In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 526
Online now 542 Record: 11761 (2/27/2012)
The Web's No. 1 forum for coverage and discussion of Terps sports
Visitor discussion of University of Maryland and college sports
A place for lively discussion for all other sports unrelated to Maryland athletics
Feedback for IMS and 247Sports
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
Yeah that's fair, but if you game a gun ban out, it'd probably take a constitutional amendment, and I don't think there's a snowball's chance in hell that happens. Too many rural voters who depend on guns, among other things.
And even if you got a constitutional amendment, you'd have to remove all the guns already out in society, as well as severely restrict the businesses that make and sell guns and ammo. If it could even be accomplished, it'd take years if not decades.
But then, nutjobs wouldn't be entirely powerless to carry out their massacres. You can still drive a car into a crowd of people, or something like that. This guy was a law abiding citizen, until he wasn't. He just had a number of mental issues. Guys like him would still be out there plotting to kill people, just through different means. I just don't see how banning guns does anything but give false hope and take them out of the hands of people who don't commit murder.
I have a family member who is a elementary school counselor. What do you recommend she do on Monday when the kids ask her about this? Pass out copies of the second amendment and tell them read it and weep?
I reserve the right to revise and extend my remarks, but for now, I'd like to say that:
Banning guns is a largely symbolic and somewhat stupid idea because it is so backwards-looking, reactionary, and largely toothless. Even assuming we could figure out a way to pass such laws legally (and we plainly can't do that) ... and even if such laws were guaranteed to stop people from buying new guns (and we plainly can't guarantee that) .... and even if we could guarantee safe accounting and/or disposal of the tens of millions of guns already in existence (and we plainly can't guarantee that) ... it would still not guarantee a lack of violence because of changing technology. Heck, we're like 10 years away from people being able to print/create guns at home using high-tech mechanical printers.
The sooner we figure out how to diagnose and treat mental illnesses and other factors, the better. We need to target and try to eliminate the root cause of such violence. As tough as that is to accomplish, it is even tougher to target and try to eliminate the means for committing violence.
This post was edited by terps99 16 months ago
Tell them they should have discussed the topic with their parent(s) over the weekend
80% of the last 60 public mass shootings in the US (defined as 4 or more deaths per event) had the shooter buy his gun legally. If there could be a way to reduce the mass shooting incidents down to one or two less mass shootings here, would it be worth to ATTEMPT to make it tougher to purchase guns for everyone? Probably not, imo.
Besides this 80% stat and the fact that all were male, there really is no other similarities between these last 60 shootings. And, that's another reason I say let things be with the laws. There are way too many variables and way too much unpredictability to stop future mass shootings- no matter what you do.
Way to take a joke from twitter that was already of questionable funniness and butcher it further
Kill the first born male in every family?
classlessthug: I have too much on my plate to worry about the fact that my junk intimidates some needle D undergrad.
Certain people always find a loophole in that one
And who is to say growing up in a pro-gun culture doesn't contribute to this?
Well, yeah, I agree that it would take a constitutional amendment and I'm similarly skeptical about such an amendment's prospects for success, I'm just talking from a policy perspective. And as I said, I know you wouldn't be able to totally eliminate massacres like this, but I do think they would be less frequent and less deadly, not to mention the other, more casual, day-to-day gun violence that would be eliminated. I don't think people would have "false hope" that something like this would never happen again or that bad people still won't be able to do bad things through other means.
I didn't see that on twitter. I do have a daughter who is a counselor. And I don't see anything funny about any of this. My kids are adults. What are you parents saying to your young children about this? I see a lot of "there's nothing that we can do" in this thread.
I'm a little worn out from dealing with the "mental illness isn't an illness" folks in the other thread but my 2 cents.
How come "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is never interpreted literally. I know that the FF (gang talk for Founding Fathers) feared being suppressed by their own government so they wanted regular guys to have rifles to fight back against the army in case the army got too big for their britches.
But those days are long gone, so what does the 2nd mean anymore? Let's face it, if the government wants to violently enslave us all, those Stealth bombers are looking mighty formidable. So now we'ere just fighting among ourselves (which I don't think the FF crew was about).
I propose the following. Invent a high powered non-lethal gun that serves for personal protection (if you aren't handy with your fists); everybody gets one. Accidents aren't a big deal.
Gun clubs (with training and registration) can take the place of the well-regulated militia for folks who want to hunt, shoot Uzis or whatever the fuck.
Stop the stupid war on drugs and find and melt every lethal gun in the country. It will have a better outcome.
Thank you. I, RandomTerp endorse this commercial.
Edited to add: Mr. Chairman, since I'm about 5 deep at this point I reserve the right to revise and extend my remarks.
This post was edited by RandomTerp 16 months ago
Fair enough. I'm sure that doesn't help.
I need to eat pizza and drink until there is no more pizza left in the box.
"And I try to har-mo-nize with songs the lonesome sparrow sings...
There are no kings inside the Gates of Eden."
It's part of being human. We invented the gun, our own demise. Get over it. Too late for policy.
I think it's safe to say that there are going to be some changes to Gun Policy incoming.
Maybe, but I wouldn't bet my life on it.
Well, actually the guns used today in CT were not obtained legally. They were stolen from his mother. So where in the chart do you think today's incident falls?
This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by MDTerp84 16 months ago
people who think they can legislate away atrocity will be sorely disappointed
Phatboy if you had any balls I'd meet you at the AFA Boxing gym and have Coach Weichers put some gloves on us.
Both. I'm assuming the security guard would be at least as well trained and armed as a random psycho, but you never know.
That 20 year old kid today had a very good knowledge of the weapon(s) he used, the facts will come out on that. One does not simply pick up a weapon and ammo without any experience and use it with that proficiency, even when facing unarmed children.
This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by WTF 16 months ago
If he hadn't grown up in a house with 3 guns, he wouldn't have been so proficient...
Even if the security guard has superior training and is at least as well armed, the shooter will always have the element of surprise, at least if the security guard is posted as the "first line of defense" so to speak. These attacks are so rare that guards couldn't possibly maintain the level of vigilance necessary to keep from just being the shooter's first victim most of the time.
let me just say this : there isn't a single human being in this country that should have one of these (other than military/police, etc) it is a fucking disgrace that this kid's MOTHER had one of these (as was reported today).....NO normal citizen in this country should have this - I dont give a shit if you want it for defending yourself, hunting, target practice, etc etc.....it is bullshit.
Whole heartedly agree.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports