a mass shooter, right?

Really? It was showing support of an umbrella concept, simmer down.

How does that last part even make sense? There's "pretty much no cases of an armed concerned citizen killing a mass shooter" because there aren't many "armed concerned citizens" walking around because that is slightly frowned upon in majority of the U.S.... maybe there would be more cases of mass killers being shot down if citizens were allowed to carry guns for protection.

There is some form of concealed carry laws in 49 states right now. And please feel free to correct me on the part about there being no mass shootings stopped or prevented because of someone packing heat who just happened to be near.

The entire concept of arming teachers or having guns in schools is an idiotic solution.