Are you in a leadership role within our Government? If not, you should be. Your ideas and sound logic are exactly what we need at this moment.
Originally Posted by ccw9mm
Preventative maintenance of the mentally insane is a noble effort and should definitely be addressed by our government for sure, but... :icon_neutral:
THE IMMEDIATE GOV'T RECOMMENDED FIX IS NOT A FIX NOR IS IT IMMEDIATE!!! :hand1:
Taking away the constitutional gun rights of the armed citizen IS NOT the answer to the violent criminal. It's the answer FOR the violent criminal to have his way with our children and innocent, helpless citizens. :mad:
The cure-all for the "immediate problem" is the armed citizen (who knows how to shoot) and makes the bad guy DRT. :dead:
Originally Posted by HotGuns
I have not been on for awhile. However, I wanted to see what everyone was thinking. This is such a tragedy, I agree we have to do something to try and prevent this from happening again. Do not shoot the messenger, but I'll throw this out for discussion (I'm sure it will be lively). A friend of mine who works for the same company I do lives on Long Island. Up there the news is saturated with this story. Nonetheless, we have a young lady up there who is from France. My friend asked her if it could happen in her country. She said it doesn't happen because they do not allow anyone to have guns. So, the theory is, if we change the constitution and ban all guns, would this problem go away in this country?
That’s the theory, but just how drugs have shown us BG will still get and use them, guns will be the same.
You can’t use the amount of guns are in the country to gun related crime, and compare other counties. I’m sure there justice system is different too. I am not sure about France, but in Germany your first DUI is a felony!
You have to think about their society as well their culture is different than ours. They have different values and norms. It’s almost imposable to compare countries to each other, there are too many variables.
The thing that is so frustrating about this is the lack of reason. While public massacres are horrific tragedies, we unfortunately have a lot of uninformed citizens that simply don't understand why and how such atrocities can happen.
The reality is, I'm guessing over the past 25 years, maybe a dozen or so people have committed these mass murders. Yet there are literally millions, probably tens of millions, good citizens and gun owners that have never harmed anyone and won't unless they are attacked. So the first question is, how does punishing millions, if not tens of millions, of people stop a dozen or so madmen from killing?
If we really don't want this to happen again, train and arm teachers. Unless we can guarantee no madman can get his hands on a gun, and we can't, then our teachers and students remain as defenseless persons, herded into inescapable, inadequately protected structures, where they are essentially trapped and defenseless while the madmen have their way with them.
I can promise you, if your children were in my classroom (I am a teacher) and came under attack, I promise you, you would rather have me there with my gun than without it. Once the madmen start killing, it won't stop until they are confronted with deadly force.
It is especially frustrating to me, because I face this potential threat every day I'm in my classroom, and my government sees to it that I am as defenseless as I can be - and get this - to keep the campus safe.
I still remember the president of Virgina Tech saying after 32 people died there and concealed carry came up, he said and I paraphrase, guns have no place on campus, we want our students to feel safe. How utterly ridiculous!
Does he not realize it is that very mindset and restrictions that got the students killed?
How many times does this sort of thing have to happen before people wake up to the reality that the school resource officer, the police, the state government, the federal government, gun control laws cannot protect the public from madmen?
it happened in Norway so it could happen in France, England, Australia,all it takes is someone determined to kill, and they will find a way. Whether they use firearms, explosives, knives, machetes, the people killed are just as dead.
Originally Posted by MP45Man
Tangle, couldn't agree more. Imagine the potential result if the principal had a gun when she rushed the shooter in Newton. Very possible, no child dies as a result.
This thread was done at post #3. Question answered by Hotguns.
It can't help, of course, disarming people ahead of meeting a well-toothed lion. The only methods that will work entail de-fanging the lion and keeping the lion away from its intended victims.
Originally Posted by Tangle
This is the exact sort of overreaching, unjustified, unconstitutional and horribly risky path ol' Ben Franklin warned us about, back when: "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."
If that isn't tossing the baby out with the bathwater, I can't think of a better example.
- Go after the gangs, extremely aggressively -- find them, and destroy/eject them.
- Go after the known ingress routes for drug mules, convoys, coyotes -- find them, and destroy/eject them.
- Go after the captured violent -- find them, charge them, and execute the most-violent and most-recidivist of them.
- Beef up physical security to the extent possible -- harden procedures and facilities, arm/train people, unleash citizen ownership of defensive weaponry to all corners of society. Staff the most at-risk areas (schools, churches, buses, stadium/theater events ... the densest "fish in a barrel" settings we have) with armed security to a level that'll make a difference. Heavily support serious training and skills enhancement on effective defense and resistance against violence.
- Avoid disarming the intended victims ahead of violence, doing nothing to repel the violent when they come, lashing out at the upstanding when they do stand up to be counted during repelling of the violent.
Yup. Steps like those just might help.
No, I'm not in such a role. But it frosts me that even the least person can understand the basic aspects of making it more-difficult for another to reach us in violent capacity, from our own experiences at home and on the street, given what we've seen working and failing. It's not really rocket science, not the basics. What frosts me is that very, very little, practically nothing by comparison to what could be done, is being done in the vast majority of places.
Originally Posted by 3wggl
Prime example: hardening and "defending" a school of hundreds of children so heavily that a single attacker could merely "break a window" and enter at his whim. Utterly intolerable. But utterly predictable.
There are plenty of folks out there who have vast, untapped experience in designing hardened facilities, hardening existing facilities, creating viable and effective procedures and training plans, arming appropriate staff ... we merely need to have the will to go after it. Experts abound, who have uber-deep experience that has extreme value here. And, Volunteers? I'm sure we have millions who could be tapped, to assist in such efforts. If only.
I get this on every level. But this massacre has really got me depressed. I can't even imagine what the parents of those children are going through. Plenty of opinions on this thread, but how many have empirical evidence that they would actually work. I don't know what the answer is, but I'm willing to agree to about anything that would prevent this from happening again in my life time.
Originally Posted by mulle46
Hey CCW9MM what are you doing in about 4 years?.................................. wana be our president?
You seem to see what I see. Most of these people “evolve” into mass murders. There are several levels we can stop this from happening. There is so much we could do that wouldn’t change gun laws better or worse.
Blaming the guns for mass murder is like blaming the airplanes for 9/11...
"The correct answer to the violent criminal is the armed citizen." - Col. Jeff Cooper
Here is something I have thought about over the past few years.
What are the babies being born addicted to drugs or damaged by drugs or booze going to be when they grow older?
I am not saying they are doomed, but the brain rests in a "bath" of delicate chemical balance. I can see where a child born with this balance being "off" can have mental problems. This is a study that crys to be made and so far I have seen nothing addressing it.