Printable View
Sadly, I think that gun control as an argument is moot. The bigger problem is the overall decline of society in America. We treat actors like heros. Prison is no longer a deterrent - it is no longer scary. Parents no longer parent, they let TV and schools do it for them. Government is bloated and far too slow to be effective. I fear for the future of the country if a strong, positive leader doesnt steer us back in the right direction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badinage
I'm open and I'm having a discussion of what we can and can't do to address the problem. Where's your side of that discussion? You don't address anyone's actual points at all, you just say "you love your guns".
is my analysis of how an "assault weapons ban" fails both in definition and in implementation a function of my "loving my guns" or is it simply a matter of obvious policy flaws?
I've presented all kinds of suggestions and debunked popular misconceptions and meaningless policy posturing.
Your contribution has been "we need a discussion" without any suggestions or engagement on the options and then to attack poster's motives who are trying to actually contribute to the world of ideas as to how to respond to this problem.
Selfish? Aren't you the same person who decried those who wanted a discussion as idiots? Yet you now make broad assumptions about motives and attack posters as selfish?
Your point isnt' even that you have a point, just that some aren't open? How are you open? I have yet to see you suggest anything at all other than that those who are suggesting things are not open.
So you have no point other than to discuss, you have no contribution to the discussion of policy options, and then you get off telling me how I feel about guns knowing nothing about me at all?
Does your hubris have any bounds? You know nothing about me at all or why I am passionate about such issues. As I said I'd turn in the few guns I own tomorrow, even though they are family heirlooms, if it was part of a solution that would protect me from crime, protect the People from the State and actually prevent these tragedies.
The reason you get such a stonewalled appearance in responses is it's from those who have thought out their positions and know them and are willing to defend them. That's not being close minded, that's just having a viewpoint. It could be knee jerk or it could be based on a consideration of the data and their experiences.
Agreed 100%. if there is an increase in these incidents adjusting for population size etc. the problem is a disturbing trend in our culture IMO. Parents who hand off the raising of their children to government institutions and TV. A culture that embraces the "victim society" that only encourages people to feel they have a right to take what isn't theirs or to feel repressed rather than to look at their own actions and choices.Quote:
Originally Posted by dethbylt
Also the growing nature of our post-industrial society and how we are building a system of interaction antithetical to our evolution. We evolved in small groups where we knew everyone and were aware of problems. Now we have neighbors we never meet, we move far from our families and friends with regularity, and a society of information overload that bombards us and leads us to edit things as background noise and further isolate us.
I'm not suggesting we all need to move back to our small towns and be happy, but I am suggesting society is changing faster than we can genetically or sociologically evolve to it, and it is creating great strain.
BTW, I have apologized for my long winded posts many times. But hey, I am equal opportunity. Guns, the welfare state, Libertarianism, whatever. These things require several steps to lay out a position fully. Otherwise we're just repeating slogans to each other.
How cute.Quote:
Originally Posted by Badinage
That is the second time I have seen you attack others by claiming their opinion was biased. The first time, your opinion was one of the most poorly prepared, illogically based, thinly disguised attacks on Larry Vaught.
This time? I thought you might be making a point in this thread, and I was anxious to see it, but instead, it appears your motive was otherwise.
Really, that's enough. If your intent is to pretend to be intellectually superior and play "gotcha," stop now.
If it is engage in meaningful dialogue and discussion, wonderful. Just improve on it.
Sent using Forum Runner. All typos excused.
You are all about the battle. Rotely so. You say you are about liberty, but you seem to be more about regurgitation. Absent the sycophants, you seem to see nothing but fighting the good fight. That is disturbing. Especially when you finish and then say, "now show me yours." But, I do not think you see it. Your string is pulled and you roar out your show.Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenBBN
I never said I have answers, but you have inspired me to pull together my connections at ATF and other agencies to begin a discussion. I would be all for reasonable minded FFLs coming to that table, but not those who do not want a discussion, but just want to ram their agenda down the throats of others. The Second Amendment does not preclude gun regulation. I agree with Scalia on that point.
Thanks for the inspiration.
I am confident you know that claiming someone has a bias is not an attack (maybe not, as this seems to be a theme here). Surely, you know that. Right? As a gun owner, I would hope you can discern attacks from facts and opinions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darrell KSR
And, as to Larry, I said my point. Not sure what was thinly disguised about it. I tried to state my opinion about him hiding behind supposed anonymous contributors. You can explain how it was illogical and all the other silly crap you claim, but only if you can learn how to write concisely.
And, I think the opinions of those anonymous contributors were shown to be foolish. Not good journalism. But, then Larry works for a small paper and but for the Internet and a rabid fan base, we would not know who he is. I am sure he is a good guy, but his writing on the coaching search was often crap. That is an opinion, not an attack.
"Single events" that kill 20 little kids and 7 others, one week after a "single event" that killed 2 and injured others, thanks to a jammed gun, a few months after a "single event" that killed ...Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenBBN
Thankfully, we do not have to respond to "single events," but can recognize we have a problem in this country and that problem involves guns. So, I hope people smarter than us can get to real solutions, without the fear of venturing into gun regulation, if the evidence leads such laws.
I can take the attacks on me, I could care less what you or anyone things, but the 7 time Ky Sportswriter of the Year?Quote:
Originally Posted by Badinage
Nope, that's too far. I won't tolerate insulting his status, and I'm tired of your complete lack of knowledge of much of anything including the reputation Larry built nationally before there were even sports message boards.
No doubt you'll see this as a "gun thing" and "biased" b/c in the end that's all you have is to claim people are biased, but I don't really care about that either.
I can handle stupidity, I can handle the inability to engage in a properly reasoned discussion, I can even handle your wild claims about me and my motives despite not having a clue, but I will not tolerate insults and disrespect of people who have earned respect in their professions.
You are the weakest link. Goodbye.
What an arrogant know it all. My grandmother used to say that she wished she could buy some people for what they were worth and sell them for what they thought they were worth. In this case, she would have made a fortune.
Sent using Forum Runner. All typos excused.
He's a know it all who manages to couch it by only attacking other's views without having to have any ideas or contributions of his own. He should run for office. Sadly, he has a good chance of winning.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darrell KSR
that's a brilliant turn of phrase by your grandmother. Hope you don't mind if I borrow that from time to time. I love when a whole pound of wisdom is tied up in a neat little sentence.
I hope you don't mind me responding to this comment. I lurked on this board for at least two years before I decided to start posting myself. You are one of a number of posters here who seem to always be in control of your emotions when it comes to your comments and I don't remember very many times that you have been the least bit confrontational. This post is the exception, and rightly so. I think it takes a lot to "push your button" and obviously this poster accomplished that. Good on ya, mate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darrell KSR
"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."
- Rahm Emanuel, 2/9/2009
As a country we have been through this too many times, whether it’s been an elementary school in Newtown, a shopping mall in Oregon, or a temple in Wisconsin, or a movie theater in Aurora, or a street corner in Chicago, these neighborhoods are our neighborhoods and these children are our children. We’re going to have to come together and take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics.-
- Barack Obama, 12/14/2012
This terrible tragedy for twenty-seven families, their friends and extended families, the kids and parents of the kids who attend Sandy Hook, as well as the community of Newtown, CT, will be used as a bludgeon by the liberals to bolster their argument against the 2nd Amendment rights of all law-abiding citizens. The blood from these precious children had not even become tacky by the time the liberal media launched their assault. The lefties in Congress and Mike Bloomberg quickly joined the chorus.
This tragedy has accomplished what Obama and the media have been trying to do and have mostly succeeded in doing. They want to push serious issues off the table and this tragedy accomplishes that for them. Fast & Furious? History. Benghazi? Never heard of it. Health insurance costs sky-rocketing? Oh, did we say your rates would go down? We meant "go up necessarily". No federal budget for three years? Mere technicality. Fiscal Cliff? Pfft! All attention for the media and the politicians will go to solving what they think caused this problem- my guns, your guns, your neighbor's guns. You better hang on. You better get locked and loaded. This time, they're coming after your guns and anyone who thinks otherwise isn't paying attention.
I'm really one of those somewhere in the middle on this issue. I have two brothers who both have concealed carry permits but I don't own a gun. It's complicated and I can't claim to be an expert but I can't for the life of me see what's wrong with this proposal http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen-fr..._b_845590.html
Guns with high capacity magazines can be replaced with more lower capacity guns. A little more cumbersome, but the argument remains...a criminal doesn't care if high capacity guns are banned. If they're banned, then if anyone has them it will be criminals and law-abiding citizens will have inferior weaponry to defend themselves. You could call "timeout" but I'd hate to have to depend on that.Quote:
Originally Posted by bubbleup
I suspect this article from Lautenberg and McCarthy, written in 2011, was actually composed by the Brady Campaign. It's just another example of selective outrage, using only data that supports its campaign to ban guns.Quote:
Originally Posted by bubbleup
A skilled gunman can eject an empty clip, insert a full clip, and advance a round into the chamber of a pistol in three seconds or less. In the case of what happened yesterday, it sounds like the shooter was pretty deliberate in his shooting. It doesn't sound like he was firing as fast as the gun's mechanism would allow. Otherwise, there would have been many more non-fatal injuries than there were. Regardless of what you see on TV, most shots from a shooter firing in haste are not kill-shots. If a shooter in a closed room took careful aim at each one of his victims, he could use one pistol with two clips and kill 15-20 people inside of a minute. Outlawing high-capacity clips won't change that. This shooter had two pistols, according to the media reports. If he had expended a standard clip in each of the two guns, the difference in casualties wouldn't be much different.
I own more than a half dozen pistols. I do not own a high-capacity clip. If I didn't much care about obeying laws and decided I wanted high-capacity clips, I could buy them even if they were "illegal". If they were illegal, I wouldn't buy one because I believe in obeying laws, even those I disagree with. People who want to do others harm, don't obey laws. That will never change. Ban guns, the lawbreakers will own them. Ban high-capacity clips, the lawbreakers will get them. Ban marshmallows, and every person who wants to do others harm via marshmallows will have a stash of marshmallows hidden on the top shelf of their cupboard.
Banning anything doesn't result in stopping those who ignore the laws. Never has, never will.
FWIW every cop I've ever talked to said they wish every law-abiding citizen had guns. They simply can't protect us all. We have to protect ourselves.
It's not the guns. It's not "high-capacity magazines". It's the people.Quote:
Originally Posted by bubbleup
I'm not real proud of the product of my frustration.Quote:
Originally Posted by CattyWampus
Sent using Forum Runner. All typos excused.
Can we learn from the Swiss?
fta:
Of course the more that U.S. governments can do to make gun use in America even more responsible, the better. Switzerland shows how successful governments can be in promoting responsible gun use.
Elementary schools in America should have gun safety classes which teach children never to touch a gun unless a parent is present, and they should be taught to tell an adult if they see an unattended gun. The NRA actively promotes this idea, and the National Association of Chiefs of Police endorses it. But Handgun Control opposes this reasonable, sensible safety measure. Has HCI gone off the deep end?
High schools and colleges wishing to offer target shooting as a sport should be allowed to do so. Unlike football or swimming, scholastic target shooting has never resulted in a fatality. The anti-gun groups oppose the sensible step of allowing the schools to offer students the safest sport ever invented. Have they gone off the deep end'? Finally, local governments should enact reasonable zoning laws, which allow the construction of indoor shooting ranges (properly ventilated and sound insulated) in urban areas. In some cases, governments should subsidise the building of ranges. At target ranges, Americans can take lessons in gun responsibility, and practice safe gun handling skills. As you might expect, the anti-gunners oppose this simple safety measure too. They've gone off the deep end.
What have we learned from Switzerland?' Guns in themselves are not a cause of gun crime; if they were, everyone in Switzerland would long ago have been shot in a domestic quarrel.
Cultural conditions, not gun laws, are the most important factors in a nation's crime rate. Young adults in Washington, D.C., are subject to strict gun control, but no social control, and they commit a staggering amount of armed crime. Young adults in Zurich are subject to minimal gun control, but strict social control, and they commit almost no crime.
America-with its traditions of individual liberty-cannot import Switzerland's culture of social control. Teenagers, women, and almost everyone else have more freedom in America than in Switzerland.
What America can learn from Switzerland is that the best way to reduce gun misuse is to promote responsible gun ownership. While America cannot adopt the Swiss model, America can foster responsible gun ownership along more individualistic, American lines. Firearms safety classes in elementary schools, optional marksmanship classes in high schools and colleges, and the widespread availability of adult safety training at licensed shooting ranges are some of the ways that America can make its tradition of responsible gun use even stronger.
Awesome read! It deserves its own thread if you'd like to start it.Quote:
Originally Posted by CattyWampus
Yes, it's a bit of a rant.
All we are missing from the left's frenzy to score anti gun political points is some internet rabble on HuffPo blaming Sarah Palin's bulls-eye advertisements. I've already been asked to ban "semi automatic rifles" in Bozeman. Yeah, the guy left the rifle in the car, so how is it relevant? Stifle your urge to hate the Constitution. Express sympathy and sorrow, and community. call on your deity you have one, and... then shut up.
PS, the sniper in the water tower in Texas happened before the hommasekshuls got so uppity, so, right wing frenzy, you take a deep breath too. The second amendment is just one of many individual rights governments are supposed to protect.
There is no policy discussion to be found regarding evil and insanity. There is only sorrow, sympathy, community, our commonalities as humans bringing us together. We should not be emphasizing our differences and picking fights at every sorrow.
It seems that my suggestion was completely ignored. Must have been a bad suggestion. Badinage, you keep asking others to offer ideas and enter into discussion on how to go forward with preventing such events in the future, yet you are unwilling to offer any ideas of your own, and it is obvious you have given this matter much thought. Why is that?
We seek to make sense of the senseless and policy to punish the many for the evils of a few. All those attempts do is make it all worse.
Wrong againQuote:
Originally Posted by Badinage
Guns are not the problem. Society and the evil in it is. There is no instrument that I know of that harms someone without another human being using it. Anyone who wants to do evil acts will find a tool to do them, whether its a gun, bomb, car, knife, or brick. I'm afraid we will never rid ourselves of the evil that leads to such deeds.
I am all for gun laws to prevent the wrong folks from being able to purchase a gun. But get rid of law abiding citizens rights to own a gun to protect themselves and it puts us at the mercy of the folks that just committed the evil we just saw.
:sFl_america2:Quote:
Originally Posted by bigsky
Sir, I will second this man's statement that you, do not let your emotions overtake you, very often.
On this board, it can be a challenge.
Kudos to you, Mr. Cartwright.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darrell KSR
I think there are plenty of ideas in that article to stimulate reasonable discussion. Thanks for the link.Quote:
Originally Posted by CattyWampus
High cap magazine ban is one of the few proposals I respect in that it's an attempt to address a particular problem without overly limiting gun ownership or self protection.Quote:
Originally Posted by bubbleup
However, I still reject it as a good overall policy for these basic reasons:
1) Effectiveness, it simply won't prevent future incidents like this one
2) That lack of effectiveness will be used to justify further measures rather than the re-evaluation we need of how to address the issue
3) it detracts from things that might actually help, and frames the discussion in terms of control instead of things like regulatory reform.
4) There is still a component of the need to possess guns that is a defense against the power of the government, and this proposal could be seen as limiting that ability. Further it gets us into the "not needed for hunting" thinking which is dangerous for gun rights but for all rights in general.
Effectiveness is obviously the major problem. It simply wont work. Here's why:
1) As Catty Wampus said, the high cap magazines aren't really important in these situations. These guys may often use them but they could be just as effective with 10 round magazines. Moreso in fact as in Aurora the guy got a 100 round drum mag for an AR-15, which is notorious for jamming. IMO had he worked on using standard straight mags he'd have gotten off a lot more rounds.
The SKS comes with a built in 10 round mag and you can reload it with stripper clips about as fast as changing mags. People get focuses on the appearance of the big magazines b/c they are used in AKs but those are full auto weapons that will spray a lot more ammo.
That doesn't even include just having more guns. It also doesn't include just using a shotgun.
It's cold as hell, but in truth someone could kill just as many as were killed in Connecticut with 10 round magazines or with shotguns or even tube fed rifles that hold 6-7 rounds.
It simply won't prevent the next outrage even if no one had access to them.
2) Really "banning" them is nearly impossible.
There are millions of these magazines in circulation. Maybe 10s of millions. Banning the selling of new ones is pointless. Utterly useless at preventing their use by the next lunatic.
The latest proposal I've seen is to ban their sale, even between individuals. Good luck enforcing that one.
So the only other option to actually "ban" them is to round them up. Think a ban on sales is useless, try rounding up millions of magazines without any record of who owns what.
So a "ban on high cap magazines" doesn't even exist in the currently proposed forms nor is any other form going to be politically or logistically feasible. Theyr'e calling for something that doesn't exist nor can really exist. You're implementing a law that is wholly meaningless in its effect.
Next is what happens when this law is completely ineffective and another tragedy happens, whether with high cap mags or not:
It will justify the next stage of "common sense" gun control. Then it will be "banning" assault rifles. Of course they wont' round them up, so inevitably with millions of them in circulation there will be another incident using them. Then the call will be to round them up. Or the lunatic will use pistols and the call will be to ban some form of those.
We already see this happening. The Illinois Governor wants to ban all "semi automatic" guns. Depending on your definition that's the vast majority of all guns in the country from 22 plinkers to carry guns to shotguns and rifles for hunting and sporting and even including revolvers within the "one round for one trigger pull" definition.
So we'll "ban" the mags, that will fail, and that failure will be used to lobby for the next and more restrictive round of laws. It will never end as none of these laws will stop these things, and we'll be right back at this point but one step deeper into gun ownership restrictions.
3) It diverts from the need to politically push for things that will in fact help.
I laid it out elsewhere but there are things that can potentially help. Many of those things involve something counter intuitive to the gun control crowd: HELPING dealers instead of constraining them.
Dealers have to meet strict record keeping requirements and they have to run background checks. Private sales do not. Wouldn't we rather help dealers expand their percentage of gun transactions? It would only help to catch some of these guys who might get through otherwise (mostly criminals and not lunatics, but it still reduces gun violence).
There are a bunch of other things, but what we need first is "common sense regulatory reform" and not common sense gun control. B/c those things really can get done and really do help and really are common sense.
Work WITH the NSSF and NRA and the dealers, not against them.
Seriously, you know who in the world MOST wants to stop these things? Gun owners. We cringe like you cannot believe when these things happen. We'd love to stop them. \
4) The biggest reason the Founders put in the 2nd Amendment was to prevent governments from having enough force of arms to enforce a tyranny. If we're all armed they have a problem.
The mag ban is framed in terms of "no hunting purpose", and that is the most dangerous thinking of all. The 2nd Amendment wasn't in place so we could hunt, it was for 3 reasons
a) To stand against tyranny of the state
b) to let us defend ourselves
c) as a natural part of the basic pursuit of happiness and liberty. You don't ban anything anyone wants without strong justification.
Even going down the road of banning high cap mags b/c "they aren't needed" is very very dangerous. If you get into that mode of thinking then when the ban fails you can keep on justifying more and more restrictions without having to consider that there is a right to bear arms that has nothing to do with hunting.
The most dangerous thinking of all is "well we have to try something". Restricting people's rights and choices on such a basis is incredibly dangerous and goes against the fundamental founding of the nation's principles. There must be more than even speculative evidence to restrict the rights of the People, much less the "well there's none but maybe it'll be help" justification.
This was exactly the ruling of the 7th Circuit this past week ruling the Illinois conceal carry ban unconstitutional. The decision was rooted in the basis that you cannot restrict People's rights with some basis that it actually is necessary or improves the public safety. It cannot be "well it makes sense to me."
So "common sense" isn't a justification for this action. It must be based in some kind of proof of an improvement in public safety, and there isn't one.
So I respect the attempt, I really do, but when we analyze the proposal it simply fails on too many levels to make sense or to be the right policy. It sounds good, but when we look at what it will do both good and bad and how people will respond and generate the real outcomes (laws don't happen in vacuums, people adapt and it's what's left after that adaptation that really is the measure of the law) it fails to be good policy.
This. Took me 2,000 words to say that. lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigsky
I also want to say I hope you stay in the discussion. Good discussion can happen on this topic if we all are respectful and considered in our posts and you have generated some good discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by bubbleup
I've read the links and your 2000 word treatise ;) in repsonse to my suggestion. As I said initially, it's a very complicated issue and I'm no expert. Somewhere between a musket in every cabin and an AK-47 in every home is a level of gun rights/gun control that might make it more difficult for these mentally ill (potential) killers to try to top this most recent killer. At the risk of oversimplifying the issue(s), I'm afraid that if the NRA and it's supporters don't want to come to the table and participate in the conversation, the "other side" will begin to build momentum for something more drastic...and as I said intially I'm somewhere in the middle. I've taken my 17 year-old daughter over to my brother's in the past 6 weeks to shoot, both a pistol and a 22. I'm not in favor of taking guns away but something has to change and Friday's events have changed a lot of attitudes.Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenBBN
Here's one mother's story about her mentally ill son that may shed some light on what happened in Connecticut.
http://anarchistsoccermom.blogspot.c...kable.html?m=1
School adviser: Gunman a loner who felt no pain
http://news.yahoo.com/school-adviser...1QKj4A0YfQtDMD
A broader perspective:
http://townhall.com/columnists/rache...-guns-n1467549
What's "chilling", but "affirming of what I always suspected" is the "if our government were only more like China" sentiment so freely expressed on Facebook and by the HuffPo meme repeaters these last two days ("see, look at the knife attack, no kids died"). Take away the Bill of Rights, control what the media covers and the ability of the populace to defend themselves, and those who've longingly lauded China's totalitarian socialism/communism will be halfway towards their goals. Freedom does have it's costs; freedom allows failure, it allows people to make evil choices. But repressing the rights of all to cure the evil of a few is exactly the opposite of our American ideal.
"Have you found his best friend? Have you found a friend?" Novia asked. "You're not going to. He was a loner."Quote:
Originally Posted by badrose
If you look at my post on this thread on the premy board I specifically said what will come out is just like the hold SNL skit on the shooting of Buckwheat, where when asked everyone will say "he was a quiet boy, a loner." Then they ask "do you think he shot Buckwheat"? "Oh yes, that's all he ever talked about was killing Buckwheat."
This kid was mentally ill and was apparently never treated, but we have to restrict the rights of all Americans rather than try to deal with mental illness in this country?
Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenBBN
Winner winner chicken dinner!
You read that? Man, I didn't and I wrote it. lol. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by bubbleup
I think your statement goes to my main frustration, and the frustration of the NRA and other groups. That whole discussion will focus on how to limit the ability of the mentally ill to do damage, as if a) that's going to make it OK, and b) we should start there rather than asking why the mentally ill who are capable of this walk among us.
That's the "slippery slope" I talk about. We ban high cap mags and somehow collect them all and the next incident only kills 10 children using "hunting purpose" guns. Do we then turn our focus to how a diagnosed mentally ill person wasn't seen as a threat or do we call for limiting guns again? We all know which will happen.
Heck I can prove it. Today on Fox I caught 10 minutes of a show that happened to be on when I turned on the TV, and it was talking about banning ALL semi-auto weapons, showing pictures of the Glock and Sig he apparently used, saying they were designed for military use. No they weren't, I carry a semi-auto made by a company that has never sold to the military.
So they're already calling for a level of overkill beyond all scope or reason. That's what terrifies the NRA and keeps them from wanting to compromise at all. They know this will be death by 1,000 cuts, each such incident adding another restriction b/c the last restriction won't stop the next tragedy. It's b/c they know it won't work and what will result when it fails that keeps them from wanting to bend.
This boy was troubled for YEARS. His mother had to be repeatedly called to school to address the situation. At least one adviser knew he was a risk to himself and others and was assigned specifically to watch him. It was known he didn't feel physical or psychological pain, and our national discussion today on the talk shows centers on which guns he chose? Really?
As I posted elsewhere, we're talking about a person so cold, so ill, he could stand there one after another and kill 20 children, with blood and screaming and a scene that would make you or I puke all around him, and we're hoping to limit his options so as to keep him from killing 20 kids to maybe only 10?
Given the response time, which was as quick as the police could get there, fwiw he'd have had time to kill all those kids with far less firepower. He could have killed a LOT more kids but clearly was targeting his mother's class.
So NO restriction including banning all semi-auto weapons was going to prevent those kids from dying, but that's still a better discussion than saying we need to forget his choice of method and focus on why a person capable of such things was allowed to wander among us for years?
We want to be safe, OK, let's be safe. Allow the 10s of millions who rely on guns for self defense to continue to defend themselves, and when "loners" who show no psychological pain show up in our school system their threat is taken seriously and their individual rights are questioned versus those of the 10s of millions who are no threat to anyone.
We can even tie that to guns. Allow the system to rule people a threat without huge hurdles and then they wont' pass the background check to buy a gun from a dealer. That's a reform the NRA and gun owners would support in a heartbeat: restricting gun access to the people who specifically shouldn't have access without just throwing the baby out with the bathwater.