SkyDekker

Am I ever happy that I do not live in a country where I have to start thinking about armed teachers and body armour back packs. Quite the society you guys have created....

I don't know...how long does it take on average? Is this average for a trained person, or an untrained person? What about a 5 round or 2 round magazine? What about single action manual reload? None of that would have made a difference? Or you would not be willing to give up your magazines?

Where? Where is the version of the implementation and costs you agree with? Just point me in the direction if this has alerady been discussed in detail. So by your own definition you are sticking with your verbal diarrhea and not offering options. Something about a pot and a ketlle....

Without a definition of "assualt weapons" that statement really doesn't mean anything. I disagree on the high capacity magazines. But I certainly don't think that is the one answer that will do it.

She was shot 4 times in the head while sleeping.

Yes I am hopeful we can try and work towards reducing the number and severity of mass shootings in the US, to bring you in line with other countries. I guess I am delusional in thinking most people would be willing to do the same. The medical examiner stated a number of days ago that all were shot with the rifle. I am not including the shooter in that list.

Uhm, no. He killed his mother after obtaining the weapons.

Ah ok, that makes sense. Portugal has been brought up as an example. But, Portugal did not legalize drugs. They shifted the burden from being one of a criminal nature to one of a health nature. I believe it is that shift that has caused the reduction in usage. I do not think that simply legalizing it will have the same effect. I also don't think that the strategy adopted by Portugal will ever fly in the US. Look at the anger and dismay of offering public health care in any shape or form. Now imagine proposing free public health care for drug users...

I didn't say anything about banning. Fully automatic weapons aren't necessarily banned either. Just indicating that making things harder to get does influence the crimes perpetrated with those hard to acquire items.

He may, or he may not. Don't see why a doctor would have access to data related to motivation of choice in weaponry. I also doubt the data is accurate. I think that is certainly a possibility. Doctors aren't saints.

You seem to be getting a little agitated. Fact remains that very few crimes are perpetrated with fully automatic weapons. Fully automatic weapons are hard and expensive to acquire. I think there is a correlation. I also think that correlation will hold for other weapons. I think that will reduce the number and the severity of mass shootings. I guess that makes me of a certain kind.

No, they will steal or otherwise illegally obtain what is easy or cheap to. Just look at how many crimes take place with full auto weaponry.

You are right, you won't. Nothing is 100% effective. Or he would have hidden himself away from a schoolyard and picked them off on recess. Or one of many other options. Like you said, nothing is 100% effective, neither on the prevention or the "treatment" side. In my opinion efforts on the preventative side are worth more than on the "treatment" side. I know others will disagree.

No they didn't. Yes their drug use has dropped significantly, with a significant cost to their public health system. I would welcome such changes, good luck implementing that in the US.

So what is the cost of allowing teachers to carry? So far that is the only solution you have offered. You have not provided implementation and costs, so apparently so far you have only spewed verbal diarrhea...

Ah ok. I would prefer to focus on shooting incidents in which innocent people get killed. Criminal on criminal violence is significantly lower on the list for me. But I appreciate that other people have different priorities. Not assserting that. I think it is much more than just their gun policies. See, that I don't agree with. It would imply that Americans are either more evil, or go crazier at a higher rate. I do think more can be done on the preventative side. I do also as a general rule believe that prevention is much better than treatment. I don't see how we are a benefactor to your war in Iraq. We spent our own price on Afghanistan. Don't spend on defence on account of us. They are indeed....are those costs open for discussion, or as asked before are these mass shootings just the price to pay for those civil liberties? Simply because I think any possible solution has to be multipronged, I have outlined that before. Make it harder to access firearms, specially those that can fire in rapid succession. Better mental health care. Less reliance on prescription drugs. Make it easier to force hospitalization. reduce stigma associated with mental health issues.

I have offered a list of options in two different threads. You just aren't happy until you have a full plan with full implementation guidelines and cost implications. And then you accuse me of verbal gymnastics...almost funny. Arab spring sin't against collonials. Nor will American society be fighting against colonials any time soon. The right to bear arms also has had no measurable effect on positive changes resulting from the arab spring. Might even be hard to argue that guns in general have had a positive impact on the Arab Spring. Time for you to move the goal posts....again. Oh and where exactly did I say that I had a magic solution? And how exactly do you see the demand for a magic solution be conducive to actually trying to reduce these types of incidents?

1984 and 3 dead. I'll take that over last week and 28 dead. These mass shootings simply do not occur as frequently in Canada as they do in the US. I believe that guns being far less accessible here contributes to that.

So guns can only ensure that rights are maintained, they cannot be used to acquire rights? Not at all, just wanted to have statistics comparable with a similar society. If you want to identify with Egyptians, go at it. I am not. You just aren't really helping your argument. From wikipedia: To date, rulers have been forced from power in Tunisia,[1] Egypt,[2] Libya,[3] and Yemen;[4] civil uprisings have erupted in Bahrain[5] and Syria;[6] major protests have broken out in Algeria,[7] Iraq,[8] Jordan,[9] Kuwait,[10] Morocco,[11] and Sudan;[12] and minor protests have occurred in Lebanon,[13] Mauritania,[14] Oman,[15] Saudi Arabia,[16] Djibouti,[17] and Western Sahara.[18] The major oil rich nations (Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Kuwait and Oman) have been able to keep their ruling families in power. So looks like the majority of countries did not see any changes. Furthermore: Egypt's gun regulation is mainly categorized as restrictive. Tunesia's gun regulation is mainly categorized as restrictive. In Lybia no civilians may possess guns In Yeman the right to possess firearms is guaranteed by law. Hard to claim the right to own firearms had any effect in countries with actual change during the Arab Spring.

Well it is a first amendment issue. If their speech has made them a target of violence, they should be protected by the government. But then I am happy with the way my country handles free speech, which isn't as free as in the US. I am also mostly in favour with the way my country is currently handling guns, which is not a constitutional right. Hence, I guess one could say I am not 100% in favour of either amendment. Would you find it hilarious if I did that to some of the posters here who like to inflame? Or do you only find it hilarious when you don't agree with the message in the first place?

Not so much in favour of the 1st amendment as you are of the second?

Almost any problem involving peopel can be reduced to an individual problem. Does this mean theer are simply no solutions?

Yes Not because guns are not allowed in Pakistan. There are 7,000,000 licensed gun owners in Pakistan.

Great suggestions. I would add increased funding for mental health care and a program to try and reduce the stigma associated with mental health issues. I would also like to see better, independent studies on the side effects of (mental health related) prescription drugs.

Uhm, guns aren't heavily restricted. Open carry is allwed in both countries. Iraq especially had a pretty large gun culcture. The US imposed a 1 gun per person rule. Also interesting that you would see your own society behaving in a similar fashion as Iraq and Afghanistan.