You must be kidding. Nothing will even be considered along those lines until somebody finally walks into CONGRESS and starts blazing away. There should be no shortage of volunteers for this honor. THEN we will see more "investigations" and legislation then we've had in the last 50 years :rolleyes:

Tonchi-

Yes, but I suspect more than a couple would include suggestions to permit senators and representatives to carry concealed weapons. ;)

UG-

I have had no training in the handling of firearms, or in how to behave around people who are armed, or in how to know when to use a firearm that you do have. But here is my thought: If someone in the room with you is armed and crazy, and you pull out your gun, that provides an immediate threat against them. It changes the armed crazy into an armed, threatened crazy. Which I rate as an individual with a higher chance of acting violently. They have an imminent need to act; that is, to shoot you. Escalation.

"Mental illness" is not, by any definition, singular. It is a broad concept.

And no, you cannot legislate against 'it'. But you can mitigate it, prevent it, treat it, study it, understand it.


I support that.

Sign me up!

(That was a Joke to anyone from Homeland Security who is reading this :worried: )

You can try but that's exactly the reason these wackos are drawn to schools...... gun free, safe environment to act out their fantasies.

Arm Willie the Janitor so he doesn't have to rely on his bagpipes. ;)

With this logic, EVERYBODY should have a gun?

I remember Saddam gave thousands AK47's away in Iraq just before the invasion. See the carnage that's happening now.

Obviouly the guns caused it, since there were no problems in Iraq before then.

Not "EVERYBODY" should have a gun...criminals should be excluded. And people who aren't willing or able to handle their weapons responsibly. Beyond that it should be a matter of personal choice.

Russell Eugene Weston Jr tried on July 24, 1998

What do you think it caused? Smoking waterpipes? 300-600.000 people died in Iraq the last 3 years, of which 70% due to internal violence. This is much more than during Saddam times.

The US has the highest gun related deaths. Do you really think distributing more guns will lower that figure?

As I mentioned before Canada has about the same gun possession, yet much lower gun related death. Something to think about.

Oh, come on. After spending billions of dollars on a failed gun registry they have "about the same gun posession"? Spare me.

The current violence in Iraq has zero to do with Saddam passing out AKs to the civilans and everything to do with decades of Baathist tyrrany and oppression. It's mostly Sunnis trying to get back the dominance they had and Shiites trying to make sure that doesn't happen. And both of them feel religiously justified because the "other guys" are kufar.

If you think it wouldn't be happening if Saddam hadn't passed out small arms you're deluding yourself. Weapons don't cause violence any more than matches cause arson; that's an animistic superstition. People with violent intent commit violence.

If you disagree with my opinion....schools, being gun free zones, are a safe place to raise hell.....tell me why these wackos rarely chose police stations or military bases for their terrorizing?
Please note I did not say give everyone a gun or that schools should not be gun free zones.......except for arming Willie the janitor. ;)

# For 1987-96, on average, 65% of homicides in the U.S. involved firearms, compared to 32% for Canada
# For 1987-96, the average firearm homicide rate was 5.7 per 100,000 in the U.S., compared to 0.7 per 100,000 for Canada.
# For 1989-95, the average handgun homicide rate was 4.8 per 100,000 in the U.S., compared to 0.3 per 100,000 for Canada. Handguns were involved in more than half (52%) of the homicides in the U.S., compared to 14% in Canada.

I ask you again: do you think distributing more guns will decrease gun related deaths?

So, what do YOU think happened with the thousands AK47 that Saddam passed out? They use it only on New Years Eve? Read this:
Yeah, there are plenty of these platitudes. I guess you use the infamous Ted Kennedy quote the next post, or how about this one: "Guns only have two enemies: rust and totalitarians", or "Know guns...know peace, know safety", you're free to use them.

Post offices are not gun free zones, are they? ;)

The theory is that if you're pulling out your gun, you are also half a second away from pulling the trigger on the armed crazy. The armed crazy might take hostages or just wave the gun around, but the law-abiding gun owner doesn't pull it out unless it's time to shoot right now.

Yes, they are. At least that's the theory, according to one postal regulation. There's another that appears to create a conflict in the case of "for a lawful purpose", which is the case with most school victim disarmament zone laws too.

Kinda funny...when my dad was postal worker in the 1930's-1940's, he was issued a revolver sidearm. That was before he became a clergyman...

Which as you point out is pretty stupid -- he's not thinking things through.

Not quite right: I'm smart and don't want you dead. For a small instance, I spell don't better than you do, consistently. My writing is thus that much clearer than yours -- you've got this little problem -- a solecism, yes -- with contractions. You ought to know better, so see to it, and no bellyachin'.

A child might think he ought to call me stupid when he can't write so hot -- but kid: I crossed puberty, mmm... 37 years ago.