They're 1000's of retired cops that would love the income....Fact is many States do have them, but many still do not.

I bet that will change.

And I saw it on BBC news this morning that one teacher died protecting her pupils. And none them was hurt in the attack.

This article is six hours old but it would appear the children were mainly girls and aged between six and seven.

I didn't read it all...I found it too distressing :nope:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20744701

School shootings are not exclusively an American phenomenon, but America by far leads the list.

It also is no new phenomenon in America, but has been with America since the very beginning of its history as a colony and founding nation. The earliest school shooting probably was more an act of war than personal problems, in mid-18th century four Indians went into a school and shoot several children and teachers. In the mid-19th century I read there was the first personally motivated school killing, a man shooting the director becasue of having punished his brother. At that time the media already took note of weapons more and mor eoften being brought to school.

Same for killing sprees in general. It is not exclusively American,. but America leads the list. For example if you sort this followiung list by country you see that the US logs in 4-5 as many incidents than all other nations of North and South America together.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...lers:_Americas

Gun laws alone will not do anything, since the root of the problem is most likely both a problem of culture and attitude. Different attitude is casued by culture in the form of media influence, education by parents, traditions passed on, and of cxourse: social variable like biographic youth quality, poverty levels, unemployment levels. Gun laws must be part of adressing issues on these levels - and these levels are what make it so difficult to tackle the problem. You cannot just change the realities in a whole country over night, even less so when the state is bancrupt and in principle is impotent to act due to empty treasure chests. In the case of the US, another obstacle adds to the list, the extreme fetishism for weapons, and like in the rest opf the West at varying degrees as well: the media interest in sensational reporting and exaggerating stories that focus on violence and brutality, from news to blockbusters. It's what i call the cultural climate - and that is one of violence, weapons, and - fear. Because think of the man what you want, I do not personally like him at all, but Michael Moore got many things very very right in his first and most famous movie, Bowling for Columbine. What he said there about the American climate of fear is 110% right on target.

There will be a lot of tamtam being made about this latest shooting incident, in the end, nothing effective will be done, and the interest will fade, things settle down, the families get forgotten, and then the next shooting will come. Pretty much running by routine by now, I would say. And weapon lobbyists will do their share to emotionally stir the fire against any kind of measurements threatening the big profits being made by selling weapons so loosely like I think in no other civilised country in the world. And what military weapons like SARs have to do in private living rooms, I will never understand. But plenty of excuses will be given to allow their selling, but in past years I always saw these excuses as illustrations of this deep deep fetishism for weapons and firearms there is. I think this is a mjaor part of the puzzle: to get this fascination for heavy firepower out of people'S heads. Self-defence - has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with it. It is not practicable to hide an SAR under your coat in the subway for self defence, a small 9mm would perfectly do the job - or are you planning to leave the train at a station called Afghanistan...?

The 2nd amendmant. If they want to own one they should be able to. Im all for stricter restrictions (Double negative? lol) on ARs but as far as guns in general. No, we lose our 2nd amendment and its a slippery rope from there, then things will more progressively get taken away.

I also like to think of it in general like this, sure we can make guns illegal, but that will only hurt the responsible. What has making heroin and cocaine illegal done? Its done some good but those who still want it, get it. We make guns illegal, the criminals will still get their hands on it. Plain and simple.

Regards,

Casey

I already said that gun laws alone will do little or nothing, but must be part of a more embracing and complete approach: tackling the whole social self-definition and the culture and the social realities.

I knew that the 2nd would be brought up. You can choose to stay a slave to that, and applaud the weapons lobby for protecting their profits by abusing it. Or you can choose to conclude that nothing needs to be written in storm for the rest of eternity. There is no more need for having militias in the state to be able to mobilze them quickly against the British. The Indian threat is non-existent. The modern US creates and produces the threats it is endangerd by all by itself: living conditions, eroding "Bürgertum", slums, poverty, social conditions, unemployment, wages, cultural climate in general. All this works together to form the result, from giving motivations to turn violent, to lowering inhibitations to use violence. And the criminal freaks from outside who have also an interest to keep the situation in th streets the same, also play in here.

When the second amendment would say that every citizen has the right that on Fridays he may drive his car over pedestrians crossing the street from left to right, would you then still say what you just have said? Or a rule that allows to shoot at black people wearing white shirts, but only with a muzzle loader, because muzzle loaders were what they had when this rule was written?

The 2nd amendment, regarding weapons and the weapon lobby it has become so much abused that nowadays it is just a pitiful, rotten excuse - to protect the industry's profits.

You want things to stay like they are. Okay. But do not complain about the price then. And save the crocodile tears then at the next incident. They are a lie. Not meaning you in special here, Casey, but speaking in general.

What remains by the end of the day is that nothing will be changed, crocodile tears by people not being attached to the effected families at all will be wept, and after the bodies have pout down under, one just sits and waits for the next incident to take place. How to produce new tears then has become a well-practiced routine. I find the whole media echo and everybody going into automatic "I'm so sorry"-mode absolutely despicable.

P.S. By chance I currently read an academic paper about Ernst Jünger and his description of the conflict between the burgeoise and the worker, and how the burgeoise destroys himself by showing an inability to adapt and an inability to realise the alien quality in what is alien, and the foreign quality in what is foreign, instead trying to assimilate it and tolerate it and by that nullifying his own identity, Jpnger thus says that every form of burgoisie thus is female by inner quality . A difficult but good reading, Manfred Maengel: "Das Wissen des Kriegers", which is a dissertation. Very, very actual that is, matching the modern present perfectly. Unfortunately a bit too long to translate the passage I have on mind here: 20 book pages. A shame that bot-translators still are the mess that they are, else I would scan the text via OCR and have it translated and then set it up.

Explain what you think the second means then try and find a single period from your history where that meaning holds true.
As if you have never ever actually had the 2nd you think you have then there is no way it can be lost is there.

Good point on the construction site presence. I did not think of that. I do think his precence deters potential problems. I do feel better he is there. I can say my 14 year old has expressed concern for her safety. Not just at school but in public in general. This issue is very real for some kids.

One of the victims appears to be a British boy, his older brother survived the attack:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20745431

As soon as the police can guarantee that they can prevent a violent crime from affecting me, my family, my home, then I will gladly give up my guns.

However, in the US, the police are not there to prevent crimes but there to respond to crimes already committed. They are a post facto investigative and apprehension force, not a crime prevention force.

Personal/family protection is, and in my opinion, should always be a personal responsibility.

I have been a gun owner for over 20 years. Here is my record

People killed with my gun - 0
People injured with my gun - 0
My legal problems with my gun - 0
Times I have brandished my gun - 0
Times I have threatened people with my gun - 0
Accidents I have had with my gun - 1 (I did have an accidental discharge (Clearing a jam at the range), but my training of always keeping my gun in a safe direction prevented any damage)
Complaints from neighbours about my gun - 0

So explain to me how taking guns away from ME somehow makes the world safer?

As a responsible gun owner, all I ask is that my ability to responsibly own a gun not be infringed because of the actions, no matter how heinous they are, of a few individuals.

I don't think I am being unreasonable.

The woman who was murdered by her son could have said the same thing up until yesterday. Then he took her legally-purchased and registered weapons, killed her and proceeded to kill scores of others at an elementary school.

My point being that the problem is this individual, not the venue this individual chose to use.

We need to ban criminals, not guns. :)

Just get as much guns as you can off the streets and make it difficult as possible to acquire permit.
Just from the statistic point of view such incidents will happen less often.
IF i recall most of the rage shootings had been done with legal guns owned by the shooters or family members , the gun enthusiasts who own guns/assault rifles for the heck of it.
I never digged into this but that is how i remember some of those incidents that reached the news here.
Or have the freedom to defend your self and/or shoot each other.

But that is the crux of the problem. You can be as safe and responsible as you want, but once someone else gets their hands on your firearm it all means nothing. And it happens all the time.

Good luck banning criminals.