Since you can't stop criminals from getting guns, the obvious answer is to make sure more non-criminals are trained and armed.
These guns are not typically aquired through criminal networks. Adam Lanza's were legally owned by his NRA supporting mother. Karl Pierson legally bought his own!
Thus the arming the populace via legal acquisition of firearms is the problem, not the solution.
Or did you wholly miss the part where shootings continue until the shooters faced an armed response?
Did you miss the part about people dying before there is an armed response. Again the answer is to not let the kids have firearms in the first place. Not to shoot them after they've already shot a few of their classmates and teachers.
All of those countries that ban (or severely restrict) civilian firearm ownership (Mexico, China, North Korea, etc)
You are sadly lacking in your knowledge of the world if you think that is a list of all the countries that ban or severely restrict firearms ownership.
Although you generally don't see gun grabbers who are honest enough to advocate for an actual amendment. They usually just go for trying to distort the legal language of the 2nd.
The distortion of the 2nd amendment is entirely on the side the the pro-gun lobby, who believe they are still entitled to guns despite them failing in their duty to be part of a militia.
I don't have young children... Even if I had kids, why would I not educate them on proper gun safety
I think your belief that you could educate kids and thus guarantee they would net play with guns given the chance derives from the fact that you don't have any.
When we first solve the problem of how to prevent marijuana from being sold in the U.S. illegally and the massive smuggling industry surrounding drugs, then we can consider working on gun restrictions.
That's easy. Rather than spending all the money on drug prohibition and allowing guns, swap the priorities.
We know from other countries that lots of drug smuggling doesn't mean lots of firearms smuggling.
The huge numbers of countries that have strong gun control are not suffering with school massacres being committed with bombs instead.
Where do you get a lot of people setting off home made bombs? Places where there are also a lot of guns. Iraq in the last decade. Northern Ireland in the 70s/80s. etc.
Bombs are not gun alternatives. Cutting guns does not increase bomb attacks.
In North Korea they lock up and torture political prisoners without trial. They execute convicted criminals. And they assassinate foreign nationals that they don't like. That's three things they share with the USA, but not my country.
argue all you want, in the 70s it was global cooling is going to doom us all!!
Another common piece of denialist FUD.
in the 90s it was the ozone hole is going to doom us all!
Intelligent people will remember that the documented and increasing hole in the ozone layer was addressed by banning CFCs in aerosols, and mandating proper recycling of CFCs in fridges. It's an example of an environmental problem being successfully addressed.
in the early 2000s it was Global warming is going to doom us all! and now its climate change is going to doom us all!!
You really are quite a simpleton. And your lack of ability to capitalize or punctuate properly only draws attention to the fact.
Clearly you are not an american. I feel sorry for you as you have been taught that you are not free to say what you believe.
Not half as sorry as the world feels for you being an American. Believing that some lofty goal is being served by allowing the "God hates fags" brigade to picket bereaved families funeral services.
Slashdot Mirror
Fuck you. It's the only choice I have, where I live.
No it's not.
Since you can't stop criminals from getting guns, the obvious answer is to make sure more non-criminals are trained and armed.
These guns are not typically aquired through criminal networks. Adam Lanza's were legally owned by his NRA supporting mother. Karl Pierson legally bought his own!
Thus the arming the populace via legal acquisition of firearms is the problem, not the solution.
Or did you wholly miss the part where shootings continue until the shooters faced an armed response?
Did you miss the part about people dying before there is an armed response. Again the answer is to not let the kids have firearms in the first place. Not to shoot them after they've already shot a few of their classmates and teachers.
All of those countries that ban (or severely restrict) civilian firearm ownership (Mexico, China, North Korea, etc)
You are sadly lacking in your knowledge of the world if you think that is a list of all the countries that ban or severely restrict firearms ownership.
Although you generally don't see gun grabbers who are honest enough to advocate for an actual amendment. They usually just go for trying to distort the legal language of the 2nd.
The distortion of the 2nd amendment is entirely on the side the the pro-gun lobby, who believe they are still entitled to guns despite them failing in their duty to be part of a militia.
I don't have young children...
Even if I had kids, why would I not educate them on proper gun safety
I think your belief that you could educate kids and thus guarantee they would net play with guns given the chance derives from the fact that you don't have any.
A number that would reduce every day.
That doesn't work well in a world where anyone with $2-3,000 can just print themselves a gun whenever they want.
A single shot pistol that explodes in their hand somewhere in the first 6 shots. Yeah, that really changes everything. Duh.
Or $50 worth of pipe and metal at a hardware store, for that matter...
Again, we're not seeing those used as gun replacements in the civilised world where guns are banned.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/functional+illiterate
When we first solve the problem of how to prevent marijuana from being sold in the U.S. illegally and the massive smuggling industry surrounding drugs, then we can consider working on gun restrictions.
That's easy. Rather than spending all the money on drug prohibition and allowing guns, swap the priorities.
We know from other countries that lots of drug smuggling doesn't mean lots of firearms smuggling.
What part of: "That American experiment isn't working too well. When you are in a hole, stop digging." did you not get?
save yourself the karma
I don't tend to get modded down for pointing out illiteracy.
Always illiteracy with you ganjadude.
The huge numbers of countries that have strong gun control are not suffering with school massacres being committed with bombs instead.
Where do you get a lot of people setting off home made bombs? Places where there are also a lot of guns. Iraq in the last decade. Northern Ireland in the 70s/80s. etc.
Bombs are not gun alternatives. Cutting guns does not increase bomb attacks.
correction, the first rule should be to allow mature adults to carry their weapons on them.
That American experiment isn't working too well. When you are in a hole, stop digging.
In other words, to take a play from the liberal handbook
So you're a right wing gun-nut. And semi-illiterate. Did you really have to confirm the stereotype?
The constitution is up to 27 amendments now, so that's not a bar.
And removing dangerous weapons is not punishing people. Quite the contrary.
The first rule should be to not give easy access to firearms to the general public in the first place.
The reason why some poor people vote conservative is because they are still independent-minded.
Far from it. They believe whatever Fox News or Talk Radio tells them to think.
You believe my country does, even though you don't appear to know which country that is. I know your country does.
It's just reflection on your part to assume all other countries are as bad as your own.
In North Korea they lock up and torture political prisoners without trial. They execute convicted criminals. And they assassinate foreign nationals that they don't like. That's three things they share with the USA, but not my country.
Um, no. Hitler did not win any election.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_presidential_election,_1932
That's an odd claim, given that he won this one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_March_1933
argue all you want, in the 70s it was global cooling is going to doom us all!!
Another common piece of denialist FUD.
in the 90s it was the ozone hole is going to doom us all!
Intelligent people will remember that the documented and increasing hole in the ozone layer was addressed by banning CFCs in aerosols, and mandating proper recycling of CFCs in fridges. It's an example of an environmental problem being successfully addressed.
in the early 2000s it was Global warming is going to doom us all! and now its climate change is going to doom us all!!
You really are quite a simpleton. And your lack of ability to capitalize or punctuate properly only draws attention to the fact.
sure, they picket, and that is their right. but you know what? people who oppose them also show up, in numbers 10X as many and drown them out
I'm sure that really adds to the ambience of said funerals. I prefer the alternative the rest of the world takes.
He might be a war monger, but least he's not an illiterate.
If the government has the authority to arrest you for child porn, why can't they arrest you for porn?
If the government has the authority to arrest you for cruelty to a horse, why can't they arrest you for cruelty to a cockroach?
Because one thing is not the same as another.
Seems like they didn't learn from their experience. Just look at how common neo-nazis are in Germany and Austria today.
And there are neo-nazis in America, despite the free speech laws. So what's your point?
Clearly you are not an american. I feel sorry for you as you have been taught that you are not free to say what you believe.
Not half as sorry as the world feels for you being an American. Believing that some lofty goal is being served by allowing the "God hates fags" brigade to picket bereaved families funeral services.