Can we do this respectfully?

Meganequine · December 2012

I do intend to read the entire post (I haven't yet.)

But I wanted to say this- I'm an elementary teacher and the day you tell me part of my job is being able to carry a gun and safely use it is the day I quit.

I'm there to teach and protect your children. I would be more likely to hurt myself or a child trying to use said gun to protect myself and also, would I have to carry it on myself at all times? Otherwise how do I keep it from the kids- having it in a locked drawer wouldn't really help.

redheadscu · December 2012

kleMcK:

Is it okay for us to have a respectful conversation about gun control now?

My gut reaction at this point is to severely limit civilian access to fire arms. I've seen a lot of people react the other way and say that the best course of action is for more people to start carrying. Tell me how you feel about it, and why.

Also, this....so, not sure why my post was so innapropriate....

Lena122 · December 2012

Meganequine:
I do intend to read the entire post I haven't yet. But I wanted to say thisnbsp; I'm an elementary teacher and the day you tell me part of my job is being able to carry a gun and safely use it is the day I quit.nbsp; I'm there to teach and protect your children.nbsp; I would be more likely to hurt myself or a child trying to use said gun to protect myself and also, would I have to carry it on myself at all times?nbsp; Otherwise how do I keep it from the kids having it in a locked drawer wouldn't really help.

I think the best way to keep the schools safe is to have a school resource officer in every school. I agree that having teachers or other civilians carry firearms is ridiculous. There is a LOT of training necessary to prepare for an active shooter, not to mention the safety issues involved.

Having an officer in a school would limit the opportunity for an intruder to get any rounds off before being stopped. Nine times out of ten the shooter wants to die themselves, that's why they kill themselves when they're done killing or before the police arrive. If an officer was already there, an active shooter probably wouldn't even try in the first place because they'd know they'd be killed instantly. If they did try, they certainly wouldn't get a head count as high as the one in Newton last week.

Lena122 · December 2012

Starbuck128:
Lena122:
In terms of gun control the problem with the CT shooting, and many others, is that the shooters do not own the guns themselves. This shows that even if you need a license, to pass a test, to have no criminal history, etc. guns can and will end up in the wrong hands.

Guns are not to blame, people are. If anything, mental health care needs to be reexamined as the majority, if not all, active shooters have had some sort of mental illness. This is evident by the details that surface after the fact and that most of them kill themselves after their massacre.

Taking guns away from law abiding citizens will not solve this problem.

DH found a statistic that showed that in 2009 there were twice as many alcohol related deaths than firearm related homicides. So should we revert back to prohibition? That didn't work back in the early 1900s and it won't work now.

ETA: For those unfamiliar with guns, killing a dozen children with a standard handgun is just as easy as killing a dozen children with a rifle. And PP was right when she said that basically all guns are semiautomatic unless you're packing bullets and led into it.
The bolded train of thought confuses me. If the guns used in a mass shooting are obtained legally by a mentally sane person and a mentally insane person takes them to kill a lot of people, it seems to me that taking guns away from law abiding citizens will solve the problem.

Bolding only those statements seriously overly generalizes my point. Obviously if every single gun was taken away from every single person then there would no gun violence. At least until people started making their own guns.

cs1225 · December 2012

Lena122:
Meganequine:
I do intend to read the entire post I haven't yet. But I wanted to say thisnbsp; I'm an elementary teacher and the day you tell me part of my job is being able to carry a gun and safely use it is the day I quit.nbsp; I'm there to teach and protect your children.nbsp; I would be more likely to hurt myself or a child trying to use said gun to protect myself and also, would I have to carry it on myself at all times?nbsp; Otherwise how do I keep it from the kids having it in a locked drawer wouldn't really help.
I think the best way to keep the schools safe is to have a school resource officer in every school. I agree that having teachers or other civilians carry firearms is ridiculous. There is a LOT of training necessary to prepare for an active shooter, not to mention the safety issues involved. Having an officer in a school would limit the opportunity for an intruder to get any rounds off before being stopped. Nine times out of ten the shooter wants to die themselves, that's why they kill themselves when they're done killing or before the police arrive. If an officer was already there, an active shooter probably wouldn't even try in the first place because they'd know they'd be killed instantly. If they did try, they certainly wouldn't get a head count as high as the one in Newton last week.

It would be nice to have this in every school, but considering a lot of schools can barely afford paper, this would be a challenge. I spend hundreds of my own money on things like paper, markers, etc. because we can't afford it.

Jen0204 · December 2012

Lena122:
Meganequine:
I do intend to read the entire post I haven't yet. But I wanted to say thisnbsp; I'm an elementary teacher and the day you tell me part of my job is being able to carry a gun and safely use it is the day I quit.nbsp; I'm there to teach and protect your children.nbsp; I would be more likely to hurt myself or a child trying to use said gun to protect myself and also, would I have to carry it on myself at all times?nbsp; Otherwise how do I keep it from the kids having it in a locked drawer wouldn't really help.

I think the best way to keep the schools safe is to have a school resource officer in every school. I agree that having teachers or other civilians carry firearms is ridiculous. There is a LOT of training necessary to prepare for an active shooter, not to mention the safety issues involved.

Having an officer in a school would limit the opportunity for an intruder to get any rounds off before being stopped. Nine times out of ten the shooter wants to die themselves, that's why they kill themselves when they're done killing or before the police arrive. If an officer was already there, an active shooter probably wouldn't even try in the first place because they'd know they'd be killed instantly. If they did try, they certainly wouldn't get a head count as high as the one in Newton last week.

I agree with this, although I think it will be hard to get funding for this. In my town it's Newtown, not Newton, sorry a pet peeve of mine we have two at the high school but none at the other schools. But this past year in Newtown it took 7 attempts to get a budget passed and the education budget was cut a lot. In a "safe" town this will be a hard sell. Maybe not right now, but in a few years I bet it will be, and in other towns I bet they would have the same funding issue.

Jchirico · December 2012

Lena122:
Starbuck128:
Lena122:
In terms of gun control the problem with the CT shooting, and many others, is that the shooters do not own the guns themselves. This shows that even if you need a license, to pass a test, to have no criminal history, etc. guns can and will end up in the wrong hands. Guns are not to blame, people are. If anything, mental health care needs to be reexamined as the majority, if not all, active shooters have had some sort of mental illness. This is evident by the details that surface after the fact and that most of them kill themselves after their massacre. Taking guns away from law abiding citizens will not solve this problem. DH found a statistic that showed that in 2009 there were twice as many alcohol related deaths than firearm related homicides. So should we revert back to prohibition? That didn't work back in the early 1900s and it won't work now. ETA: For those unfamiliar with guns, killing a dozen children with a standard handgun is just as easy as killing a dozen children with a rifle. And PP was right when she said that basically all guns are semiautomatic unless you're packing bullets and led into it.
The bolded train of thought confuses me. If the guns used in a mass shooting are obtained legally by a mentally sane person and a mentally insane person takes them to kill a lot of people, it seems to me that taking guns away from law abiding citizens will solve the problem.
Bolding only those statements seriously overly generalizes my point. Obviously if every single gun was taken away from every single person then there would no gun violence. At least until people started making their own guns.

Starbuck, I was just about to post that exact point-I'm pretty sure that most guns used in school shootings have been legal guns, in the hands of the wrong person. So of course, less of those guns would mean less opportunity for these shootings to happen.That's why I think gun permits should only be given in rare circumstances, not to the average law abiding citizen.

Lena, of course it's never going to happen that every gun is taken away, but don't you agree that if guns weren't so easily accessible, we'd have less violence?

Jchirico · December 2012

jldubb0626:
I'm going to state my probably very un-popular opinion, then probably leave because I have a strong feeling I'm going to get flamed to high hell for this.
I feel that limiting, or not allowing, civilians to own firearms only hurts the innocent. 99% of gun owners in America are law abiding, good people who have them for various reasons; hunting, home protection and recreational use (like my husband who is getting into competitive shooting). Yes, maybe we should screen people closer and require those who want to own a gun to do some type of safety course. Let's even stretch this to say let's get any military type weapons off the market and limit people to only owning 2-4 guns at a time. Is it going to change anything? Probably not. People who do the horrendous crimes like this past Friday don't abide by the law. Do you really think if he wouldn't have been able to get to a gun (regardless if his mother owned them or not), he would have just given up? I don't think so. I doubt he would have an epiphany, decided he wasn't going to murder 20 children and go on with his life. Criminals don't follow the laws so he would have found some way to get a gun to commit the crimes. Even if we take ALL the guns off civilians, people who intend to harm others will find other ways of doing it.
I'll even go on to say that I think people need to stop being afraid of guns and start standing up to protect themselves. In my city, we've laid off so many police officers in the past 5 years due to budget cuts and crime rates have risen. If there is no one around to protect you, don't you think you should be doing something to protect yourself? It's radical (IMO) to say that all teachers should be carrying guns, but the point is, if SOMEONE at that school would have been able to take action against this man, do you think he would have gotten as far as he did? Or would he even attempted it knowing that there were armed officers at the school to watch for things like this? I went to a high school with metal detectors and cops to patrol and outside of the occasional fight, no one brought weapons because they knew they wouldn't get anywhere. I felt safer going to school knowing that their were people there to protect me in ways that I couldn't protect myself.
Yes, we need to look into ways to make it safer for the innocent people. Let's looking into better mental health care for those who have no safe place to be. Let's look into protecting our schools better to keep insane people out of them. I'll even say, let's look into ways to make the process of buying a gun more strict with more extensive background checks and try harder to weed out those who could be considered a threat. But ultimately, severely limiting or taking away people's 2nd amendment right to own and bear arms will only hurt the innocent and create a huge underground market for criminals to own guns.

I think it's shocking to hear some one say we should be less afraid of guns. This is what I was referring to earlier-guns are such a part of the US culture, so prevalent, that you don't even see them for what they are. We should be afraid of them. Forget everything you know about them and stop and think about it truly is-it's an object that a person can hold, point at you, move their finger slightly, and kill you with. How is that not something to not be afraid of? I'm not trying to be snarky, I'm just truly trying to understand the nonchalance some people have towards them.

A long time ago, I read an article about conquering fear. It said that the longer you're around something, the less you'll be afraid. Ex. If you're afraid of spiders, start across the room from a dead spider, then a live one, that be close to a dead one, then near, then hold it. I wonder if because guns are so common, people forget how dangerous they are.

Lena122 · December 2012

Guns themselves should not make you afraid. That fear is what drives people who use them maliciously.

Guns can be and are used for good. People could better provide for their families when guns were invented. Hunting is a HUGE source of food and even shelter for people all over the world. Yes it can be done without guns as it was was for centuries. But human beings have come a long way because of the food and shelter that guns have provided. Unfortunately, guns can be used for evil but that doesn't negate the fact that they can be used for good.

Being afraid of guns does not make them any less dangerous. Did you all know that 80 of of people who are shot survive? Now those children obviously could not withstand a gun shot wound as an adult could but in general, over 80 of people survive gun shot wounds. Yes they are deadly, I am not saying they're not. But I think people's fear of guns is directly related to their ignorance on guns and gun safety.

As PPers have said, PSAs on guns and gun safety could really help with raising awareness about guns. The more you know about them, the less there is too fear.

runrinserepeat · December 2012

Ok, not quoting, on my iPhone. I probably shouldn't have posted the response I did. I'd like to think most people here understand I don't really do snark in these types if treads, so I thought I was ok.

Your post seemed to focus on banning guns completely. Since we'd kind of moved past that idea, as many people agree its not a feasible solution at this point for several reasons, I thought I'd point that out to you to see if you had thoughts on the middle ground. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

The second was just my opinion. Not a "you're a horrible person for what you said" just a "I don't agree with what you said". I reserve the right to respectfully disagree with any of you 212 mommas. If we can't do that, I won't make threads like this anymore.

Again, apologies. My response was not intended as an attack. You can call off the dogs.

Lena122 · December 2012

Jchirico, I want to respond to you but didn't want to make a huge quote. I do agree that if guns weren't accessible at all or were much less accessible that there would be less gun violence. That's just common sense, that if there aren't guns there's no gun violence.

However, I don't think that denying access to guns is reasonable or even lawful. The US is a free country and that means that we have the right to bear arms. Yes, you could move to a country with no gun violence but that doesn't necessarily mean they're doing everything else right. I'd prefer to live in a free country where I have rights other countries don't, including the right to protect myself.

I don't disagree that guns do need to be controlled. But guns are already controlled quite a bit. I've heard people suggest background checks, storage requirements, ammo regulations, etc. But those are all common restrictions in many states. That's why when I hear people "preach gun control" I automatically think they just want all guns off the street. Because there IS gun control.

Jchirico · December 2012

You're right, I'm completely ignorant about guns, like I posted earlier, I don't think I've ever seen one in real life, aside from in a cop's holster. I think you make a lot of fair points here, and it's great to hear that the majority of people survive. But I'd still argue, and I'm sure you'll agree, it would be better to not be shot at all, than to survive a gunshot.

Also, again you're right. It's the people who use them maliciously, not the guns themselves that are the problem. But I think guns make it that much easier for an evil person to hurt a lot of people, easily and quickly. I'm sure you've heard about the incident in China where children were attacked, with a knife. Many were hurt, but only one died, as opposed to the massacre in CT.

Jchirico · December 2012

Lena122:
Jchirico, I want to respond to you but didn't want to make a huge quote. I do agree that if guns weren't accessible at all or were much less accessible that there would be less gun violence. That's just common sense, that if there aren't guns there's no gun violence. However, I don't think that denying access to guns is reasonable or even lawful. The US is a free country and that means that we have the right to bear arms. Yes, you could move to a country with no gun violence but that doesn't necessarily mean they're doing everything else right. I'd prefer to live in a free country where I have rights other countries don't, including the right to protect myself. I don't disagree that guns do need to be controlled. But guns are already controlled quite a bit. I've heard people suggest background checks, storage requirements, ammo regulations, etc. But those are all common restrictions in many states. That's why when I hear people "preach gun control" I automatically think they just want all guns off the street. Because there IS gun control.

I know we're never going to convince each other here, so I'll just make one last point (okay 2).

#1. Yes, you have a lawful right to have a gun. But I for one think that the right that these children had to a life is more important that yours to own a gun. (Especially for those who want them for a hobby. Go play tennis or something, it would be difficult to kill with a tennis raquet!)

#2. Yes, there IS gun control. And obviously there's not enough since 20 parents don't have children to put to bed tonight.

MollySm · December 2012

Lena122:
Guns themselves should not make you afraid. That fear is what drives people who use them maliciously. Guns can be and are used for good. People could better provide for their families when guns were invented. Hunting is a HUGE source of food and even shelter for people all over the world. Yes it can be done without guns as it was was for centuries. But human beings have come a long way because of the food and shelter that guns have provided. Unfortunately, guns can be used for evil but that doesn't negate the fact that they can be used for good. Being afraid of guns does not make them any less dangerous. Did you all know that 80 of of people who are shot survive? Now those children obviously could not withstand a gun shot wound as an adult could but in general, over 80 of people survive gun shot wounds. Yes they are deadly, I am not saying they're not. But I think people's fear of guns is directly related to their ignorance on guns and gun safety. As PPers have said, PSAs on guns and gun safety could really help with raising awareness about guns. The more you know about them, the less there is too fear.

I disagree with this. Guns themselves are scary objects, and should be treated as such. If people were more fearful of the, treated them as the deadly weapons that they are, perhaps much more care would be taken with them, and there would be much fewer accidental deaths. And it would be more difficult for people who shouldn't have them to get access to them.

jldubb0626 · December 2012

Jchirico:
You're right, I'm completely ignorant about guns, like I posted earlier, I don't think I've ever seen one in real life, aside from in a cop's holster. I think you make a lot of fair points here, and it's great to hear that the majority of people survive. But I'd still argue, and I'm sure you'll agree, it would be better to not be shot at all, than to survive a gunshot.
Also, again you're right. It's the people who use them maliciously, not the guns themselves that are the problem. But I think guns make it that much easier for an evil person to hurt a lot of people, easily and quickly. I'm sure you've heard about the incident in China where children were attacked, with a knife. Many were hurt, but only one died, as opposed to the massacre in CT.

You said it best yourself. The more you are around something, the less afraid of it you are. So to learn about guns, how to properly use them and all the safety aspects of them take away the fear. You don't want a gun because you're afraid of it. Why? Because you don't understand it. You've never been around one and you fear the unknown. Which is why you don't understand that when people say it's for protection in their house, *most* people CAN and DO know how to use a gun in the fear of the moment when there is an intruder in their house. If your educated enough on how to use the gun, when someone breaks into your home, you won't be shaky and scared and end up shooting the wrong person. You'll know what to do.

If more people took it upon themselves to educate themselves on guns, you'd realize that it's not just some psychotic idiots choice of weapon when they do bad things. It's NOT about the guns. It's about the people who use the guns. And I'll repeat myself, I agree that things need to change to make it harder to keep guns out the hand of the wrong people. I agree that we need to have a different system in place to protect citizens. But again, you blame the GUN for the actions of the PERSON.

Jen0204 · December 2012

I definitely agree with those who are saying that guns should be feared. I think it's healthy to have a certain degree of fear for anything that is dangerous we'll teach our kids not to touch the stove for fear of getting burned, to be careful with a knife for fear of getting cut, etc. Fear isn't necessarily a bad thing it can be a healthy reaction to things and I think it's appropriate to be scared of a gun.

For me personally, I feel so strongly about this that if H decided he was going to get a gun that would likely be a deal breaker for me. I don't want a gun in my house and feel that there is way more of a chance for something bad to happen with it there then for it to help save us.

ETA If H was military or a police officer or some similar profession that would be a different story. I'm just referring to my banker, never touched a gun husband.

Lena122 · December 2012

Jchirico:
Lena122:
Jchirico, I want to respond to you but didn't want to make a huge quote. I do agree that if guns weren't accessible at all or were much less accessible that there would be less gun violence. That's just common sense, that if there aren't guns there's no gun violence.

However, I don't think that denying access to guns is reasonable or even lawful. The US is a free country and that means that we have the right to bear arms. Yes, you could move to a country with no gun violence but that doesn't necessarily mean they're doing everything else right. I'd prefer to live in a free country where I have rights other countries don't, including the right to protect myself.

I don't disagree that guns do need to be controlled. But guns are already controlled quite a bit. I've heard people suggest background checks, storage requirements, ammo regulations, etc. But those are all common restrictions in many states. That's why when I hear people "preach gun control" I automatically think they just want all guns off the street. Because there IS gun control.
 I know we're never going to convince each other here, so I'll just make one last point (okay 2).
#1. Yes, you have a lawful right to have a gun. But I for one think that the right that these children had to a life is more important that yours to own a gun. (Especially for those who want them for a hobby. Go play tennis or something, it would be difficult to kill with a tennis raquet!)
 #2. Yes, there IS gun control. And obviously there's not enough since 20 parents don't have children to put to bed tonight. 

I appreciate you recognizing that we're not going to convince each other. While I think these last 2 points were actually pointless as they really don't contribute real weight to either argument and are just over generalized statements, I'll stop here.

Lena122 · December 2012

MollySm:
Lena122:
Guns themselves should not make you afraid. That fear is what drives people who use them maliciously.

Guns can be and are used for good. People could better provide for their families when guns were invented. Hunting is a HUGE source of food and even shelter for people all over the world. Yes it can be done without guns as it was was for centuries. But human beings have come a long way because of the food and shelter that guns have provided. Unfortunately, guns can be used for evil but that doesn't negate the fact that they can be used for good.

Being afraid of guns does not make them any less dangerous. Did you all know that 80 of of people who are shot survive? Now those children obviously could not withstand a gun shot wound as an adult could but in general, over 80 of people survive gun shot wounds. Yes they are deadly, I am not saying they're not. But I think people's fear of guns is directly related to their ignorance on guns and gun safety.

As PPers have said, PSAs on guns and gun safety could really help with raising awareness about guns. The more you know about them, the less there is too fear.
I disagree with this.  Guns themselves are scary objects, and should be treated as such.  If people were more fearful of the, treated them as the deadly weapons that they are, perhaps much more care would be taken with them, and there would be much fewer accidental deaths.  And it would be more difficult for people who shouldn't have them to get access to them.   

Accidental deaths are typically attributed to people not knowing enough about the gun and how it works. Perhaps because they've been too afraid to learn or to actually handle one. When Munchkin is old enough, he will learn all about the guns DH and I have. He will know their power, how they're used, and how to be safe with them. The idea is to prevent that childish curiosity that may compel him to explore himself, thus causing an accident. All this will be in addition to us locking them safely of course.

MollySm · December 2012

Jen0204:
I definitely agree with those who are saying that guns should be feared. I think it's healthy to have a certain degree of fear for anything that is dangerous we'll teach our kids not to touch the stove for fear of getting burned, to be careful with a knife for fear of getting cut, etc. Fear isn't necessarily a bad thing it can be a healthy reaction to things and I think it's appropriate to be scared of a gun. For me personally, I feel so strongly about this that if H decided he was going to get a gun that would likely be a deal breaker for me. I don't want a gun in my house and feel that there is way more of a chance for something bad to happen with it there then for it to help save us. ETA If H was military or a police officer or some similar profession that would be a different story. I'm just referring to my banker, never touched a gun husband.

I agree with all of this. And my H was in the military, so it's not that I don't trust his ability to be careful with a gun. It's just that they are deadly weapons, and don't belong in my home or near any member of my family. I don't think it's a good idea for anyone to try and desensitize themselves to the dangers associated with guns.

jldubb0626 · December 2012

MollySm:
Jen0204:
I definitely agree with those who are saying that guns should be feared. I think it's healthy to have a certain degree of fear for anything that is dangerous we'll teach our kids not to touch the stove for fear of getting burned, to be careful with a knife for fear of getting cut, etc. Fear isn't necessarily a bad thing it can be a healthy reaction to things and I think it's appropriate to be scared of a gun.

For me personally, I feel so strongly about this that if H decided he was going to get a gun that would likely be a deal breaker for me. I don't want a gun in my house and feel that there is way more of a chance for something bad to happen with it there then for it to help save us.

ETA If H was military or a police officer or some similar profession that would be a different story. I'm just referring to my banker, never touched a gun husband.
I agree with all of this.  And my H was in the military, so it's not that I don't trust his ability to be careful with a gun.  It's just that they are deadly weapons, and don't belong in my home or near any member of my family.   I don't think it's a good idea for anyone to try and desensitize themselves to the dangers associated with guns.  

I don't think being knowledgeable about guns desenstizes people against guns. They are powerful weapons and should be taken very seriously. But fearing guns themselves is something we can change. Yes, you can fear their power and what damage they can do in the wrong hands, but don't fear the gun itself. Fear the people who use them to do deadly things.

88eve88 · December 2012

jldubb0626:
Jchirico:
You're right, I'm completely ignorant about guns, like I posted earlier, I don't think I've ever seen one in real life, aside from in a cop's holster. I think you make a lot of fair points here, and it's great to hear that the majority of people survive. But I'd still argue, and I'm sure you'll agree, it would be better to not be shot at all, than to survive a gunshot.
Also, again you're right. It's the people who use them maliciously, not the guns themselves that are the problem. But I think guns make it that much easier for an evil person to hurt a lot of people, easily and quickly. I'm sure you've heard about the incident in China where children were attacked, with a knife. Many were hurt, but only one died, as opposed to the massacre in CT.
You said it best yourself. The more you are around something, the less afraid of it you are. So to learn about guns, how to properly use them and all the safety aspects of them take away the fear. You don't want a gun because you're afraid of it. Why? Because you don't understand it. You've never been around one and you fear the unknown. Which is why you don't understand that when people say it's for protection in their house, *most* people CAN and DO know how to use a gun in the fear of the moment when there is an intruder in their house. If your educated enough on how to use the gun, when someone breaks into your home, you won't be shaky and scared and end up shooting the wrong person. You'll know what to do.
If more people took it upon themselves to educate themselves on guns, you'd realize that it's not just some psychotic idiots choice of weapon when they do bad things. It's NOT about the guns. It's about the people who use the guns. And I'll repeat myself, I agree that things need to change to make it harder to keep guns out the hand of the wrong people. I agree that we need to have a different system in place to protect citizens. But again, you blame the GUN for the actions of the PERSON.

I'll take this one step further and say while I'm sure people think they know how to handle guns in stressful situations, you don't really know until you actually need to do it. To me, there seems to be a general sense of "over confidence" when it comes to guns. I'm sure most people have educated themselves on how to be safe and responsible gun owners. Having gun knowledge and actually using a gun when it counts are two SEPARATE things. Unless you fire guns on a regular basis under duress, it doesn't matter how much you know. Knowledge and skill go together, but they're not the same thing.

Guns were created with the sole intention to kill. Furthermore, they were invented for PEOPLE to kill each other (hunting came later). You have to blame the gun AND the person. The gun does not get a free pass.

sooner1981 · December 2012

A 3 year old was killed tonight in my hometown when he grabbed for a gun worn by his uncle, a police officer. We are never going to have a gun in our house. Statistics don't lie--and they say that kids in houses with guns are far, far, far more likely to die from being killed by those same guns than they are to be protected from a potentially-fatal situation by those guns. I am a fan of math and statistics--so I don't want to put myself at the wrong end of them on something as important as my child's life.

And as for heightened gun control, I am all for it. I believe people should have access to hunting weapons. But that is about it. In the UK, common citizens are not allowed to carry handguns. As a result, in the UK you are 40 times less likely to be killed by a gun than in America. Same basic economic situation, same basic citizenry--yet over there you are statistically a hell of a lot safer. There is a reason that doctors from all over the world come to the US to train in how to treat gun shot wounds--they simply don't see enough in their own country to get any experience! That alone is embarassing!

Also, you can say all you want that "the crazies will always get weapons if they want," but, again, statistically that is simply untrue. In Australia they had a huge spree killing in 1996. They immediately enacted strict gun control laws. In little over a decade, their homicide rate by gun dropped 59%, without any other types of homicides rising. Do you think all the crazies moved away? Or do you think that the "criminals" that everyone talks about being able to get guns no matter what really, in reality, can't get guns when the government does a better job at regulating? Australia, as a whole, has plenty of violence. But now people don't die of being shot to death nearly as often. I would take getting punched or stabbed any day over getting shot. Yes, certain mob criminals may still have access to guns, but they are not the ones I am worried about. I am worried about the awkward adolescent who is mad at the world and takes his mom's legal rifle to the elementary school. I am worried about the crazy in Aurora, CO who legally bought his submachine gun off the internet and picked it up at his local gun shop. These kinds of crazies won't be able to attain weapons in a more regulated society becasue they don't have super-secret ties to underground networks. Heck, the Sandy Hook shooter tried to legally buy a gun and was rejected. The system could work if we would give it some teeth.

All of this throwing our hands up in the air and saying that we can't do anything about this problem is just a product of laziness and cowardice. If we wanted to actually fix (or at least markedly reduce) the problem, we could, as proven by other countries who have done just that.

Jen0204 · December 2012

sooner1981:
All of this throwing our hands up in the air and saying that we can't do anything about this problem is just a product of laziness and cowardice. If we wanted to actually fix (or at least markedly reduce) the problem, we could, as proven by other countries who have done just that.

I agree with your whole post, but especially this. Yes, you can find instances where guns have helped, but those are the exception, not the rule (when you're talking about guns in the hands of private citizens). I don't think anyone will be pushing for an all-out ban on guns, but how do we look at the pictures of these first graders and not try to do better? I just don't see why anyone would be against at least some changes in the laws.

In the state of CT they've had issues recently with young families not staying in state (which has a lot to do with it being a HCOL state). If CT really cracks down on our gun laws it would be interesting to see if that has any impact. As a parent it would be very appealing for me to live in a state with strict gun laws.

jldubb0626 · December 2012

Stupid mobile won't let me quote, but M responding to Eve88.

So, you want to blame an inanimate object for doing something it can't do without a human behind it? Lets rally the guns and burn them all on the cross for killing people without anyone behind them to do so. Yes, the purpose of a gun is to kill but without someone behind it to pull the trigger, it can not harm you. Which is why I voice the opinion of blame the person, not the gun. The gun cannot do anything without the human intent behind it. I'll even go farther to say that humans are the reason that guns are so powerful. The civil war rifle didn't asked to be turned into an automatic, high power rifle. Humans did that. Do we need to make stricter laws? Yes because the people need to be controlled.

Meganequine · December 2012

cs1225:
Lena122:
Meganequine:
I do intend to read the entire post I haven't yet. But I wanted to say thisnbsp; I'm an elementary teacher and the day you tell me part of my job is being able to carry a gun and safely use it is the day I quit.nbsp; I'm there to teach and protect your children.nbsp; I would be more likely to hurt myself or a child trying to use said gun to protect myself and also, would I have to carry it on myself at all times?nbsp; Otherwise how do I keep it from the kids having it in a locked drawer wouldn't really help.
I think the best way to keep the schools safe is to have a school resource officer in every school. I agree that having teachers or other civilians carry firearms is ridiculous. There is a LOT of training necessary to prepare for an active shooter, not to mention the safety issues involved. Having an officer in a school would limit the opportunity for an intruder to get any rounds off before being stopped. Nine times out of ten the shooter wants to die themselves, that's why they kill themselves when they're done killing or before the police arrive. If an officer was already there, an active shooter probably wouldn't even try in the first place because they'd know they'd be killed instantly. If they did try, they certainly wouldn't get a head count as high as the one in Newton last week.
It would be nice to have this in every school, but considering a lot of schools can barely afford paper, this would be a challenge. I spend hundreds of my own money on things like paper, markers, etc. because we can't afford it.

ditto this point.

This is a seperate issue, and maybe I'm jaded because of what went on in WI this last year. . . but it's interesting how the tables turn on teachers. It seems like veryone wants to cut our pay, benefits, says anyone could do our job etc. and then the next day they're singing our praises. There's just not enough money to have a police officer at every school.

Jen0204 · December 2012

jldubb0626:
Stupid mobile won't let me quote, but M responding to Eve88. So, you want to blame an inanimate object for doing something it can't do without a human behind it? Lets rally the guns and burn them all on the cross for killing people without anyone behind them to do so. Yes, the purpose of a gun is to kill but without someone behind it to pull the trigger, it can not harm you. Which is why I voice the opinion of blame the person, not the gun. The gun cannot do anything without the human intent behind it. I'll even go farther to say that humans are the reason that guns are so powerful. The civil war rifle didn't asked to be turned into an automatic, high power rifle. Humans did that. Do we need to make stricter laws? Yes because the people need to be controlled.

I 100% agree with your point. Of course it's not the guns who pull their own trigger, but we can't control what people will do with guns, all that "we" have any influence is over is what people have access to and the hoops we make people jump through to get them. It's unfortunate that we can't trust people with them carte blanch, but that's where we find ourselves.

Lena122 · December 2012

Meganequine:
cs1225:
Lena122:
Meganequine:
I do intend to read the entire post I haven't yet. But I wanted to say thisnbsp; I'm an elementary teacher and the day you tell me part of my job is being able to carry a gun and safely use it is the day I quit.nbsp; I'm there to teach and protect your children.nbsp; I would be more likely to hurt myself or a child trying to use said gun to protect myself and also, would I have to carry it on myself at all times?nbsp; Otherwise how do I keep it from the kids having it in a locked drawer wouldn't really help.

I think the best way to keep the schools safe is to have a school resource officer in every school. I agree that having teachers or other civilians carry firearms is ridiculous. There is a LOT of training necessary to prepare for an active shooter, not to mention the safety issues involved.

Having an officer in a school would limit the opportunity for an intruder to get any rounds off before being stopped. Nine times out of ten the shooter wants to die themselves, that's why they kill themselves when they're done killing or before the police arrive. If an officer was already there, an active shooter probably wouldn't even try in the first place because they'd know they'd be killed instantly. If they did try, they certainly wouldn't get a head count as high as the one in Newton last week.
It would be nice to have this in every school, but considering a lot of schools can barely afford paper, this would be a challenge.  I spend hundreds of my own money on things like paper, markers, etc. because we can't afford it.
ditto this point. 
This is a seperate issue, and maybe I'm jaded because of what went on in WI this last year. . . but it's interesting how the tables turn on teachers.  It seems like veryone wants to cut our pay, benefits, says anyone could do our job etc. and then the next day they're singing our praises. There's just not enough money to have a police officer at every school.

It's unfortunate that people cite lack of funding in regards to having the police in schools but then claim that 20 babies have died and we should do everything possible including take away everyone's guns like they did in Australia. I realize no one here said those things specifically but they were mentioned and I've heard the sentiments elsewhere. I can't even begin to imagine how much it would cost to take back everyone's firearms as the Australians did and while most people on this board don't seem to be advocating that, it has crossed minds over putting police in schools.

In addition to that, there may be less gun violence in the UK but most UK police don't carry guns unless they're specialized forces and officers have gotten severely injured and killed because of that. I just can't take anything they do seriously knowing that. Like I said before, the US is a free country and while the UK or Canada or wherever else may have it "right" in terms of gun violence they certainly don't have it right in everything else. Freedom comes at a cost, right? It's up to you to decide if that cost is too high. For me, it's not.

Jchirico · December 2012

Lena122:
Meganequine:
cs1225:
Lena122:
Meganequine:
I do intend to read the entire post I haven't yet. But I wanted to say thisnbsp; I'm an elementary teacher and the day you tell me part of my job is being able to carry a gun and safely use it is the day I quit.nbsp; I'm there to teach and protect your children.nbsp; I would be more likely to hurt myself or a child trying to use said gun to protect myself and also, would I have to carry it on myself at all times?nbsp; Otherwise how do I keep it from the kids having it in a locked drawer wouldn't really help.
I think the best way to keep the schools safe is to have a school resource officer in every school. I agree that having teachers or other civilians carry firearms is ridiculous. There is a LOT of training necessary to prepare for an active shooter, not to mention the safety issues involved. Having an officer in a school would limit the opportunity for an intruder to get any rounds off before being stopped. Nine times out of ten the shooter wants to die themselves, that's why they kill themselves when they're done killing or before the police arrive. If an officer was already there, an active shooter probably wouldn't even try in the first place because they'd know they'd be killed instantly. If they did try, they certainly wouldn't get a head count as high as the one in Newton last week.
It would be nice to have this in every school, but considering a lot of schools can barely afford paper, this would be a challenge. I spend hundreds of my own money on things like paper, markers, etc. because we can't afford it.
ditto this point.
This is a seperate issue, and maybe I'm jaded because of what went on in WI this last year. . . but it's interesting how the tables turn on teachers. It seems like veryone wants to cut our pay, benefits, says anyone could do our job etc. and then the next day they're singing our praises. There's just not enough money to have a police officer at every school.
It's unfortunate that people cite lack of funding in regards to having the police in schools but then claim that 20 babies have died and we should do everything possible including take away everyone's guns like they did in Australia. I realize no one here said those things specifically but they were mentioned and I've heard the sentiments elsewhere. I can't even begin to imagine how much it would cost to take back everyone's firearms as the Australians did and while most people on this board don't seem to be advocating that, it has crossed minds over putting police in schools. In addition to that, there may be less gun violence in the UK but most UK police don't carry guns unless they're specialized forces and officers have gotten severely injured and killed because of that. I just can't take anything they do seriously knowing that. Like I said before, the US is a free country and while the UK or Canada or wherever else may have it "right" in terms of gun violence they certainly don't have it right in everything else. Freedom comes at a cost, right? It's up to you to decide if that cost is too high. For me, it's not.

Ok, I've got to ask...We're by no means perfect, but exactly what freedoms do you have in the US (aside from carrying guns), that we don't have?

hayliedc · December 2012

sooner1981:
A 3 year old was killed tonight in my hometown when he grabbed for a gun worn by his uncle, a police officer. We are never going to have a gun in our house. Statistics don't lie--and they say that kids in houses with guns are far, far, far more likely to die from being killed by those same guns than they are to be protected from a potentially-fatal situation by those guns. I am a fan of math and statistics--so I don't want to put myself at the wrong end of them on something as important as my child's life.
And as for heightened gun control, I am all for it. I believe people should have access to hunting weapons. But that is about it. In the UK, common citizens are not allowed to carry handguns. As a result, in the UK you are 40 times less likely to be killed by a gun than in America. Same basic economic situation, same basic citizenry--yet over there you are statistically a hell of a lot safer. There is a reason that doctors from all over the world come to the US to train in how to treat gun shot wounds--they simply don't see enough in their own country to get any experience! That alone is embarassing!
Also, you can say all you want that "the crazies will always get weapons if they want," but, again, statistically that is simply untrue. In Australia they had a huge spree killing in 1996. They immediately enacted strict gun control laws. In little over a decade, their homicide rate by gun dropped 59%, without any other types of homicides rising. Do you think all the crazies moved away? Or do you think that the "criminals" that everyone talks about being able to get guns no matter what really, in reality, can't get guns when the government does a better job at regulating? Australia, as a whole, has plenty of violence. But now people don't die of being shot to death nearly as often. I would take getting punched or stabbed any day over getting shot. Yes, certain mob criminals may still have access to guns, but they are not the ones I am worried about. I am worried about the awkward adolescent who is mad at the world and takes his mom's legal rifle to the elementary school. I am worried about the crazy in Aurora, CO who legally bought his submachine gun off the internet and picked it up at his local gun shop. These kinds of crazies won't be able to attain weapons in a more regulated society becasue they don't have super-secret ties to underground networks. Heck, the Sandy Hook shooter tried to legally buy a gun and was rejected. The system could work if we would give it some teeth.
All of this throwing our hands up in the air and saying that we can't do anything about this problem is just a product of laziness and cowardice. If we wanted to actually fix (or at least markedly reduce) the problem, we could, as proven by other countries who have done just that.

i have nothing to say other than we are from the same hometown.

Jchirico · December 2012

Lena122:
Jchirico:
Lena122:
Jchirico, I want to respond to you but didn't want to make a huge quote. I do agree that if guns weren't accessible at all or were much less accessible that there would be less gun violence. That's just common sense, that if there aren't guns there's no gun violence. However, I don't think that denying access to guns is reasonable or even lawful. The US is a free country and that means that we have the right to bear arms. Yes, you could move to a country with no gun violence but that doesn't necessarily mean they're doing everything else right. I'd prefer to live in a free country where I have rights other countries don't, including the right to protect myself. I don't disagree that guns do need to be controlled. But guns are already controlled quite a bit. I've heard people suggest background checks, storage requirements, ammo regulations, etc. But those are all common restrictions in many states. That's why when I hear people "preach gun control" I automatically think they just want all guns off the street. Because there IS gun control.
I know we're never going to convince each other here, so I'll just make one last point (okay 2).
#1. Yes, you have a lawful right to have a gun. But I for one think that the right that these children had to a life is more important that yours to own a gun. (Especially for those who want them for a hobby. Go play tennis or something, it would be difficult to kill with a tennis raquet!)
#2. Yes, there IS gun control. And obviously there's not enough since 20 parents don't have children to put to bed tonight.
I appreciate you recognizing that we're not going to convince each other. While I think these last 2 points were actually pointless as they really don't contribute real weight to either argument and are just over generalized statements, I'll stop here.

actually, they were the opposite of general, they were specific-referring specifically to the events on Friday. Did you mean to say sensationalistic perhaps?

MollySm · December 2012

jldubb0626:
Stupid mobile won't let me quote, but M responding to Eve88.

So, you want to blame an inanimate object for doing something it can't do without a human behind it? Lets rally the guns and burn them all on the cross for killing people without anyone behind them to do so. Yes, the purpose of a gun is to kill but without someone behind it to pull the trigger, it can not harm you. Which is why I voice the opinion of blame the person, not the gun. The gun cannot do anything without the human intent behind it. I'll even go farther to say that humans are the reason that guns are so powerful. The civil war rifle didn't asked to be turned into an automatic, high power rifle. Humans did that. Do we need to make stricter laws? Yes because the people need to be controlled.

It's not about blame, it's about how to solve the problem. When children accidentally shoot other children, when in fear a gun accidentally goes off, it's not malicious intent on the part of the person. The gun never should have been there in the first place. Of course people made guns, but that doesn't mean that adults always have complete control over them.

bethanyturon · December 2012

Starbuck128:
I think I understand both side of the debate. I think the people who like guns are for fewer gun restrictions and people who don't like them will want them gone. This debate turns so personal. I think the problem is that we can't think like that when making this decision. If we want to be serious about reducing gun related violence, we need to pass legislation that we know will logically work even if it may conflict with our personal desire. In practice, other countries have shown that reducing the number of guns in their country, through various means, reduces the gun violence. Easing the access to guns increases gun violence. We have to study what has worked elsewhere when making this decision.
On a side note, I think now our country will finally have a serious discussion about this. This crime is too horrific to brush the issue aside like we've done in the past. I think we need to have the discussion now while we can still be mature adults about it, if that is even possible for our Congress.
I watch every episode of The Daily Show, but I was a couple of weeks behind. I caught up over the weekend and saw the segment they did about that NFL player who shot his fiance. They showed clips of news shows and commentators debating gun control in such an obnoxious and disrespectful way. I couldn't believe it. My jaw was hanging open. That is where we were a week ago, but the world is different now. I hope this joke we have for a Congress can redeem themselves of 4 (6?) years of ineptitude and talk about this respectively.

This. 100% this. Thank you.

NatesLady1309 · December 2012

Lena122:
I do agree that if guns weren't accessible at all or were much less accessible that there would be less gun violence. That's just common sense, that if there aren't guns there's no gun violence. However, I don't think that denying access to guns is reasonable or even lawful. The US is a free country and that means that we have the right to bear arms. Yes, you could move to a country with no gun violence but that doesn't necessarily mean they're doing everything else right. I'd prefer to live in a free country where I have rights other countries don't, including the right to protect myself.

THIS! It is my right as a law abiding American citizen to own a gun. I have no interest in that right being taken away. If someone feels so strongly that America should outlaw gun ownership by private citizens, I hope they feel free to move to another country that has that very law instead of attempting to take away the rights of their fellow citizens. You don't want to own a gun? You don't like them? Awesome. That's your right. But don't take away your neighbors' right to own them.

NatesLady1309 · December 2012

Lena122:
Freedom comes at a cost, right? It's up to you to decide if that cost is too high. For me, it's not.

I can't give enough thumbs up for this.

Want a personalized experience?

Can we do this respectfully?

Re: Can we do this respectfully?

Choose Another Board

Search Boards