<p>“gain infamy” thats how you look at it. The killer wants to be “FAMOUS” and have a movie made in typical hollywood fashion.</p>
<p>These nuts are talking to their psychiatrists or whoever else. The current laws about patient confidentiality don’t seem to help anyone either when they eventually go on a killing spree but psychiatrists are not telling police that there may be a risk.</p>
<p>There are religions that avoid pronouncing and writing the four letter Name of God except in prayer or research. I think the reverse for mass murders has at least as much relevance. It is a small way one can honor the victims.</p>
<p>“The killer wants to be “FAMOUS” and have a movie made in typical hollywood fashion.”</p>
<p>Did you get this fact from the same place you got that Texas has FAR LESS gun crime than states with with strict gun control laws?</p>
<p>No - same place as whereever yourfamous quotes come from - my right pocket.</p>
<p>If you tell me one mass murderer about whom a movie was not made, I will put it back in my pocket.</p>
<p>07DAD already proved me right. so back off.</p>
<p>A bit of confirmation re: what we’ve been talking about …</p>
<p>[The</a> Solution To Guns Must Come At The State Level-Not By Executive Order - Forbes](<a href=“http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/01/14/the-solution-to-guns-must-come-at-the-state-level-not-by-executive-order/]The”>The Solution To Guns Must Come At The State Level-Not By Executive Order)</p>
<p>This is easily the best idea I have heard since the horrific shooting. Having an armed guard(my junior high and high school had one) is a good step, but still very ineffective because they can only be in one place. Training the teachers and having a gun either carried on them, or in a safe, puts a defense system all over the school. This of course can’t stop a killer from his first few shots, but if they decide to roam around for an extended period, than there would be plenty of opportunities for the armed teachers to stop the assault. Unfortunately, this wouldn’t stop mass shootings, but would probably just move them to places like parades and malls, instead of schools. </p>
<p>It’s unfortunate that the man who talked with Piers Morgan went nuts and acted like a tool, because he had the majority of the statistics on his side. British homicide is way down since the gun ban, but their’ violent crime is up. But if you compare New York and D.C. to large cities in Texas, the very pro-gun Texas has a much lower homicide rate. The stats aren’t so clear cut either way, but there is more evidence over all for guns than against them.</p>
<p>Students getting into the guns is not an issue at all. Concealed carry weapons are in your’ grocery stores and nobody can even see them on people. The gun safes have codes that can’t be broken into without heavy duty power tools. Every institution in the world arms themselves if they are at high risk for being attacked. Casino’s, embassies, capitol buildings, banks, and more, all use this to not only defend against an attack, but just having a defense DETERS many attackers. The teachers would absolutely HAVE to be trained VERY WELL in gun safety.</p>
<p>NewHope,</p>
<p>Thanks for that article. It reports that currently only 38% of Americans support tougher gun laws.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What, do students only attend schools? Do they not attend other places where lots of people congregate – park districts, athletic fields, movies, playgrounds, etc.? This whole concept of “we’ll do nothing about guns, but we’ll arm the teachers / schools” is asinine. How about making society safer by acting civilized for once – where the only people who carry guns are cops, security guards and the like? </p>
<p>I’m not interested in replicating bubba culture in my nice suburban neighborhood by having the teachers carry guns. If I wanted to live in that culture, I’d move down there, but I don’t. I don’t think you guys understand how repulsive walking around carrying a gun is. Or maybe you just don’t care.</p>
<p>“It’s unfortunate that the man who talked with Piers Morgan went nuts and acted like a tool …”</p>
<p>Well, it’s unfortunate that the man essentially asserted that his rights to own guns supercedes my rights not to be shot with said guns. (Or in paranoid-speak, unfettered access to guns prevents tyranny by governments, and if a few dozen 1st graders get slaughtered in their classrooms … well that’s just a cost of maintaining freedom.)</p>
<p>I’d have respected the guy more if he said “It’s a complex issue, and gun-owners are committed to helping in any way we can … even if that means a temporary suspension of assault weapon sales.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh good grief. No one is objecting to security guards at banks, casinos, embassies and so forth having guns in the course of their JOBS where they are explicitly protecting buildings, assets, or people, and are trained to do so, and can reasonably expect that there might be an “attack” of sorts. We’re talking about having everyday people walk around with guns like some godawful old cowboy movie.</p>
<p>Bay - I thought gun supporters were the fringe element of the society and everyone else is an expert on why people should not have guns. I will put it back in my right pocket.</p>
<p>“How about making society safer by acting civilized for once – where the only people who carry guns are cops, security guards and the like?”</p>
<p>smh…</p>
<p>The founding fathers are currently rolling over in their graves.</p>
<p>That is all…</p>
<p>Good article. I think that the guy writing it made a lot of sense. Do the laws state by state . Of course, he couldn’t escape the northeast coast arrogance of knowing what’s good for everyone and how the laws will “show everyone there’s a better way.” But, I think that those places with dense urban centers really need a whole bunch of different gun control than the places where, for example, there’s no such thing as rush hour.</p>
<p>Either way, state by state is a good start. Now, if we could just get the darn thugs to obey the gun laws in Chicago, we’d all be a lot safer.</p>
<p>pizzagirl–</p>
<p>Israel has armed civilians all over the place. As I was told, once you get a permit it is up to the person how to carry (conclealed, not concealed, etc.). I have not verified this, but I was informed that with a permit you can go everywhere armed, school, government building and synagogue.</p>
<p>How is being armed repulsive? According to my previous posts, 40 states have open carry and several have nearly no restrictions. As I mentioned–surprise, surprise – Texas and Oklahoma are 2 states that do not yet have laws allowing open carry. Oops–on Nov. 1, 2012 Oklahoma went open carry.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They may be, but it is just as likely out of frustration that we checked our brains at the door in 1791.</p>
<p>cartera45, so you’re not a fan of the bill of rights?</p>
<p>I don’t think being armed is “repulsive,” but I will say, as I said last night, I think I’d be uncomfortable walking around in a store with a bunch of people who were carrying guns with them. I just would be. I’m not saying they don’t have the “right,” just that it would make me nervous. </p>
<p>I think it’s fair to say that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would like everyone to please bash Hollywood for this, too. Thank you.</p>
<p>The NRA has released an iOS app targeted to “ages 4 and up” called “NRA: Practice Range”, including the option to unlock an MK-47 sniper rifle for $.99.</p>
<p>This seems to be a bit hypocritical after blaming video games for gun violence.</p>
<p>“Texas and Oklahoma are 2 states that do not yet have laws allowing open carry.”</p>
<p>Population density in New Jersey: 1,195 persons per square mile
Population density in Connecticut: 738 persons per square mile
Population density in Texas: 96 persons per square mile
Population density in Oklahoma: 55 persons per square mile
Population density in 1791 America: 16 persons per square mile</p>