...a couple staffers had been armed?

Tags: control, gun, guns, killings, mass

Views: 8486

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

"So I'm just an engineer..."

WOW, and make a population density mistake like that, oh well at least it's not rocket science.

Uh you haven't engineered anything that could hurt people when it breaks have you?

:) Just kidding, I'm sure they just have you designing door knobs right now while you finish your training and move up to locks. :)

@ RobertPiano

BTW for the sake of clarity ALL homicides are considered "justified" by the survivor.

Justified by LAW...yeah, a murderer never lies...we all know that !

Really?

Hysteria just won't help us solve problems.

The societal problem of mass killings is not easily corrected. The city of Chicago faces about 300 murders of inner city children each year. It doesn't grab the headlines like killing en mass. Too many people, myself included, are unwilling to relinquish possession of our firearms. And to actually round up the hundreds of millions of weapons floating about is not a practical undertaking. The concern for me is that we have as a society exhibited fundamental problems that people are not willing to confront: parents who allow their children to become obese and contract diabetes; throwing First Person Shooter games at them to get them out of their hair for awhile; the non-stop barrage of Hollywood 'kill or be killed' action thrillers; the use of drugs because every other kid is somehow ADD. We've become totally desensitized to humans dying tragically. It is an aspect of American society that we are reluctantly resigned to accept. If you have to 'pack heat' to intermix in your community and feel safe and secure while doing so what does that say about our American way of life? 

  If we are not willing to give up our ability to purchase and own any and all classifications of weaponry and ammunition does that mean we consider these incidents of mass killings as mere collateral damage in upholding our inalienable 2nd amendment rights? Does the average Joe citizen really have a need to own and use a weapon designed solely to kill quickly, and in mass, other humans as in a military environment? Where do we draw the line as to what constitutes unreasonable expectation of ownership? Grenade launchers, heat seeking missiles, tanks?  

  My willingness to place restrictions on the ability to procure military oriented weaponry does not prevent me from enjoying the freedoms of our 2nd amendment. The previous 10 year ban on assault weapons did not result or escalate into further erosion of my rights as a gun owner. My gun cabinet remained just as full as before the legislation was enacted. If we're unwilling to make even the smallest concessions in this regard then we all, collectively, seem to have some innocent blood on our hands. Banning assault style weaponry would remove 1.7% of the available plethora of firearms from store shelves. One point seven percent. 

In Salem(Oregon), there is a guy that operates a signage operation that has a small tank parked in a garage out front of his business. I have seen the tank driving around a few times, but so far not parked and aimed at the capital.

A few times, while garage saling with my wife or friends, I have seen assault rifles in boxes marked 'for sale'. I noticed the young kids uh & awe over the guns...

 

Gun manufacturers thrive on this kind of incident, as nothing sells guns more effectively, and the possibility that we would choose to arm a hundred thousand guards to sit in chairs next to gun safes must give them wet dreams at night.

If someone wants to massacre children, there are plenty of places for them to do that, it doesn't have to be in a school. We can't protect our children everywhere, but we can protect them in schools by denying potential killers access. Unseen is saying that's impossible, that locked doors won't stop them, as they can just shoot through the glass and walk in, but that presupposes there is no such thing as bullet-proof glass.

If we can't find a way to protect children from killers in an enclosed, controlled environment in the electronic age, then there's something seriously wrong with our imaginations.

"If we can't find a way to protect children from killers in an enclosed, controlled environment in the electronic age, then there's something seriously wrong with our imaginations."

Sadly we do not live in the StarTrek century. I expect a force field that counter acts a kenetic weapon projectal would be nice. A Vulcan mind control class might be mandatory in that future, and nano-machine sensors in a weapon might be used to determine class of victim, friend or foe.

Maybe a microchip in every new gun or as a retrofit, that listens for 'human screaming' in the environment and then disables the weapon. A little like a 'clapper' for gun owners/shooters. 

a gun with morals ?

"...there's something seriously wrong with our imaginations."

You were asking for some inprovement in our imagination. If you are a hungry engineer, consider this a free-be. I expect that the idea is simple, the engineering could take a few years. Hint: 'a military grant'....;p)

Interesting. Many points similar to the Republican platform, and seems a good rebutal to many gun control positions.

RSS

Events

Services we love!

© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service