Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
One has to suspect that if the Chinese had not had gun control, those Chinese students would be, not just injured, but dead -- as are their equivalents in Connecticut.
Gun control, by itself, will not solve this problem, but it does seem it will mitigate it, and wouldn't that be worthwhile? I wonder how people dare justify their ownership of guns when this sort of thing is happening. It must really take a particularly selfish sort of blindness.
It is also fairly plain that the relaxed attitude often seen around schools needs work. These are children, and their safety is paramount. Strangers should never be allowed in, and all entrances should be kept secured except the front door. I fear these measures may have unfortunate effects on some of the kids, so teachers will have to be given tools to help deal with this. Kids also have fire drills, and that doesn't make them paranoid about fires, so I think the kids could handle it.
How would gun control have solved this problem? People though making drugs illegal would solve that problem too. Look I hear what you are saying and there are laws on the books that people simply don't follow to obtain weapons. In this case I believe the guns weren't his put his mothers or something along those lines. So all the rules and regulations and the like are in place but criminals choose to not follow the rules. That is why they are criminals. Taking a means of protection out of the law abiding citizens hands is not the answer IMO. I agree kids could handle some sort of drills for if/when a shooter would enter a school or someone who simply isn't supposed to be there. They aren't as dumb as everyone seems to think they are.
You don't solve these problems, but you do mitigate them. Having policemen does not solve criminality, but it does mitigate it. Demanding that a measure be a "solution" is only a dishonest way of preventing anything from being done.
Well there are many demanding that removing guns from everyone is the solution.
I certainly think it would help if no one had guns except law enforcement, the military, and perhaps a few people allowed to have one in safe keeping, such as a school principal.
How would you go about doing that and enforcing it when we have wide open borders at the ready for illegal guns to be railroaded into the country? You are proposing setting the lambs up for slaughter IMO.
How would you go about doing that and enforcing it when we have wide open borders at the ready for illegal guns to be railroaded into the country? You are proposing setting the lambs up for slaughter IMO.
The US is pretty much alone in the world on this, except for Muslim countries. In fact Americans would be far safer without guns, as I am living in Vietnam. Smuggled guns are not really pertinent. They are readily confiscated.
I certainly think it would help if no one had guns except law enforcement, the military, and perhaps a few people allowed to have one in safe keeping, such as a school principal.
Not sure if you are aware of it but the reason why the 2nd Amendment was written was not so only authorities could be armed. It was the exact opposite... SO Americans could keep their freedom in case of tyranny.
I do not understand why people seem to think that is not as relevant today as it was when it was written.
Not sure if you are aware of it but the reason why the 2nd Amendment was written was not so only authorities could be armed. It was the exact opposite... SO Americans could keep their freedom in case of tyranny.
I do not understand why people seem to think that is not as relevant today as it was when it was written.
You have your history quite wrong, probably from reading to much gun propaganda.
The framers of the Bill of Rights intended to protect the States, and when they say "the people" (if you read it in its context) you can see that they are protecting the rights of the States to have an armed militia. The fear was not that the population would have their arms taken away from them (actually given the world as it was then I doubt this would even occur to anyone) but that the Federal Government would disarm the state militias.
The Constitution specifically gives the Supreme Court the power to interpret the constitution, and this has always been the meaning it assigned to that Amendment.
Now, this is the legal argument. Even if your view is correct, no right is absolute (not even freedom of speech -- we punish libel, false medical claims, disturbances of the peace, incitements to riot, treason, and many other forms of speech regardless). The same view can be taken of some presumed right to bear arms -- it is not going to be without limits, and democratically elected legislatures would be the ones for the most part to assess where those limits should be.
You have your history quite wrong, probably from reading to much gun propaganda.
The framers of the Bill of Rights intended to protect the States, and when they say "the people" (if you read it in its context) you can see that they are protecting the rights of the States to have an armed militia. The fear was not that the population would have their arms taken away from them (actually given the world as it was then I doubt this would even occur to anyone) but that the Federal Government would disarm the state militias.
The Constitution specifically gives the Supreme Court the power to interpret the constitution, and this has always been the meaning it assigned to that Amendment.
Now, this is the legal argument. Even if your view is correct, no right is absolute (not even freedom of speech -- we punish libel, false medical claims, disturbances of the peace, incitements to riot, treason, and many other forms of speech regardless). The same view can be taken of some presumed right to bear arms -- it is not going to be without limits, and democratically elected legislatures would be the ones for the most part to assess where those limits should be.
Thank you. This "interpretation" of the right to bear arms is the same one I was taught.
Personally, I abhor guns so I would never own one. I honestly don't see a problem with citizens owning guns as a means of protection or for hunting purposes.
What I could *never* understand was the release of (and excuse my terminology because I am terribly gun-ignorant) handguns and rifles then can shoot many rounds in seconds. I believe that these weapons should only be in the hands of law enforcement/the military. To me, there is no reason whatsoever that the general population should have them.
I do think we have certain rights to be able to protect ourselves in self-defense but, as stated above, the government absolutely has the right to put limits on them for the protection of all citizens. It will never stop all the tragedies, but it will mitigate it to some extent.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
