Yes, you and your kind. The kind that demands reactionary response by the government for every single event, after the fact. You never have a plan or make a demand before the event, because you don't have sufficient vision to determine the possible events before they occur.

I already gave you one event that will occur. A shoulder fired missile will be used to take out an airliner. But, you and your kind cannot fathom such a possibility and you make no request of the government to take away such a possibility. You simply react to events in your life.............never be proactive.

You would have bet wrong. The government's effort to restrict weapons on aircraft is relatively good...........but, a bit over the top at the present time. They take way too much effort on people who are clearly not a threat. It's rather humorous to see them vilified in the press for such behavior. Sometimes it has an effect...........most times not.

Note, however, that the screening for weapons was fully in place before 9/11. The people responsible for the task simply didn't do their jobs.



Apparently, you've been clearly unable or unwilling to grasp two important points in the discussion:

1) Banning handguns doesn't reduce violence for a determined individual who wants to kill people. It does have some benefit to the random injuries and deaths that occur because the handgun gets into the hands of a DB or a child. The current incident is unrelated to the latter point.

2) The individual responsible for the current tragedy used a rifle. Are you now in favor of banning all rifles? If not, why not? Your reactive behavior should absolutely put you right out in front with the banner to ban all rifles. Do it........you know you must!!



What battle wold that be? You wish to have a battle to ban all handguns and all rifles and all shotguns? Is that your battle? If so, I wish you good luck with that. If not, you're a GD hypocrite.

The cockpit door provides a reasonable barrier to entry at very low cost. As such, it's quite effective to prevent homicide via airliner.

The remainder of the discussion concerns the need by some folks, including yourself, to address control of a specific weapon after said weapon is used in a tragic event. My response in that realm is simple:

Another DB will always be able to obtain a weapon to do significant harm in a very short time period at any venue of his choosing. Banning a handgun, as an example, will have absolutely no effect on this outcome.

I understand the reactionary need for most folks to get the government to "do something", but any response to limit the access to a specific weapon is simply placating the lemmings.

Having moved from a state with relatively low gun violence (Hawaii) per capita, to one with a high rate (Arizona), the observation about mass shootings, versus the lower body count events arising from criminal activity or domestic disputes is that mass shootings typically involve males with mental health issues with guns.

It's the mental health issues that aren't being addressed in this discussion.

David. Your mother was one lucky woman to have had a kid like you. Would that the majority of kids could be disciplined with a "look". I'm afraid you are hopelessly out of touch with much of society.

- Peter.

Read this:

Thinking the Unthinkable

In the wake of another horrific national tragedy, it’s easy to talk about guns. But it’s time to talk about mental illness.

Three days before 20 year-old Adam Lanza killed his mother, then opened fire on a classroom full of Connecticut kindergartners, my 13-year old son Michael (name changed) missed his bus because he was wearing the wrong color pants.

“I can wear these pants,” he said, his tone increasingly belligerent, the black-hole pupils of his eyes swallowing the blue irises.

“They are navy blue,” I told him. “Your school’s dress code says black or khaki pants only.”

“They told me I could wear these,” he insisted. “You’re a stupid *****. I can wear whatever pants I want to. This is America. I have rights!”

“You can’t wear whatever pants you want to,” I said, my tone affable, reasonable. “And you definitely cannot call me a stupid *****. You’re grounded from electronics for the rest of the day. Now get in the car, and I will take you to school.”

I live with a son who is mentally ill. I love my son. But he terrifies me...

Full post here:
The Anarchist Soccer Mom: Thinking the Unthinkable

I don't doubt your interpretation of the 2nd amendment and why it was created. However, my point is times have changed. We did not draft the constitution; we inherited it. And while it stands applicable for the most part, there have and WILL continue to be amendments to it, in order to make it applicable in present times. You talk about individual rights to bear arms, form a militia, deter threats, etc…however, when I look at history, the only time I see the use of the 2nd amendment in its written form is during the Civil War (not counting the obvious use during the Revolutionary War – however, we continue to maintain a strong military to deter foreign threats).

And even then, it was used collectively. Looking the last century, I can’t see any instances where the 2nd amendment was useful in its written form and necessary on an individual level. I am by no means of any stretch a historian; however, I’ve taken some interest in the Civil Rights movement and the Counter Culture of the 60s. These were major times of social change in our nation, and for the most part they were achieved without the use of the 2nd amendment. Those groups that used force and relied on their guns to force social change are considered radical, and it can be argued did more harm than good as they were usually associated with the troubled, fringe of society.

If self defense is the reason for maintaining the 2nd amendment, there are still ways to ensure that element is preserved, without allowing uncontrolled access to high risk weapons available to the general public. And by high risk, I’m referring to weapons with no other purpose, but to kill a large amount of people, indiscriminately.

My wife teaches 7th and 8th grade and said to me last night that she thinks its nuts that teachers aren't allowed to carry guns in the classroom.

People go on about Germany and other countries in comparison . There was a case in Germany a few years ago where a nutjob in a school was shot by one of the teachers. Without an armed teacher on campus doubtless it would have been much worse.

- Peter

Interesting. Brat mouths off to parent and threatens siblings with knife and the parents response is not to discipline the kid but to "reason" with it. This is precisely the point I was getting at about societal breakdown in recent times. What would the reaction of parents in the 1940's have been to this kid?

- Peter.

Mental health and obvious warning signs abound in this case.

Whats the line for action? That line needs to be clear and defined and not politically attached.


iPhone 4

I don't know if I would advocate for armed teachers or not, but in her case I understand it. She has been repeatedly threatened by a gang of tough girls. Being latina herself they see her as some sort of sell-out. The fact that she's cute as hell and the boys dig her makes it even worse. Her carrying has become sort of an urban legend on campus now and she's left alone. It would not surprise me if her principal knows too.

That's news to me. All I've heard is that he had some mental health issues in the past yet no criminal record or anything. FWIW schizophrenia often surfaces around that age with no precursors. Please expound on "obvious warning signs abound" because everything I've heard has been that this guy just come out of left field with it. Ultimately I agree on the point though, the mental health awareness and identification should be a primary focus here, not guns and liberal commies.

Reports like this one

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2248782/Adam-Lanza-How-classmates-remember-genius-turned-heartless-killer.html

No criminal records though.

iPhone 4

This is the fundamental problem. There is no cohesive strategy to deal with mentally ill children who pose a potential threat to themselves and/or society. At the present time, there is no facility for long term care of such individuals, even if the parent were willing to commit said child to the facility............which is by no means a certainty.

The government will not be involved in the affairs of a private citizen and the mental illness of a private citizen unless there is a crime committed.

Sounds as though Peter's wife is aware of the simple fact that just about the only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun.

Three kids. I have a sister and brother. Most of my friends wee raised just as I was. Perhaps it more of a comment on parenting skills.