<p>Those of us who are pro gun control are not BLAMING guns. Yes, we know it is people who kill. But in lots of these situations, such at the schools, for example, guns are a quick and easy way to kill. There are other ways but they may not be as easy to accomplish or cause as much harm so quickly in an instance. Guns serve no purpose BUT to kill or harm. That’s what they are made to do. I see no need for guns. Does not having guns get rid of crime? Does it get rid of sick people? No, but it is one less tool in their arsenal. With a gun, it would be harder for such folks to kill so many at once in these types of sieges. While you may say that you want a gun to protect yourself, all these guns are also getting into the hands of the wrong people. That needs to end. I have no need to ever ever ever possess a gun. That is not the method I would care to use for “protection”. It likely introduces even more violence in an encounter. And unless you are carrying it with you, lots of crimes against you could occur anyway when you don’t have your gun. Some guns, like assault rifles, have no use or purpose but to kill. </p>
<p>Getting rid of guns may not get rid of those who are apt to kill, but it gives them one less potent way to do it.</p>
<p>I am sitting here in tears over this latest school shooting. The horror of it. It is beyond imagining. </p>
<p>I must admit to a personal fear and distaste about guns…they scare me. But I do not see that it is reasonable to “control” access to guns by ONLY those who would use them to do harm. The people who would use guns to do bad things will still be able to get them even if strict laws were enacted to restrict their use. </p>
<p>I honestly think, as a reasonable adult, I should go and take a class in how to use a handgun responsibly. I will still not chose to have one in my home…that is my choice. But I do not think it right to limit the rights of others to choose differently.</p>
<p>How did we get so numb to kids getting shot in school? I’ll never understand why Americans feel that gun prolifieration makes us safer. I guess it’s the same mentality that believes preemptive strikes control terrorists.</p>
<p>Ever wonder why our airplanes are safer than our schools? </p>
<p>parent2noles, I’m well aware of the contents of the Constitution. My point is that, in an ideal world, people would realize that what was included as necessity two hundred years ago, should possibly be reconsidered given the state of the Union today. To claim that if guns were not available that the next “instrument of aggression” would be, is disingenuous. The proliferation of guns in the U.S. is an abominable situation which no one wants to address. I’m not naive enough to believe that any politician would be brave, or intelligent, or realistic, enough to address the issue as I posed in my initial post. None will do it because they realize that it is not politically expedient. However, the problem still exists and will continue to exist. Tens of thousands of Americans will be killed every year as a result because guns are easy, both to obtain and to use. The antiquated right to bear arms does nothing to make me feel more safe. Unfortunately, it causes me, and most people I know, to live with a sense of dread about the myriad of horrific possibilities, as has been evidenced in the news in the past few weeks.</p>
<p>Please don’t feel the need to patronize me with your comment about Canadians and their inability to understand the significance of being able to own an object whose sole purpose is to kill and maim. I was born and raised in the U.S., and have spent my adult life living between the two countries. Canadians fully understand the significance of that aspect of the U.S. Constitution and they also fully understand the havoc which it has wrought in today’s world. Your comparison of the situations in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union to that of the U.S. is as accurate as your earlier analogy about people injuring others while driving cars. I’m no fan of the politicos in Washington but even I cannot imagine that the only reason that they aren’t leading the “common people to the slaughter” is the proliferation of guns. You can’t seriously believe that.</p>
Here in PA, some school districts (in some areas of the state where hunting is popular) do close for the first day of doe season and/or the first day of buck season. Presumably that is because many hunters take their kids out of school for those occasions to take them along. Since attendance would be relatively low, the districts make those days a holiday. Since there is a mandated 180-day school year, those districts have to make those days up in other ways (starting a bit early perhaps).</p>
<p>But that is **by no means typical **of the school districts in PA. Where I am in suburban Philadelphia it is certainly not the case.</p>
<p>I live where deer season is VERY popular but schools NEVER EVER close for it. Most of the killings of innocent humans which I read about are not done with hunting rifles. Rather, pistols, shotguns and assault rifles are used, which seem to have only one purpose, to kill humans.</p>
<p>I am OK with there being some guns available (for hunters, etc.) as long as there is a thorough screening/licensing/control process. </p>
<p>But I would like to cut down on the possibility of anyone walking into any building with a gun, which makes for a very challenging situation to subdue. </p>
<p>The latest instance, in Amish country, is especially poignant because those people are so very peaceable.</p>
<p>In the school shooting at the Amish school in PA, I think the total outcome of deaths would have been different had this man not had any guns but had only had knives. When someone yields a knife, he may be able to kill or harm one person but others can escape during that time, whereas that is hard to do when the person has a gun and can shoot several in succession, bang, bang, bang. Also, it is harder to run away from the situation when the person is yielding a gun. Even in Colorado in the latest shooting, when the SWAT team entered, the perpertrator shot a girl who was running away and he’d have had a harder time in that instance before he was shot by the SWAT team to have killed somone, had he not had a gun.</p>
<p>“Guns serve no purpose BUT to kill or harm. That’s what they are made to do.”</p>
<p>I guess that will be big news to every target shooter in the world.</p>
<p>We better outlaw diesel fuel and fertilizer while we are at it.</p>
<p>I own seven shotguns. They are under lock and key 24/7/365. They are taken out only (i) when I clean them, (ii) I go out to shoot trap or sporting clays or (iii) on the extremely rare occassion when I go bird hunting.</p>
<p>Good thing I don’t have to worry about my kids hanging out over at UMDad’s house. </p>
<p>A friend of mine’s friend’s son is being charged with first degree murder for taking his dad’s shotgun (obstensibly under lock and key as well) and killing a young man. The shooter was 18, the one murdered a 21 yr old college student. A complete tragedy for everyone involved.</p>
<p>I don’t own a gun and would never care to, but there will be a large, thriving black market for guns if there was a total ban. You will never keep a gun out of the hands of someone determined to have one.</p>
<p>I went to school both in CA and PA and the biggest difference structurally is that most schools out here in CA tend to be spread out over several buidlings. You could try to channel everyone to come in one enterence and run them through a metal detector but anyone could sneak in somewhere else if they really wanted to. Some of the grounds of tthe schools are so expansive that a single guard could miss an invader until it was too late.</p>
<p>School shootings shock and sadden us all and rightly so. But even with the recent rash of shootings, they are extremely rare events. Schools should probably take more measures thant they do now, but there is some limit to how much time and expense you can put in to reduce the probability of an already rare event. But no matter what you do, you will never totally eliminate the possibility.</p>
<p>I personally hate guns. I never bought a gun, because I used to drink heavily, and I know that would be a recipe for disaster. This being said more guns is actually the answer. Arm the public more than the criminals. I mean COME ON! Anyone who thinks that if more gun control is put upon the law abiding citizenry of this country is the answer is a complete loser dork idiot. Criminals are going to get whatever guns they want, and they are going to eff the law. School shootings are just a part of life in a country such as this, so the best remedy is to just not give them that much press so people don’t committ copycat crimes.</p>
<p>I’m a conservative who supports the right to bear arms but, interestingly, I’ve never even seen an actual gun. Weird, huh?</p>
<p>Anyway, we’ve had a bunch (I hesitate to use the word rash!) of shootings in NYC in recent years by active or retired police officers who had their guns legally.</p>
<p>In 56 years, I’ve never seen a “well-organized militia”. (Neither has the National Rifle Association, which is why they haven’t been willing to bring a single case against gun control to the Supreme Court in 25 years.)</p>
<p>Okay, I am going to ask a couple of tough questions- and it is more for internal thought than public discourse because it is touchy, talks about a faith, and what would you do:</p>
<p>The parents refused to fly to see their critically wounded children in far away hospitals- instead wanting to travel by van- taking much longer -</p>
<p>what would be more important- being by your dying and hurt childs side, or standing by tradition and your religion</p>
<p>not having a phone in the school for emergencies- injuries, etc in keeping with tradition</p>
<p>and if you were an adult on that room, or the teacher, would you have left that room, if others had been let out already to contact police</p>
<p>not sure what I would do, jsut food for thought</p>
<p>I am not judging any adult who left- most had babies or were pregnant, but I am just wondering whay I would have done…probably they were given no option…but even so, would I have tried to stay- refusing to leave the children…or would I have walked out of the school house…its one of those lose lose questions, but I honestly am not sure what I would do</p>
<p>citygirlsmom…I’m not sure it matters what you or I would do in such a situation. Religious beliefs are strong convictions. </p>
<p>As far as leaving the room, the teacher did leave to get help which is likely the best course of action because she could not get the necessary assistance by staying and had no phone. The guy was armed so she couldn’t prevent much by staying, other than support for the kids. Seems like the perpertrator wanted the adults to go. If they defied him, maybe they’d have been shot too. </p>
<p>As a parent, sure, I’d want to get to the hospital the quickest way I could. But if someone’s religion doesn’t involve flying, I’m not sure they are going to change that to get there quicker. It is not quite the same as religious convictions that impact saving a child’s life (there are many stories of those…ie, no blood transfusions and other procedures a religion may be against that are potentially life saving). These families were comfortable with their choices to not fly, even though you and I would not be. Thank God, I have never had a child shot in the head and possibly dying. I did have a child very seriously injured when I was out of town driving home 3 hours away (happened while I was enroute) and you do what you gotta do. That drive I made was nothing I wish on anyone. My D ended up in intensive care. I wish I were there right away in the ER but I called her boyfriend’s mother (my hubby could not be reached) to go to the hospital so she’d know someone was there even though she was not allowed in the ER room. </p>
<p>Again, this really isn’t between what you or I would do compared to these Amish folks in this very horrific tragic situation. They are operating under strongly held convictions and so are not on the same wavelength as you or I in such a situation. I respect their choices even though they would not be mine!</p>
<p>I guess I have some problems with the teacher leaving. As well, I have done some research on the Amish recently, and some of their practices, in the name of religion, bother me. Not the no electrcity part, or any of that, but stuff that is much more deeply rooted, as been brought out by some court cases.</p>
<p>I guess to me, my child is more important than any tradition…and being with her, I would risk God’s might or whatever…</p>