SkyDekker

How many of these bombings have taken place in countries with heavily restricted guns?

You bring up another good example why making guns less accesable will help reduce the number of similar incidents. Making IEDs succesfully is significantly more difficult than acquiring guns, ammunition and aiming and pulling the trigger. No injury or death in Columbine relates to IEDs. The far majority are a direct result of gun shot wounds.

I may never understand how people think the answer to this scenario is giving the old lady a gun.

We, the west created many of those oppressive dictatorships. I doubt we are seen as the great model of society. So, guns don't protect free speech? I thought you were claiming the opposite?

Legalize drugs? I think prescription drugs are a big part of this problem, so find it interesting you would indicate legalization of drugs as an option to reduce these mass shootings. I don't think reality is a bitch at all. The rest of the western world seems to have figured it out. The US had a shooting in a school, a mall and a movie theatre all in one week alone. Most other western civilized countries don't even have that in a year, or a decade. So, there is indeed no 100% cure for this. But many other countries have opted to try and reduce these incidents from happening. Most relatively succesful. What have you (in a general sense) done since Columbine, the various University shootings, Ft. Hood, Aurora? What are you going to do now, after Newtown? Probably nothing meaningful. On the issue of costs, how incredibly sick is it that you spend trillions on warfare around the globe, but now you are worried about costs to prevent mass shootings in your own country. No wonder your reality is a bitch, your priorities are as fucked up as they get.

Exactly. But, they are significantly harder and significantly more expensive to get your hands on. They are also used significantly less in crimes and murders. You think that is just coincedence?

Not if you take emotion out of it. From most I have seen only the argument that this can not be 100% prevented. Very, very, very few here have come up with any type of suggestions. Those who do, either get stymied, or told why it won't work. If you aren't willing to change anything, than this is indeed just the price to pay for American Society. Don't you normally preach to keep emotion out of these arguments?

Right after you make any proposal. Unless you just think these 20 kids are a small price to pay for American Society and nothing can be done.

Iraq had some really high gun ownership as well. Their free speech didn't fare so well. Did they just not have enough guns? Or were they just not willing to fight like you think Americans will?

Just make sure you don't stay in the lobby too long, or you might get shot.

* Better access to (mental) health care. * Ease regulations allowing guardians or family to force hospitalization * Reduce stigma associated with mental health issues. * Repeal 2nd Amendment and ban all guns * Make gun ownership mandatory and force people to carry at all times. * Force firearms to be in immediate possession or locked in such a way only the legal onwer can retrieve. * make firearms less easily accesable * Ban semi automatic weapons * Ban magazines that hold more than 3 rounds (or even 2 rounds...3 was chosen completely at random) * Return to muzzle loaded rifles * Multiple armed guards at every educational facility, full access control and mandatory bullet proof windows and blast proof doors. Those are all measures I think will help reduce the chance, severity, probability, and/or possibility of these incidents occuring.

Really? You think half the American households owning guns maintains your right to free speech? I constantly hear people talking about their rights being taken away, yet nobody has taken up armed revolt yet. Do you really think that if the right of the Westboro Church to spew hatred is taken away, there will be an armed revolt to protect the 1st Amendment?

Correct, but a bit of a cop out. There are measures that could reduce the frequency, the severity, the probability, the possibility of these types of events. Do you think it is warrented to explore that, or do you view these incidents as a price to pay for a so called free society?

I think it has more to do with the fact that many of those shootings are between gangs, or between two criminals. They simply are not seen the same way as 20 children aged 6 and 7 while at school.

Sounds like bans and restrictions are pretty effective then.

I also heard he had brown hair. Do you have any correlation between Asperger's and violent tendencies? Or just because it is a mental health issue, it must have bearing?

So, would you suggest that hese items should therefor just be available, since trying to keep them out is not 100% effective? I am not going to suggest that I have the solutions. In my opinion the issue is more multidimensional than just guns. It is the stigmatization of mental health issues, combined with mental health care that is hard to access. Mix this together with easy access to guns in a society which somewhat idolizes violence and you have a recipe for disaster. Nothing will ever ensure this doesn't ever happen again. The question is how many changes are you willing to make to reduce the chance of this happening again.

Oh I think this started well before BHO. I can remember comments like, you are either with us or against us. I agree that the situation certainly has not gotten better.

Why? I though the law was that the 1st person to get physical is 100% to blame?

That may be the case, but that doesn't mean I agree with it. (also provides a relatively legal way to commit murder. I can get anybody to take a swing at me)

Yes because all union supporters in Michigan would approve of this.

I disagree. I think there are comments that can be made that would place some of the blame with the person making the comments. I don't think you should simply be able to say what you want and then shoot the person after he takes a swing at you and claim innocence. Not saying that is what happened here, just stating I don't agree with that concept.

I don't dispute that...but tax payer loss was not $535 million...it was around $375 million.

Yes you do...actual loss was probably 70% of that. Likely that if I check more of your examples I'll find more "padded" numbers.

Well, if you are not going to argue in favour of the death penalty, you also won't have to remember this ruling.