SkyDekker

How did that armed guard at Columbine work out? The guard worked about as well as the assault rifle ban during that time did. Clebold and Harris used other weapons and got the same results. So the ban worked, since the banned guns were not used. The armed guard did not work, since the shooting still took place.

Not to speak for Kallend, but I am sure he would be fine with that restriction. Would mean that anybody who wants to carry outside of their own property will need registration, insurance, licenses etc.

You have stated you would be willing to pay extra property taxes to protect the children with armed guards. Would you be willing to spend an equal extra amaount in property taxes to better the education they receive? Would you also be willing to pay an equal extra amount in taxes for better access to mental health care? Lastly, why are you so jealous of rich kids? Your posts are starting to "sound" like equality for all. Very surprising to see your communist side come out.

It may work....just sad that society is willing to pay more to put guns in schools, but not willing to pay more for better public education. Sidwell Friends School Tuition is roughly $34,000 a year a child.

It wasn't in response to your post...you were just the last in line. But it has been a while since I have seen a post by anybody indicating that the public school system should have the same academic resources as all public schools. I get the impression people are willing to pay for guns in schools, but not for better education....

Only in America would people use security at a private school as an example for all schools.

And I thought no solution has a 100% succes rate...

I think it is unfortunate that the question is what can we do about guns to prevent mass shootings. I think guns are only part of the equasion. To me the issues are: *Lack of affordable and available mental health care. *Quickness of prescribing pills. *Extreme difficulty in having those you are responsible for committed. *Stigma associated with Mental Health issues. *Availability of firearms and type of firearms. *Societal acceptance of guns and violence. *Desensitization towards violence. *Societal move towards less in-person socialization. I don't think you can point the finger at just one root cause, which to me also means you cannot look for a solution in only one category. The fact that very few to no mass shootings have taken place with fully automatic weapons shows that restricting access does have an effect. I also believe that (over time) banning large capacity magazines can have an effect on severity of these mass shootings. Unfortunately, I don't think banning anything larger than 10 would make a difference. I think you have to go smaller than that. In the end you have to address all issues if you really want to try and prevent the majority of these mass shootings from taking place. As a side note, and this is really a rhetorical question, but I really wonder what the response of the founding fathers would have been to Newtown, CT.

What if you are a teacher, newly allowed to carry your gun in the classroom? Do nothing and nothing happens, you are probably ok. Do nothing, kid shoots another kid. You probably get sued for doing nothing. Draw, create chaos, no shots are fired, you probably get fired by the school board after parent complaints. Draw, kid shoots another kid, you shoot the kid. Now you probably get sued by both sets of parents. Etc Somehow this is the answer?

I disagree. Preventative measures would also work on mass shootings in locations other than schools. Hence, spending the same effort and finances on preventative measures will have a much broader reach then just defending schools. And for the millionth time, I will clarify that preventative measures does not mean banning guns. There is much more involved than just guns.

No need for the name calling. I do have a say in it. I can send my kids to private school. I can even start my own school, with its own rules. I don't understand how you can claim that the federal government has no role to play in the welfare of children. Hence the question about lead in toys. Lead, like guns, is just an object, a property if you will. Do you also believe that the federal government does not have a right to legislate the lead content in toys and that parents should have a say in it? I am trying to find out if your viewpoint is consistent, or if it is different because it involves guns. That's not my opinion at all. I just disagree that the federal government should play no role in the process.

Though it likely prevented their use in the Columbine Shooting. They did try to use IEDs, but they are signifcantly harder to make and therefor never exploded. And you keep going on about these "assault weapons", but that term means nothing without definition. I agree that the ban was silly in the state it was in, with very ill defined terms and almost identical guns being allowed due to "image differences". I agree that a ban along those lines does not work.

I disagree. I think his posts are generally well through out and researched. I may not always agree with him, but that is a completely different issue. I think his reaction here is very much based on feeling, specially since Jerry like I has young kids, very much near the age range of those killed. I am pretty sure emotion is pretty heavily involved. Your post attcking him really has no merit, and you are significantly off the mark.

Beats the public health care available in the US. I would like to see a private tier added to the Ontario public health system. A hybrid system, that offers a private option to those who can afford it. I have no issue with continuing to fund a public health system through tax payer dollars. I see it as a basic right of people to be afforded health care.

Sorry, I don't see the humour in the death of these kids, or the response of many to it. Maybe having two kids in that same age bracket makes me biased.

I though you wanted the fed to stay out of property rights? Or just some property rights?

Ahh, couldn't refute the math I see... Like I have said before, I prefer a preventative approach. According to you they are all useless. Don't think you and I will ever come to any type of agreement on this, and that's ok.

That's like them making rules like don't put any lead in a kids toy. If a parent lets their kid suck on some lead toy it is their own damn problem. Yup....fuck the welfare of the population....just as long as I can have guns everything will be ok.

My lack of experience in murdering people? At one point no cars had seat belts. Not all bans are useless, none are 100% effective. Hey if you want to make no changes at all, that's fine. Just come out and say it.

I agree, happens everywhere...just doesn't seem at the same regularity, or severity. At least two of those shootings involved legally owned guns too. Seems like a lot of these shootings take place with legally owned firearms, or easily available firearms legally owned by a family member.

Or maybe she hasn't given up yet on the opportunity, hope, chance to change it.

I didn't take her quote like that at all.

I don't like that either. But that doesn't take away that dress and behaviour have an effect on the likelyhood of a rape taking place.

I agree. But then I also feel that lawyers shouldn't get such a big percentage of class action suits either.

Ok, so in this case at least 81 shots were fired means the Newtown shooter had to change magazines twice. If he was restricted to 2 round magazines he would have had to change magazines 40 times. If we pick an average time to switch out an emtpy magazine at 3 seconds, it would have gained the victims a cumulated 114 seconds. I don't accept that in that case it "wouldn't have changed anything". I do accept that many in America would not be willing to make that change.