• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

School shooting: but don't mention guns!

thaiboxerken said:
To suggest that the NRA holds no responsibility for the lax gun laws is naive. I guess in your world, the guy who pays the assassin is innocent, only the assassin is guilty.
Click to expand...

Not in my world. But in my world I know the difference between an assassin and Congress.

When Congressmen blame the NRA for bad gun laws instead of themselves, they are being cowards. The American voters who elected their legislators bear a much greater responsibility for the state of gun control than the NRA does.

Ranb
 
Last edited:
Ranb said:
Not in my world. But in my world I know the difference between and assassin and Congress.

When Congressmen blame the NRA for bad gun laws instead of themselves, they are being cowards. The American voters who elected their legislators bear a much greater responsibility for the state of gun control than the NRA does.

Ranb
Click to expand...

I once arrested a kid for carrying concealed, and one of his complaints was that "I have to go to jail because of the NRA?"

Ignorance is universal.
 
StankApe said:
edited.....


it irritates me when people personalize the issue, why does this have to be about me? that's low and it makes me angry
Click to expand...

You make yourself angry.

This has been your Daily Buddha Bulletin.

You cannot unsubscribe.
 
JihadJane said:
I doubt that either the USA or guns will exist in 500 years, but if cheese started killing people in France today I've no doubt it would be banned there tomorrow.
Click to expand...
Cars are killing people in France today. When should we expect a nation of pedestrians?
 
It's not about the ban .. it's about lowering amount of weapons among the people, so it is not so readily available. Ban is good start.
I for example don't know any person who owns a gun. If I wanted to shoot somebody, I had to get licence and buy it, or find somehow some illegal trader (no idea how).
For most US people it's just go home and take it from a closet. It's either yours or your father's. And if somehow your father does not have a gun, there for sure will be uncle or your friend's dad.
 
shuttlt said:
I know there can be ammendments. It just seems from way over here like the consititution isn't treated like a document that was written in the 18th Century and may or may not apply today. In some ways it reminds me of the pre-enlightenment veneration of "the ancients". Perhaps that's a convenient bit of posturing to prop up a position (e.g. gun ownership) that people want for other reasons but want to restrict the nature of the debate?
Click to expand...
You're half right. It's treated like a document that was written in the 18th century, but all of it applies today. It's the law of the land. There have been about a dozen amendments per century since it was written, so amending it can be done. It won't be done over the second amendment because not nearly enough Americans want that changed. I'm pretty liberal, I don't own a gun or want a gun, but even I prefer to see the 2nd Amendment left as it is.

There's plenty of debate, and plenty of local governments (my own included) are passing laws which are probably unconstitutional. It's impossible to get a concealed carry permit in Los Angeles. They're available in theory, but you have to get permission from someone who never gives permission (maybe the Sheriff?).
 
zeggman said:
Cars are killing people in France today. When should we expect a nation of pedestrians?
Click to expand...

Cars are not designed to kill; when they kill people it is either an "accident" or through deliberate misuse.

Guns are designed to kill. When they kill people, it is either an "accident" or through proper intended function.

If we eliminate unavoidable "accidents" from both sides of the expression, what are we left with?

People dying when cars are used incorrectly, versus people dying when guns are used correctly.

For what it's worth, everyone who died at yesterday's school shooting was killed via gun(s) being used for their intended function.
 
Last edited:
Dr.Sid said:
It's not about the ban .. it's about lowering amount of weapons among the people, so it is not so readily available. Ban is good start.
I for example don't know any person who owns a gun. If I wanted to shoot somebody, I had to get licence and buy it, or find somehow some illegal trader (no idea how).
For most US people it's just go home and take it from a closet. It's either yours or your father's. And if somehow your father does not have a gun, there for sure will be uncle or your friend's dad.
Click to expand...

If you wanted to kill some one, you would have no other options? You would give up because, why?
 
Last edited:
Cain said:
I should quit this thread as it makes no sense. What on earth does a school shooting have to do with guns??
Click to expand...

Well, a mother in Montreal was recently arrested and charged for the murder of her three young children by drowning.

Perhaps you could go and start another thread addressing the issue of easy access to bathtubs and why these 'bath-tub nuts' feel that they have the right to walk into a store and purchase a bathing device, no questions asked!

This is certainly something that needs to be discussed now that the focus seems to be on the availability of the implement used in the crime rather than the perpetrator...
 
Checkmite said:
Cars are not designed to kill; when they kill people it is either an "accident" or through deliberate misuse.

Guns are designed to kill. When they kill people, it is either an "accident" or through proper intended function.

If we eliminate unavoidable "accidents" from both sides of the expression, what are we left with?

People dying when cars are used incorrectly, versus people dying when guns are used correctly.

For what it's worth, everyone who died at yesterday's school shooting was killed via gun(s) being used for their intended function.
Click to expand...
Right tool for the right job, I guess. I was replying to someone who said the civilized French would not put up with deadly cheeses. Since they put up with deadly Le Cars, I expect they'd give Le Cheese a pass too.
 
Checkmite said:
It's difficult to fault the news for failing to get the facts straight. Every piece of information they gave at the beginning which is now being contradicted, was cited as coming from a police official or someone else "close to the investigation" who was "speaking on condition of anonymity". I think the media needs to re-evaluate the value of information that comes from such sources, because so far the quality has been god-awful.
Click to expand...

I agree.

But how did they get the mom as a teacher thing wrong? It's not like the school was big. They probably listed all their teachers on their website for goodness sake.

How freaking hard would it have been to check if the mom was a teacher?
 
DGM said:
If you wanted to kill some one, you would have no other options? You would give up because, why?
Click to expand...

How many of those ways are easier and require less planning than taking your mother's gun? And it's not someone being killed, it's several people.
 
Bikewer said:
Let's move on to mental illness. Only a tiny percentage of the mentally ill are violent, but when incidents such as the one we are discussing take place everyone wants to do "something".
What? Often (as I've pointed out before) perfectly normal people who are legally and properly in possession of firearms for years will "go bad". They suffer breakdowns, mental illness... They "snap" due to unknown causes... And tragedy results.
How can you screen for such things?

We already have provisions that mentally-ill persons may not in most cases possess firearms, but how do you screen for that? Unless the individual has been legally committed, there is no easily-accessible record of his mental problems, and his physician is likely prohibited from discussing it at any rate. Doctor/patient privilege. Patient confidentiality.
So....Require everyone purchasing a weapon to obtain some sort of "certificate of mental health"? Who is going to do that? Who is going to pay for it? It would almost certainly fall under the "shall not be abridged" section of the 2nd Amendment.
Not easy. No one is going to call for general prohibitions or confiscations; SCOTUS has already ruled that individual possession of firearms is an "individual right", sanctified by the Constitution.
I daresay the chances of amending the Constitution in this regard is....Unlikely.
Click to expand...
Thank you always well spoken.
 
What does a retired school teacher need that many guns for? If my son had mental problems that I thought were getting worse I believe getting rid of the guns would have been the first thing I would have done.

It all goes back to our piss poor mental health system here in that states as the crux of the problem. When they released all of the patients from the asylums with no back up plan for providing resources these incidents began to increase and it all started with post office and their workers going "postal" and the acting out has evolved from that point on.

Just read the above post- it would be easy to connect that kind of record with your driver's license verification. If you are deemed a danger to society for whatever reason, it is no different than a criminal record that follows you around. Otherwise, you should be required to get a certificate from your physician if you are on antidepressants or some other psychotropic drug and that is easy to check through a required drug screen before applying. The gun owner absorbs the cost for this, not the tax payer.
 
Last edited:
Dr.Sid said:
It's not about the ban .. it's about lowering amount of weapons among the people, so it is not so readily available. Ban is good start.
I for example don't know any person who owns a gun. If I wanted to shoot somebody, I had to get licence and buy it, or find somehow some illegal trader (no idea how).
For most US people it's just go home and take it from a closet. It's either yours or your father's. And if somehow your father does not have a gun, there for sure will be uncle or your friend's dad.
Click to expand...

In Canada, gun ownership is legal and requires a license yet the majority of firearm related murders are committed by unlicensed people with illegal possession of an unregistered hand gun.

Not having the requisite license means that you are effectively 'banned' from possessing a hand gun. Yet it's these 'banned' hand guns that have been used for most of the killings.

Go figure...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom