NRA Press Conference: Guns in Schools

[Nadev]

A teacher in the USA, 2015 getting ready for work....

I have a sudden (violent) urge to be a teacher now.

[Rommon64]

Another issue I think, is that the people who DO have mental health issues that do these terrible acts are treated as evil and are vilified, when in fact, it could be argued that they were actually the first victims. If there was someone there to help them, how many would still be alive today? At the risk of using stereotypes, as a culture, your country needs to move away from the stigmas attached to mental illness. If you can't morally force them to see help (And I hope you understand I'm saying that neutrally) than you need to make it so that doing it themselves isn't seen as a sign of weakness.

[SirRobin]

A sad thing ineed, myself and half my regiment would be on that list, despite feeling fine now. Bad medical records haunt you for the rest of your life.

I know I would. After one "incident," shall we say, I was told that I just had an "alcoholic idiosyncratic reaction causing a homicidal ideation."

So I'm sure I would be on the list for that, if not some other stuff. The wife is on the zoloft so add her to it of course. Not to mention my oldest is considered "oppositional" by his teachers so he'll probably be on it as well. Good lord, imagine how many folks have been diagnosed with depression at this point. Who goes on "the list" and who doesn't?

[Dacien]

Please don't assume so little of my perception of the issue. I would wager that I would be on this "watch list" as well, assuming that ADD and clinical depression count as mental disabilities.

What would you propose as an alternative? I can think of one idea, but people already seem to be against medical history background checks.

My ideas on how to stop people from committing mass murder? You'll never stop these people. Humanity is fundamentally broken, and some people give in to their wicked desires, their manufactured grievances (my best guess is this Lanza kid felt wronged by life somehow, and that anger built up until it exploded).

I see the reasoning behind limiting gun accessibility, but I'm just not going to be "that guy", the guy clamoring for limitations on freedoms and rights because that crazy horrible human being down the street wants to act like a violent little sicko.

[Shocktroop]

I think only a vocal minority are looking at blanket gun bans across the board.

Most people that I have seen fall into one of two major camps:
1) Guns are the answer -- give more rights (IE--concealed carry in all area, etc.)
2) Guns are the problem -- ban assault weapons and high capacity magazines, but still allow sensible gun rights.

First, you cannot ban assault weapons because civilians cannot purchase them. An assault weapon is a automatic or burst fire capable weapon, that is the definition. All the semi auto rifles they want to ban do not fall under that description, they just want to call them that to scare all the idiots into getting in their corner.

Sure they might be pushing #2 right now, but when someone kills a bunch of people with a handgun(like in most shootings, plus they have much more killing power than a .223) they will try to ban those as well, or ban anything higher than a single shot weapon. More deaths will happen due to people being unable to defend themselves against criminals using full automatics or the banned high capacity mags.

[Grizzly Willy]

I'm not able to accept "let's do nothing because people are bad" argument, so I suppose I'll end the conversation here.

[Dacien]

I'm not able to accept "let's do nothing because people are bad" argument, so I suppose I'll end the conversation here.

Well I'm certainly not going to advocate for removal of gun rights. Good men have stopped bad acts with firepower.

[Svifnymr]

Which is a fallacy.

If it was a fallacy, we wouldn't have any further restrictions after the GCA of 34, 68, the bans of 86, 89 and 98 and other assorted laws/ executive orders/ statutory redefinitions which have all been added on as each generation gets used to the last one.

[Grizzly Willy]

Well I'm certainly not going to advocate for removal of gun rights. Good men have stopped bad acts with firepower.

Yeah, either I'm not getting my argument across well or you don't understand what I'm saying.

[SirRobin]

First, you cannot ban assault weapons because civilians cannot purchase them. An assault weapon is a automatic or burst fire capable weapon, that is the definition. All the semi auto rifles they want to ban do not fall under that description, they just want to call them that to scare all the idiots into getting in their corner.

Sure they might be pushing #2 right now, but when someone kills a bunch of people with a handgun(like in most shootings, plus they have much more killing power than a .223) they will try to ban those as well, or ban anything higher than a single shot weapon. More deaths will happen due to people being unable to defend themselves against criminals using full automatics or the banned high capacity mags.

Or we could just take a realistic look at what people "need" to defend themselves. Again, if you need more than one or two shots to protect yourself against what's coming after you then your best chance is probably to fortify and wait for the cavalry anyway. So that takes care of all the semiautomatics right there. Now lets not "ban" them. You want to own them anyway? Then tax them extra for it and make them keep them somewhere, like a range's or gun shop's safe or vault, that makes the chances of a wacko walking off with them much much lower.

Again, you won't stop all the wackos, but you'll help keep their body counts lower.

[Svifnymr]

I think most people that know even the slightest about guns can tell the difference between a handgun, a hunting rifle, and a weapon that looked like a soldier just dropped it on the ground. The latter is the "assault weapon" that people refer to. I'm not trying to sound condescending, but one of these is not like the other.

Connecticut has an assault weapons ban, the Bushmaster was not an assault weapon as defined by the cosmetics laws you're discussing.

[Rommon64]

Well I'm certainly not going to advocate for removal of gun rights. Good men have stopped bad acts with firepower.

And good men have stopped bad acts without, Like Martin Luther King Jr.

I'm not arguing 'get rid of guns!', but that we need to make heroes out of people who do good things period, not just how they do it. We do need guns, because we may need to defend against people who are beyond reason, but I don't like the idea of cultivating a culture of paranoia and fear.

[Svifnymr]

As much as I respect other people's religious beliefs, they are their beliefs and nobody elses. If you believe that being gay is against your religious beliefs then don't be gay, but you can't force that belief onto others. Even if marriage was a Christian only system, which it isn't, that would only protect churches from marrying gay couples, not courts or other churches that are more accepting. I'm sure WBC believes most people's marriages illegitimate but you don't see their beliefs being made law.

The simplest (to me) solution for the "war on marriage" thing is to reconcile it easily with the seperation of church and state. To put simply, marriage can be the union between a man and a woman, but should have no legal benefits/ status, then we wouldn't need to worry about whether gays can marry or not, legally.

[Deleted]

Or we could just take a realistic look at what people "need" to defend themselves.

What's wrong with a Tazer btw? Shouldn't that be more than enough to protect you? Does it really have to be a gun?

I can't know, I've never been hit by either.

[Zdrasti]

Having a toddler get into some bleach is terrible, but we don't try to outlaw bleach. However at the same time, it's a good idea to make take some precautions and make sure the bleach is either higher up or in cabinets that are childproof.

Point I'm trying to make is that with guns outlawing them completely is not a solution. But doing nothing and leaving guns easily accessible is not responsible either. Get rid of the unregulated second market and require training and background checks when purchasing a firearm.

[Svifnymr]

Well I just mean if we have a "mentally ill" watch list so that we can monitor possible school shooters (a horrendous and horrendously flawed proposition), suddenly every single person on that list is suspect. Suspect as a possible violent criminal, I mean.

Currently we list crimes by some types (Felony, Violent Felony, Misdemeanor, Misdemeanor Domestic Violence), and such a system could be drafted for the er, "selective removal of rights" from a mentally ill individual. Currently you're on the "can't buy" list if you have been committed to a mental institution, the list could be refined and stratified. Though obviously you run the risk of biased individuals and such.

[Jeleh]

Well I'm certainly not going to advocate for removal of gun rights. Good men have stopped bad acts with firepower.

Acts they never would have had to prevent if the offender did not have such easy access to weapons in the first place. The stats are simple, sky high access and ownership of weapons resulting in firearms homicide double that of the closest first world country and 60-80 times higher than the majority of Europe.

[SirRobin]

What's wrong with a Tazer btw? Shouldn't that be more than enough to protect you? Does it really have to be a gun?

I can't know, I've never been hit by either.

Tazers are effective but I've seen them not work very well too. Nor does pulling out a tazer have anywhere near the psychological impact of hearing a pump-action shotgun chambering a shell.

Having a toddler get into some bleach is terrible, but we don't try to outlaw bleach. However at the same time, it's a good idea to make take some precautions and make sure the bleach is either higher up or in cabinets that are childproof.

Point I'm trying to make is that with guns outlawing them completely is not a solution. But doing nothing and leaving guns easily accessible is not responsible either. Get rid of the unregulated second market and require training and background checks when purchasing a firearm.

Nor are many asking for all firearms to be banned. That's just part of the fearmongering counterattacks. However, doing something to restrict access to firearms is well within our means.

[Healing Rain]

The Supreme Court just needs to rule 'gun free zone' laws unconstitutional.

[SirRobin]

The Supreme Court just needs to rule 'gun free zone' laws unconstitutional.

Not sure how that would have changed anything. Or do you mean that schools not being gun free zones would have increased the chances that someone would have been armed?