Why the same old gun-control answers aren’t comforting
As the father of two small boys, I’m as haunted by last week’s massacre in Newtown, Conn., as anyone who didn’t know personally the victims or their killer.
I have the same fears as all parents anticipating the long, potentially treacherous path ahead of their children in this broken world of ours. My fears are only multiplied by my doubts there are many real options for thwarting future slayings in other unsuspecting towns.
The two primary questions we ask after mass killings are: Why do some people act so heinously? And how can we keep others from doing so?
The first question invariably draws answers like: madness, isolation, social awkwardness or marginalization, familial dysfunction, a craving for fame (or infamy), the prevalence of violence in our popular culture, and evil pure and simple.
The second question typically brings suggestions for treating these mental illnesses and social failures. That, and gun control.
Guns typically don’t make the list of answers to “why,” only to “how.” They are but one means for mass killings — albeit the most common one — not a motivation. Yet, guns become our central focus in times like these.
I understand the impulse. How do we begin to treat the mad, and especially people, such as the Newtown killer, with only mild disorders? As important as it is for us to attempt to rebuild the American family, can we wait the years or perhaps generations such an endeavor might consume, when another mass killing could happen today? How, within the bounds of constitutional guarantees for freedom of expression, does one dial back the violence found in our movies, TV shows, video games and even music?
Whatever a killer’s motivation, guns seem to be his means of choice. Better to address that, right?
As keenly interested as I am in preventing the next mass public shooting, I see little reason to find comfort in gun control.
Consider the high school rampage in Columbine, Colo. The year was 1999, amid a decade-long ban on “assault weapons,” those firearms defined by nothing more than the minds of legislators who drafted the ban on them. (Indeed, the main characteristic common to the weapons banned then seems to be the likelihood one might have seen a similar weapon in a shoot-em-up, kill-em-up movie — an implicit nod to the overriding impact of our entertainment culture.)
One of the Columbine killers was armed with a pump-action shotgun (not exactly a semiautomatic weapon) he fired 25 times. He also fired 96 rounds from a 9-mm carbine while using 10-round magazines — the limit of choice for those who say 30-round magazines are the problem.
When New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg introduced his ban on sugary soft drinks larger than 16 oz., most observers recognized the folly of limiting the size of one drink when a person could simply buy two or more of them. Does no one else find it similarly illogical to think a person bent on mass murder won’t just carry multiple weapons with smaller mags, or that lives will be saved in the few seconds it would take an experienced gun handler to change magazines?
I raise these objections not to defend specific weapons or magazines with any number of bullets. Neither I nor anyone I know owns an “assault weapon” (as far as I know), and I have no particular affinity for bullets that come in sets of 20 or 30 or 40 rather than 10. While I generally support gun-ownership rights, I’m open to practical suggestions that can reasonably square with the Second Amendment.
Nor do I think the situation is hopeless, or as good as it gets. I do think we can make our communities safer. But I think the most effective solutions will be less comfortable — such as asking when it’s OK to invade the privacy of those who are dangerously mentally ill — and more expensive — such as ensuring there are armed guards or designated weapons-carrying citizens even at schools and other “gun-free zones” — than merely banning particular weapons and ammunition.
The lives of innocents deserve the fullness of our thought and attention, not old ideas that have been sitting on the shelf, waiting for a crisis.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
457 comments Add your comment
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
December 20th, 2012
11:28 am
Well, JDW, I’m sure not every town in the old west had a Sheriff with rules stating guns are checked at the town limits.
Don't Tread
December 20th, 2012
11:31 am
“The military, the police and milita should have guns, not individuals”
Yeah, because that worked so well in Germany, the USSR, Communist China, and a couple hundred other countries at some point or another. As Reagan once said, “Concentrated power is the enemy of liberty.”
TBone
December 20th, 2012
11:31 am
I was at a gunshow last Saturday and you should have seen the mob of folks snapping up most everything they could carry out of the joint. Ammo, knives, walking dead whackers, pistols and “assault rifles” were among the more popular gifts. The elite political ruling class know that a well armed militia is a threat to their ability to roll us over so of course there has to be a plan to defang the masses. This is one of the first times that this regime that promised to be the most transparent in history is actually is. Eric “the red” Holder will kick into full action gear over the next few weeks.
H.E. Pennypacker
December 20th, 2012
11:31 am
Del,
The article from The Economist, to which I linked, has a better summary to our options on the existing 300 million guns in America than I am able to craft. Once again it comes down to deciding as a society and a country the level of violence we will tolerate in balancing the rights of the second amendment. Throwing up one’s hands or pointing at other unproven factors like video games does not do that argument justice.
I personally think video games are the classic red herring to avoid the elephant in the room. What can be documented is the fact that a majority of mass murders are committed by young males, the prime gaming demographic. Young males also tend to skew much higher than the rest of society in ESPN viewership, Accutane usage, Instagram accounts, and pleasuring themselves, none of which are any more credibly linked to shootings than the plain and simple availability of guns.
The Snark
December 20th, 2012
11:32 am
No offense, Kyle, but you don’t know much about guns. Get someone to take you to a firing range for a workout with an AR-15 or AK-47 or Baretta 92F. Burn through a couple of magazines. Have some fun.
Then come back and opine to us how we can keep our kids safe in a country when any idiot with a couple of hundred bucks can arm himself to the teeth with those things and carry them to the local mall.
ClydeFr0g
December 20th, 2012
11:32 am
I see many comments about turning schools into fortresses to protect the students. This will not work. It doesn’t take a genius to realize that calling in a bomb threat or triggering the fire alarm will result in the teachers leading the kids out of the school right through clearly marked exits. Unless you intend on providing school children with armored personnel carriers for every fire drill (or actual fire) this is not a solution.
I would love for an anti-gun commenter to give a rational explanation why teachers and/or school administrators should not be allowed access to weapons. All I see is “anyone who believes adding MORE guns is insane”…okay, but why?
Has the creation of gun-free zones deterred even one criminal? Someone reads a sign and says “oh, this is a gun free zone, I better go commit murder and mayhem in someplace where it’s allowed”?
My understanding is that some of the school administrators charged at Lanza and were of course quickly dispatched. What was she going to attack him with, those little round-edged scissors? Smack him with a ruler? Is it even possible that if she had a firearm she could have successfully confronted Lanza?
And don’t say “the con solution is to give every child a firearm”…that’s not what I’m saying, and I’m not a con. Israel allows it’s teachers access to firearms, why can’t we?
After 911 happened there was a call to let pilots carry weapons on planes and to put sky marshals on planes…how is that different than allowing teachers access to firearms?
resno2
December 20th, 2012
11:33 am
Making public schools and universities safer could, and probably should, be part of a multifaceted approach. Places of worship, just like shopping malls and private schools and universities, should be up to those organizations, not the government to protect or make safer.
Call It Like It Is
December 20th, 2012
11:39 am
Here we go, the real question what is the exact problem and what can we do about it. Americans have had guns since day one. Our fathers and grandfathers brought them home with them from WW1, WW2 and Vietnam. Yet we didnt have mass killings. So called assault weapons have always been easy to obtain for decades, yet these horrific killings didnt take place in the 40’s, 50’s, 60 and on. So why now? What has changed? Is it the movies, games our kids play, TV shows showing bodies getting cut up? Is it all of that? I don’t no. We pay billions of dollars a year to watch horrific killings on the big screen, we pay millions of dollars for our kids to pretend their special ops on their x-box, than were surprise that some deranged individual acts it out???
Well I wished we all lived in Mayberry, but thats just not going to happen anytime soon.
Glenn
December 20th, 2012
11:42 am
Its not if there is a gun or security guard with a gun at a school . Its how far does it go . We have enough problems getting the best teachers more or less expecting them to be carrying a gun and use it appropriately .
As far as a security checkpoint like airports have , it would be to time consuming never mind the amount of coin it would cost .
I’m curious to see how many conservatives chime in on this topic . It almost seems like you are in a position of having to choose between gun regulations or government security measures that will cost tax money . I do think it will take a multi pronged approach .
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
December 20th, 2012
11:43 am
Well I wished we all lived in Mayberry
ugh,, no thanks. I’ll buy the body armor. I like the show and all but that sounds way too boring.
H.E. Pennypacker
December 20th, 2012
11:43 am
Here is a sister in arms with Kyle in parroting the right’s view, “There is little we can do”.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/17/there-s-little-we-can-do-to-prevent-another-massacre.html
My favorite part was her suggestion that the first graders should have gang rushed Lanza….
“I’d also like us to encourage people to gang rush shooters, rather than following their instincts to hide; if we drilled it into young people that the correct thing to do is for everyone to instantly run at the guy with the gun, these sorts of mass shootings would be less deadly, because even a guy with a very powerful weapon can be brought down by 8-12 unarmed bodies piling on him at once. Would it work? Would people do it? I have no idea; all I can say is that both these things would be more effective than banning rifles with pistol grips.”
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
December 20th, 2012
11:45 am
Strong classroom doors that can be locked from the inside would be a good start.
carlosgvv
December 20th, 2012
11:52 am
Don’t tread – 11:31
You left out those hard core Marxist Communist states of Canada and Japan.
Stephenson Billings
December 20th, 2012
11:53 am
The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html
Del
December 20th, 2012
11:58 am
Sorry Pennypacker but you’re avoiding the reality. Mental health professionals have identified violence preoccupation as a triggering factor that influence certain mentally disturbed individuals to act out their fantasies. ESPN or professional sports interests just hasn’t fit the profiles of mass murder perpetrators.
Citizen of the World
December 20th, 2012
11:59 am
Well, maybe we need to get those “old ideas” off the shelf where they aren’t doing any good and try implementing a few more of them.
resno2
December 20th, 2012
12:02 pm
Any thing the government comes up with will cost money, and it will probably cost a lot more that it should, that’s not the question. The question is can it be spent efficiently and will it actually have a positive result.
As for teachers with guns, I think many of us would be surprised at how many already carry.
Just Saying..
December 20th, 2012
12:04 pm
LaKeisha Jackson
December 20th, 2012: 10:46 am-Have you ever noticed that…the same people who squawk the loudest about how we need to make sure that the mentally deranged can’t get their hands on firearms…are the same people who squawk the loudest about how we must let the mentally handicapped kids be mainstreamed with the normal kids so they won’t feel bad?
LaKeisha- I agree that’s an element to steps that could be helpful.
And underlines how every side to this debate needs to re-examine prior positions.
td
December 20th, 2012
12:18 pm
I am as conservative as you can get but I am willing to give in on a prime philosophy to make sure our children are safer at school. We should tax all violent movies, violent video games, violent internet sites, violent comic books and violent TV shows and use the money to pay for armed security guards at every school in the country. Only provision is the program needs to run by the states not the Federal government. We have thousands of men and women veterans coming back from 10 years of war that are unemployed that we can tap for this program.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
December 20th, 2012
12:19 pm
As for teachers with guns, I think many of us would be surprised at how many already carry.
Thats very very scary.
Only an idiot would think the solution to gun violence is more guns.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
December 20th, 2012
12:21 pm
We should tax all violent movies, violent video games, violent internet sites, violent comic books and violent TV shows and use the money to pay for armed security guards at every school in the country
An absolute idiotic idea.
The problem is easy access to guns. Not guns on a screen.
The Thin Guy
December 20th, 2012
12:21 pm
Our world if full of people who want to kill other people. Guns are simply tools for efficient killing. Yes if there were no guns many more people would be alive. If there were no icebergs the Titanic wouldn’t have sunk, if there were no snakes Cleopatra would still be alive, and if there were no airplanes the World Trade Center would still be standing. Isn’t going to happen. The one thing that minimizes gun deaths is when the potential victims are also armed. No one wants to give kids weapons. But if there had been an armed security guard at the Connecticut school there would have been less loss of life. When you declare a school a gun free zone that means the only people there with guns are violating the law. BTW I am not a gun nut. Have no interest in them but don’t condemn people who do. Once fire was discovered there was no way people would back to eating raw meat. Once guns were invented they are going to be possessed and used. You can do all the wishing you want and it’s not going to happen.
Kyle Wingfield
December 20th, 2012
12:24 pm
Cheesy: If you haven’t noticed, this thread has been a lot more civil than usual. Drop the “idiot” talk if you want to continue participating in it.
Del
December 20th, 2012
12:24 pm
“So you are for tightening 1st amendment rights, just not the 2nd?”
Politico, first of all we have gun laws that aren’t sufficiently enforced. The failure to structure and implement a national database that includes mentally disturbed individuals let alone those with suspected emotional disorders has been blocked by civil liberty advocates such as the A.C.L.U. Secondly mental health professionals have identified a preoccupation with violent content in videos and video games as a common condition in the profiles of those who’ve committed violent mass murders. The FBI has as well. As an example of gun control legislation folly the last time a ban was instituted on so called assault weapons it excluded hunting rifles and hand guns that could be effectively used by a deranged shooter. One example is the common Remington Mod. 742 a rifle that has been around for many years. It’s a semi-automatic rifle available in 30-06 or 308 calibers. It can hold 4 rounds in the magazine and one in the chamber. Lanza could have entered the Sandy Hook building in the same manner with a 742 carrying multiple magazines and murdered those innocent little children probably frozen in shock and horror making them easy targets. It wouldn’t and didn’t require much skill to fire and reload magazines into the rifle. Same could be achieved with double action revolvers modified for lighter trigger pull and rapid reload cylinders.
independent thinker
December 20th, 2012
12:28 pm
Kyle- you and the right wing gun huggers will eventually need to answer the following:
The Heller decision does away with the preamble to the second amendment and creates a fundamental right to own a gun in your home for self defense with no preconditions. How does that translate to Nancy Lanza’s right to own assault weapons and does the right of society to be free of violence by her son override her Heller created second amendment rights?????????????????
Could a police official have legally confiscated those guns based on the now irrelevant part of the second amendment that refers to the security of a free state.??????????????
Whhat is a reasonable no. of guns, calibre, ammo clip necessary for self defense and hunting before it infringes on other people’s rights to be free of potential mass violence???????????
Can she or her estate be held civilly liable for the acts of her son???????
Can gun ownership require insurance, mandatory registration of all guns and taxation fo rthe costs of gun violence????????????????
Can a teacher, neighbor or relative or friend report a potential gun violence situation with total immunity????????
Can people obtain rewards for reporting unregistered gun ownership that leads to an arrest???????
If so how much?
Time to answer some hard questions cons and NRA worshipers.
Just remember Saint Reagan campaigned for the Brady bill and the assault weapons ban along with Presidents Carter and Ford.
resno2
December 20th, 2012
12:29 pm
Cheesy, why is it scary to think that many teachers already carry? I didn’t say anything about in the classroom. I was pointing out that many teachers are probably already responsible gun owners. I don’t know why liberals have this view of teachers as being helpless.
td
December 20th, 2012
12:30 pm
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
December 20th, 2012
12:21 pm
We should tax all violent movies, violent video games, violent internet sites, violent comic books and violent TV shows and use the money to pay for armed security guards at every school in the country
An absolute idiotic idea.
The problem is easy access to guns. Not guns on a screen.
Since you are NOT going to get rid of all guns because of that pesky little 2nd Amendment then what is the answer? You would rather leave our children totally unprotected then give them a chance?
md
December 20th, 2012
12:30 pm
” I think the US second amendment called for militia, not individual gun ownership.”
I do believe a militia is basically a group of assembled individuals, no different than the current “militia”/rebels fighting for their freedom in Syria…..the second isn’t about guns, the second is about the ability to combat tyranny.
TBone
December 20th, 2012
12:30 pm
“Only an idiot would think the solution to gun violence is more guns.” You got any data to back that statement up? I teach and I own many many guns. My family knows how to protect themselves from gun violence as do I. Not all teachers are the warm fuzzy wussy librul type.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
December 20th, 2012
12:30 pm
Cheesy: If you haven’t noticed, this thread has been a lot more civil than usual. Drop the “idiot” talk if you want to continue participating in it.
10-4.
I will say this. I have respected the way the NRA has responded to this shooting instead of the way they did in Columbine.
The people their asked the NRA not to come but they held a rally just outside the school with Charlton Heston ” from my cold dead hands !!! ” etc etc
That was truly a disgusting display.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
December 20th, 2012
12:33 pm
I do believe a militia is basically a group of assembled individuals, no different than the current “militia”/rebels fighting for their freedom in Syria
2nd amendment says arms. Not guns.
Where does that end ? Should we be able to own our own nuclear weapon ?
2nsd amendment was written when at most a good shot could get off three rounds a minute.
And the British could be coming back any minute. Not in any way relevant to today.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
December 20th, 2012
12:35 pm
You got any data to back that statement up?
Yes. The more prevalent guns are in a society. The more gun violence you will have in that society.
I can find stats but you will find something on redstate etc etc.
But its painfully obvious to anyone with functioning grey matter.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
December 20th, 2012
12:38 pm
The only question is this.
How many people and children will die before we get serious about gun control ?
Sadly it will take more. Probably many more.
Ivan
December 20th, 2012
12:38 pm
oh look. Another “ban all guns” idea.
carlosgvv
December 20th, 2012
12:41 pm
Cheesy Grits – 12:33
Don’t bother trying to talk second ammendment common sense to the gun nuts here.
Many of them are phallic challenged and the “big iron” is the only substitute that keeps their manhood at the desired macho level.
independent thinker
December 20th, 2012
12:43 pm
The second amendment as literally written was abolished and rewritten by Scalia in the Heller decision. That is the definition of an activist judge.
md
December 20th, 2012
12:44 pm
Time for some Dr Gatia-Hupp and the other side of the story:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49lfipzEDbA&noredirect=1
resno2
December 20th, 2012
12:45 pm
The Heller decision does away with the preamble to the second amendment and creates a fundamental right to own a gun in your home for self defense with no preconditions. How does that translate to Nancy Lanza’s right to own assault weapons and does the right of society to be free of violence by her son override her Heller created second amendment rights? NO
Could a police official have legally confiscated those guns based on the now irrelevant part of the second amendment that refers to the security of a free state?. Without cause?, NO
Whhat is a reasonable no. of guns, calibre, ammo clip necessary for self defense and hunting before it infringes on other people’s rights to be free of potential mass violence? What about collecting? should there be a limit on the number of guns that someone can have in a collection? Should there be a limit on how much ’stuff’ anyone can have?
Can she or her estate be held civilly liable for the acts of her son? If it makes you feel better to blame someone.
Can gun ownership require insurance, mandatory registration of all guns and taxation for the costs of gun violence? yeah, let’s give legislators more money to throw at a problem without a solution.
Can a teacher, neighbor or relative or friend report a potential gun violence situation with total immunity? Kinda like Pediatricians asking if there are guns in the house?
Can people obtain rewards for reporting unregistered gun ownership that leads to an arrest? Government snitches… yeah, that’ll work.
BenDaho
December 20th, 2012
12:51 pm
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
December 20th, 2012
12:21 pm
We should tax all violent movies, violent video games, violent internet sites, violent comic books and violent TV shows and use the money to pay for armed security guards at every school in the country
An absolute idiotic idea.
The problem is easy access to guns. Not guns on a screen.
Are you suggesting that graphically violent movies and video games have no impact on the thought process of children? Kids don’t sleep with the light on after watching a horror movie either…
md
December 20th, 2012
12:52 pm
“2nd amendment says arms. Not guns.
Where does that end ? Should we be able to own our own nuclear weapon ?
2nsd amendment was written when at most a good shot could get off three rounds a minute.
And the British could be coming back any minute. Not in any way relevant to today.”
Hmmm, guns are not arms?
And tyranny knows no nationality, that British quip is a weak argument at best.
md
December 20th, 2012
12:53 pm
“The military, the police and milita should have guns, not individuals”
Major Nidal Hasan…….need I say more?
TBone
December 20th, 2012
12:53 pm
” But its painfully obvious to anyone with functioning grey matter.” I teach physics; you questioning my grey matter? You sound a bit anecdotal to me. Guns are bad when they got ‘em and you don’t.
td
December 20th, 2012
12:53 pm
You progressives really do not know the history of our nation and is obvious in what you are saying about the 2nd Amendment. Let me give you a few quotes from the actual people that wrote the bill of rights:
[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
—James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46.
To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.
—John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)
“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia’s Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
ClydeFr0g
December 20th, 2012
12:54 pm
carlosgvv,
You seem pretty hung up on the “phallic” references. In my experience the people that make the most references to something are the most affected by what they are referencing…and you’re pretty obsessed with this.
I think there are surgeries you can get to enhance what you have…might help you drop the ridiculous and ignorant stereotyping and enable you to participate in civil and rational discourse.
Just curious, but do you think that women that love guns (and there are MANY) are “phallic challenged”?
But please, don’t let reason and rational thought get in the way of your juvenile insults you substitute for substantial argument (that you are obviuously incapable of producing).
jconservative
December 20th, 2012
12:54 pm
It appears we will have a national discussion on the issues of mass killings and guns, a who, what, when, where, type of discussion. I look forward to the debate.
The constitutional issue has been settled: “Held: The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.” (Justice Scalia in his majority opinion in Heller)
So the constitutional issue is off the table. No one need worry about their constitutional right. That has been decided. Rock bottom one is allowed to keep a weapon in one’s home for protection of family and home.
What is still on the table is the hardware allowed and where and how that hardware can be carried. And Scalia gives us some help here: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” And this: “Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.”
We spent a trillion dollars after 09/11/2001 in part to protect ourselves against terrorism. But we have not done anything to protect ourselves against acts of domestic terrorism such as Newtown.
In part that is because we do not know what to do. And that is one thing that may come out of our national discussion on mental illness, violence and arms. Maybe we will find a solution. To be truthful, I am not optimistic. But I welcome the opportunity.
Irony: In Georgia one must attend safety classes to obtain a hunting license; but not to buy and use the arms used to hunt.
Hillbilly D
December 20th, 2012
12:58 pm
(Indeed, the main characteristic common to the weapons banned then seems to be the likelihood one might have seen a similar weapon in a shoot-em-up, kill-em-up movie — an implicit nod to the overriding impact of our entertainment culture.)
This is a good point. Hollywood always comes back with “we don’t influence society, we only reflect it”. If that be the case, why do they charge millions for TV commercials. They wouldn’t do that if they didn’t think they were influencing somebody.
a pump-action shotgun (not exactly a semiautomatic weapon)
I can fire a pump action shotgun as fast as I can a semi-automatic. It’s not hard if you know what you’re doing. Even soldiers in 19th century could get off 3 rounds a minute with a muzzle loader. It’s not about the type of weapon.
Does no one else find it similarly illogical to think a person bent on mass murder won’t just carry multiple weapons with smaller mags, or that lives will be saved in the few seconds it would take an experienced gun handler to change magazines?
Back in the War Between the States, cavalrymen usually carried 4 loaded revolvers, when they were going into action. In addition to that, many had an extra cylinder, already loaded for each revolver, which they could quickly change out. There’s no stopping ingenuity.
In my opinion, the place we need to be looking is at our mental health system. Mentally ill people don’t need to be on the street but too many are. In an attempt to correct abuses of the past, things have gone overboard in the other direction. It’s damn near impossible to commit an adult, against their will, (even an adult who has threatened the safety and well being of others). That needs to change.
The gun debate is treating symptoms and not the problem, in my mind. If a person is going to kill “X” number of people, are they really going to have any problem with violating a gun law?
td
December 20th, 2012
12:58 pm
independent thinker
December 20th, 2012
12:43 pm
The second amendment as literally written was abolished and rewritten by Scalia in the Heller decision. That is the definition of an activist judge.
Not meant to be a factual statement.
“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia’s Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
I guess Mason might have influenced Scilia’s decision for writing his decision based on the original intent of the 2nd Amendment.
Rafe Hollister preparing for an Obamanist America
December 20th, 2012
12:59 pm
The argument against arming teachers is akin to the one that was used against arming airline pilots. They were going to accidentally hit passengers and blow holes in the fuselage and planes were going to explode in the sky. Has any of that happened?
A half dozen unidentified teachers packing a pistol on their person, not in their desk where a kid could find it, but in a holster on their body, if trained, would be a significant deterrent. One guard wearing a easily recognizable uniform might be quickly neutralized by a motivated shooter or shooters.
md
December 20th, 2012
1:03 pm
I see a lot of talk about banning assault rifles and whether that may or may not help, but what many seem to be missing is that Lanza had an assault type weapon AND 2 handguns, take away the rifle and he still does his evil deed.
So obviously the ban being bantered about would have done very little in this situation, so move on to a better solution if that is what one is looking for.
ClydeFr0g
December 20th, 2012
1:04 pm
It is ignorant to blame video games for crime. “Violent” and “graphic” video games are a relatively recent phenomenon and it’s indisputable that violent crime has dropped in the US while video game quality, production, and consumption has increased;
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/tables/viortrdtab.cfm
https://depts.washington.edu/critgame/wordpress/2010/04/fyi-video-game-statistics-by-the-entertainment-software-association/
It is wrong to attack the First Amendment as a method of defending the Second Amendment. They are both very necessary, they support each other, and neither was a mistake or an accident.