Gun Laws...

LaCi - posted on 07/02/2010

I wish I was born ten years later and could jump on the robot bandwagon. These kids are AMAZING. In my day we were just getting fascinated with the internet, and wasted our youth on crap like napster lol I think napster destroyed 3 of my computers through middle and high school ;x What a waste of time that was. I should have been building a robot.

ME - posted on 07/02/2010

Aww comeon...not all of us nerds build robots and bombs ;-)

LaCi - posted on 07/01/2010

Nerds nowadays don't need a gun. They build robots and computers. They can build a super bomb with the help of google, if they haven't gotten through chemistry yet.. I'd google bomb building instructions to prove it, but I don't wanna end up on another list ;D And I'm talking REAL bombs, not party supplies in the back of a vehicle dumped in time square. Fortunately those two apparently weren't bright enough to successfully build their bombs.

Tanya - posted on 07/01/2010

In the months prior to the attacks, Harris and Klebold acquired two 9 mm firearms and two 12-gauge shotguns. A rifle and the two shotguns were bought by a friend, Robyn Anderson, at the Tanner Gun Show in December, 1998.[18] Harris and Klebold later bought a handgun from another friend, Mark Manes, for $500. Manes was jailed after the massacre for selling a handgun to a minor,[19] as was Philip Duran, who had introduced the duo to Manes

ME - posted on 07/01/2010

Do a google search on "guns stolen in home invasion"...see how many of those "legally" purchased guns wind up in the hands of robbers and other criminals...

Christa - posted on 07/01/2010

You are right the PD dropped the ball, but the school didn't know and like I said the parents should have been more involved. Plus obviously these guys meant what they said, but how many disturbing writings are there out there from depressed or angry kids, you want the PD’s to round them all up or what? Also if you read further down they didn't get the guns from their parents, they acquired them illegally. Thus bringing me to my point . . . .

Tanya - posted on 07/01/2010

Early warning signs began to surface in 1996, when Eric Harris first created a private website on America Online. The original site was set up to host Doom levels that he and Dylan Klebold had created, mainly for friends. Harris also began a blog on the site, which included jokes and small journal entries concerning his thoughts on parents, school, and friends. By the end of the year, the site contained instructions on how to cause mischief, as well as instructions on how to make explosives, and logs of the trouble he and Klebold were causing. Beginning in early 1997, the blog postings began to show the first signs of Harris's ever-growing anger against society.[4]
Harris's site had few visitors, and caused no concern until late 1997, when Dylan Klebold gave the address to Brooks Brown, Harris's former friend. Brown's mother had filed numerous complaints with the Jefferson County Sheriff's office about Eric Harris, believing him to be dangerous. The website was filled with death threats towards Brooks, and Dylan knew that if Brooks had the address, it would make its way to his mother and possibly result in problems for Harris. Indeed, Brooks Brown's parents contacted the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office, and investigator Michael Guerra was notified of the site.[4] Guerra discovered the website also contained violent threats directed at the students and teachers of Columbine High School. Other material included blurbs Harris had written concerning his hatred of society in general and his desire to kill those who annoyed him. As the date of the shooting neared, Harris also began noting the completion of pipe bombs on his site, as well as a gun count and hit list of individuals he wished to target, although it never mentioned his overall plot.[5] As Harris had admitted to having explosives, Guerra decided to write a draft affidavit for a search warrant of the Harris household, but it was never filed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_H...

Plenty of warning

Tanya - posted on 07/01/2010

Just wondering. I know it was two sorry for the typo. I do know a girl who was there. I lived in Wy for a while.

I do think that if the parents just left all those guns out where the kids could get them they are to blame. I can understand a handgun that you would keep one clip in if all the kids in the house were old enough to know what it was, but it you have all of those guns and the ammo unlocked I think you are asking for trouble.

I totally agree that the school dropped the ball when it came to counseling. Columbine was not the first high school shooting. When they started to see papers turned in about killing everyone someone should have done something.

This debate went on for a while on another thread and I don't think people will ever agree. I don't think we should ban guns. People will be able to get them.

Christa - posted on 07/01/2010

Laura I'm all for that, but lets be real. Kids are mean, we can't make sure every child in school is treated fairly. Especially with kids like Dylan and Eric, they kept to themselves and didn't complain much. The teachers and parents didn't notice any red flags. Obviously the parents should have been more involved, but you can't help bad parenting.

Isobel - posted on 07/01/2010

and I tend to believe the way to avoid another Columbine is through counseling and bullying prevention...but I suppose that's just me.

Christa - posted on 07/01/2010

Shooters. . . and no.

Tanya - posted on 07/01/2010

Do you think the parents of the Columbine shooter should be charged with anything?

Christa - posted on 07/01/2010

I'm not sure if that was at me. . . But I never said we need to arm everybody. But it should be allowed to anyone who wants it (with regs of course).

Laura/Carol, before Columbine I would agree with you, but after that the alternative is much worse. Just hope nothing like that happens near you.

Johnny - posted on 07/01/2010

I agree Laura. If anyone in my child's school was allowed to carry a gun I would find an alternative place to have her educated. The very idea of an armed guard being something that was required in an educational facility fills me with fear.

I really think there is just a huge cultural gulf in the way Americans and other western countries think about guns. We know we have criminals with guns here, but I can not think of a time when I've heard any of my fellow citizens suggest that we ALL need to be armed. Not even on the local right-wing call-in radio shows. Perhaps in other parts of the country, but I've never heard any clamoring for an arming of everyday citizens.

Tanya - posted on 07/01/2010

We have armed security guards at our school. A student actually got shot and killed because he stabbed the guard.

Isobel - posted on 07/01/2010

We have to buzz in to my kids' school...and the secretary has a camera to see who is buzzing...I don't mind it...I would have a huge problem if anybody in that building had a gun...I would feel a need to homeschool if that were the case.

Christa - posted on 07/01/2010

I think some of you are forgetting that we will never be able to get rid of ALL guns. It'd be great if we could keep all the ammo and only use for recreation. It would be great if schools could be the fun carefree places they once were, but we know better. Columbine is a nice school, it's in a nice area, it's not in the ghetto or anywhere else where you might think metal detectors and such are needed. Unfortunately you never know when some kid is going to be so hurt that he/she resorts to violence. While I wasn't at Columbine, I was in a near by high school at the time and we got locked down etc, it was so scary and there wasn't even anyone in my school, I can’t imagine the lasting effects on the poor kids who were there. It’s like a 9/11 type of day for me, I remember exactly where I was and everything that played out. I'll happily send my kids to a school where there are metal detectors and armed security guards if it prevents a Columbine from ever happening again. The only way to protect against that is to give people weapons to protect themselves, because like someone already pointed out those boys got their guns illegally.

Johnny - posted on 07/01/2010

Yikes. I can not imagine going to a school that was in permanent lock-down. That is just depressing. We would see a cop come by our school about once a week for their "liaison officer" day. One officer is responsible for 3 or 4 schools under that program. Most of the time, they seemed to be focused on recruiting students to the police force after graduation. And figuring out who the local pot dealer was. It is the same today as it was back when I was in school.

There is simply no need for any sort of arming or "defense" in the schools. I can not even recall any discussion or suggestions that would be a good idea or necessary here. I guess we really live in quite a different world.

LaCi - posted on 07/01/2010

It really didn't feel like a prison. Cops are friendly, the school is extremely nice, the staff and faculty has always been wandering around near the doors greeting people. It's just secure. Only one door is used for entrance during school hours, it's open in the morning, cop and staff standing by, it's locked throughout the day and all visitors and late students have to ring in.

Jenny - posted on 07/01/2010

That's messed up Laci. I don't think that sort of environment is productive to learning at all. A school should be a welcoming place, not feel like a prison.

I support gun ownership. I do not support the carrying of concealed weapons. I love knowing when I'm walking around in my city that the crowds are likely not armed. It would make me extremely uncomfortable to be in an area where concealed guns are welcome.

Isobel - posted on 07/01/2010

Chris Rock...you wouldn't have drive by shootings if bullets cost a hundred bucks a piece (that's a paraphrase but whatever)

ME - posted on 07/01/2010

I was teaching Philosophy class last night, and the issue of gun control came up. One of my students suggested that instead of regulating hand guns and automatic weapons, we regulate the ammo for them. Make it available at gun ranges or sporting areas. All ammo must be used/fired or turned in upon exiting the venue. I thought it sounded like an excellent compromise. The people who claim to have these guns for sport or because they LOVE their guns, could still have them and fire them, they just wouldn't be able to fire them at people...

Kathy - posted on 07/01/2010

SOOO glad we have strict gun laws in Australia!

LaCi - posted on 06/29/2010

Speaking of armed guards at schools, all the schools I know of here have police officers on duty before and after school in the entrance lobbies, metal detectors, and doors that you have to be buzzed in through, much like the detention center I worked at. All that in my little town, graduating classes of less than 100, and with no past violence problems whatsoever. I think the crazy doors happened after that guy walked in to the amish school and started blowing people away, because it wasn't there when I attended. But yeah, I think it's a good idea. Even without the student violence issues at schools, who knows what loon could walk in off the street if the doors aren't secured.

Krista - posted on 06/29/2010

I think that we can at least all agree that in order to reduce gun violence, we have to look at the underlying causes of why people become violent in the first place. If we do nothing to address that, then if it's not guns, it's bombs, or what-have-you.

There's no one simple answer -- like all difficult problems, the solution is a hell of a lot more complicated, and requires a multi-pronged approach.

Michelle - posted on 06/29/2010

My brother was one of those kids that was picked on and bullied... After Columbine the school said my brother was going to be a problem.... NOT the kids that were picking on him. IT is still the parents fault. The parents of the boys who did it and the parents of the other children who were being the bullies.....

Michelle - posted on 06/29/2010

Actually what happened a Columbine is tragic and I am not going to say that it is not, however that is exactly the point. It is because they had absent parents or ones that just didn't give a shit enough to pay attention to the signs. Those boys didn't wake up one morning and say "hey I think I will get a gun and kills some people" IT was planned and thought out. The parents should have and did see the warning signs but were to stupid to do anything about it.



It is not the gun manufacturers fault. It is not the US governments fault and it is certainly not the people whos lives were lost fault. Instead of blaming the gun manufacturers and the government maybe the blame should go where it belongs on the PARENTS. IF they had been responsible adults it would have never happened.



Death is tragic and it hurts a lot of people. BUT it is part of life.

Isobel - posted on 06/29/2010

And maybe if the teachers and school officials were willing to protect children who are bullied and tortured beyond reason, there wouldn't be any need either. I know a kid in middle school who went MONTHS having kids punch him as he walked by, call him names, hump his leg while he was going to the bathroom...These are the types of things...when left to fester for YEARS lead to the types of shootings that happened there...and there would only have been one or two victims (if any) if those boys had knives.

ME - posted on 06/29/2010

So...then, by your logic, the people who died at Columbine are just SOL because Dylan and Eric and bad parents? That's a super argument!

Michelle - posted on 06/29/2010

Since we keep talking about Columbine I am going to say my peace on that as well. Maybe if the PARENTS had been PARENTS instead of trying to ignore the problems that their boys had Columbine would have never happened. We blame the gun manufacturers because they were able to get their hands on the guns.... BUT where were the parents?? Maybe if parents acted like parents instead of ignoring their children. It is not our second amendments fault that parents don't act like parents. IT is our fault that we dont.

Christa - posted on 06/29/2010

Laura, I NEVER said the students, but teachers or security guards, yes I'm ok with that. Provided certain regs are put in place of course.

Christa - posted on 06/29/2010

Krista, I respect your opinion and I'm not offended. I just think it's stupid to disarm the US when it's well known that there are countries out there who hate us just for being us. I also don't trust a word the UN says, but that goes back to the video I posted on the other thread and is another discussion. . .

I also didn't mean to change the subject here, I only brought it up because I think similar logic is used on both subjects.

Michelle - posted on 06/29/2010

Drive-bys also dont take place with guns that are legal in this country anyway. They are not driving by firing a 9mm or a .45.. They have illegal automatic weapons. Maybe instead of stopping everyone from owning a hand gun or a shot gun they should legislate what kind of guns the gun makers are aloud to make. Maybe the government shouldn't stock pile M16 and then say oops when they go missing.

ME - posted on 06/29/2010

yes...exactly Laura, no drive by knifings happening around here, but TONS of drive by shootings...

Krista - posted on 06/29/2010

I don't mean this to offend you, Christa, but when it comes to nuclear non-proliferation, I have spent a lot of time talking with some very dedicated people who have made it their life's work to study and work on this particular issue. So you'll forgive me if I don't take your word over that of people like the U.N. Under-Secretary for Disarmament Affairs, who told me quite seriously that the only way towards global non-proliferation is if the nuclear superpowers initiate disarmament.

Isobel - posted on 06/29/2010

or any time, for that matter, that a child or family member was accidentally knifed to death

Isobel - posted on 06/29/2010

guns make it 1000 times easier for people to kill people...I can't remember the last time an innocent bystander was killed by knife (unless they jump into the fight)

Michelle - posted on 06/29/2010

I keep reading about Columbine and nuclear weapons. I just want to remind everyone that guns DON"T kill people. People kill people. Throughout history it has been the same and I for one and grateful that I have the ability to defend my family from all enemies domestic and foreign. I have the ability to own a gun (hand gun or otherwise) to protect myself and my daughters from any person who might do us harm. I agree that owning a gun is not a deterrent from criminals to not try and harm us, but I will be damned if I don't have the ability to fight back. What am I suppose to do call the police and wait 30 minutes for them to show up. Do you know what would happen in those 30 minutes?? Well I sure as hell don't want to find out.

Isobel - posted on 06/29/2010

and the only way anybody could have had a gun to stop columbine would be if students and teachers carried loaded weapons to school every day just in case...that can't possibly be what is being recommended...that we arm our children and their teachers AT SCHOOL?

Sara - posted on 06/29/2010

Well, I think your logic is faulty, and that's just my opinion. You've spent a great deal of time going on in this thread about how if criminals have weapons, then normal people should have them as well and that will act as some kind of deterrent to crime. But when you take that to the global scale, like with nulcear non-proliferation, you insist that if we have more weapons, it won't make a difference in whether or not another country develops and stockpiles nuclear weapons. Seems contradictory to me, because it seems to be possible that the more weapons we have, the chances of someone else deciding to obtain a nuclear weapon increase. Our stockpile seems to encourage nuclear armament of other countries, not act as a deterrent. So wouldn't it stand to reason that if everyone in society got a gun, for protection or to act as a deterrent, then gun violence (and probably violence in general) would just increase?

Sara - posted on 06/29/2010

But isn't there a chance that they could get their heads blown off now? I mean, I just don't understand that line of thinking...if a criminal is going to commit an act, he's not going to be deterred by the possibility that a person has a gun, because the possibility already exists, and violent crime still exists...it seems to be a vicious circle. Violence breeds violence, I think.

Christa - posted on 06/29/2010

One other thing Sara, my logic isn't faulty. They don't have weapons because we have weapons. They have them because they want power.

Christa - posted on 06/29/2010

Krista, actually I live 15 mins from Columbine and was in high school at the time so I have friends who were there that day and a friend who was very good friends with one of the victims. I'm very confident if teachers or security had been armed they never would have gotten to the library which is where the most people were killed. Anyway. . . .

You can not reason with the mentally unstable, whether that be street criminals or crazy world leaders. The idea of "we'll put ours weapons down and then you do" is stupid on any level. Why the hell would they? They are not logical reasonable people. They want to win at all costs. I guarantee Kim Jong Il is laughing his ass of at Obama's gesture. He's thinking great, now it will be easier to do whatever I want. Same thing on a street level. If a thug knows he can go into just about any home and take what he wants by force because all these "good law abiding" citizens aren't allowed to have guns then what's to stop him? He'd think twice if he thought there was a chance he's break in and get his head blown off. I'm not saying everyone should walk around packing like some sort of military state or something, but the unknown is enough.

I love the scene in “The Blind Side” where Sandra Bullock's character get's in the thug’s face and tells him she's friends with the DA and packing so he'd better watch his ass. I know it's a movie, but the emotions behind it are real. When the victims are no longer helpless it takes the power and intimidation away from the criminals.

LaCi - posted on 06/29/2010

"The guns at columbine and vtech were bought legally, by my recollection...they wanted them...so I guess they deserved to have them..."

And the handguns weren't actually acquired legally at columbine. The friend who sold them the handguns was charged for selling handguns to minors. Increasing the age to purchase a shotgun could be helpful.

Christa - posted on 06/29/2010

Mary, I thought my comment on "regulating so the responsible have them" right before made it clear who I was talking about. Not sure how I could have been more clear. . .

Sara - posted on 06/29/2010

I don't think you can compare gun control to global nuclear non-proliferation...that's a stretch. Plus, you're contradicting yourself. By your own logic, if the US owns 95% of the nuclear weapons in the world, then why shouldn't other countries arm themselves against us with nuclear weapons? Wouldn't it stand to reason that if we agree to get rid of certain percentage of our weapons then so would others?



I don't really agree with the idea that if criminals have guns, we should all have guns. Are you saying that if we all had guns then if someone shoots at us then we can just shoot them back? That seems pretty twisted to me. I don't know what the answer to violence in our society is, that's an entirely different conversation, but something tells me the answer is not to arm everyone to the gills.

Krista - posted on 06/29/2010

I don't think I agree with you on Columbine, Christa. Sure, there might have been some action-movie scenario where a student or teacher with a gun could have taken down the shooters. Or, (more likely, in my opinion), even more innocent people would have been hurt in the resultant firefight.

And the president is actually acting on the advice of some of the worlds' top minds. America and Russia currently own over 95% of the world's arsenal of nuclear weapons. Many are on "high alert" which creates a risk of accidental detonation. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever for those countries to have so many nuclear weapons, and no reason for them to be on high alert. What needs to be done is for the IAEA to be strengthened so as to prevent illegal proliferation. As well, if the nuclear states disarm, that gives them an actual legal leg to stand on when it comes to demanding non-proliferation from other countries. But right now, if you own 95% of the bombs, and you tell another country that they aren't allowed to own any, they're going to say, "Yeah right. I have to protect myself in case you guys ever get the idea to fire one of those bombs my way!" Hence, a key element is that non-nuclear weapons states need to receive guarantees that they will never be attacked by U.S. nuclear weapons. Because the U.S. owns the most nukes, they have to set the tone.

Here is some interesting information: http://www.pugwash.org/reports/nw/NPT-Re...

It's long, but I would recommend reading Paolo Cotta-Ramusino's article "The NPT in Context" -- it starts on page 11 of the pdf.

LaCi - posted on 06/29/2010

"How might the murder of children in drive by shootings be justified exactly??? (ages 18 mos to 18 years)"



It's not, but what you implied with your previous post "I see nothing wrong with one of those regulations being the outlawing of weapons used ONLY for murdering people. Why do gun owners want such weapons?" You implied a handgun's sole purpose is murder, also implying that apparently those of us not involved in a militia are apparently intent on murdering someone at some point in our lives, why else would we have weapons only used for murder?



If I misread your post, my apologies. But thats what it sounded like.

ME - posted on 06/29/2010

"but they should be available to those that want one." - Christa

Christa - posted on 06/29/2010

That's ridiculous and you know it. Clearly we need to tighten who is allowed to get them as I think most have agreed, but the point was maybe others would have had one too, if our society wasn't so hell bent on getting rid of them from everywhere. It's about as well thought out as our "brilliant" president who thinks by disarming us of nuclear bombs the crazies will too. It's extremely faulty logic.