<p>poetgrl: way back there someplace vlines gave a nice list of measures that taken together will likely reduce gun dangers. I don’t think there is one answer that will solve all gun problems but I don’t think that is a reason not to take some actions. Limiting large clips, closing the gun show loophole, limiting online sales, more full background checks and waiting periods and other things sound reasonable to me and won’t prevent the regular person from keeping their guns or owning a new one. </p>
<p>Also, in schools more attention to kids known to be having difficulty, students telling when someone posts threats, etc. </p>
<p>National conversation and awareness I think is powerful. In the Lanza case and a shooting that I remeber in Oregon in the 80s the shooter was known to be unstable and the parents provided access to firearms anyway. I have trouble saying why - seems nuts to me - but they did. Kip Kinkel’s parents were teachers even.</p>
<p>What I would like is for people to understand or admit that not all legal gun owners are responsible gun owners. Even perfectly well meaning gun owners slip up and make mistakes, get depressed, become enraged at a spouse or girl/boyfriend, get into a heated scrap at a game, become momentarily carless and leave their gun where it can be accessed by a child or stolen and sold, etc. In light of that the idea of intentionally putting more guns in and around schools strikes me as a recipe for disaster. I would say that the right of children to be safe in a gun free environment at school should supercede any right of teachers and other staff to carry a weapon.</p>
<p>On the gang violence question I don’t have an answer. I do think that buy backs are an easy measure that won’t fix the problem but at least will take some of those unwanted guns off the street. A lot of households have guns that they’ve inherited or whatnot and don’t really want but don’t know what to do with. Getting them out of circulation so they are not stolen or randomly found and accidentally fired seems like a good idea - especially when funded by private efforts like our local one which has been backed by Amazon and other local corporations.</p>
<p>I do agree, zoozermom, about measures tailored to specific schools, locations and issues. In many places it likely makes sense to have metal detectors and a closed campus to limit the day to day type stuff.</p>
<p>Saint fan, I completely agree with you. I just think it’s important to remember that no matter how we try, we will never stop the determined maniac and attempting to do that would do more harm than good.</p>
<p>half of the gun problems we have are BECAUSE of the bad drug laws we have, so that’s just even sillier than anything I’ve heard in a long time, frankly.</p>
<p>And, nobody who lives in or around Chicago has any doubt that it is the unemployment rate which has spiked the murders in our city. The best way to deter gun and drug violence, in general, is to raise employment rates and prosperity, frankly.</p>
<p>But I do like the other solutions being posted on here, and I do think we need a LOT tighter control over who is getting ahold of guns. And, if somebody doesn’t keep track of their weapon and it is used in a crime? They should be held accountable for involuntary manslaughter. Unless, of course, they’ve already reported it stolen, in which case we might want some laws about negligent gun ownership.</p>
<p>I absolutely agree with you on that zoosermom - that’s why I am dismayed about the idea of taking measures that might put kids more at risk in the interest of stopping the one random maniac who might show up. I think the arming teachers idea is a reactionary thing that is not well thought out.</p>
<p>"As I said before there are many other valid arguments pro and con, and I don’t find this line of argument very strong. "</p>
<p>I am saying that the bans dont work. We have bans on lots of things and none of them have EVER worked. All it means is they just more expensive to get a hold of. Crazies just go with an alternate plan.</p>
<p>I heard we have no illegal immigrants either but at 11 million and counting I digress.</p>
<p>I don’t think most people have talked about across the board bans on gun ownership.</p>
<p>There is talk about bans on large capacity clips and certain assault weapons. For the most part I don’t think the assault weapons issue is the same as the issue of street level criminals having handguns.</p>
<p>No and yes - but that reload/transition time is the time when those who have advocated for available armed professionals or citizens to intervene have a chance to intervene.</p>
<p>"In the months prior to the attacks, Harris and Klebold acquired two 9 mm firearms and two 12-gauge shotguns. Their friend Robyn Anderson bought a rifle and the two shotguns at the Tanner Gun Show in December 1998.[17] Through Philip Duran,[18] another friend, Harris and Klebold later bought a handgun from Mark Manes for $500.
Using instructions acquired upon the Internet, Harris and Klebold constructed a total of 99 improvised explosive devices of various designs and sizes. They sawed the barrels and butts off their shotguns to make them easier to conceal.[4] "</p>
<p>I thought people don’t break laws but - </p>
<p>“They committed numerous felony violations of state and federal law, including the National Firearms Act and the Gun Control Act of 1968, before they began the massacre.”</p>
<p>So the guns were mostly legally purchased at gun shows and given/sold to them? That seems to confim my concern that not every legal gun owner is a responsible gun owner. </p>
<p>I also reiterate my point about intervention by peers and family members when a young person is known to be unstable and seen to be posting concerning information.</p>
<p>The kinds of gun regulations that are being talked about are not like prohibition or laws banning all drugs… they are more like the FDA or reasonable alcohol rules, which do help. How many people do you know who mainly drink moonshine these days? Yes, there is a criminal element that will try to get around them - but a lot of gun crime takes place with completely legal guns - and limiting those types and the types of ammunition or sales of it would be helpful. Why should it be harder to buy Sudafed?</p>
<p>And speaking of the right to bear arms, as opposed to no right to drugs, Heller reaffirmed the right to keep and bear arms, but specifically held that certain arms may be banned, and certain restrictions may be imposed. </p>
<p>If we interpreted all of the Bill of Rights the way some people interpret the 2nd Amendment, it would in fact be legal to yell “fire!” in a crowded theater.</p>
<p>I’ve noted before the “battle” against guns has been lost: there are hundreds of millions of them in the US and they will be here. We will likely remain a violent society.</p>
<p>My problem is the NRA and its allies have continuously pushed to loosen all regulation on gun ownership. They have pushed legislation to make it much easier for people declared mentally incompetent to get the right to own guns. They have pushed legislation to allow convicted felons to get the right to own guns. In operation, these laws have allowed mentally ill, dangerous people to go to individual judges and get gun rights, even when those people are involved in disputes - like custody or divorce - or when those people have been accused of abuse and have restraining orders against them. It should be harder, not easier for these people to get guns. I can provide examples.</p>
<p>I’m also viscerally disgusted by the false Constitutional notions passed around that guns are for use against our government. The Declaration is about the separation of 2 peoples and it very specifically lays out the case for the division of America from Britain. It was not a statement of individual resistance to some personally defined tyranny. We already fought a war about this. It was the called the Civil War and it was an attempt to separate us into slavers and non-slavers.</p>
<p>I have many friends who are gun owners and they have NO problem with the idea of limits on the types or number of weapons they can own or mandatory background checks and licensing. The extremists who refuse to have a reasonable discussion–of course while waving the American flag and speaking as authorities on the Constitution–are the people who frighten me most. Many are fed by conspiracy theories on hate radio programs that make them believe they are some kind of modern-day patriots. To even believe some of what they believe demonstrates mental instability to me, yet these people have no problem acquiring weapons.</p>
<p>I’d like to see some sort of liability attached to the owner of each gun. If I have a swimming pool in my backyard and a neighbor kid gets in because it is not properly fenced, I am liable. I can be found liable if kids come to my house and drink alcohol and get into trouble when they leave. And I am certainly liable if my car is involved in an accident. What happens now, if a concealed-carry advocate is armed in a store or theater and their weapon goes off and a bullet hits someone? What happens if a child visits the house of a gun owner and somehow gets into the rifle case and shoots himself? The key word here, to me, is RESPONSIBLE.</p>
<p>This thread has exploded since yesterday, so forgive me if I’m repeating something that has already been stated.</p>
<p>I view it not so much as a gun problem, but as a gun violence problem. I don’t care much about gun ownership. I care about what happens when your gun leaves its locked gun safe, when the trigger guard is off and it is loaded.</p>
<p>I believe that solutions to our national problem of gun violence will arise as a grassroots effort, much like MADD. Gabby Giffords’ new organization might be that catalyst.</p>
<p>Mostly, i believe this is a national public health issue, and needs to be handled as such with multiple approaches like: pubic service ads, very high taxes on ammunition, bans on certain types of clips, very attractive gun buy back programs (not $100, but actual value) required waiting periods and background checks on all gun purchases, required gun safety classes and licensing similar to drivers licenses and auto registration. As a country we have the power to change the image of guns, slowly, but surely. Like cigarettes, guns should be legal and available, but unattractive and regulated enough to require thought and effort to own.</p>
<p>I’d like to think that, like drunk driving and smoking, in a generation or so our grandchildren will be as appalled at today’s culture of romantic gun worship as our kids are appalled at the romantic culture of smoking back in the early 60’s.</p>