The NRA owns Trump as well.

[Swerd]

Giving the teachers guns just escalates the whole mess to another level. Now you have both disgruntled students and now teachers the ability to kill one another. Politics and money aside for a moment, does this even make sense?

No one is proposing "giving" guns to teachers. They would have to buy their own. That's why the NRA and the politicians it owns proposes that feeble solution.

 

[psbfan9]

Chicago. Toughest Gun laws in the country and the highest Gun murder rate. I can list other extreme gun law states and cities. Criminals do not obey the law.

Because of Indiana's laws, and gun show loopholes, criminals from Illinois are crossing state lines and buying weapons. Not to mention that weapons are being stolen from 'supposed' responsible gun owners.

https://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/chicago-gun-trace-report-2017-454016983.html

https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20171029/bronzeville/gun-trace-report-2017-police-department

And this;

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...l-chicago-dahleen-glanton-20171003-story.html

@everettT, I think that you're mssing the point. 17 people were killed by a 17, SEVENTEEN, year old mentally disturbed kid that bought a military style weapon.
That SHOULD NOT be happening.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/01/29/us/where-50000-guns-in-chicago-came-from.html

 

[Irvrobinson]

Thanks for that well-thought-out post. It's right and needs to be said over and over.

The post-1970s NRA is all about promoting maximum gun sales, not proper and responsible gun usage. It represents the gun manufacturers only. As such, the post-1970s NRA has led the charge in reckless and irresponsible gun usage. And beyond that, it's abundant spending to support/control/intimidate politicians deserves frequent bashing. No new law regulating gun sales or ownership will correct this nation's gun problem. That will require defeating the political influence of the NRA in local and national elections. After that, and only after that, will common sense prevail.

I wish I could agree, but I can't. I know several NRA members who do want concealed carry everywhere without restrictions, who think owning automatic weapons is a constitutional right, and think one reason they need their own arsenal is to defend themselves against "the government", should it go awry. (Some I know think that day is in sight.) I wish the NRA were just a gun marketing organization, which would make it more vulnerable, but it isn't. There are millions of Americans who believe weaponizing the populace is the answer to crime and personal safety.

 

[GO-NAD!]

I wish I could agree, but I can't. I know several NRA members who do want concealed carry everywhere without restrictions, who think owning automatic weapons is a constitutional right, and think one reason they need their own arsenal is to defend themselves against "the government", should it go awry. (Some I know think that day is in sight.) I wish the NRA were just a gun marketing organization, which would make it more vulnerable, but it isn't. There are millions of Americans who believe weaponizing the populace is the answer to crime and personal safety.

I get the impression that there are a LOT of "Walter Mitty" types amongst American gun owners who think they are going to be called upon to "save the day" at some point. Would that be accurate?

 

[3db]

No one is proposing "giving" guns to teachers. They would have to buy their own. That's why the NRA and the politicians it owns proposes that feeble solution.

Give or buy? Whats the difference. The end result is the same, an escalation in violence in an institution that's supposed promote thinking, tolerance, etc, not slaying. Swerd, this is F?cked anyway which way you want to argue it. Its just wrong.

 

[Ponzio]

I wish I could agree, but I can't. I know several NRA members who do want concealed carry everywhere without restrictions, who think owning automatic weapons is a constitutional right, and think one reason they need their own arsenal is to defend themselves against "the government", should it go awry. (Some I know think that day is in sight.) I wish the NRA were just a gun marketing organization, which would make it more vulnerable, but it isn't. There are millions of Americans who believe weaponizing the populace is the answer to crime and personal safety.

Sad if it's so. This is becoming a national health issue. This torrid pace of killings in this country is unsustainable.

Gun owner here.

 

[Irvrobinson]

I get the impression that there are a LOT of "Walter Mitty" types amongst American gun owners who think they are going to be called upon to "save the day" at some point. Would that be accurate?

Not quite, IMO. I think it is to save themselves and their families, not "the day" in the grand sense.

 

[Irvrobinson]

Gun owner here.

Me too, but I'm a supporter of dramatically raising the standards for ownership. Beyond those for a driver's license. And just like with driving, the more serious the weapon the higher the requirements, just like a CDL has a higher standard than a regular driver's license. I think rights can come with responsibilities.

 

[Swerd]

I get the impression that there are a LOT of "Walter Mitty" types amongst American gun owners who think they are going to be called upon to "save the day" at some point. Would that be accurate?

In my opinion, yes.

Since the draft ended, fewer and fewer Americans have spent time in the military. Whether they like or hate being in uniform, they would at least be exposed to the severe damage that even handguns, not to mention the more lethal longer guns, can do to humans.

 

[Swerd]

I wish I could agree, but I can't. I know several NRA members who do want concealed carry everywhere without restrictions, who think owning automatic weapons is a constitutional right, and think one reason they need their own arsenal is to defend themselves against "the government", should it go awry. (Some I know think that day is in sight.) I wish the NRA were just a gun marketing organization, which would make it more vulnerable, but it isn't. There are millions of Americans who believe weaponizing the populace is the answer to crime and personal safety.

I also know some NRA members who are equally delusional. I also know some former NRA members who reject such thinking.

Why stop with automatic weapons? When everyone has a machine gun, someone will want a rocket propelled grenade launcher. When all schools are armed and fortified, the next crazed school shooter will have to buy a tank.

The NRA is most simply explained as a way to sell more guns to an already heavily armed populace. Unfortunately the NRA has learned how to manipulate US local and national politics with money. It's really more about money than inflammatory rhetoric.

 

[highfigh]

Arm the teachers!! Excellent advice there dumbass Trump. . That way a teacher having a bad can go on a shooting rampage and up the numbers. Why should students have all the fun of killing one another?

He hardly originated the idea. However, if Cruz had someone pointing a gun in his face, I doubt he would have kept going. I think that any of these shootings would have been far less deadly if a few rounds had been fired at the shooter- even if they missed, it would have bought time for people to get away. It's seen in every Military or Western movie- someone always yells "Cover me!" before running to get a better vantage point or to get away.

People who do this have little to no resistance, so they keep going until the Police show up and here in MKE, where shootings happen far too often, the saying "When seconds count, the Police are only minutes away" holds a lot of truth.

At some point, we need to hold parents, schools and most of all, GOVERNMENT LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES WHO HAVE ALREADY BEEN ALERTED TO SOMEONE'S ONLINE COMMENTS responsible for these events. The husband where Cruz was staying said he thought he had the only key to the gun safe he says he insisted on when he found out that Cruz had seven guns. I can't think of the last lockable item that only had one key. They ALWAYS come with a spare!

The school has video of Cruz fighting with his ex-girlfriends' new boyfriend. This seems to be similar to the ever-popular "If I can't have her, NOBODY can!", taken to an extreme. I read a comment that one victim had been hit by nine round- he must have really hated her- maybe she took the ex's side. Kids at the school said they expected him to do something like this- why did this not make it to the administrators and police?

 

[highfigh]

Because of Indiana's laws, and gun show loopholes, criminals from Illinois are crossing state lines and buying weapons. Not to mention that weapons are being stolen from 'supposed' responsible gun owners.

https://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/chicago-gun-trace-report-2017-454016983.html

https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20171029/bronzeville/gun-trace-report-2017-police-department

And this;

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...l-chicago-dahleen-glanton-20171003-story.html

@everettT, I think that you're mssing the point. 17 people were killed by a 17, SEVENTEEN, year old mentally disturbed kid that bought a military style weapon.
That SHOULD NOT be happening.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/01/29/us/where-50000-guns-in-chicago-came-from.html

It's not just adjacent states, some of the guns used in MKE came from all over the country.
BTW- he's 19 and he was 18 when he bought the guns, legally. Kind of.

The problem with the application is that it only requires someone to answer the questions of "Are you mentally impaired?" and "Are you, or have you ever been addicted to alcohol or narcotics?". People lie, to get what they want. They could ask "Are you stupid?" and most people will answer with "NO!". Doesn't mean they aren't, they just know how to answer the question in a way that will allow them to get what they want.

 

[lsiberian]

I honestly used to side with the gun rights folks, but enough is enough. I think we need a licensing program just like we have with vehicles to own or possess firearms. This should include a safety and sanity test of some kind. The Chicago argument doesn't work because you can go out of the city and get the guns.

 

[j_garcia]

The people who do this sort of thing are not afraid to die IMO. So I am not 100% sure an armed society would stop all of them. It WOULD keep some of them from happening because there would be a lot of them rethinking the idea of doing it. UNTRAINED persons firing back is just as much of a risk as the shooter though IMO. If you've had any training at all, that is one of the first things you are taught (know what is around you, what's beyond your target and where your bullets are going). Return fire in a panicked school could result in MORE injuries.

I am all for guns, long time owner and advocate. I am also for stricter controls on who can obtain them. This kid obtained the firearm in question legally. Seems to me he should not have been able to. Guns alone are not the issue - we need to stop these people who fall through the cracks and commit these acts FIRST.

 

[panteragstk]

Give me a break. We do not live in a movie. Fight fire with fire is not the way our country should be run.

At some point, STOP BLAMING EVERYTHING BUT THE EASY ACCESS TO WEAPONS. There should be a database for every gun sold and to who just like cars so it can all be tracked so if someone does have a breakdown or commits a crime we know what weapons they own.

The easy access is absolutely part of the problem as you said it's not the whole problem. The mindset is the big issue.

I have guns. I use them to hunt and shoot at targets. Never would I think to use one against someone. I don't have them for that. Using them for home protection is a silly idea. I have a security system that will deter criminals, and if I was REALLY worried about someone breaking into my house I'd get another Rottweiler (I miss my old one...). Anyone can point a gun at someone and think it will deter them from coming at you, but puling the trigger is much more difficult. My dog wouldn't think twice about running at someone with a gun and ripping them apart.

The other issue is that we think that if someone else is armed our only defense is to also be armed. Maybe, maybe not. The issue I think everyone seems to have is that we all think we need a gun to protect ourselves from each other. That is a horrible mindset. If everyone in this country agreed that owning guns is absolutely a right, but to only own them for hunting and sport we'd be much better off.

Get rid of the "they're taking away my rights by taking my guns" attitude and think "gee, if there were less of these I bet fewer people would get shot."

Granted, with the situation in cities like Chicago we'd have to let the army or some such go in and go door to do to confiscate weapons...wonder how that'd go over?

All in all pretending like it's a singular issue and that there is some magical fix is tragically short sighted. This is a long term problem that is going to take a nation to solve. The government doesn't have the power to change our mindset over night.

 

[Irvrobinson]

This is a long term problem that is going to take a nation to solve.

I think it will it will take a generation to solve. There are over 300 million guns in the US now. The government can't possibly try to confiscate or buy them all, even if directed to. I'm thinking it has to be something like, by some date, say 25 years from now, your guns are either registered and you're trained or you're guilty of a felony. Even for an action with a long lead time, I'd say the chance of getting a law passed within the next ten years is less than 1%.

 

[Swerd]

I've just read a number of common sense ideas . After all the inflammatory rhetoric, who'd have thought that was possible?

That was the major point the high school kids from Florida have. They wanted to tell the politicians – drop your do-nothing BS and instead, do something constructive. There are quite a few widely-supported measures available.

 

[highfigh]

Me too, but I'm a supporter of dramatically raising the standards for ownership. Beyond those for a driver's license. And just like with driving, the more serious the weapon the higher the requirements, just like a CDL has a higher standard than a regular driver's license. I think rights can come with responsibilities.

It's time for a "Just because you can, doesn't mean you should" conversation. People need to accept the fact that their emotional state SHOULD preclude them getting any kind of gun, for any reason. Also, people need to do more to prevent someone getting their guns. Leaving a trail of guns throughout the house is no way to guarantee safety.

 

[highfigh]

IF we could question all of the shooters, I should start by determining their attitudes on gun availability. Next would be questions about whether the gun free zone signs had any bearing on what they did. I know some people who are a lot more paranoid than they need to be, who have lots of guns and more ammo than they're ever use and they have never, nor do I worry that they will ever, shoot up a school, church, outdoor concert (regardless of who's playing). Do I think they're being sensible? No, especially in light of the amount of FMJ bullets they buy. If they really want to stop a lot of people, they would use something else but their fears outweigh their ability to live without looking over their shoulder everywhere they go.

 

[mtrycrafts]

...
Even the far right gun enthusiast and Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said the 2nd amendment has its limitations on what can be owned by civilians.

And I make these comments as a gun owner.

Exactly. I think he also stated that it is not absolute and can have limits placed on it, just like the 1st amendment has limits.