Propose Solutions to Avert Spree Killings Here

29 times in 13 years, or an average of 2.23 incidents a year. In a country this big, 2.23 incidents a year is pretty isolated.

Well let's qualify that......

The legislation is in place if say the kid gets their hand on the gun.

We don't have this type of legislation for guns that are stolen.

It obviously can't be an official government policy, but it's easily something that can be encouraged among parents and other groups. Even the NRA could push it, if they're really serious about people having the right to self-defence and not just jerking off over guns. It's something groups after-school groups could teach. Where I live, the martial arts schools advertise themselves as after-school care as well.

As for the teachers, I don't see any reason why the ability to defend a classroom shouldn't be something they're taught in university. They should learn that sort of thing along with CPR and first aid.

I know but with this crowd of whiners if you did not put that qualifier in there they would then ask, "so his mom had she been alive would have been arrested?" and then you would play a stupid game of tag with Garamet, Gul, and the rest of the whiners with them ignoring what you post and posting about things being stolen like fire extinguishers.

It could be official government policy if they had the balls to do it. But they don't have the balls.

And they will discourage it even to the point of threatening to expel any kids they find practicing it and fire any teacher who brings it up.

The Fed probably doesn't (and with good cause, since enough people on the right will think it's a conspiracy to weaponize kids against their parents), but individual school boards can easily add it to the curriculum. It can be a unit in P.E or health.

Doubtful. They don't throw kids out for taking martial arts classes after school.

This is a great idea, and should be part of the Physical Education course. Not only as a great tool for situations like school shootings, but it would really help students down the road should they ever get into a situation where they need to defend themselves for any reason.

Sadly, certain parents would go batshit crazy if their kids were taught self defense.

It is still a good idea. But you're still right as well.

Look at drinking and driving. For years we drill it into the heads of our kids in school, at home, at awareness functions, etc, etc that drinking and driving is bad. And yet we still have thousands of morons that drink and drive and kill thousands of innocent and helpless people.

We can do our best to educate everyone as to what is safe, but the idiots will still fall through the cracks.

Indeed. Imagine how many potential rapists and muggers could be stopped by those students in the future.

Meh. Give parents a choice to opt-out, but make it clear their kids will be at a disadvantage in the future.

Either way, you should get enough kids that'll fight back to provide a sort of herd immunity.

The problem with our anti-drunk driving efforts is that there is no coordination with licensing standards. There are few if any questions about it on the exam, and there isn't enough negative consequence if you get pulled over. If we want to crack-down on it, we need stricter enforcement laws and we need to place intervention closer to where the drinking happens. There should be mandatory bouncer training around key confiscation, for example.

Back to guns, there will always be people who don't take best practices to heart, but my thought is that right now, there are plenty of people who have never even been exposed to the information. Let's at least make sure they've been given the training. Obviously we can't guarantee that everybody follows the advice.

My solution: All states adopt a "shall issue" stance and handguns be limited to those who take the CCW training for their state.

agreed.
the entire process should be modeled after driving licenses.
want to use a public road? you need to have proven competency and insurance.
want to carry in public? same thing applies.
beyond that, there is no justifiable limitation on ownership.

That's not a bad idea, especially since most crimes are committed with handguns. The unfortunate problem is you can't defeat a problem like this with laws though, even after it you'll still have to admit that you will have gun crime and you will have incidents like this. The simple reason being that most gun crime is committed by gang members, against other gang members. In many cases these are people with a criminal past who either don't have a criminal record, or if they do, go around the system by acquiring firearms from sources outside the law.

In short, it's like using fire to fight a flood, the water doesn't give a shit.

It might shut some people up though when it can be shown that gun crimes are usually committed with *gasp* illegal guns, used by *gasp* criminals. Yeah, overly optimistic of me, but still.

And yet at the same time regulating hand guns or even attempting to makes a ton more sense than the Democrats' obsession with "assault weapons".

"That crazy man murdered his mother and stole her guns, then used only hand guns to murder children - ban assault weapons!"

The gun debate is a lot like the piracy and DRM debate. Year after year, the content creation groups make new and more powerful DRM to safeguard their intellectual property. And every time, the pirates get around the DRM and distribute it. Nothing is solved, except those who are willing to follow the law and purchase things legally have to go through an ever-increasingly cumbersome process to use what they paid for, while those who elect not to follow the law face no such restrictions and actually get to enjoy a better product.

At a certain point you have to take a step back and ask yourself, "How much should people who follow the law be inconvenienced for those who don't?"

Seconded.

My opinion is that if you want to own a handgun or assault rifle, you should have to demonstrate proficiency with either weapon, along with the safety protocols, and overall knowledge of proper usage.

I didn't know an AR-15 was considered a hand gun. (The initial reports that he left the AR in the car were wrong. He did use it inside the school.)

I've shot them with one hand before - does that count?

And if you can show me the Amendment that says the right to own and use transportation shall not be infringed you'll have slightly more of an argument than you do now.

So you're saying the only rights you have are those specifically enumerated in the Constitution? Wow.

I heard Adam Lanza was autistic. We cannot continue to allow such dangerous things in society. We must outlaw autism.

This is important enough, and well enough formulated, that it deserves to be repeated, lest anyone miss it.

What's going to happen when 3-D printers allow anyone to simply have any gun they want manufactured whenever and whereever they want?

The Economist magazine has been talking about this coming revolution in low volume, made to order manufacturing for years. and it is approaching fast. Probably within 10-15 years for small items like guns.

A guy has already proven able to use a 3-D printer to custom build an AK-47. All he had to do was get the barrel and magazine online.

Every time I have bought an AR-15 receiver, I've had to specify whether I wanted it to become a rifle or a handgun.

Not that I don't believe you, but link?

NEWTOWN, Conn.--Dr. H. Wayne Carver, the medical examiner investigating Friday's massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School, said autopsies completed on 20 children and six adults on Saturday showed they were killed with multiple bullets fired by a rifle at close range.

All the "experts" are wrong. Every single victim was killed by Colonel Mustard in the kitchen with a pipe wrench. Good luck banning those!