At least 27 People Dead, 18 of them children.

[AndThat'sTheBottomLine]

but the handguns are what he USED

He used the rifle as well.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

...and handguns.

I dont think you guys are seeing what I am getting at here.

 

[Steamboat Ricky]

...and handguns.

I dont think you guys are seeing what I am getting at here.

Ban handguns, too?

 

[Slyfox696]

No measures of gun control would have prohibited yesterday, or the majority of these incidents. The only answer is not arming teachers, its contributing more money to police forces, and have a squad car on campus, or within the vicinity. Its the only way.

You have an armed individual who is certified and legit to be armed. preferabley a K-9 unit. More cops, or get National Guard units in the area to spare a soldier and a dog.

Its the most effective way. Criminals break laws, and arming EVERYONE is absurd. More cops, or employ your local military station or national guard units.

1) And what about the theater shooting? Or the mall shooting? How many officers can we have?

2) I'm not sure I'd want students going to school in a militarized zone.

Second amendment people will tell you its because the point of the amendment is to be able to defend yourself against an unruly government, and in order to do that, you need to have the same stuff they have.


Thats obviously fucking stupid, but its technically correct.

Not technically, because technically, the 2nd Amendment provides for the militia for the defense of the individual state. Since then, we've added a standing federal army, which pretty much renders the 2nd Amendment obsolete.

But that's technically, not in the way our current Supreme Court interpreted it.

but the handguns are what he USED

Not true. He used the rifle to shoot open the door and then used the rifle to murder everyone, or close to it.

I'm not sure if they've released how many were killed by what, but they have said most, if not all, were killed by the rifle and shot multiple times. My guess is he committed suicide with one of the handguns, but I haven't read anything to confirm that.

...and handguns.

I dont think you guys are seeing what I am getting at here.

Maybe not, but I'm for the banning of handguns as well.



EDIT: Basically what I guessed.

All the victims at the school were shot with a rifle, at least some of them up close, and all were apparently shot more than once, Chief Medical Examiner Dr. H. Wayne Carver said. There were as many as 11 shots on the bodies he examined. Lanza died of a gunshot wound to the head that was self-inflicted, the medical examiner said Sunday.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/16/adam-lanza-shot-himself-a_n_2311483.html

 

[Mighty NorCal]

Ban handguns, too?

No, if you read my original idea.

The whole get your panties in a twist over assualt rifles thing is a band-aid on a grenade explosion. The assault rifle being involved had little to no relevancy in this, nor for the most part any of these other incidents.

You dont ban cars because people drive drunk. Is there a need for anyone to have an M-4? No, not really. Its also irrelevant to our purpose of keeping children safer.

 

[Slyfox696]

No, if you read my original idea.

The whole get your panties in a twist over assualt rifles thing is a band-aid on a grenade explosion. The assault rifle being involved had little to no relevancy in this, nor for the most part any of these other incidents.

You dont ban cars because people drive drunk. Is there a need for anyone to have an M-4? No, not really. Its also irrelevant to our purpose of keeping children safer.

The car analogy will never work, because the main purpose of a car is transportation, not killing. Handguns and assault rifles serve no purpose aside from shooting someone. Even those who use them to shoot at the range for fun doesn't change the original purpose of the gun.

Banning handguns and assault rifles won't solve the problem completely, but it's a great start.

 

[Steamboat Ricky]

No, if you read my original idea.

The whole get your panties in a twist over assualt rifles thing is a band-aid on a grenade explosion. The assault rifle being involved had little to no relevancy in this, nor for the most part any of these other incidents.

You dont ban cars because people drive drunk. Is there a need for anyone to have an M-4? No, not really. Its also irrelevant to our purpose of keeping children safer.

You know...or you could have the increased police force on site...but also ban the general public to have access to military-grade weapons of all kinds. You could do both.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

1) And what about the theater shooting? Or the mall shooting? How many officers can we have?

2) I'm not sure I'd want students going to school in a militarized zone.


Not technically, because technically, the 2nd Amendment provides for the militia for the defense of the individual state. Since then, we've added a standing federal army, which pretty much renders the 2nd Amendment obsolete.

But that's technically, not in the way our current Supreme Court interpreted it.

Not true. He used the rifle to shoot open the door and then used the rifle to murder everyone, or close to it.

I'm not sure if they've released how many were killed by what, but they have said most, if not all, were killed by the rifle and shot multiple times. My guess is he committed suicide with one of the handguns, but I haven't read anything to confirm that.

Maybe not, but I'm for the banning of handguns as well.



EDIT: Basically what I said.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/16/adam-lanza-shot-himself-a_n_2311483.html

1. Nothing much to be done, besides metal detectors in public places

2. They already do, all over the world. shit I DID security at one of the first continuation schools to allow girls to attend in iraq. At what point do we simply accept "it is what it is" ?

Im not against your idea of a weapons ban, fuck it. I just feel like it wont make any difference. I can walk outside right now, and within 30 minutes return with marijuana, and/or a firearm. Both are illegal (the second of which without proper documentation)

Criminals are criminals because they do not adhere to laws. Perhaps a combination of our ideas would be for the best?

 

[Mighty NorCal]

The car analogy will never work, because the main purpose of a car is transportation, not killing. Handguns and assault rifles serve no purpose aside from shooting someone. Even those who use them to shoot at the range for fun doesn't change the original purpose of the gun.

Banning handguns and assault rifles won't solve the problem completely, but it's a great start.

They arent only for killing people, though. People go hunting. I imagine the original interpretation was for these TWO purposes as well, given the areas they had thier rise within.

 

[Stormtrooper]

But it's not the day of the fucking tragedy. So why are you still trying to keep people from talking?

I'm not, and I haven't. I haven't once told anyone to stop talking about it today or yesterday. I merely defended my stance about Friday.

No, I'm talking about safety. I'm talking about common sense. It's only political when people wish to eschew safety and common sense just because they want to keep their pistols.

Safety is not political. Arguing for keeping guns despite their obvious role is so many deaths is what's political.

How the fuck do you not understand that gun control IS child safety? Whether or not you have the right to own a gun is political. Restricting the ability of people to kill is not political.

I have done nothing but advocate for American safety in this thread. You said I'm being political.

So safety is important, but discussing ways to be safe should wait.

I've said a couple times in this thread I'm not arguing for gun bans, just gun control. That's not political, that's a safety argument. I really don't understand how you have so much difficulty with this.

We can argue forever and ever about this. But last I checked anything involving changing laws and politicians voting on something (be it banning guns or putting limitations on their ownership) and the like makes an issue political in nature.

It's now been two days, so why are you still arguing?

I'm defending my stance. I'm not arguing against talking about the issue.
I've done no such thing.

Wow...that's a great philosophy. It's worked really well for us so far, hasn't it?

You mean like what you have been doing (talking about Gun Control and even signing weak internet petitions that don't get taken seriously)? Got news for you. Those tactics aren't new, and they haven't worked either.

Wait a second...let me see if I have this right.

Bringing up a safety issue to prevent more people from being murdered is disrespectful, but refusing to abide by your own suggestion and not talking about it because of some ridiculous notion of your Internet honor, honor you feel was tarnished after you willingly chose to jump into the discussion, is okay?

That's seriously fucked up.

Except that's not what happened. I have not engaged in a political debate with you. None of this debate is about a political issue (as we both are on the same side of the issue for the most part). It is about timing, as you prefer we immediately start throwing political barbs, and I prefer we wait until the next day.

And what you said was for me to leave this thread while you and others post. While I doubt you would say something to badmouth me, I can guarantee others would jump on that opportunity. As such, I said no so that I can defend myself.

I'm one of the few people around here who doesn't dislike you and enjoys reading your posts (even when I disagree with them and you say stupid things, like now). Your name had nothing to do with me addressing you, it was the content of your message. I replied to Shocky in the very same post as I did you, and there's probably not a single poster on the forums I have more respect for than Shocky.

You need to get over yourself.

Oh believe me, I wasn't speaking of you. But if you didn't notice, there are numerous new posts after all of my posts telling me I'm a fucking asshole or to fuck off or what-not.

Then shut the fuck up about some arbitrary timetable you wish to impose on everyone else, and start advocating.

We don't feel we need to adhere to your personal timetable, we have timetables of our own. We're not advocating gun control as a political measure, we're doing it as a safety measure. We're not turning these children into a political pawn, we're trying to prevent more children from being murdered.

If you want to wait, you go ahead. I didn't feel as if this discussion should wait, and neither did many other people. So don't put your personal arbitrary timetables on other people, and then criticize them for not playing by your rules...especially when it seems as if we're mostly on the same side.

First of all, there's nothing arbitrary about giving the nation a day to reflect and grieve. Hell, even President Obama refrained from speaking about political issues on Friday.

And secondly, you also need to realize that by engaging in this debate right away, it comes off as if people were waiting for something to happen so that they can spout off about it. Why weren't you talking about it Thursday if it was such an important issue to you (and everyone).

 

[Slyfox696]

1. Nothing much to be done, besides metal detectors in public places

Well, we could ban weapons which dispense death quickly and easily...

2. They already do, all over the world. shit I DID security at one of the first continuation schools to allow girls to attend in iraq. At what point do we simply accept "it is what it is" ?

There's a difference between Iraq and the US. I'd be interested in what school security is like in Europe and Canada. Doing a quick search on Japan, and school security is nothing like what you suggested. Nor is it in China. So I'd be curious what it's like in other developed and stable nations.

Im not against your idea of a weapons ban, fuck it. I just feel like it wont make any difference. I can walk outside right now, and within 30 minutes return with marijuana, and/or a firearm. Both are illegal (the second of which without proper documentation)

Criminals are criminals because they do not adhere to laws. Perhaps a combination of our ideas would be for the best?

Well, I'm always for safety of children, I'm just not sure how practical security officers at every entrance to a school is. Thinking of my own school, we have 9 different ways a person can enter the building. And we only serve between 800-900 students.

I just think it's hard to ignore our ridiculous homicide rate by firearm compared with almost every other peaceful and developed country and say A) we don't have a gun problem and B) gun control won't help.

 

[Stormtrooper]

Holy cow, that was one emotional speech from President Obama, as he listed off the names of the 20 children killed at the elementary school a couple of days ago, as well as earlier referring to the adults who were killed as well.

Awesome to see the the President refer to the fact that four tragedies of this type have occurred in recent times, and that it is time to take steps to prevent further tragedies of this nature in the future. I guess it is possible after all to be both respectful of the victims and mourn their loss, while discussing things from a "political" and practical standpoint. I'm sure some of our Wrestlezone members were annoyed by Obama using this time for "political" discussions.

I am yet to see the speech, but I bet he did a wonderful job, as he is an excellent orator.

And no, I have no problem with him getting back into politics. I would have had a problem if he had the political speech on Friday, but he didn't. He cried and offered sympathy while not speaking publicly about anything political.

Not true. The White House is forced to respond to it after 25,000 signatures. They don't have to go along with them, but they have to respond to it.

But more than that, the more people who sign the petition, the stronger the incentive for lawmakers to get to work on ensuring the safety of Americans.

And you know what they do when they respond? Some random staffer says no. It's not like the President Obama will look at this and study it. It will be put in a pile of all the online petitions, and eventually be looked at by an intern or something.

No measures of gun control would have prohibited yesterday, or the majority of these incidents. The only answer is not arming teachers, its contributing more money to police forces, and have a squad car on campus, or within the vicinity. Its the only way.

You have an armed individual who is certified and legit to be armed. preferabley a K-9 unit. More cops, or get National Guard units in the area to spare a soldier and a dog.

Its the most effective way. Criminals break laws, and arming EVERYONE is absurd. More cops, or employ your local military station or national guard units.

This is a completely logical plan. Although I do wonder how hard it would be to put people in virtually every school. I mean there are hundreds of thousands of schools, and some schools are huge while others are tiny.

 

[Steamboat Ricky]

They arent only for killing people, though. People go hunting. I imagine the original interpretation was for these TWO purposes as well, given the areas they had thier rise within.

Uhhhh. How often do people use handguns and semi-automatic rifles to hunt deer?

 

[Bernkastel]

1. Nothing much to be done, besides metal detectors in public places

2. They already do, all over the world. shit I DID security at one of the first continuation schools to allow girls to attend in iraq. At what point do we simply accept "it is what it is" ?

Im not against your idea of a weapons ban, fuck it. I just feel like it wont make any difference. I can walk outside right now, and within 30 minutes return with marijuana, and/or a firearm. Both are illegal (the second of which without proper documentation)

Criminals are criminals because they do not adhere to laws. Perhaps a combination of our ideas would be for the best?

If the laws cannot become stricter, then maybe the punishment for breaking them should. I was going to avoid suggesting this to prevent another shit storm but maybe the states should be persuaded to exercise the death penalty for capital level crimes involving guns.

And to avoid the obvious "what about capital murder with a firearm committed in self defense" perhaps the laws could be amended to make those crimes a lesser charge.

There's already jail and prison time along with hefty fines in effect for those that own guns illegally.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

Well, we could ban weapons which dispense death quickly and easily...

There's a difference between Iraq and the US. I'd be interested in what school security is like in Europe and Canada. Doing a quick search on Japan, and school security is nothing like what you suggested. Nor is it in China. So I'd be curious what it's like in other developed and stable nations.


Well, I'm always for safety of children, I'm just not sure how practical security officers at every entrance to a school is. Thinking of my own school, we have 9 different ways a person can enter the building. And we only serve between 800-900 students.

I just think it's hard to ignore our ridiculous homicide rate by firearm compared with almost every other peaceful and developed country and say A) we don't have a gun problem and B) gun control won't help.

Oh, you dont fucking say?

Its whatever you want to say it is, but children are being shot in schools. They die from bullets just like the kids over there do. At what point do we stop saying "well this isnt Iraq" and accept we need to do more to protect children than invisible force sheilds(laws, which people break every single day)?

(in regards to your last paragraph)If there are very strong numbers in favour of it compared to other developed, and even democratic countries,(in the way of gun control laws as opposed to homicide by firearm rates) then someone in the capital needs to tell cletus and the crew tough fucking titties, we are taking your shit. The constitution is a living document.

 

[Steamboat Ricky]

If the laws cannot become stricter, then maybe the punishment for breaking them should. I was going to avoid suggesting this to prevent another shit storm but maybe the states should be persuaded to exercise the death penalty for capital level crimes involving guns.

And to avoid the obvious "what about capital murder with a firearm committed in self defense" perhaps the laws could be amended to make those crimes a lesser charge.

There's already jail and prison time along with hefty fines in effect for those that own guns illegally.

Psychologically and existentially, I cannot imagine that a person who willing takes the life another person(s) has much regard for him or herself. It should be noted that the United States continues to contradict the trend of other civilized nations that have outlawed capital punishment. It has not served as an effective deterrent.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

Uhhhh. How often do people use handguns and semi-automatic rifles to hunt deer?

Never said they did. he said the sole intent of the creation of the gun was to kill other people, which i said was not so.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

Psychologically and existentially, I cannot imagine that a person who willing takes the life another person(s) has much regard for him or herself. It should be noted that the United States continues to contradict the trend of other civilized nations that have outlawed capital punishment. It has not served as an effective deterrent.

Also, this doesnt prevent anything from occuring. safety of the children. I could give a fuck what penalty the guy with the gun is facing, I want him to be stopped before he hurts children.

 

[Slyfox696]

And you know what they do when they respond? Some random staffer says no. It's not like the President Obama will look at this and study it. It will be put in a pile of all the online petitions, and eventually be looked at by an intern or something.

Not when it's something he wants and can use. This petition had over 130,000 signatures in only a couple of days. When he puts the pressure on Congress to do something about gun violence, as he's indicated he's planned to do, he can use such a petition to support his position.

And why wouldn't he work towards introducing legislation for something he has now claimed to support? The only reason for him to not introduce it is if someone else plans to, which the Congress woman from California has already said she's going to do with Congress resumes.

I think it's funny how you try to claim I'm not doing anything to advance the cause, and when I give you definitive proof of something to advance the cause, you're incredibly dismissive of it. Just makes me laugh.

 

[Steamboat Ricky]

Never said they did. he said the sole intent of the creation of the gun was to kill other people, which i said was not so.

See what you're saying now. However, when I read initially, I interpreted it (much like everyone does in relation to the Constitution) as him still referring to specifically A handgun or AN assault rifle.

 

[Bernkastel]

Psychologically and existentially, I cannot imagine that a person who willing takes the life another person(s) has much regard for him or herself. It should be noted that the United States continues to contradict the trend of other civilized nations that have outlawed capital punishment. It has not served as an effective deterrent.

But at the same time we the tax payers pay to keep those types of people alive whether they spend 20 years on death row or not.

Anyways even if the government were to outlaw guns completely, there would still be enough on the black market that getting one would be as easy as buying drugs. Norcal's idea makes perfect sense because we already have police stationed at most county public high schools and colleges.

 

[Slyfox696]

They arent only for killing people, though.

Yes, they are. They are manufactured for shooting people. I'm talking of handguns and assault rifles.

Never said they did. he said the sole intent of the creation of the gun was to kill other people, which i said was not so.

No, I said the sole intent of handguns and assault rifles was to shoot people. I can see where the confusion would be though.

You mean like what you have been doing (talking about Gun Control and even signing weak internet petitions that don't get taken seriously)?

It's far more likely to work than to do nothing, which is what you were advocating.

Except that's not what happened.

Oh, but it is what happened. You act upset because there's a discussion going on about the safety of children, and yet you continue to take part in said discussion because of your Internet honor.

In other words, we shouldn't be talking about the safety of children...unless it involves your Internet honor in a thread you willingly engaged in.

That's seriously fucked up. I suggest you re-check your priorities.

And what you said was for me to leave this thread while you and others post.

I said for you to follow your own advice. And you are correct, I wouldn't have badmouthed you after. I rarely talk about another person, I only address the things they say.

Oh believe me, I wasn't speaking of you. But if you didn't notice, there are numerous new posts after all of my posts telling me I'm a fucking asshole or to fuck off or what-not.

In fairness, you were saying really dumb things.

First of all, there's nothing arbitrary about giving the nation a day to reflect and grieve.

Yes, it's completely arbitrary. Why one day? Why not 3 hours? Why not 12 hours? Why not 48 hours? Why not 72 hours? Why 24 hours?

It's an arbitrary timetable.

And secondly, you also need to realize that by engaging in this debate right away, it comes off as if people were waiting for something to happen so that they can spout off about it. Why weren't you talking about it Thursday if it was such an important issue to you (and everyone).

I've been talking about it for years, Stormtrooper. I'm sure if you go back to one of the many political threads leading up to the election you can find me talking about it. I'm sure you can find numerous threads where I've mocked people in Texas for dying by the guns they swear by. I've engaged morons on the CNN boards over gun control.

I've been discussing it for a long time. And if only we had gun control, perhaps we wouldn't have to have this discussion this weekend.

Oh, you dont fucking say?

You're the one who compared them.

Its whatever you want to say it is, but children are being shot in schools. They die from bullets just like the kids over there do. At what point do we stop saying "well this isnt Iraq" and accept we need to do more to protect children than invisible force sheilds(laws, which people break every single day)?

But I'm advocating a way to help protect children from being shot. I'm not just throwing my hands up in defeat, I'm advocating a system of safety which has been taken by many developed countries around the world and has shown to be effective.

(in regards to your last paragraph)If there are very strong numbers in favour of it compared to other developed, and even democratic countries,(in the way of gun control laws as opposed to homicide by firearm rates) then someone in the capital needs to tell cletus and the crew tough fucking titties, we are taking your shit. The constitution is a living document.

I agree completely. And there is strong support for it. For example, Australia banned guns (I'm not sure if all, or just most, but they did ban them) in 1996, and as of 2007, their homicide rate is the lowest it's been in over a decade, and the percentage of homicides related to guns dropped a larger percentage than the percentage drop of homicide.

You can find statistics of gun homicide per capita all over the place. There simply is no comparable situation on gun control that doesn't suggest it works.

 

[Slyfox696]

See what you're saying now. However, when I read initially, I interpreted it (much like everyone does in relation to the Constitution) as him still referring to specifically A handgun or AN assault rifle.

That's exactly what I meant. I can see where there would be confusion though. But I meant the only purpose of handguns and assault rifles are for shooting people.

But at the same time we the tax payers pay to keep those types of people alive whether they spend 20 years on death row or not.

Capital punishment costs more money than life in prison.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

Yes, it's completely arbitrary. Why one day? Why not 3 hours? Why not 12 hours? Why not 48 hours? Why not 72 hours? Why 24 hours?

It's an arbitrary timetable.


But I'm advocating a way to help protect children from being shot. I'm not just throwing my hands up in defeat, I'm advocating a system of safety which has been taken by many developed countries around the world and has shown to be effective.


I agree completely. And there is strong support for it. For example, Australia banned guns (I'm not sure if all, or just most, but they did ban them) in 1996, and as of 2007, their homicide rate is the lowest it's been in over a decade, and the percentage of homicides related to guns dropped a larger percentage than the percentage drop of homicide.

You can find statistics of gun homicide per capita all over the place. There simply is no comparable situation on gun control that doesn't suggest it works.

Personally, I waited for a bit so everyone could get ahold of themselves, and stop saying silly, emotional, knee-jerk things. I could give two fucks about politics, or what have you. the majority of people just arent capable of logical problem solving after some crazy shit like that goes down.

similar situations, not places. Figured I had a place to do it, since I have been in both countries I wouldnt call it throwing my hands up in defeat, I would call it being realistic. I do not mean this in a crass way towards you, because I know our intentions are the same....but how many times does this need to happen before "we arent Iraq" is something we get over saying? who gives a fuck "who" or "were" we are? Kids are getting shot in schools, in what feels like a far more consistent rate since Columbine. How many need to occur, and how high do the numbers need to be to proclaim they already ARE in a militarized zone?

Also, I have to question the feasibility. The vast majority (something crazy, like 90%) of prisons are far, far overpopulated....What do we do with a gun ban? Any idea the incredible amount of people who will be going down in those first ten years? were do we put them? How do you convince people to willingly give up theirs, when there will still be so many left on the streets?

I am all for your idea, I just simply dont think its enough.... and feel like its a bit naive and sheltered to think it will be a cure-all, especially for situations like this. Will gun crime rates go way down? sure they will. and you will still have scenarios with children getting shot in schools. For whatever reason, it seems to be an american upper middle class white male cultural thing. Until we figure out why, someone needs to be there, to protect those children from those who would take advantage of their weakness. Just as I have done in other parts of the world.

We may not be those parts of the world, but bullets have the same effect no matter were you are, and no matter were you are, children should feel safe....they should be able to feel safe because they ARE safe. Protected by someone.

 

[Slyfox696]

I wouldnt call it throwing my hands up in defeat, I would call it being realistic. I do not mean this in a crass way towards you, because I know our intentions are the same....but how many times does this need to happen before "we arent Iraq" is something we get over saying? who gives a fuck "who" or "were" we are? Kids are getting shot in schools, in what feels like a far more consistent rate since Columbine. How many need to occur, and how high do the numbers need to be to proclaim they already ARE in a militarized zone?

But if we have other methods to produce the same results, without subjecting them from getting an education in a militarized zone, shouldn't we try those first?

Also, I have to question the feasibility. The vast majority (something crazy, like 90%) of prisons are far, far overpopulated....What do we do with a gun ban? Any idea the incredible amount of people who will be going down in those first ten years? were do we put them? How do you convince people to willingly give up theirs, when there will still be so many left on the streets?

You don't have to imprison those who have guns. I mentioned this earlier in the thread (and shame on you for not going through all of the posts to read it ) but a stiff fine and destruction of the gun if it's discovered would be enough.

My dad carries a gun almost everywhere he goes. If an officer spotted him with his gun, or became aware he possessed it, then my father would be issued a citation for X amount of dollars and the gun would be impounded and destroyed. My dad doesn't have to go to prison, but he's been given a stiff penalty and no longer has his gun.

As for how you convince people, you do it through a buyback program. "If you turn your gun in during the first 365 days, you receive $300 dollars. If you do it in the second 365 days, you receive $200. If you turn it in during the third year, you receive $100. If you don't turn them in by the end of the third year, you will be violation of the law and subject to fines and destruction of the firearm."

I'm sure it could never be that simple (which is a problem itself), but I imagine it would go something like that. Or maybe just a one year buyback program, like Australia did.

I am all for your idea, I just simply dont think its enough.... and feel like its a bit naive and sheltered to think it will be a cure-all, especially for situations like this.

It's not a cure all, and I've said many times in this thread it won't take the homicide rate down to 0. But it's a great start.

Will gun crime rates go way down? sure they will. and you will still have scenarios with children getting shot in schools. For whatever reason, it seems to be an american upper middle class white male cultural thing. Until we figure out why, someone needs to be there, to protect those children from those who would take advantage of their weakness. Just as I have done in other parts of the world.

We may not be those parts of the world, but bullets have the same effect no matter were you are, and no matter were you are, children should feel safe....they should be able to feel safe because they ARE safe. Protected by someone.

I think if you can drastically reduce the number of guns in circulation, children will already be much safer. There was a story out of China literally hours before this happened in which a man entered a school and stabbed 22 students. He stabbed them because he didn't have easy access to the gun...all 22 victims survived.

If we take handguns and assault rifles off the street, I believe you and I both agree the chances of further school shootings will go down drastically. But if over a period of time we're still seeing problems, then we move on to the next solution, whatever that may be.