midnight rain

Do we know anything more about how the gunman got his weapons? He seemed like a lonely, depressed kid with no criminal ties so I'm not sure he'd have access to weapons.


And what exactly did loose gun laws do to HELP this situation that stricter guns would hurt? Did you hear of any reports of armed citizens returning fire on the gunman?

Janszoon

From what I read they were legally purchased weapons owned by his mother.

__________________
A Night in the Life of the Invisible Man

Time & Place

25 Albums You Should Hear Before the Moon Crashes into the Earth and We All Die

last.fm

PoorOldPo

His mother, a rigid primary school teacher had an m4. Assault rifle?....

__________________
https://www.instagram.com/hennas.lullaby/

midnight rain

I wish someone would answer this.

How did the right to bears arm positively affect this situation? Can we at least look at school shootings and acknowledge that a.) the right to bear arms rarely comes into play and b.) the vast majority of school shooters get firearms not from the black market, but from relatives who own them through legal means?

tl;dr: the one touted advantage of gun ownership is moot in this scenario, and banning guns would at the very least make it much more difficult for angsty, impulsive teens to get their hands on them.

Freebase Dali

Well, the right to bear arms didn't positively affect this because A) Firearms are not allowed at school, and B) There was no armed guard at the school.

I'm not sure if you're trying to fault the right to bear arms not saving the day when weapons are not allowed at school and no armed guards were present. We aren't exactly calling for 9 year olds to be able to carry guns at school to protect themselves from would-be assassins...

Or maybe I'm totally misunderstanding what you're trying to say.

midnight rain

It really goes for any kind of spree killing where 99% of the time it ends up being the cops who take down the perpetrator.

There's two ways of looking at it obviously
-stricter gun control
-less gun control

Is #2 really a path we want to take? Fighting violence with violence, basically turning the U.S. into a hostile war zone of it's own, where everyone is so on edge that they feel the need to carry a gun on themselves at all times to be safe? Doesn't sound like a very hospitable environment to me.

An armed guard would potentially work, but at the same time it takes, what, 1 minute to gun down an entire classroom of people?

Freebase Dali

Well, to only see those two options as being valid to pursue sorta doesn't make very much of an argument, because I definitely don't think those are the only options that could fit on the table.
Making it harder to obtain firearms is somewhere in the middle, and it should be pursued vigorously, as that option lessens the chances of the wrong people obtaining them while not eliminating the chances of the right people obtaining them.

As far as an armed guard not really working because it could take 1 minute to kill a classroom, I gotta think you're intentionally not actually considering this discussion seriously. Tell you what. If you can come up with a plan to somehow figure out how to install an armed security guard in such a way as to actually prevent an armed 20 year old from entering a class room and killing all the students, you win.

Winning means your previous post is contradicted. Not winning means you're not very bright.

midnight rain

What? Making it harder to obtain firearms would fall under stricter gun control would it not?

It's a spectrum of gun control, either you move up the ladder toward stricter, or you move down toward more lenient. Or you stay the same and address another problem. Those are your only options.

I'm not saying it wouldn't work, I'm saying he'd probably have to be heavily armed at the least to make it work. Let's not forget that Columbine had an armed security guard, that didn't do much good.