Thread: Connecticut school shooting: Reports say more than 20 dead

And of course the NRA's solution to gun violence is (shocker) MORE GUNS!!

Yes, there are instances of people with guns that have saved others because they had a gun and shot the bad guy. Congratulations.

However, every gun nut (and NRA in particular) live in this fantasy world where all you need is more guns to stop gun violence. Its beyond irrational. Put an armed police officer in every school? News flash...Columbine had an ARMED OFF DUTY SHERRIFF's DEPUTY on the premises during that shooting, Virginia Tech had a damn SWAT team on campus, there were CCW holders at the Arizona rally where Giffords was shot, and Ft Hood is a damn military base full of armed, highly trained soldiers (including MPs).

So no, just having more "good guys with guns" is not the answer. Could it help in some instances? sure. But its not the answer to our gun problem.

Also, im sick and tired of the NRA and gun nuts saying "now is not the time to discuss gun control." ORLY? Why the fuck not? This is America, we should be able to have a damn discussion on anything, a public debate to air out our issues and try and come up with a solution. This is how shit gets done. To put it in perspective, how would Conservatives feel if every time someone cashed in their welfare check, Libs said "now is not the time to discuss entitlement reform."

Gun nuts love to cite the 2nd Amendment, (which is funny because i guarantee that the only 3 amendments of the Constitution that they know are 1,2, and 5. Shit, i bet most of you dont even know what the 3rd Amendment is without googling it), but they completely ignore the "WELL REGULATED" part of it. If you want to hide behind an amendment, then you damn sure better be prepared to support the whole thing, and demand it be "WELL REGULATED."

*side note...i also find it hilarious that Cons love to cite the Constitution when it comes to "entitlement reform" but also ignore that it says "promote the general WELFARE." Right there in the damned preamble. Guess thats why they started calling them "entitlements" instead.

Anywho...we need more regulations and need to close certain fucking loopholes that allow people who shouldnt have guns to acquire guns. Its common sense shit really, nobody is "taking away" peoples guns, we just need to make sure only RESPONSIBLE people are able to get them.

My solution: treat it similar to motor vehicle licensing. You need different licenses for different vehicles, a class C license is pretty simple to get, but lets say you want to drive a Semi truck, getting a Class A license is more difficult, requires MORE class, MORE tests, a DOT physical every 2 years, a drug screening. The more dangerous the equipment you wish to operate, the more hoops you must jump through, and the more responsible you must be. Same should go for guns:

Class C: Hunting. This is pretty basic, just need a criminal background check, and demonstrate that you know how to safely operate a hunting rifle (including cleaning, loading, what attire to wear and what to look out for). Limited to purchasing hunting rifles only.

Class B: Self defense: same as above, and must attend a class given by police or other qualified person on proper gun safety procedures, as well as pass a mental exam stating you are fit to carry a gun. Limited to hunting rifles and handguns only. Also, i propose banning all semi-automatic hand guns. Only revolvers. If revolvers were good enough for Dirty Harry and Charles Bronson, they are good enough to defend yourself with.

Class A: Recreation. Same restrictions as class B, Background check extended to your immediate family as well, Psych eval required every 5 years, must attend training course on firearm use and safety procedures (ex-military and police can get an exemption). Can use all of the above guns, as well as semi-auto assault rifles in a recreational setting only.

There...people can still have their guns, but the more dangerous the gun, the more responsible the person must be. Those who are law abiding, sane, responsible gun owners should have no problem getting a class A license, and those who fail any of the criteria can not. At bare minimum, most people should at least be able to get a hunting rifle, which still keeps in line with the 2nd Amendment. And note...the 2nd doesnt say jack shit about "self defense" or anything else, only that people are allowed to "bare arms." If muzzle loaded guns were good enough for our forefathers (beat the British with em), then a hunting rifle is good enough for the rest of us. Also, this way we dont need to ban assault rifles, we merely strictly enforce those who can acquire them.

Closing Gun Show loopholes is a must as well.

Originally Posted by 4th and 26

I like your idea right here Jimmors and that makes more sense on the type of weapons you can own. I also think a drug test along with any medications people are taking for depression should matter when it comes to owning a gun. I also think there should be a limit of guns a first time gun owner should own for a time period.

Yeah, drug test would be fine.

My overall point is that there ARE other solutions besides this "all or nothing" bullshit that seems to be prevalent. Anti-gun people want guns banned, while pro-gun people want everyone to have a damn gun. Neither approach is going to work. This is why i propose the tiered system of regulations that we use for motor vehicles and such. Heaven forbid that gun owners actually have to take a class and/or test and get a background check before obtaining an item which sole purpose is killing something.

In response to a statement above... Ft. Hood military base has a total ban on privately owned firearms and all issued military firearms are locked up when not in active military use. Please quit trying to make it seem that military bases are teeming with armed assault forces walking around. Being in the middle of a military base means nothing in scenario's such as this. You would have to be damn ignorant to think the massacre at Ft. Hood would have had the same outcome if that was not the case.

SWAT and police (including MP or SP on military bases) are mainly REACTIONARY forces. They can't help you when the shit is happening, only after it has started. Even if they respond quickly, unless they are at the exact location where it is occurring, they won't be able to STOP a tragedy from occurring. Cho, at VT, fired 170... one hundred seventy, rounds before SWAT was on scene. And he used a couple of semi-auto pistols, not an "assault rifle". He only killed himself when he heard SWAT breaching the building. Prior to that he had reloaded his weapons several times (Glock had 15 round magazines, Walther has 10).

It's time to quit acting like allowing CCW, by either adults or teachers, who have passed thru necessary regulatory wickets would result in streets running red with the blood of innocents. Time to put in place, and ensure it is enforced, valid and legitimate regulations to ensure that law-abiding citizens have access to concealed carry. It is not the law-abiding citizens who are doing this, and in those rare cases where it is, there is an enforcement failure (Cho). Time to quit demonizing the inanimate object, and allow people to fight back. Gun-free zones are nothing more than free-range hunting grounds.

Long read, but right on point. Anyone that TRULY wants to protect the innocents, and not simply use a tragedy to push an agenda should read.

I'm not against "well regulated". But, if we are to truly accomplish anything... the emphasis needs to be on "well". All the regulations in the world won't stop anything if they are focused on laws/rules/policies that make it more difficult for people to protect themselves from criminals or those with mental health issues.

Originally Posted by loki520

Even if they respond quickly, unless they are at the exact location where it is occurring, they won't be able to STOP a tragedy from occurring.

funny...that can be used as an argument why putting an armed police officer in every school wont work (and i noticed you omitted the Columbine reference which HAD an armed police officer on campus during the shooting)

Originally Posted by loki520

Time to quit demonizing the inanimate object, and allow people to fight back. Gun-free zones are nothing more than free-range hunting grounds.

Oh, and i always will "demonize the inanimate object" because guns serve only one purpose: to kill. And unfortunately, we have centuries of human nature that leads us to kill each other, and guns are the pinnacle of this achievement...the most efficient way to kill another human being.

If it werent for the 2nd amendment, they wouldve been banned a long time ago. I just dont buy into any of the arguments why a person NEEDS a gun.

Hunting? Try a bow and arrow like Nugent.
Self protection? There are many non-lethal items that can protect you just as well.
Government tyranny? Gubmint has access to nukes, stealth fighters, drones and just about everything else. Think your gun collection is gonna stop them from fucking your shit up?

Gun nuts love to use the "guns dont kill people, people do" line all the time. But wouldnt you know it...any time a person kills another with a gun, they always seem to have a gun whilst killing them. What are the odds?