So the NRA's response to Sandy Hook is...

School is a frickin prison anyway, so why not make it look like one. I hated every minute I spent in public school. They make boredom a flipping science.

So what I'm seeing is, people want their children to be safe from being murdered, but they don't want to spend any money on it.

Trillions for propping up big business, bailing out foreign car companies, sticking our noses in mideast countries... 4 million for a Hawaiian vacation...

Explains a lot, really

So tell me, did your 'guidance counselor' give you an electronic bracelet to wear home?

I'd like to see the 1,500 children a year who die of child abuse/neglect spared.

I'd like to see everyone who wants to own a gun pass a psych screening.

Those I'll spend money on.

Your More Guns Solves Everything "solution"? Not so much.

Or maybe we don't believe the proposed expensive solution will actually make our children safe.

A sample size of 17 incidents is pretty bad to formulate policy around, don't you think?

I think we had a guidance counselor, I don't know that I ever saw him/her or knew what they did or what purpose they served.
All I remember are classes that move at the speed of the stupidest motherfucker in the class, and the rest of us who bothered to get it the first time were punished by hearing the same shit over and over. You got the damn book and then they are going to read it to you? How the fuck is that not an insult to anyone's intelligence. Then you get in trouble for pointing out to the the teacher that "hey we can read". I have never had the patience to set still unless I am doing something that can hold my attention.
Here is the one I never got. Why do teachers treat students like children and then expect them to act like adults?

Banning "assault weapons" isn't going to make anyone safer, either.

Consider that at Virginia Tech, in the deadliest attack by a single person, Seung-Hui Cho killed 32 people (and wounded 17)--all of them adults--with a couple of handguns, neither of which would be banned under any remotely possible weapons ban.

Similarly, George Hennard killed 23 people at Luby's Diner in Killeen, Texas, armed only with 2 ordinary handguns that, again, are unlikely to be banned.

If you get a mass of people in an enclosed area where they have limited routes of escape, a determined killer is going to be able to murder them at leisure with almost any firearm. An AR-15 looks more intimidating than a 1911 pistol, but the former's .223 round won't kill you any deader than the latter's .45 ACP. If you ban higher capacity magazines, the killer will just bring more magazines; a two-second pause to switch out a magazine is no big burden on someone shooting defenseless people. Or the killer can always bring another gun and switch to it.

People who think that they're going to solve this problem by going after guns are fooling themselves.

We who support gunowner's rights KNOW that this isn't going to fix it and when another massacre happens, there will be still MORE demands. There's no incentive to give an inch. In a compromise, BOTH sides get something...I don't see that gun rights supporters have anything to gain by giving into any kind of ban.

That's it?! That's their response? Don't they know they're directly responsible for this massacre and the people demand answers?

I'll bet most of those are urban-area schools, where the only shootings on school grounds are gang-related.

Exactly.

Garamet said, "I'd like to see everyone who wants to own a gun pass a psych screening."

The killer in this case would have never taken a psych test. He stole the guns.

What then?

She will then move on to making more demands.

That's where the "Am I my brother's keeper?" factor comes into play. Mama took him to the range. Mama left the guns where he could get at them. And apparently no one else in the entire world noticed this emotionally disturbed, physically disabled kid handling guns. Or else other people did notice, and did what you'd do:

For the sake of argument, what do you think is a reasonable precaution for a gun owner living in the same home as someone with a potential for instability and violence? If you were in that situation, would you take extra steps to secure your guns to prevent them from being used against you?

I'm not talking about legislating anything. I just want to know what you think is a reasonable course of action.

http://kdvr.com/2012/12/20/adam-lanzas-barber-newtown-killers-mother-ran-his-life-spoke-for-him/

Perhaps a safe which can't be opened with a combination but a fingerprint/handprint or even retinal print.


As far as the kid, it seems, from what I heard (which I admit was bits and pieces going from room to room while at work), the kid just recently started to act goofy/strange and she wasn't sure what to do about it. That can and often is true of many folks. Is this goofiness just acting out, and nothing really serious or should I start looking for a psychiatrist and a mental hospital and a judge to help write the order to commit until proven safe?

As much as we armchair a lot of things on this board, I don't think any of us, including garamet, are capable of determining when a person is a psychiatric risk and when they aren't.

Read the bolded part slowly:

Jeez, did anyone proof that slop before they threw it on the page?

Yeah, that was awful.


And now I'm conflicted, I didn't realize the killers mom was kind of milfy until just now.





Too soon?

Not at all true.

Who did Clinton appeal to? Maybe you missed it, but LaPierre was parroting Clinton's idea from 2000 in response to Columbine.

I agree. That IS cost prohibitive and impractical.

Now if ONLY there were a way to have large numbers of armed, concerned, responsible law abiding citizens disbursed randomly among the general populace. ...

Nope. I can't figure out a way to make that happen either. Clearly the solution is to disarm concerned responsible law abiding citizens. Its the only way!

Hey faggotmike. Pick up a copy of Time's 2006 Faggot of the Year. There's your answer.

Chubby interns?

Maybe you missed it, but the two proposals are only similar in that they both involve police officers and schools.

Impossible.

If that was the case, the kids would be attacking them to take their guns, and the police would be treating the children like criminals, and safety would be so much worse in those schools that parents would have pulled their children out of there long ago.

I know it, 'cause I read it on the internet. Right here in this very thread, in fact...

Those who talk about "your side" all the time show how little they understand of the issues. Instead of trying to understand the complicated realities, they just boil it all down to the simplicity of a sports match, or a "good guys versus bad guys" western.

I don't take those who make this about "your side" very seriously, no matter which particular slant they take on the issues. By that very approach, they show that they lack both the inclination and the information to do anything more than try to place blame (which, of course, they want to place on anyone but themselves, hence the identification of "sides").

And what's interesting is that those screaming the loudest about the cost tend to lean left politically. Unlimited spending was a good thing to "stimulate the economy," but suddenly when everyone is screaming for better security in schools and a way of providing it is proposed: "We're broke! We don't have enough money for that!"

I don't believe for an instant that is the real problem for those throwing up this particular straw-man. They simply don't want any solution that does not involve gun-control, because they have been brainwashed into thinking that is a magical solution to dealing with crime. Nevertheless, it would be good to keep those reactions in mind the next time there is a debate about how much Obamacare is going to cost...

And that is the bottom line. I am not a professional in psychiatry, but I have dealt with the subject extensively and I know that there is a huge "gray area" between "those who are loony-tunes and clearly should not be let anywhere near a gun" and "those who are obviously sane and pose no threat to anyone."

The only way to eliminate risks through "psych testing" is to deprive an incredibly large number of people of their Constitutional rights simply because of what they might do, even if the risk is statistically very low. Kind of like the internment camps for ethnic Japanese people (even if they were American citizens) back in the 40s...

You appear to be confusing "screaming" with "pointing out the logical inconsistency." The people that suddenly support spending large amounts of money to put glorified armed guards in schools are generally the same people that oppose the TSA as useless and invasive, who object to any sort of federal spending that isn't mandated by the Constitution, who repeatedly call for more limited government.... until they're worried the government might come after their guns. Then they're willing to spend whatever it takes to make the perceived threat to their guns go away.

Because it's not. They're simply pointing out the hypocrisy of those suggesting it.

I already suggested one in another thread.

Yes, anyone who disagrees with you must have been brainwashed.

How respectful of you.

I've been busy and haven't been able to weigh in, but...this.

Outside of two high-profile cases that went all the way to the Supreme Court, law abiding gun owners have done nothing but give and give and give since 1936. The anti-gun side has given nothing. I'm not inclined to budge and will fight tooth and nail or just ignore you and your laws.

"Not. one. inch." That should have been the entirety of LaPierre's statement.