On the 9pm news, St Louis County top cop was talking about his idea of arming teachers and he stated, CT was real bad but there is someone else out there right now planning something even bigger. The time involved between entering the school and police showing up is void of any protection if the school does not have a resource officer on duty. That time void needs to be filled with a qualified teacher to stop what's about to happen and that it could be done knowing these shooters are actually afraid of confronting someone with a firearm shooting back.

Now here is what the St Louis Co Dept of Education says, they are against it because...........it would be too dangerous for the children if they got a hold of the gun....DUH!!!!!!!!!:banghead: You can't fix stupid!!!!!

I think the whole thing is a mess. It will take time to sort thinks out!! I hope that we don't jump to conclusions!

Folks,

As an outsider, let me ask you something about the proceedings to buy a firearm in US.
From what I could understand there is a background check when you are buying a gun. But in addition, are there any psicological tests required to buy a gun over here?

As a father of a toddler and having a girl on the way, I was quite shocked with this coward act. Although I'm a supporter of the right to gun ownership but, to be realistic, be sure that you're going to have to deal with new restrictions about gun ownership.

There is no requirement for a medical or psychological report when purchasing a firearm in the US. As long as there is no criminal background or a police report that would preclude a purchase, (domestic violence call, etc.), there is usually no problem in purchasing.
You can never predict how someone might change that dynamic. Thousands lose their gun ownership priviledges each year after a felony conviction or other court ruling. This idiot in Connecticut picked a horrible way to celebrate his first offence.
The liberal left in this country simply hates guns because they believe it gives others power over them and they do not have the strengh or conviction to be responsible for their own safety. Banning semi automatic weapons will solve NOTHING in the long run. It will simply give these shallow thinkers an imaginary peace of mind until the next incident, which will be inevitable unless we attack the root of this problem, which is better medication oversight, better diagnosis and identification of potential threats and, why not? armed teachers and staffs, locked doors and secure areas at schools, just like Israel does today.

Being from Sweden, I'm also kind of an outsider. I do enjoy the liberal gun laws here in the US, but when put in my perspective they are too liberal. I don't think bans on certain guns, registration etc will help a bit, the problem is in the people using the guns so the only logical remedy is to keep the guns out of the wrong hands. This is easier said than done, but one good start would be to introduce some form of license for owning and using firearms, very much like the CCW license. This would not be tied to certain guns, restrict the number or types of guns you can own etc, it would just be a license to shows that you have been properly trained and checked for criminal/mental issues. I'm sure we all agree that people driving cars should have a license and we all know the reason why it should be that way, so a license to own and use firearms should hopefully be seen as a positive thing by most responsible gun owners.

It seems like many of these mass shootings are done by people who shouldn't be able to acquire guns even under the current laws (minors, mentally ill etc) so I still don't know if more laws will help. Still, it's way to easy to check those "not mentally defective" and "not convicted felon" boxes when you buy a gun and the background check is obviously slipping as well, so that part amounts to nothing if nobody follows up on it.

The problem with this, Olle, is that our politicians are famous for never stopping at the reasonable solution. Every time a concession is made on the right, the left never reciprocates and abuses the concession far beyond what was originally agreed upon.

They cannot be trusted, so the only recourse is to oppose them in every way possible.

Sadly, I believe you're right, and every change they have suggested now and in the past has been a poorly conceived knee-jerk reaction, never fully thought out and always in a format that makes it appear like a propaganda stunt rather than an actual solution to the problem.

The sad fact is that many of our politicians don't have a clue, and I'm sure we will see our politicians discussing those evil "machine guns that are made to kill people" again. Then again, there won't be a change if we are opposed to any change, and I believe a discussion between responsible and educated gun owners would be a good way to come up with a solution that really has some effect.

It's a tough nut to crack, but banning assault rifles and restricting magazine capacity sure won't cut it. I see the mass shootings as a symptom of a deeper problem, and just fixing symptoms is never a good solution.

There may not be a Federal requirement for mental health background checks for firearm ownership, but in the State of Massachusetts there is. That is why even the renewal every 6 years takes so long - typically 3 months. As I understand, it is also the reason MA does not recognize other states concealed carry permits, because they do not do any mental illness checks.

Olle.. one good start would be to introduce some form of license for owning and using firearms.

I already have one..it's called the 2nd amendment. Just like I don't need a license to write an article for the newspaper.

I kind of expected that reaction. ;) Really, I don't see a license like what I suggested as a restriction that would affect us in a negative way. See it as a driver's license for guns and you'll see what I mean. The Second Amendment, read by the letter, gives mentally defective, criminals and maybe even children the same right to bear arms, and I don't think anybody would argue that it should be that way. The problem is not the guns, but when guns end up in the wrong hands at the wrong time, you will have a problem.

There are and has to be limits on every amendment- we are all familiar with the fact that yelling FIRE in a crowded movie theater is not free speech. Similarly the Second amendment gives one "the right to keep and bear arms"; by definition nuclear tipped ICBMs are "arms". Im sure these same arguments were put forth in 1934 when the National Firearms Act was voted in.

That's the way I look at it. The Second Amendment is pretty short, and you simply have to see it as "the spirit of the rules", rather than following it to the letter.

Ollie

Is a person who is 15 years old a child ?

When I was 15 I pedaled my bike to the gun store and purchased a 38 cal revolver. Put it in the basket on my bike and pedaled home. No parents. No background check. No license - except cash. I was not the only person that age and younger who purchased pistols. I was late as I did not have the money.

When I was 12, my class in high school started doing close order drill with M1 Garands. (We had a Marine Sergeant ad the PT instructor.) The school yard was next to the Cathedral and the Bishop, priests and those passing by would sometimes watch us. None in my class, those in front of and those behind us ever did anything.

(And we never hurt our thumbs on the Garand.)

My son’s mother-in-law when she was 12 (and all of the girls around her of that age) learned to fire and strip the garand and they also learned how to use the bayonet.

One of my daughter’s war using machine guns (M16) when she was 16. (All US government approved).

The premise of your proposal is not valid.

Read a good article from a pro about the correlation of mass murdering shooters and their drug use (prescription and non). Anabolic steroids are known to cause uncontrolled rage, when combined with Ephedrine and Caffiene (as in most "Energy Drinks") the effect is obviously obvious. Anti-depressants are freely prescribed, and cause a sort-of detached view of reality by their very nature. Chronic, heavy Cannabis users and Alcholics impose their own impulsive issues. ALL of the known shooters in the last few decades were so impaired to some degree.

They ALL have one other thing in common, they are PSYCHOTIC and PARANOID, likely hearing inner voices that don't stop. The last 2 Monsters that rampaged (Oregon and Newton) had one more thing in common, Lanza shot himself upon hearing Police sirens approaching, the Mall Shooter shot himself after the by-stander drew down on him. They are cowards, and want to maintain control to the very end.

My idea (and you saw it here 1st) is PSY-OPs, done covertly of course, with NO media unveiling or ANY public mention to decrease it's potential to feed on the Shooter's paranoid psychosis. Imagine loudspeakers positioned around the perimeter, programed to simulate approaching Police sirens, getting ever louder (from differing directions), finally schreeching to a stop, doors slamming, feet running, loud speakers blaring, even interior speakers with the sound of doors and glass breaking. Gives me chills just thinking about it ... ! This is simple and cheaply done with todays electronics and battery back-up. Remote, inconspicuous key operated panels in all areas provide instant activation by key personnel.

If someone patents this after reading this and makes $$$, don't forget to send my royalty check, heh, heh. :bigbye:

Joe..An excellent idea! I think it has some merit. It would be cheap to implement. Give the perp something to consider while the Police are on their way.

I CAN suggest one major concession that would prohibit approximately 50% of the population from owning these guns:

Prohibit every registered Democrat or admitted left wing liberal from owning these guns.

Now how could they possibly turn this down?

I don't think you are seriously proposing that 15 year old kids should be able to buy guns, but I think understand what you're saying: The real reason for the problem is in today's culture. If you can figure out how this culture has developed, you would also be able to find the solution. However, changing the culture is a daunting task, learning how to handle it is a more viable way. It's not ideal, but at least it's something that can happen within a reasonable period of time.

And if you think of it: The jest of your post is obviously that people need to get familiar with guns and learn to handle them in a responsible way, and this is exactly what I would see out of a license. My son got his first BB gun at 4 and a .22 at 6, and the reason for that was not so much to feed an interest in guns, it was more to teach him responsible gun ownership. If the school system doesn't do it for him, I will, but there's not many parents thinking that way.

Ollie - you came to the major issue in US Supreme court doctrine - do we interpret it literally in the context of the 1787 world where it was written, or do they apply it to todays world. Even in 1787 there were issues - many of the framers who wrote "All Men Are Created Equal" were slave owners.....

That's right. Times are sure changing, and we have to change as well. I would love to go back to the good ol' days when people were tought respect and responsibility, but I don't think I would like to go as far back as 1787. ;)

The question is what we can do and still be reasonably close to what the founding fathers put on paper. Doing nothing and opposing any change is not a solution, unless you're happy with the situation as it is.

I have always thought this is where the Supreme Court could really gut the Second amendment, by simply pointing out that there were restrictions on gun ownership from day 1. When the Constitution became law of the land in 1789, it did not rescind the laws prohibiting slaves from owning firearms. My fear is that someday the left will send a "street smart" Justice to the Supreme Court who has common sense and might figure this out, instead of the "book smart" types they insist on.