Here's what I think....as if it matters.... (Page 6)

Dam Liberals just want to kill jobs.

Just messing with you.  But seriously can you imagine how many people would be unemployed if the gun industry was just shut down.  yeah there's military and law enforcement, but I suspect that's a small fraction of the total sales.

This is not my wording Tony.  This is the military's wording.  I think they *just might* know a thing or two about guns.  if you disagree write them a letter

Because they already have a job. Education. It's enough work dealing with issues that are brought to the school by kids that have no structure or discipline at home AND trying to educate them. Teachers are professional educators. If you want security, put a security professional in the schools.

Or get to the heart of the problem and address the issues related to why children become violent. But of course, that's hard, and means people have to be responsible for their actions as parents and guardians, why we're able to sustain wars in multiple countries but not have money for mental healthcare, etc.

X2 I just heard an interview with our commissioner that stated gun deaths are down again this year and they believe it's a result of the tight gun controls & improved social support services.  I do agree this seems to be an issue with mental illness - which perhaps the latter could have helped with. 

I just pictured every principal I ever had and the funniest image of a principal snapping was little Sister Rambo (yep) 4 foot 10 inches of her holding a gun yelling "I've had it with you kids!!!"

I agree with the rest of your post. 

It really sucks though to think that we have to have our kids in a darn mouse trap to keep them safe.  What the H?

Just because you can't think it, does not mean others can't. We have infantry, then we have heavy equipment. I honestly do not even like talking about civil war simply because I do not think Americans will take up arms again against each other. But a farmer is not going to take down the federal government with a deer rifle.... but citizens will show up, and national guard units will defect, millitary bases will choose side... and ordinary men will show up with personal arms and military weapons will be used ina  military battle... and boots on the ground is what actually takes and holds land, contray to how cool we all think drones are.

Among those citizens will be pilots, drone operators, bomb experts, tank operators, etc.  You don't need a plane to get a plane....you just need a gun.  You don't need a tank to procure a tank.....you just need a gun. 

All I need to do to remind myself to keep guns is look at a picture of thousands of Jews being herded into cattle cars while a half dozen armed men stood watch.  No thanks.

Look, I don't even want to debate a hypotheticl war with our own govt......but you can't reasonably say that guns wouldn't be useful to fight back in that case.

That's not too far off. 

No they don't.....you know why, ultimately?  Because they have all the guns.

Now, I wrote that for effect....I don't believe that's the mindset. But it wouldn't take much to get there once the conversation about banning guns starts.  I believe you are wrong.  Gun owners will not give up their guns peacefully...ever.

I agree with your second paragraph as I think that will do the most good. 

Perhaps we determine to put 2 "security officials" in each school. It is up to the individual district to decide if they will hire a guard or they will put 2 volunteer admin through the proper training. 

No different than air marshals in my mind. I would feel better about sending my future kids to a school where there were 2 trained armed people rather than everyone being a fish in a barrel. 

mr2tony - 2012-12-17 1:54 PM

tuwood - 2012-12-17 12:48 PM

mr2tony - 2012-12-17 12:33 PM The only way taking away people's guns would work, peacefully anyway, would be to grandfather anybody who currently owns one in and say `You can keep your guns.' And then promptly shut down sales of guns altogether. The companies would go under and dealerships would close their doors. Then you'd have to make owning a gun by someone who wasn't grandfathered in a serious crime with serious penalties so Joe Sr. doesn't pass his guns down to Joe Jr. or give his guns to a friend or cousin or random stranger. It would probably take at least two or three generations but eventually guns would be phased out as they work their way through the system and be bought back or confiscated or in some other way eliminated. Now, that won't happen, but if it were to happen, that's about the only way you could do it without a full-on civil war. In 100-150 years, guns would mostly be eliminated in America just as they are in most other developed countries. And people wouldn't care because they wouldn't have grown up with guns in society.

Dam Liberals just want to kill jobs.

Just messing with you.  But seriously can you imagine how many people would be unemployed if the gun industry was just shut down.  yeah there's military and law enforcement, but I suspect that's a small fraction of the total sales.

It's 210,000 jobs for the entire industry from manufacturers to wholesalers to retailers. And I like that you admit we'd need fewer cops if we had fewer guns.

Total economic size of the industry: $31,838,799,763.

then the shooters will go to malls, movie theaters, hospitals, factories, bus terminals, grocery stores, churches, etc etc etc.  do we just never leave our homes and just live in complete fear forever?

Here's some perspective as we debate the direction of society, school safety, etc.  This is the worst school massacre in US history, despite what the current news media wants  to put out.  I bet most of you had no idea.  This is absolutely safe to view for work, home, or elsewhere.

http://www.wilx.com/home/headlines/7557827.html

In the same way, though, a determined attacker can certainly assault a bunch of school children, regardless of whether you have police presence or not.  Especially when he intends to end his own life as well.  Security is tough because when you're on defense you have to be 100% successful.  The attacker only needs to find one flaw and exploit it.

I'm saddened when something like this happens but I think there's a tendency towards action even if it's ineffective.  Especially when children are involved..  We think "we have to do SOMETHING" but it's hard to take a rational approach.  Worth reading:

http://www.schneier.com/essay-401.html

Speaking of movies/TV.

I watch a lot of stuff on DVR and there was a reference on some show a few days before the shooting about Connecticut Schools being a good place to send you kids.  And yes, they ARE, but it's was so odd to hear that came a couple days before it happened.

I also watched Die Hard and they showed John McClain packing his gun on a flight and an old lady had a taser...  That was made in 88 and I'm sure there were artistic liberties, but crazy how things have changed in 20 years.

They did it with cough medicine.  Just saying.

Isn't that the argument in-favor of more people carrying?

As a side note, if someone wants to kill a lot of people, it can certainly be done without guns.  The vulnerability was mentioned much earlier in this thread: lots of people in a confined space with few routes to escape.

The Oklahoma City bombing was on a far larger scale and the attack was done using (relatively) easy to procure items.  You can put security in place to some degree but it eventually becomes cost prohibitive and vulnerabilities still exist.

People need to accept that there is never 100% safety.  Putting yourself in a police state will not change that for you or your children.  We'd be better off putting more focus and resources towards better mental health care in this country (my opinion, of course).

Not anymore!!!

Try to buy any amount of fertilizer and diesel and you'll have a knock at your door or a car following you.

But your point is well-taken.  There are other ways. 

McVeigh wasn't nuts.  He was a zealot.  There's a difference. Albeit small.

Yes, you absolutely did mention banning guns. Look up at the first bolded part....about 3 sentences into your paragraph.  I already said I agreed that we could do something on the "personal gun responsibility" end......YOU mentioned banning guns if the gun lobby didn't come to the table.

In fact, why don't you re-read your entire paragraph and then tell me that "no one's talking about banning anything".