Preventing school shootings

[Jeff]

edit: Jeff drives a free candy van, someone should keep an eye on him.

I'm a "lover" not a killer... :lol:

[G.Irish]

edit: Jeff drives a free candy van, someone should keep an eye on him.

I'm a "lover" not a killer... :lol:

See now, that was disturbing :lol:

[bimmerboodle]

But can you really say you want anyone who wants a gun to be able to go out an purchase one with no restrictions?

In one way, yes. In the practical sense, no. Since no one as of yet has been able to predict the future, restricting ANYTHING based on what MAY happen is assinine.

My point is that we do infringe that constitutional right now with waiting periods, background checks, etc.

That does not infringe on either the "keep" or "bear" part

Should someone that has been known to stalk women and has been called "an imminent danger to himself and others because of mental illness" be allowed the same rights to purchase weapons as you guys?

I would have to say no. But just like in the jury system, the whole" it is better to let 1 guilty man go free than convict an innocent one" has to apply here as well. The kid was a nut job, no question. How about this.....What if he couldn't buy a gun legally...not really hard to get one illegally...note the term, illegally... Or even worse, no guns available so poison or explosives get used instead....there is literally NO defense against those threats but they are readily available.

And I think we should continue to have an extensive screening process to purchase firearms, especially hand guns and assault rifles.

OK, what is an assault rifle? If I can't get or afford an M4, what is to say I don't get a pump shotgun and cut it down, get *OR MAKE* a magazine extension, and unload 9 rounds of buckshot into a crowd. Believe me, that would be devastating....
did the Clinton Scary looking gun ban do anything?
OK, prices for some things went up....
how different is it for someone to empty 3 ten round magazines instead of 2 fifteen round ones...

No matter what, there will be deranged individuals bent on harm. Always has been and always will. They are in the smallest minority for sure but they are there. By definition, they will not follow any laws so creating more burdens on the law abiding individuals does nothing except prevent the possibility that when the next situation of this type may occur, someone at the scene has the ability to put a quick end to it. Quite obviously, calling the police (who show up with guns, BTW) was of no use in this situation and in countless others...unless you count taking pictures for the evening news useful.

[Hunter]

I don't think we're actually going to make any significant changes to the current gun laws anytime soon, at least not anything that has a drastic effect on how guns are purchased. But that is a good point on the fact that the constitution uses the wording to "keep" and to "bear" arms, not the right to easily obtain them.

I would have to say no. But just like in the jury system, the whole" it is better to let 1 guilty man go free than convict an innocent one" has to apply here as well.

Although it may be opposite in this situation because by letting one "guilty man" get a gun who really should not have one, it can directly effect others who may be harmed by allowing to him to have a weapon. Although the same argument can really me made when talking about someone who is a killer, but not convicted. He is then free to inflict harm on others until the next time he may be caught.

No matter what, there will be deranged individuals bent on harm. Always has been and always will.

Unfortunately, this is sad but true. If he's unstable enough to commit a crime like this, who's to say he wouldn't have gone through countless other sources to obtain the weapons to commit this crime. This is why it's hard to change a law to prevent something that was such an extreme example of what can go wrong.

It's similar to those who are angry with VT for not getting the word out in time and telling other's to lock themselves indoors. First there's no way they could have predicted that something this horrible would happen, and second, who's to say he doesn't go into hiding for a day and then do it on tuesday morning when everyone thinks he has most likely fled out of the state.

[Apoc]

I think I know where Kaan is going to move to.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55288">http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=55288</a><!-- m -->

[Kaan]

I'd love to live there!

[BLINGMW]

wow, all the stats in that article true? I hadn't heard about that, and we were living like 5 miles away from there. Damn, why WEREN'T we living there? I wish it were made more public, how can such a thing be ignored?

[Apoc]

Supposedly, but you can read some dissenting opinion and information on Digg.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://digg.com/politics/25_years_murder_free_in_Gun_Town_USA">http://digg.com/politics/25_years_murde ... n_Town_USA</a><!-- m -->

[ScottyB]

Supposedly, but you can read some dissenting opinion and information on Digg.

digg, the e-fanboy-lynchmob :lol:

in all seriousness some people bring up good points there, though

[NTIman]

Ted's opinion

[Goodspeed]

I remembered, but just noticed that it hasn't been posted...the 20th was the 8th anniversary of the Columbine shootings in which Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold killed 13 students and injured 24. I hope nobody forgets what happened that day

http://youtube.com/watch?v=dA-tm0_-N9Y