Gun controll - Can someone put a bullet in this thing?

[Jon Sprunk]

That's a lot more than just hyperbole. A CBS/NYT poll in early January showed that 74% believe guards in schools would reduce the risk of school shootings.

You know that isn't the right question to ask. I mean, you could ask "If all guns were confiscated and no new guns were legally allowed to be owned by private citizens in the U.S., would that reduce the risk of school shootings?" Of course, the logical answer is yes, but the Constitutional answer is it doesn't matter.

The proper question is: "Would you support the presence of armed guard(s) at your child's school?"

The proper question to ask Mr. LaPierre is, "Did the gun manufacturers write that "solution" for you, or did you just assume that's what they wanted you to say?" because the only thing his statement lacked was a disclaimer at the bottom reading, "Brought to you by your friends at Smith & Wesson."

The Newtown school board and city itself have both voted to put at least one armed guard in every school.

An understandable reaction. That town just went through a terrible tragedy. But if you're implying that the entire nation extrapolate the same policy, I disagree.

The only "doh" may have been from folks wishing it had been done earlier.

Do the families affected wish that? I'm sure. I would, even if I knew in my heart that it might not have made any difference. But unless we want to massively raise taxes or cut ... say.. all defense and Homeland Sec spending, providing armed guards to every school is not in the budget. But I suppose it would provide jobs, maybe shutting the GOP up for a couple months about govt not creating jobs, and jolt the economy... Or we actually address some of the problems our society faces when it comes to violence, including a glamorized/fetishized gun culture. I would love if we could get to a place where guns are not considered any sexier than garden hoes.

And, I'd point out that even many proponents of other gun control measures being discussed wil admit those measures wouldn't have stopped that horrible shoring even if they'd been in place.

Yep.

[Guest RK Unsmoteable]

And I don't think it helped the gun-rights side when, after Sandy Hook, the NRA announced it was going to come forward with some solutions. People started wondering aloud if the NRA was going back universal checks (which I think they used to endorse?) and magazine limits, maybe a push for "smart guns." Then they announce . . . . their grand solution is more people with guns in schools. There was a national forehead-slapping moment as 250 million people muttered, "Doh!"*

Here is where you just lose me.

If some angry Veteran stormed my office building and starting shooting everyone in sight, a proposal to have more armed guards in the lobby is a pretty predictable response, no? On the other hand, increased gun control is not really a predictable response to violence committed with legally purchased and owned firearms.

Also, a necessary correction - the NRA's speech was about coordinating resources already available in the community to create carefully considered active shooter defense plans for schools so everyone knows exactly what to do if it happens. It included volunteer guards outside of the school. 7 of the 13 pages of transcript are about the National School Shield Emergency Response Program. Yet nobody reported "NRA proposes National School Shield Emergency Response Program." Most people don't even know this was ever proposed. He spent about 2 pages asking Congress to put "an armed police officer" in every school. Here is the transcript: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/12/21/us/nra-news-conference-transcript.html?_r=0

However, the scope and lethality of crimes are definitely affected by the availability of guns.

Indeed. A better example of the same principle is nuclear weapons. Do you think the US should get rid of all its nuclear weapons to reduce the potential scope and lethality of warfare?

But if we see it as a mutual problem -- because gun violence can strike anyone, anywhere -- then maybe we can address the real issues.

After Sandy Hook, I actually thought the problem was lethal gun violence in schools. This be solved a lot of ways - one of which is to not let any random person wander into the building, right? Or to have a perimeter patrol outside to see the guy walking up to the school with the Bushmaster? I mean, he's probably not up to any good, right? At high schools where the students themselves are in issue, how about metal detectors? I don't want guns in school, but I wasn't unhappy when a kid at my school was suspended for having a machete in his locker either. These things all seem a lot more related to preventing gun violence in schools to me than making people register every rifle they own with the federal government. I mean, how many steps does it take to explain the theory behind the idea that requiring people to register all firearms will reduce the number of mass school shootings????

The proper question to ask Mr. LaPierre is, "Did the gun manufacturers write that "solution" for you, or did you just assume that's what they wanted you to say?" because the only thing his statement lacked was a disclaimer at the bottom reading, "Brought to you by your friends at Smith & Wesson."

You might consider actually reading what he said before you characterize it that way. Be honest - is everything you know about what he said stuff you learned from the popular press after the fact?

I would love if we could get to a place where guns are not considered any sexier than garden hoes.

People who own firearms don't think they are "sexy" any more than people think their custom built PC is sexy. That is something that people who don't own firearms think.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

My .44 mag is pretty damn sexy. It's a giant revolver I use to compensate for my penis.

[Gareth]

My .44 mag is pretty damn sexy. It's a giant revolver I use to compensate for my penis.

Wouldn't you need a bazooka to adequately do that :lol:

[lupis42]

I think there's enough hypocrisy on both sides to go around. And both sides paint the other with a pretty broad brush.

No disagreement there.

And I don't think it helped the gun-rights side when, after Sandy Hook, the NRA announced it was going to come forward with some solutions. People started wondering aloud if the NRA was going back universal checks (which I think they used to endorse?) and magazine limits, maybe a push for "smart guns." Then they announce . . . . their grand solution is more people with guns in schools. There was a national forehead-slapping moment as 250 million people muttered, "Doh!"*

*yes, major hyperbole. Sue me.

But not all solutions put forward in these threads have been laughable.

See, here's the thing: this is about difference in worldview. If the NRA had backed magazine limits, or smart guns, I would have cancelled my membership, because those are idiotic. To the best of my knowledge, they continue to support expanding background checks, but oppose any registration requirement (without which, consensus seems to be, it's nigh-impossible to convict someone for selling a firearm without doing a background check). So whether you consider them to support universal background checks depends a bit on your point of view.

But also, to the extent that preventing another Newtown is what is being talked about, I'd say armed good guys in schools and dramatically reduced airtime for perpetrators, technical details, etc of the event in question are likely to do good, unlike any of the measures currently in the senate. Which is why I characterize this more as a difference of principles/world-views than anything else.

Possibly, but you aren't characterizing my argument. Crime is not dependent on the availability of guns. However, the scope and lethality of crimes are definitely affected by the availability of guns. I, for one, would not care one lick if we had even more guns in this country IF they were hardly ever used in crimes. However, since so many deranged and criminal minds seem willing to utilize the effectness of the modern firearm, we have a problem, because they are everywhere. I might, if I was being "less than charitiable," suggest the gun manufacturers and their adherents have engineered this reality, hoping that the sheer number of firearms in private hands would make any means of regulating them ineffectual, but it could also just be an unfortunate circumstance.

Right - see, you emphasize "because they are everywhere", and I emphasize "deranged and criminal minds", and we're back to the part where the core of our disagreement is which is the problem, and which the symptom.

I think you're a little off-base, suggesting only your side starts from a point of "violent crime is the bad thing." If gun violence was not a factor, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

We've been having this conversation for 80 years. We've added more (federal) gun control in '34, '68, '93, and yet it's still a problem. We've added more state/municipal gun control countless times and in countless places, and yet it never seems to work. So why do we still have to have this coversation? What would it take to convince you that gun control doesn't work?

I understand the thinking here. I don't 100% agree. I think some people are safer when they are armed, and a lot of people are less safe when they are armed.

You're going to need to clarify your 'some' and 'a lot' and 'they' here, because I'm having trouble parsing this.

That depends. If we view it as a war that one side is eventually going to "win" and other must "lose," then yes. Probably not a lot of middle ground. But if we see it as a mutual problem -- because gun violence can strike anyone, anywhere -- then maybe we can address the real issues.

It's not that I view it as a war, so much as incompatible worldviews - similar to, (though not parallel to), say, deontological morality vs. utilitarian morality. They don't always conflict, but they don't really overlap as such either.

People who own firearms don't think they are "sexy" any more than people think their custom built PC is sexy. That is something that people who don't own firearms think.

Hard to say on this one... on the one hand, I know more than a few people who would use the word 'sexy' to describe anything sufficiently well designed. And after all, we have an entire cable channel devoted to food 'porn', and there are probably people out there who think that garden hose is pretty sexy, so maybe. But that word doesn't mean what he thinks it means in this context.

[Jon Sprunk]

See, here's the thing: this is about difference in worldview. If the NRA had backed magazine limits, or smart guns, I would have cancelled my membership, because those are idiotic.

I kinda agree (50/50). On one hand, while gun restrictions can (and do) reduce the scope of gun violence, they aren't the entire answer. Personally, I think they are a small part of the eventual answer. But I wouldn't so go so far as say they are "idiotic."

To the best of my knowledge, they continue to support expanding background checks, but oppose any registration requirement (without which, consensus seems to be, it's nigh-impossible to convict someone for selling a firearm without doing a background check). So whether you consider them to support universal background checks depends a bit on your point of view.

Been over this again and again. No need to rehash again.

But also, to the extent that preventing another Newtown is what is being talked about,

You can stop right here. I am not approaching any of this with the idea of stopping another massacre like Newtown. Unless we make every public (and private, I suppose) place into an armed fortress, there isn't an easy path to preventing such things.

Right - see, you emphasize "because they are everywhere", and I emphasize "deranged and criminal minds", . . .

No, I didn't emphasize either. I combined them both in my statement. Read the beginning of that paragraph again. I don't blame inanimate objects (guns) for crime, but when criminals and the mentally dangerous use guns to commit their violence, the carnage can increased dramatically.

However, it is interesting that you assumed I emphasized the "they're everywhere" part of the statement.

and we're back to the part where the core of our disagreement is which is the problem, and which the symptom.

No, we're not. We both know that violence is the problem. Neither of us believe that guns, inherently, are the catalyst to violence. But I am seeing a problem with the link between the ubiquity of guns in this country and the gun violence, especially in the urban areas. Are you not?

We've been having this conversation for 80 years. We've added more (federal) gun control in '34, '68, '93, and yet it's still a problem. We've added more state/municipal gun control countless times and in countless places, and yet it never seems to work. So why do we still have to have this coversation? What would it take to convince you that gun control doesn't work?

But Tormund tells us that violence/crime are getting better, albeit slowly. FLoW tells us that there is no causation proven on either side of the debate. And it matters a great deal what kind of gun control you are talking about. Some are probably useless and some are probably very effective.

You're going to need to clarify your 'some' and 'a lot' and 'they' here, because I'm having trouble parsing this.

I decline to go into this, except to say that I know a lot of people who go around carrying concealed (from my past career especially). Some don't bother me because I trust their attitude and temperament, but others I won't hang around because they are a danger. They don't see it that way (of course), but nevertheless they have the right to carry.

Hard to say on this one... on the one hand, I know more than a few people who would use the word 'sexy' to describe anything sufficiently well designed. And after all, we have an entire cable channel devoted to food 'porn', and there are probably people out there who think that garden hose is pretty sexy, so maybe. But that word doesn't mean what he thinks it means in this context.

I'll reply to this to RK.

[Jon Sprunk]

If some angry Veteran stormed my office building and starting shooting everyone in sight, a proposal to have more armed guards in the lobby is a pretty predictable response, no?

Sure, it would be predictable. But would it solve anything? Depends. Is this a regular occurance? Or has it happened once in the last 50 years? How many armed guards, and armed with what?

But again, my aim isn't to prevent the unpreventable; it's to curb the preventable.

On the other hand, increased gun control is not really a predictable response to violence committed with legally purchased and owned firearms.

Sure, it is. It's equally predictable, and might be just as ineffectual, depending on the controls we're talking about. When we talk about restrictions, it's a balance, isn't it? Balancing rights versus safety. And I don't like either ends of the spectrum, tyvm.

Also, a necessary correction - the NRA's speech was about coordinating resources already available in the community to create carefully considered active shooter defense plans for schools so everyone knows exactly what to do if it happens.

How much of the school year shall we devote to "active shooter defense?" More than fire drills? More than how to handle bullying? Shall we also teach the children to get under their desks again in the case of nuclear attack?

I will say it's interesting that conservatives will decry the state of public education and educators, but then when it comes to one of their pet issues (in this case, guns) they will gleefully pile some additional responsibilities on the schools/teachers. Don't allow teachers to teach science, but charge them with protecting your child from gunmen.

It included volunteer guards outside of the school.

Holy fuck. I thought the idea of properly-trained and -licensed guards at the schools was a bad idea. But volunteers? Is Sheriff Joe Arpaio going to run this national campaign of vigilantees volunteer school guards? Maybe my crazy Uncle Ralph can get his kicks toting a rifle outside a few high shcools in the area.

Honestly, just seal the schools in reinforced concrete with steel gates and private armies. Better we pay all our earnings in taxes than support this kind of thinking.

7 of the 13 pages of transcript are about the National School Shield Emergency Response Program. Yet nobody reported "NRA proposes National School Shield Emergency Response Program." Most people don't even know this was ever proposed. He spent about 2 pages asking Congress to put "an armed police officer" in every school. Here is the transcript: http://www.nytimes.c...cript.html?_r=0

The police officer isn't a horrible idea (good job NRA. even a stopped clock is right twice a day), but I can imagine some of our resident gun-rights folks (paging Tormund) might have a serious problem with it. But hey, hire an additional 1 million cops and put them in schools.... would be good for the economy, at least. Shall we tell the billionaires they'll be footing the bill, or just shove it onto the middle class?

Indeed. A better example of the same principle is nuclear weapons. Do you think the US should get rid of all its nuclear weapons to reduce the potential scope and lethality of warfare?

Eventually, yes.

After Sandy Hook, I actually thought the problem was lethal gun violence in schools.

Then you missed the point. Sandy Hook was (another) wakeup call, but it isn't the crux of the issue.

. . . I mean, how many steps does it take to explain the theory behind the idea that requiring people to register all firearms will reduce the number of mass school shootings????

Infinite, I suppose. I wouldn't know because I'm not arguing that.

In an open society of this size, you aren't ever going to achieve 100% safety. But there are ways to reduce gun violence overall. For some folks, the goal is not worth the perceived sacrifice.

You might consider actually reading what he said before you characterize it that way. Be honest - is everything you know about what he said stuff you learned from the popular press after the fact?

I watched part of the speech live, and saw snippets for days afterward, read a bit online in news articles. But, in my defense, nothing I've heard coming out Mr. LaPierre's mouth has ever struck me as independent of thought. He reminds me very much of a used car (gun) salesman. Do you think he's the one who authorized the NRA robocalls in Newtown after the shooting?

People who own firearms don't think they are "sexy" any more than people think their custom built PC is sexy. That is something that people who don't own firearms think.

Google 'Chicks with guns.'

We have many layers of gun culture in this country, and some of them see guns as fetish objects. Some see guns as extentions of their personal power. Some view guns as literal sexual objects. I mean, let's not pretend to be blind. I'm not saying every gun owner feels this way, but our culture (esp. the youth culture) perverts a lot of things: sex, money, and even guns. If our national attitude toward guns was closer to our attitude toward garden tools, maybe we'd have a little less carnage. Just saying.

[Seli]

...

That's why I pointed out that the NRA actually supports what the Administration itself says would go a long way towards plugging holes in the system. Yet, the narrative the Administration is pushing for politcal reasons is that the NRA opposes anything constructive, and then has the nerve to accuse the NRA of refusing to discuss the issue in good faith. It's absolutely maddening to those of us who follow this stuff.

Honestly, the NRA for years has pushed for better intergration of criminal and mental health records for NCIS.

Question, how open is the NCIS? Because I would be really worried for a society where information on (old) criminal records and mental health status is accessible to just about anyone/any employer.

Here is where you just lose me.

If some angry Veteran stormed my office building and starting shooting everyone in sight, a proposal to have more armed guards in the lobby is a pretty predictable response, no? On the other hand, increased gun control is not really a predictable response to violence committed with legally purchased and owned firearms.

...

People who own firearms don't think they are "sexy" any more than people think their custom built PC is sexy. That is something that people who don't own firearms think.

Wouldn't that depend on the controls that are in place? By definition a system where you try to protect small bubbles of vulnerable targets in a sea of potential/invisible danger is much more error prone than a system where you keep bubbles of danger away from vulnerable targets. Gun control which would limit the day-to-day background presence of guns around potential targets would result in a much wider perimeter in which potential dangers could be detected. Increasing point-defence is probably a logical response to a threat, but not always the best solution.

Oh, and going by my impressions I certainly do think that many custom pc/car whatever builders think their products are sexy, and I do assume the same for a sub-set of gun owners.

[Guest RK Unsmoteable]

Try Googling "chickens with garden hoes." It's the internet. Pull out your dick and double click.

[Jon Sprunk]

Try Googling "chickens with garden hoes." It's the internet. Pull out your dick and double click.

Is that your way of saying I'm right?

And if you knew a diverse-enough crowd of gun owners, you'd know I was right without consulting the internet.

[Guest Ayn Raidne]

How much of the school year shall we devote to "active shooter defense?" More than fire drills? More than how to handle bullying? Shall we also teach the children to get under their desks again in the case of nuclear attack?

I will say it's interesting that conservatives will decry the state of public education and educators, but then when it comes to one of their pet issues (in this case, guns) they will gleefully pile some additional responsibilities on the schools/teachers. Don't allow teachers to teach science, but charge them with protecting your child from gunmen.

This is the problem. None of the rhetoric you've thrown at what you suppose to be content of the suggestion actually relates to any part of it. So how do I really respond? Do I just tell you to read the transcript I linked, again? Do I summarize for you what it said? Or do I just give up out of the feeling that you're really not making a good faith effort?

Holy fuck. I thought the idea of properly-trained and -licensed guards at the schools was a bad idea. But volunteers? Is Sheriff Joe Arpaio going to run this national campaign of vigilantees volunteer school guards? Maybe my crazy Uncle Ralph can get his kicks toting a rifle outside a few high shcools in the area.

Honestly, just seal the schools in reinforced concrete with steel gates and private armies. Better we pay all our earnings in taxes than support this kind of thinking.

And same here. You know there is a gun free school zones law right? For better or for worse, the NRA can't do anything about that, so you've got to know ahead of time that the plan doesn't involve arming citizens and posting them as sentries around school zones. Even without reading the actual proposal, so how did you get here?

[Guest Ayn Raidne]

Is that your way of saying I'm right?

A short reply from me is my way of saying that I'm posting on my phone.

And if you knew a diverse-enough crowd of gun owners, you'd know I was right without consulting the internet.

I mean, I know quite a few. I work for the Department of Veterans Affairs, right? You can probably guess that we employ a lot of veterans. They tend to own guns. None of them think they are "sexy" in the way you describe - like I said before, they're maybe seen as sexy in the same way that a gamer thinks their custom PC is sexy - well-crafted with the desired specs, etc. Some people surely might think a chick with a gun is sexy, in the same way that some people think a chick doing anything "masculine" is sexy. I seem to remember getting a lot of positive male feedback around here just from posting about liking whiskey and billiards. Who knows, maybe it works even better if you throw a cylindrical shape in there, like a cigar. But I doubt it has anything to do with the idea that killing people is sexy. If you know people who feel otherwise, then so be it, but I do know quite a few and most would be fairly disdainful of someone who expressed that kind of attitude - the one that says owning a gun is a good idea because it makes you a bad ass. I've known exactly one person who I think felt that way, he owned a gun illegally, and he eventually accidentally shot a girl in the stomach with it at a party and went to jail. For that reason, I can absolutely get on board with the idea of reducing illegal ownership, but I'm not seeing a lot of reasons to make more ownership illegal, or to track legal ownership beyond the point of sale on the theory that it reduces illegal ownership.

[Phaing]

When was the last time a criminal submitted himself to a background check to buy a gun? In fact, the 5th Amendment releases them from having to go through them! Don't believe me? Read the Supreme Court case Haynes vs. U.S. (1968), where the Court ruled that convicted felons have a Constitutional right to not register a gun, because to register a gun would be self-incrimination! Only people that aren't criminals can be punished for not registering. If the criminals aren't required to register, but you and I are, why bother passing so-called universal background checks?

backwoodsengineer.com

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

You know that isn't the right question to ask. The proper question is: "Would you support the presence of armed guard(s) at your child's school?"

Well, here's a poll where 64% of the public supported armed guards "in schools", which necessary would include their own.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/14/new-poll-shows-majority-of-americans-support-nras-plan-to-put-armed-guards-in-schools/

55% support a law requiring armed guards in schools.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/polling/postabc-poll-broad-support-gun-restrictions/2013/01/16/c8f74d38-5e95-11e2-8acb-ab5cb77e95c8_page.html

An understandable reaction. That town just went through a terrible tragedy. But if you're implying that the entire nation extrapolate the same policy, I disagree.

Good, because that's not what I'm implying at all. You ridiculed the NRA's response of "armed guards in schools" as being completely out of the mainstream -- "250 millions people slapping their foreheads and saying "doh". And yet, the facts are that the NRA response was completely within in the mainstream. It is you painting that response as not even being worthy of discussion, a "doh", that is out of the mainstream. I don't have any problem with you disagreeing that suggestion, but painting it as not serious, or ridiculous, and implying that most Americans agree with you in that regard, is flatly wrong.

But again, my aim isn't to prevent the unpreventable; it's to curb the preventable.

Shootings are not unpreventable.

Then you missed the point. Sandy Hook was (another) wakeup call, but it isn't the crux of the issue.

I suppose It wasn't the crux of the issue for those who wanted to use it as an opportunity. The mindset of "never let a crisis go to waste". But for people who wanted someone to address what actually happened to those children, solutions directed to what actually happened to those children was precisely "the point".

[Jon Sprunk]

This is the problem. None of the rhetoric you've thrown at what you suppose to be content of the suggestion actually relates to any part of it. So how do I really respond? Do I just tell you to read the transcript I linked, again? Do I summarize for you what it said? Or do I just give up out of the feeling that you're really not making a good faith effort?

I'm not asking the NRA; I'm asking you. You respond (if you choose to do so) by giving your opinion. Linking a transcript doesn't end the conversation, because we're discussing the entire topic, of which the NRA's position is one small part. I'm making every bit as much as good-faith effort as you are, except I tend to use fewer links and state more of my own position so people can discuss it.

And same here. (A) You know there is a gun free school zones law right? (B) For better or for worse, the NRA can't do anything about that, © so you've got to know ahead of time that the plan doesn't involve arming citizens and posting them as sentries around school zones. (D) Even without reading the actual proposal, so how did you get here?

(A) of course.

(B) Not even a little true. The NRA has the money and influence to change a lot of policies, as evidenced by the gridlock in congress surrounding this issue. Take universal checks. The only time politicians are faced with 90%+ of the voters wanting something and they don't rush to do it is when a bigger influence is stopping them. Guess who that is.

© I have to? Why? Because the modern NRA is such a font of wisdom and restraint? lol.

(D) Totally my fault. I combined your ballistic style of arguing with the NRA's track record for embracing inflammatory rhetoric, and made an assumption. Still, the idea does nothing to address underlying causes. It is just as much window-dress as banning a hunting rifle with cool-looking accessories.

[Jon Sprunk]

I mean, I know quite a few. I work for the Department of Veterans Affairs, right? You can probably guess that we employ a lot of veterans. They tend to own guns. None of them think they are "sexy" in the way you describe - like I said before, they're maybe seen as sexy in the same way that a gamer thinks their custom PC is sexy - well-crafted with the desired specs, etc. Some people surely might think a chick with a gun is sexy, in the same way that some people think a chick doing anything "masculine" is sexy. I seem to remember getting a lot of positive male feedback around here just from posting about liking whiskey and billiards. Who knows, maybe it works even better if you throw a cylindrical shape in there, like a cigar. But I doubt it has anything to do with the idea that killing people is sexy. If you know people who feel otherwise, then so be it, but I do know quite a few and most would be fairly disdainful of someone who expressed that kind of attitude - the one that says owning a gun is a good idea because it makes you a bad ass.

The problem is that I think you meant to post that in your experience people who own firearms don't think they are "sexy". That would have opened a line of dialogue about our different experiences and how they have affected our ideas. Instead, you tried to reframe it as my ignorance, and did nothing more than paint a big glowing arrow pointing at your own lack of knowledge.

I've known exactly one person who I think felt that way, he owned a gun illegally, and he eventually accidentally shot a girl in the stomach with it at a party and went to jail. For that reason, I can absolutely get on board with the idea of reducing illegal ownership, but I'm not seeing a lot of reasons to make more ownership illegal, or to track legal ownership beyond the point of sale on the theory that it reduces illegal ownership.

First, I'm sorry to hear that incident. I hope the girl survived and is doing well.

Second, I agree that we don't need to start from a position of making more ownership illegal. I don't think I've presented such a view, but if I have by miscommunication, I'll correct it now. While I do think there's something to the argument that certain weapons are not suitable for private ownership, I'm leery of marching down that road. It doesn't really address the larger problems with gun violence. And it just riles up the kinds of people who might come around to something more meaningful and effective.

Third, I've already stated my reasons for a national registry. I understand that there is a certain amount of fear of the federal govt that makes that a no-go for a lot of people. I hope that, if we ever do need it, those people can be convinced, but I don't know. Maybe if universal checks are implemented and people get a chance to see that the black helicopters aren't swooping in, we can have a saner national conversation about it.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Still, the idea does nothing to address underlying causes.

So what? We do lots and lots of things that don't treat "underlying causes" but still have actual value. In fact, that's pretty much exactly what police do in general. They don't deal with the "underlying causes" of crime. They simply try to limit the damage criminals can do. Putting better locks/better external security on schools doesn't address "underlying causes" either, but does that mean we shouldn't do that either?

[Jon Sprunk]

Well, here's a poll where 64% of the public supported armed guards "in schools", which necessary would include their own.

55% support a law requiring armed guards in schools.

Good, because that's not what I'm implying at all. You ridiculed the NRA's response of "armed guards in schools" as being completely out of the mainstream -- "250 millions people slapping their foreheads and saying "doh". And yet, the facts are that the NRA response was completely within in the mainstream. It is you painting that response as not even being worthy of discussion, a "doh", that is out of the mainstream. I don't have any problem with you disagreeing that suggestion, but painting it as not serious, or ridiculous, and implying that most Americans agree with you in that regard, is flatly wrong.

All right. So if we assume that I'm wrong and most people want armed guards in schools, then what about the polls showing overwhelming support of new gun restrictions?

I have an idea: let's do both. I'll accept armed guards in schools, and you'll accept new, tighter regulations for gun ownership, including universal checks, limited mags, longer wait periods, and more money put into both the MH field and to reinforce the background check apparatus. I think that's a pretty good deal for you. I mean, I'm going to be paying a lot more in taxes for something that will hardly ever be used and may even make our society more dangerous in the long run, and you just have to file a little more paperwork for your gun and reload more often.

Oh, and one more thing. When Sen. Cruz and Sen. Paul and the rest of the Idiot Pack stand up to filibuster that bill, I want to see you shouting them down.

Shootings are not unpreventable.

A lot of them are. That's my argument.

But if you mean we can stop every crazy gunman who wants to shoot up malls and schools, then you're talking about complete totalitarianism. Good luck, Comrade.

I suppose It wasn't the crux of the issue for those who wanted to use it as an opportunity. The mindset of "never let a crisis go to waste". But for people who wanted someone to address what actually happened to those children, solutions directed to what actually happened to those children was precisely "the point".

"Hello Pot? Yeah, this is the kettle calling. Stop using my methods."

I join you in decrying the use of crises to steer national policy. Now if you could just stop your political party from using that method on a constant basis....

Sorry, but the democrats learned. It took them long enough, but they eventually figure out how the repubs are rigging the game and then they join right in. Is it shameless? Yep. It's also inevitable. We're on a long, slow slide into shitstorm politics. I suppose I should be calling for progressives to stop using the devil's methods, but they don't listen to me. I'm a PINO on some issues.

And what exactly, praytell, are the right solutions to fix Sandy Hook? We've already been over this. Short of turning every public place into an armed fortress, there's no solution. If the schools are better protected, shooters will go to malls and playgrounds. Secure the playgrounds, and they'll go to the beaches. It's an endless cycle. And while the gun industry is happily encouraging more armed people, the actual causes of the violence go uncorrected. That's the fatal flaw of your argument. As I've stated so many times my fingers are turning blue, fix the fucking problem and I won't care how guns you own. But if you aren't going to be part of the solution, kindly move out of the way. (That last line is aimed at the gun lobbies, not you specifically.)

[Jon Sprunk]

So what? We do lots and lots of things that don't treat "underlying causes" but still have actual value. In fact, that's pretty much exactly what police do in general. They don't deal with the "underlying causes" of crime. They simply try to limit the damage criminals can do. Putting better locks/better external security on schools doesn't address "underlying causes" either, but does that mean we shouldn't do that either?

The difference is that my philosophy doesn't end at "lock them up and forget about the problem." Just because our country does a lot of stupid things doesn't mean we have to aim for stupid out of the gate.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

All right. So if we assume that I'm wrong and most people want armed guards in schools, then what about the polls showing overwhelming support of new gun restrictions?

I don't know -- what about them? Polls don't make an idea good or bad, but they do show, by definition, what is at least within the mainstream of discussion. My objection was that your were presenting an idea supported by a majority as if it were a fringe opinion.

I have an idea: let's do both. I'll accept armed guards in schools, and you'll accept new, tighter regulations for gun ownership, including universal checks, limited mags, longer wait periods, and more money put into both the MH field and to reinforce the background check apparatus. I think that's a pretty good deal for you....Oh, and one more thing. When Sen. Cruz and Sen. Paul and the rest of the Idiot Pack stand up to filibuster that bill, I want to see you shouting them down.

Let's not. And as a matter of reality, guards in schools is a local issue that the feds really wouldn't have much to do with.

But if you mean we can stop every crazy gunman who wants to shoot up malls and schools, then you're talking about complete totalitarianism. Good luck, Comrade.

Of course you can't stop every gunmen. But if you can stop some of them, and limit the damage they do, then that is a positive result.

I join you in decrying the use of crises to steer national policy. Now if you could just stop your political party from using that method on a constant basis....

I'm not a party. I'm just a guy trying to stay on topic. You ridiculed the NRA for proposing something that addressed the specific problem that occured, and I'm pointing out why that is not a very good criticism.

And what exactly, praytell, are the right solutions to fix Sandy Hook? We've already been over this. Short of turning every public place into an armed fortress, there's no solution. If the schools are better protected, shooters will go to malls and playgrounds.

There are no perfect, foolproof solutions. And malls usually already have cops. I think having guards in those particular places that are designed to contain large numbers of people, and with limit access/egress makes sense, particularly if we're talkign about large concentrations of children That's not a playground, or a park. But you've got schools out there that are deliberately isolated from the general public, some with more than 1000 kids inside. The damage that can be done in such places, in a very short period of time, makes them uniquely target-rich places for a shooter.

And since it seems a lot of these shooters have issues with their adolescence, school lives, etc.., that makes schools in particular an even more likely target. So it's not about making all of society 100% place. It's just about protecting the most vulnerable people in the most vulnerable places.