yoink

So everyone who disagrees with your position is fundamentally mediocre? Implying, of course, that you're not mediocre. That's some serious arrogance you've got going on there.

Agreed with all of that. However, mental health screenings as part of an overall approach to mental health - done with the regularity (and lack of invasiveness) that you get during a medical checkup - could do a lot to reduce the number of people with pathologies likely to lead them to become mass murderers. The problem is that unless it's compulsory and enforced then the the people who need help invariably think they're the ones who don't. need it - particularly if there's a risk that they'll lose access to their precious guns. Can you really see rushmc going for regular psychological health checks? It'd be 'it's none of the government's business! LOL!', or 'There's no proof it works!' or similar. The point is that while the 'it's not a gun problem, it's a mental health problem' is a great slogan for proponents of the 2nd, they haven't thought about how you'd actually implement any sort of response if that's true. Cost, personal freedom, risk and deployment issues are all much, much harder than removing access to the firearms themselves. I think next time someone suggests it I'll take a page out of their book and just ask 'how do you do it?' or 'wouldn't work' as a response.

It would work better than the do nothing thing we've go going on now. The only problem is that it's incredibly invasive, probably goes against the constitution and leads to a database of people with psychological issues that could be MASSIVELY abused. It's a horrible, horrible idea. The people who are banging on about 'mental-health' solutions? This is what it would take... Regular, mandatory screening for every single American, and action taken on those results. Refuse a screening? No 2nd amendment rights for you. Fail one? No guns for you or your family.

That's part of the FJC. Mark it with a big bullseye.

Would you accept mandatory psychological testing every 6 months for every single American past the age of 8?

1 - almost certainly not a 'citizen'. Gun control in China is extremely strict so you can probably assume that this is a someone with training. Paramilitary or security of some sort. Not necessarily your 'one good man with a gun' NRA type of situation... 2 - Given that the perpetrator couldn't get their hands on a gun easily they were forced to use a less effective method. While 9 deaths is tragic, it's logical to suppose that if they had access to firearms the way we do in the US then the death toll would have been much higher. No one here is stating that gun control will stop killings in schools. But it will massively reduce them. You brought this up - it's YOUR situation. How many similar events have happened in China this year? How many in the past 10 years??? Because it's nowhere NEAR the number of events in the US where guns are used.

I was going to cure cancer and solve world hunger. But then I didn't. Do I get a Nobel prize too?

Understatement of the year.

Basically he's way ahead of you. Applying statistical processes with which I am sure you are familiar, it turns out that your kid is much more likely to O.D. or die of medical mistakes or sundry other causes than by firearm. The whole issue of 'gun violence' is the result of insecure people whose uterus charts their course. I, for one, recoil at having limitations imposed on me that are intended for the Lowest Common Denominator of our society. The Dictatorship of the Mediocre is not a paradigm to which I aspire. I recoil at having my child at risk because you want to play with toys. If everyone who is concerned about their child is a woman as you insinuate, then everyone who is adamantly against gun control is a selfish child who won’t grow up. NO! DON'T TAKE MY BALL!! Waah.

NOT A LIBERAL!!!! Burn him at the stake!!!!

Just so you know, using terms like 'libtard' makes you sound like a 12 year old. If you have a point then make it like an adult. I agree - focusing on a single model of gun is stupid. We'll have to go through this nonsense for every type of gun there is. It's simply politicians trying to score temporary points... However, it's better than doing nothing. I honestly didn't think anyone would suck up that talking point from the Texan Lt. Gvnr. With even the most basic analysis it's a horrible idea. Yes. A single point of entry is easier to secure. That's the only tick in the pro column... The cons? It's still reliant on human observation so isn't that effective (look up studies about the rate of contraband that gets into prisons), and in the event of an emergency that requires an evacuation it's a guaranteed disaster. Fire codes exist for a reason - you need to be able to get to an exit in a certain amount of time to avoid the minor issue of burning to death. And even if you do make it to an exit in time, if the occupation of the building is too high for the number of exits you run into the slight issue of people crushing each other to death as they panic to get out (ref. Hillsborough). Let's not even talk about the potential for the carnage if an active shooter DOES make it into a school and there's only one exit... Fish in a barrel, anyone? I could go on for hours about why this is a retarded idea. Prisons are designed in the way they are for particular reasons; to secure the area inside them. Schools SHOULD be designed to maximize the potential for kids to be educated and socialized - the two don't overlap well. And I'm talking as someone who has worked on the design of both, multiple times. There are design considerations when building a school that take into account the normal hazards of growing up (re: stuff like Bob_Church's bullying concerns) and there are a number of initiatives that address these (Safety by Design etc), but being shot at school shouldn't be a concern for a child. What is an OK constraint for an adult isn't OK for children. It's another reason rushmc's 'more security' argument is wrong - morally and physically.

You know why? A shotgun and handgun was used, not an AR-15. It doesn't fit their agenda. The proposed AR-15 ban is all sorts of stupid.

The quality of the spelling and grammar in that article is exactly what I'd expect of that POS rag.

Guns don't kill people, entrances and exits do!

***The second amendment has nothing to do with the shooting WRONG!!

Really interesting question, and the 24hr cyber bullying you're referring to is a HUGE problem at the moment. Give up the internet? No - it's not worth that. I genuinely believe the ability to share information freely is one of the paths to making us great as a species. Give up social media though? Absolutely. In a heartbeat. And there's the rub - does this type of usage censorship come from the parents, or from a central authority? Is it a combination of both? Like any incredibly powerful tool, the internet can be abused and it will take training and education to teach people how to use it properly. Our generation has had to learn on the fly about alternate personas, identity theft, cyber bullying and a myriad of other things that are either a result of or enabled by this incredible invention, but our kids shouldn't have to. I'm already thinking about how I'll teach my son to use the internet but he'll make mistakes learning - that's only to be expected. He'll post something he shouldn't and he'll get teased for it, or look at something that disturbs him. That's my job as a parent - to ameliorate those events. The big difference between the internet and gun education is that at least the internet is only words. It's unlikely that my boy will be able to kill a bunch of his classmates if he's angry by typing a nasty message on facebook in a one off situation.

Another cowardly non answer from the troll. You’re bright enough to realize that it’s a question that puts you in an impossible situation. Either you answer yes and get called a callous fanatic, or you answer no in which case I retort with ‘but other people’s kids are worth it?’ and you’re fucked again. You don’t like the choices you’re given so you follow the Trump playbook and attack on a tangent. The problem is you’re not as good at it as he is and come off looking foolish every time. It’s a tough question, isn’t it? What is your 2nd amendment worth. So far this year it’s 30 innocent children. What’s the total you’d accept? And if it was YOUR child is the answer 0? It's not a tough question. It's an irrelevant question. It's the only thing you got. It's misleading it's disingenuous and it's untruthful. So if I'm cowardly in your eyes so fucking be it I don't care. You got nothing you've never had anything you never will. Go for it. Please explain how equating the worth of your kids' life to the continual loss of children's lives in school shootings is irrelevant. I can wait for you to make yourself look like an idiot again... Empathy's a bitch, huh? As for disingenuous and untruthful I'm just going assume that you don't understand what those words mean because they don't fit here. You're throwing words that are trying to let you dodge the question (hence the coward comment) and I'm not going to let you. How many children being shot in schools is your 2nd amendment right worth? Give me a number. Throw something out to start a discussion... Does that number change if it was your child? By the way, I love that you're getting angry in your responses because you know you don't have a leg to stand on. It gives me the tingles.

Another cowardly non answer from the troll. You’re bright enough to realize that it’s a question that puts you in an impossible situation. Either you answer yes and get called a callous fanatic, or you answer no in which case I retort with ‘but other people’s kids are worth it?’ and you’re fucked again. You don’t like the choices you’re given so you follow the Trump playbook and attack on a tangent. The problem is you’re not as good at it as he is and come off looking foolish every time. It’s a tough question, isn’t it? What is your 2nd amendment worth. So far this year it’s 30 innocent children. What’s the total you’d accept? And if it was YOUR child is the answer 0?

It IS that big a deal. Kids are kids. They're not adults. They deserve to have an environment that is safe to be kids in without the need for specialized security to account for adults wanting to play with guns. Here's the thing - where I went to school there was NO security. None. And that's true in just about every country that doesn't have multiple shootings in schools every week. So sure, you could lock the schools down, treat them like a prison and frisk everyone coming and going and there would probably be less events like this - But no parent in the world would want that. By adding security that you want you're treating a symptom, not the root cause. Let me ask you something - would you trade your child's life for your right to own firearms? A straight yes or no answer please. It is hard to have any discussion when you jump to extremes. Yet another non-answer. It’s hard to have a discussion because you simply don’t understand what the word means. I asked you a simple question that wasn’t an extreme in any way because 10 kids are dead at this latest one... I’m simply putting it in your frame of reference. (It’s how conversation works) Let’s try it a different way: If your child was killed in a school shooting do you think that is a reasonable cost for your 2nd amendment rights?

Because it’s 2018 and awareness of STDs is high school knowledge nowadays? Teenagers should not know more than the POTUS

It IS that big a deal. Kids are kids. They're not adults. They deserve to have an environment that is safe to be kids in without the need for specialized security to account for adults wanting to play with guns. Here's the thing - where I went to school there was NO security. None. And that's true in just about every country that doesn't have multiple shootings in schools every week. So sure, you could lock the schools down, treat them like a prison and frisk everyone coming and going and there would probably be less events like this - But no parent in the world would want that. By adding security that you want you're treating a symptom, not the root cause. Let me ask you something - would you trade your child's life for your right to own firearms? A straight yes or no answer please.

I googled 'US School shooting' this morning when I heard the news. There were three that popped up that I hadn't even heard about. JUST THIS WEEK. They didn't even make the news. Seriously, until it's your kid, no-one seems to care anymore.

Don't they do this every year when the joint military exercises happen? NK threaten to pull out of some sort of talks in order to get concessions to 'come back to the table'. It's the opening gambit for their negotiating strategy, every time.

True. But by doing this you're asking people who DO follow the rules and post constructively to alter THEIR behavior to suit people who are a disruption. Don't you see that's the wrong way of approaching it? Take it to a logical conclusion - your posters who create discussion content could absolutely not read those posts by just not coming in here anymore, just as BIGUN points out has happened before. All that happens with the 'if you don't like it, don't read it' approach is that you reinforce negative behavior and diminish the positive. It's inevitable that you end up with recdot...

I'm fine with leaving things the way they are IF Quade's sticky on quoting at the top of the forum on is enforced and expanded to include one word replies. Simply posting 'no' doesn't add anything to a discussion. Neither does just posting a hyperlink assuming the reader will take the time to read and understand how it makes your point. Even 'look at this [link] - it's why I think x,y,z' is better than just [link]. How long does it take you to write a reasoned post? 4,5 minutes? More? To have that time and effort disregarded with a 'no' or 'wrong!' isn't simply ignorant, it's rude.