moosetracker

Sorry too early, I wanted to type assault weapon; don't know why I put automatic. "JUST" fixing mentally ill will not fix the problem either. Many of these acts may be considered insane acts, but not everyone who enacts them have been diagnosed as dangerously mentally ill. They have been considered normal until they carry out the act, then they are looked as as having to have some mental problems.. Also many people may have had something needing some treatment, but is not dangerously ill. I am sure there are attempts with not so good results, but there are countries that have passed laws and have had good results. It's a matter of finding the right balance. It will not eliminate "ALL" nothing will eliminate "ALL" it is a matter of seeing gun violence drop. So even after you enact laws, you will always have you example here and there of something that happened even with the laws in effect. The proof will be in seeing if the rate of gun deaths start to decrease.. Example: Australia still have 10% of their population owning guns, but after a violent tragic shooting that killed 35 and wounded 25 they enacted gun controls, 6 years later they were still not happy and made a few more changes, but now they show a decrease. I am sure looking you can still find gun deaths in Australia; the point is they show a decrease. Also Switzerland has recently cut their gun deaths in half recently through gun control. But I think their new laws are stricter then what we would want to do in the USA. Still it is and example that gun controls work. It though does prove someone has achieved good success with tighter controls. Which gun advocates argue would make things worse because only bad guys will have guns. England & Canada gun control success is debatable; some say good, some say not yet working. If it is not yet working, that some can argue it doesn't work so kill it, but others of us can just argue that like Australia they may need to tweak or tighten them a little more. Anyway, although we don't have good proof in the USA on gun control, since anything we try to enact immediately gets whittled away at until it is useless; there is proof of success in other countries.

"There is the unrealistic expectation that we disarm everyone and remove guns from society." Only the gun folks talk about this. Why is that? FScouter I know this is aimed at the comment SR540Beaver wrote.. But I will play Arnold Horshack and answer it.. "OHHH.. OHHH.. OHHH.. OHHH.." Perhaps only the "gun folks" are talking about it, because it is a false fear tactic created by the NRA in order to get you guys all atwitter about reasonable limitations on automatic weapons. Reasonable people are not buying into this nonsense created by the NRA. No one is talking about removing guns that are reasonable for hunting and protection. Also reasonable rules used to track who is the owner of the guns is not unreasonable rules either.

LOL Beavah!

Eagle your the one who stated DT (Deputy Tom), he might just be the only positive adult male role model some of the kids have For any kid to find a guard at the door as the ONLY positive adult male role model, that means rotten parents & rotten teachers.. Now if he was ONE OF his positive adult male role models, that would just mean he is a good role model.

Yeah Basement, makes you wonder. A mental health registry may help with people who get cataloged with mental problems before they try to buy weapons, but little to help if they buy a bunch of weapons before they get on the mentally ill alert list. No way to check now what this insane person has, or the relatives with whom he is living with either. Eagle732 perhaps some of the kids in your school were cursed with rotten parents, but it's a shame your school has such rotten teachers that none of the teachers are good role models for these kids.. Still you may have the type of officer Clinton had in mind for his COPS program. Someone who was only partially there for security, but was also there for for a neighborhood outreach program. LaPierre mentioned no outreach program in his initial speech, perhaps he has added this piece to it later on? His initial image is of a stormtrooper scary guy in full garb whose intent is to scare the bad guy into not even thinking this is a good castle to storm.

My mother worked as a social worker for the mentally ill. during the late 70's and 80's they were already letting them out on the street. Some I do think were fine to be out with medicine, but there were some real scary ones yelling on street corners and standing in the middle of the road. Since she retired in the 90's and I no longer live in a city that had a huge state hospital where when they were let out, they all stayed right in that city, I don't know how bad things have gotten. I would imagine unless your criminally insane, your an outpatient now. For a while the release of the insane from the large state insane state hospital in my hometown, caused a mass exodous of everyone in the city. It was joked last one out turn out the lights. In recent visits, the insane did not stay so clustered and moved on and the city returned to being healthy. We do have the building of a large state mental institution in Concord NH. But I am not sure any of the buildings are used for that purpose anymore, so Concord, might have had the "release of the insane" problem itself in the 70's and 80's. There definatly was abuse though, my mother when she worked there looked for people who should not have been hospitalized, to help them. Earlier in her life, my father had her locked up simply because she was emotional over him wanting to divorce her. My Aunt had to come from out of state to pull her out, not before she had some barbaric treatments done though. That experience made her get her Masters in the field and work her entire life at a State hospital in an attempt to watch for and protect the mentally insane. She ended up being promoted up to the Head of the Department.

I think the idea is : Clintons idea = good NRA's idea = bad Neglect to tell you that from their perspective it was Clintons idea = bad NRA's idea = good They also neglect to tell you about the other things happening to balance the attempt, that Clinton did not propose that armed guards alone were the answer to everything. And was all for anything goes in the way of what weapons you wanted to arm yourself with. Also if someone plans to offer a service it is pretty common sense they will organize the service, hire the employees and train them to implement the service, but if you want their service they will charge you for it. This is all the NRA is proposing, they will plan the "National Director of the National School Shield Program", hire and train those who will offer the service.. Eagle thinks they will offer the service to everyone who wants it for free.. I say "NOT".. They are just saying they are willing to make a profit off this tragedy with a new service idea.. How benevolent of them.

As stated if the NRA wants to pay for this whole thing with THEIR MONEY, then fine. Even your statement is about the organizing of the plan and the hiring of people by the NRA as their Trainers. But, if you wish to take the course, with their NRA newly trained trainer, I think they plan to charge those people for it. I thought it was just a plan on paper. It is not. You interpret it one way, others are not. I doubt the Federal Government will put this cost in their budgets seeing they don't have the money for it, but if individual communities decide to pay for it, we will see what is free and what is charged. Either way sorry this is not a one solution solves all. Because it will not solve the gunmen in all the other public places, not even as a temporary immediate solution, until the other solutions have a time to be able to kick in. It is not a balanced approach. A balanced approach is looking at EVERYTHING related to gun violence including the *gasp* guns and ammo *gasp*.. It is also limiting the type of violence in games and in movies. It is also other ideas like the idea to slowly start building schools with thoughts of what would make it harder for a massacre to happen. It is finding ways to change the perception on society that you do not need to walk around with a gun in order to blow the head off of whoever chooses to piss you off. I thought we were suppose to consider all ideas in solving this problem. Here's a group putting their money where their mouth is and your complaining. So does this mean if I am open to NRA spending whatever they want as long it doesn't cost the taxpayer (or at least the taxpayer who doesn't own weapons) any thing for it. Are you willing to look at limiting guns and ammo to what is resonable, and changing the social perception about guns through the media, games, and other things found to make guns less attractive, so that in 10 to 15 years the armed guards can be removed from our schools..

Eagle732 - First off Clintons COPS in schools was not an armed guard program, They may have been partially for security, but equally as a community outreach program, they were to serve as coaches and mentors.. Also this was not Clintons sole response to the issue of guns. Clinton he also promoted and signed, two major pieces of gun control legislation, the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban. So his attitude was not simple the answer to the gun problem is more guns.. Perhaps you forget who thought the Clinton program was a bad idea, who thought it would add to a police state and during the Bush administration who defunded it.. I missed this until just now. I knew that NRA was being a little thick-headed about the fact the government doesn't have money sticking out of their ears to add on a new program. Although it registered the sale of new guns would benefit their main benefactors gun manufactures, that I did not miss. But, I missed the fact that there proposed "National School Shield Emergency Response Program" wasn't just an "on-paper" here is what to do. But more of a pay us lots of money from your oh so wealth of tax dollars, and we will be happy to train all these new school cops. Using a tragedy for profit just went up about 3 notches for them.

Venividi - you forget hijacking a loaded school bus enroute to the school, perhap at one of it's last few stops. That should take out 20 or more kids. Perhaps police on every bus is in order, or lets arm the bus driver. I am sure after years of driving with loud obnoxious kids all of them are still sane and reasonable enough to carry a gun with them.

Sure, in Florida you can carry and if you think you are threatened you can shoot to kill, ask questions later.. Some states only allow you the right to stand your ground on your property, others (like florida) where ever you want, if you see someone you don't like then shoot to kill, make up something later about what you thought that made you feel threatened. NH has a right to carry, NH has stand your Ground law, also in public places. It was passed even though Gov. Lynch vetoed it. So some Democrats had to vote for it also, but we were a Republican majority, these last 2 years but not a super majority. Hopefully with a Democratic majority and a Democratic Govenor and all the bad results from other states, it can be revisited. I don't think talking about the right to Carry law and adding to it that not only do I know we have a Right to carry, but we have a right to Carry plus a right to shoot and kill anyone if we "think" it is necessary, with the "Stand your ground" law that we also have, is wandering. I am stating matter of factly that "YES" I do know what the NH laws are which pertain to gun laws. I also know how they came to be part of NH law. And "NO" I am not happy about those laws, and don't see them as being the reason why NH has less crimes.. In fact since we have had an uptick in crime in recent years, hmmm... Maybe it is not because our big cities are becomeing larger, perhaps it has to do with our gun laws..

Sure I do. We could get as screwed up as Florida, is with their "Stand your ground" law where someone shoots some and says "I thought I saw ______" so they can use the SYG" and get off.. I hope not, but it could happen.. So far we haven't started to push that every citizen should be armed "Just in case". But, we might. It's there, it's not glorified. Our state is getting more crime ridden. But, it is just slower in obtaining the crime of other states due to it's lack of concentrated population. Our biggest cities would be a sleepy town to other states. My town isn't even Mayberry, it doesn't have a downtown area with a barber and a little shopping hub.. school, library, school, out of the town center. Again, not my Utopia. Since our house will swing from Republican to Democrat at the beginning of the year, perhaps some of those laws will be revisited. I don't think we will ever be too tight, but with what is happening with the SYG in Florida, any reasonable state that enacted it should revisit that one. I have heard people can carry a gun into a bank as long as it is not concealed, that one seems a wee bit much also.. One can hope, for some common sense in the near future.(This message has been edited by moosetracker)

So are you stating your armed guards will never take a lunch break, or need to use the bathroom, or after two to five years of day after day, doing nothing because no armed nuthead has come in, didn't get bored and take a nap, or just read a magazine, or start to daydream. Who does have the conceled weapons, the teacher -or- perhaps the 16 year old drug dealer student? Perhaps the student who needs the weapon can just knock the teacher with the weapon out and take his gun. I mean normally a conceled weapon is spotted pretty easily. Maybe it will just be alot of good kids, but many without very good decision making skills, and a thrill of risk taking. If guns are acceptable in school, a rule about who can and can not have them is worthless. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander. It will take on about as worthless a meaning as schools who have cell phone bans. Either way conceled weapon or not, doesn't slow all of them. The excitement of an actual gun battle is just more challenging and exciting. Especially if they are planning to not live through the event.

I don't want to see this in NH. It is your viewpoint that to solve the problem of gun violence the answer is to have more people with more guns. Your Utopia, not mine. Our laws are loose here, more loose then I would like. But, we do have gun free zones, and we haven't gotten into the mindset that everyone needs a gun to protect themselves from everyone else, because everyone has a gun. We have had some shootouts here, a couple in my neighborhood, although I live is a bedroom community. Seems like a great place for drug dealing and money laundering and we have had old fashion car chases with shooting out of the car windows.. We have had two murder/suicides with guns in the neighborhood, one where the children just got to watch the husband kill the wife, then himself. The other where the whole family wife/children & husband died. Luckily no school shootouts in my community yet. Otherwise aside from schools, there really is no public place to have a mass murder. Maybe at our 4th of July parade or a church. But we have no stores (except a small country store) or restaurants (except a takeout pizza palor & a dunkin donuts) no movie theaters, not even a pool hall.

I heard the NRA speech.. That is what has been commented on. Here is what I said was the most stupid about his comments "with all the money in the Federal Budget, can't we afford to put a police officer in every single school?".. I guess like the names he gave the video and movies that were 10 to 20 years old, he is also out of step with the government and the Fiscal cliff talks, in which his side is the one claiming no new taxes, just cut all the programs.. As I stated if the NRA would like us to tax the gun owners for the guards at schools, sure we can do that, for what little good it will do. We can tax the sale of guns & ammo, and maybe tax you during your time at a shooting range.. All I am stating is that it is not a great "solve-all" solution. Because it didn't work at Columbine, nor at Gabby Giffords shooting, nor when Reagan was shot, nor when Robert F Kennedy or JFK were shot, nor at many bank robberies when armed guards were posted in the lobbies at all the banks. Also posting guards at schools will not help at shootings in malls, movie theaters, hospitals or resturants.. And having everyone walk around with a gun strapped to a hip holster, just means there will be more shootings during road rage, when parents get mad at their sons little league coaches, during arguments over favorite baseball or football teams at a bar also at a bar you can have that arguement over who goes home with the girl shootouts. It also would glorify the gun more, which I thought was LaPierres statement. Stop glorifing the guns in movies and games.. Well having it become the the proof of adulthood (if you make it to adulthood) is that you can also strap on a gun and shoot whomever you choose, would not help end the glorification of the gun. But sure tax the gun owners to the hilt, and post your guard in the school.. Like cigerettes those who don't own a gun aren't the problem, so should not be taxed to fix the problem that the guns have caused. It is not the solve everything solution. So the other solutions have to be added to it. Change societies veiw of the gun, change the way buildings are built to reduce the ability for gun violence, and yes limit what types of gun and ammo may be purchased. The statement I got was all the guns and ammo's were legally purchased by the mother in the Sandy Hook incident. So if Conneticut has a ban on the gun, then somehow there is a loophole in the law, or the women could not have legally purchased them.

If the laws had been kept in place after the assult weapon ban was enacted in the Brady bill, rather then Republicans making sure it died out. Then he may have had a normal gun or a rifle. But he would not have had an assult rifle with a 30 round clip and enough surplus ammo to take out the entire school population. The mother bought those legally and recently, she did not purchase them on the black market.(This message has been edited by moosetracker)

In the past all banks had an armed guard. I thought it was just my suburba that no longer has guards, but I heard not even big cities have them. Why? It didn't really do much to prevent the crime. It was just the target of who to take out first. They did get the servalence and better safes, that do about as much preventative as the guards did. Yeah, arming teachers not so good. Thinking of my son's teachers (and some of my past teachers) some may have been fine, but at the elementary level you can find some of the most meekest, mildest timid people I ever met. Others are pretty insane. You kindof need insanity to work with some of the middle school, high school set. A few definately could turn their gun on their own students if provoked enough. There would definately more of an uptick in highschool student shootings, if you have their teachers walking around with a loaded gun strapped to their hip.

Maybe not in so many words, but many are defending the speech given by the NRA spokesperson, who said that guns are not the problem except for the fact there are not enough gun packing citizens running around. All the problems come from the movies, games, mental illness etc. so the limitations should be on those and not guns. If you are going to argue in support of his views, then that is what you are arguing. We did little to restrict cigarettes, except put an age limit on them and a hefty tax, and courts allowed users of cigarettes to sue and win sometimes, limiting where you can smoke. With more & more bans. My work went from smoking anywhere, to a smoking room, to 2 specific places outside, to not on the premise at all, not even in your own car in the parking lot. Restaurants went from smoke anywhere, to smoking section, to smoke free. But, you can still sell cigarettes. Social acceptance went down with it.NRA would not like us to kill social acceptance for guns in the same manner as they did with cigarettes. Instead we have the gun lobbyist wanting to not allow people to be able to post "no hunting" signs on their own private property, want no gun free zones and in fact want an armed guard at all schools or for every teacher and the principle to be carrying, have worked hard to lift any restrictions we use to have on guns, or find new loopholes around the laws created and work to not allow those new loopholes to be filled. If you look at Florida you can find a lot of problems with this "stand your ground" law that encourages guns. I don't know what will become of the Travon Martin case, but this new one where a guy shot into a car full of kids and killed one then took off later to return with a story he thought he saw the glint of a gun in the car, so shot, so he is protected by "Stand your ground". If that guy gets off, then there is no laws in Florida to save anyone from being shoot for looking cross-eyed. Because no gun was found on the kids, and no one shot back at this guy when he started shooting at him.. "I thought I saw something, so I shot without confirmation and ran" will be anyones excuse to shoot anyone they want.

The only person going down the slippery slope of "What if--" are those who don't want any restrictions on gun ownership at all. I can tell you the same type of slippery slope "What if--" scenarios HAVE and still ARE being waged over the right of free speech, arguing that free speech means you can say anything, anywhere to anyone with no repercussions.. Still we can get some commonsense laws passed, and people have been sued if they are irresponsible, yet free speech rarely kills more than one or a few over suicide or being trampled at a movie theater. We have had rules limiting free speech for a long time now (maybe Beavah can place the first limitation law), Yet no one has totally banned our free speech rights. I do like the ideas on the redesign of school buildings.. Those would be great to add into a totally balanced and reasonable package deal.

Ok.. Legislation, legislature.. ya got me.. But turtleneck??? I was more thinking for the 1,000 round drum you might need to do weights or your rifle may need to have wheels for the weight of it.. But, I don't get the turtleneck reference.

Sorry, but requirements for being a teacher or principle being a sharp shooter will not work. Everyone does not have the care, interest or desire to spend their weekends at a gun range. If they don't practice, or no matter how much practice can't hit the side of a barn, or are great at teaching kindergardeners, but don't have enough bravery to stand up to a full armored mad man with a automatic rifle with a 100 round drum (or who knows in a few years it may be a 1,000 round drum) with a normal six bullet revolver. Legislature will never solve ALL.. It just reduces. And yes, it should not all be about gun legislature, but also legislature that changes the social perspective that has desensitised how we look at murder and mayham (movies & games). Same as cigerettes commercials had to change the image that cigerettes were cool or said you were an adult. Have you ever looked at older shows, and noticed those who smoked in them? Now movies rarely has someone be a smoker unless they are the bad guy, or the show hits upon lung cancer. Sure social media can help form social perspective. But, they don't kill the guns do.. Same as cigerettes kill, not the commercial about them. Drunk driving laws and re-educating the public, does not eliminate ALL drunk drivers, but it has reduced the problem. Sure a knife could kill, but you can't stab 50 people in a movie theater before someone tackles you. Sure you could kill with a bomb, but that takes alot more thought and planning then picking up a gun. I would expect legislature on bombs if they were sold like candy as guns are, and we saw an uptick in bombings because of it. Free speech comes with limits. You can't yell "Fire" in a crowded theater, or write lies about someone that ruins their reputation without being sued.. Right to bare arms should come with limits. Also glad to know you don't consider yourself cheap. Perhaps those with guns can start paying high taxes on their purchases of guns and ammo to pay for either extra patrolmen where needed, and to help pay for the hospital/burial costs of the lives lost by guns.. Similar to the cigarette taxes.(This message has been edited by moosetracker)

I loved the part where LaPierre states "with all the money in the Federal Budget, can't we afford to put a police officer in every single school?" What? I thought NRA was backed by Republicans, you know those guys spouting that revenue is not the problem, it is the spending that is the problem.. Estimated cost is 6.7 billion per year to have an armed guard at each school. But, then Romney wanted to spend an extra 2 trillion in the military, so I guess there is no spending problem when it comes to weapons and military stuff. After all both wars were put on a credit card. Then armed guards didn't save anyone with Gabby Gifford, the armed good guy couldn't get a clean shot of with all the panic and mayham of the crowds. It also didn't help at Columbine, as the armed guard wasn't in the right place in the school at the right time. Some are saying Principle should be armed, or all the teachers. Well that's alot of weapons to fall into the wrong hands of kids. So, we have them locked up? Now we have to get to where they are locked up, and get them out.. How much time would that take? Does it help if you are out in the hallway, when the gunman comes down the hall, and your gun is in the classroom? "Excuse me, Mr. Gunman, can you hold your shooting until I get my gun? thank you very much.." Other then that, I just think that one idiot who is stupid enough to think they can take out a maniac with full armor protection and an automatic weapon, with a handgun and a few weekend shooting practice 2 or 3 years back, might be just as dangerous as the maniac, or just as dead as the rest of the victims, take your pick. I liked the guy who was asked if we should arm the kids.. "Oh no, not if their under age.. But, yes all college students should be armed.." Wild Wild West here we come, don't go out without you six guns strapped on.

Sentinel - when they read the victims names there are pictures of some, an no pictures of other, one had a small video of her singing with her brother. I am not sure why, but my take on it was that some families want to grieve privately and have chosen not to give the media a picture to try to keep it private. If that is the case, then thankfully the media may be listening to them, as I am sure a very ambitious reporter could scrounge up a picture from someone in the community who has done some sort of school or after school activity with them. But with each child, there is a small item of the childs personality or what they enjoyed. Alot of the teachers and principle was describe as heros, the principle and school conselor both ran into the gunfire and tried to wrestle the shooter to disarm him, they both lost their lives. One teacher was sheilding the children and lost her life. Another hid the children in a coat room, but she stayed outside and she was killed but the children saved.. I am not good at remembering the names, but the small acts of heroism I can remember and retell. packsaddle I grieve others too, who have not captured the news front. You are right, murders of one person may not make the local news, definatly don't make national news unless there is some big issue like Travon Martin, and his took a month or more before it caught national attention.. This weekend, there were two other people who opened fire in public places, they also killed several people and they might have gotten a little more attention if it was not during the time of this schools violence. One was in a Mall in Portland Oregon killed 2. Another was at a hospital 3 were wounded, but no one but the shooter was killed. OGE we do have tough drunk driver laws. Anything could be tougher, but I think they are tough. Sure it doesn't totally prevent it, but I do believe it would be worse if we just shrugged our shoulders and did nothing as we did in the 50's and 60's. More bars know to cut people off, more people know to have a designated driver. More people know to have guest from a party stay the night rather then have them drive home.. Putting in Gun laws to limit automatic weapons and tighten background checks, along with other legislature to try to curb societies thoughts on the subject through movies, video games, changes to mental illness etc.. Will also not curb all the violence. But if it cuts it in half, that is better then doing nothing.(This message has been edited by moosetracker)

Whether we hope that these families will find a way to carry on in some way after their loved ones were ripped from them or not wish them well at all, we will all in a week or month carry on and only remember them again when a similar tragedy strikes, or someone does a news peice on them.. Sometimes you do see a news piece on a family member of a murder victim finding a way to channel their grief. As long as it is healthy and not an obsession that in it's own way is not healthy, this is how many do pick themselves up. Or they do it, because they are parents of other children who need their parents, and they find a way to pick themselves up and carry on for the sake of having their other children grow up happy and healthy. I don't see the logic that with you holding out and not wishing them well, that this will somehow translate in your being able to not have your own lives push in and have this tragedy get pushed to the back of your mind.. It will do that either way, unless you have been directly effected by it.

Pappadaddy - Why not both? Just because you are angered over this tragedy, and possibly want to vent your anger at God or others.. Why would you not wish those who lost loved ones some way to find peace and comfort, whether that be embraced by others who love them, by finding a way to channel their grief with a purpose in memory of thier child, or even if for them that comfort comes from their deeply held religion and a belief that their children are now in heaven, and they will someday be united with them..