Yes, it would have been better for someone to shoot the guy ASAP rather than helplessly waiting for him to get bored of his rampage and shoot himself. No reasonable human being would think that implies that any innocent deaths are acceptable.I thought that’s what you meant when you said, ‘Wouldn’t it have been better if someone had stopped them earlier?’ Earlier doesn’t necessarily mean before anyone dies…
Ok, that sounds reasonable. I agree that there can be greater penalties for when someone can’t maintain proper possession and control of their weapon.It seems law abiding citizens would have no qualms about licensing and registrations, and accepting accountability for their weapons if they end up in the wrong hands. That’s a start, and I’ve repeated it three times now. How would you build on it?
Wouldn’t that be eye for an eye revenge?I thought that’s what you meant when you said, ‘Wouldn’t it have been better if someone had stopped them earlier?’ Earlier doesn’t necessarily mean before anyone dies…
Your method sure as heck failed. I’m ready to try something else. A solution is not going to just pop. It should be thought out and implemented and at the rate of these most recent shootings, it needs to happen soon.You were the one who suggested licensing and registration as a solution. Are you know recognizing that your ‘solution’ would be ineffective and not stopped this attack?
I agree with what you have said on gun control. People are not focusing on the fact that the guns used in this horrible event were legally obtained.Guns are not the problem.
Secularism, entitlement, atheism, materialism and other such words are the main issues with this country and it’s violence.
The vast majority of legally bought weapons are owned by responsible gun owners. My husband and I included.
I’ve said this so many times…law abiding citizens will never benefit from more gun control. Bad guys will be bad guys and will find a way to break the law.
It’s done now for dogs, and they can be much more unpredictable than an inanimate object.Ok, that sounds reasonable. I agree that there can be greater penalties for when someone can’t maintain proper possession and control of their weapon.
You said you carried an M16, wasn’t that your job then? If someone cannot defend themselves are you not bound by your religion to defend them? I guess you are the only one.Complaints of a culture of death and all these kill 'em and save however many lives you can while accepting the losses of others. Am I the only one to see the irony in that?
From the sounds of it, at 5 bullets a second, only Rambo would have had a chance against the guy yesterday.There’s no way you would have a chance against the guy who was killing those children unless you also had a gun.
Quality beats quantity any day of the week.From the sounds of it, at 5 bullets a second, only Rambo would have had a chance against the guy yesterday.
I carried it and it was my ‘job’ at the time. Now, I’m a paramedic. I find the latter much more rewarding.You said you carried an M16, wasn’t that your job then? If someone cannot defend themselves are you not bound by your religion to defend them? I guess you are the only one.
What we are saying is that these people who you believe have proven themselves to be good should not be prevented from carrying in a school if they are staff there. That is all.I carried it and it was my ‘job’ at the time. Now, I’m a paramedic. I find the latter much more rewarding.
We have people who are responsible now; however, they cannot be everywhere at the same time. So if some of us have to make sacrifices to aid them, it’s worth it.
Those who legally have concealed weapons, have for the most part already proven themselves responsible, and that’s not to say that people with concealed weapons permits have not committed crimes, or are free of mental flaws, there are instances. But again, even the truly good have been proven not to be able to be everywhere they are needed.
The problem we’re seeing is that quality exists on both sides of good and evil when it comes to handling a gun. If the first one hits the target of the good, the evil one can do much damage. We need to consider ways to keep it out of their hands altogether.Quality beats quantity any day of the week.
Really, I don’t remember proposing a solution. Could you quote what I said?Your method sure as heck failed. I’m ready to try something else. A solution is not going to just pop. It should be thought out and implemented and at the rate of these most recent shootings, it needs to happen soon.
And what makes one fall off the mental rocker? I qualified what I said to include that some who have concealed weapons permits have committed crimes, or suffered mental instability. Now, everyone has preached it, how many teachers would actually be interested in carrying a weapon? What would we do if none wanted to?What we are saying is that these people who you believe have proven themselves to be good should not be prevented from carrying in a school if they are staff there. That is all.
You seem to be arguing against any changes and the status quo has proven itself, again.Really, I don’t remember proposing a solution. Could you quote what I said?
And I agree, a solution needs to be though out. That is why I took your solution and applied to the circumstances of the shooting. And I could see that your solution failed.
As solution, by defintion, needs to be effective, or else it is not a soltion,
Personally, I do not see a solution that is consistant with the Church’s teaching on the right and duty of self defense. Firearms, like any material object, can be used for good or for ill. They themselves, being objects, are morally neutral.
When used as an aid in defense of one’s own life, or in the defense of the lives of those of whom one has care over, they take on the character of moral good, as it is used in fulfillment of the active prescripts of the 5th Commandment. If used as they were in CT, they take on the character of moral evil, as it is used in opposition to the 5th Commandment
But neither are intrinsic to it’s nature ( unlike the case of abortion, which is intrinsically evil). The very existance is neither a fulfillement nor contrary to any Commandment of God. Rather, it takes on the character first by Intent: why is it being possessed, if for defense of one’s life, that is a moral good, if to commit a violation of the Commanments of God, then that is a moral evil. And finally in Act. How exactly is it used?
And that is why I see no solution. For as I mentioned, any proposal has to be effective to be a solution. Any proposal that denies the moral good must be abandoned. Any solution that fails to oppose a violation of the 5th Commandment must likewise be seen as a failure.
Only thing I can see as being an effective solution although I’m not even sure of that, is to start posting armed guards around all public places with M16’s and body armor . . . all Federal and State buildings, schools, churches, etc.Really, I don’t remember proposing a solution. Could you quote what I said?
And I agree, a solution needs to be though out. That is why I took your solution and applied to the circumstances of the shooting. And I could see that your solution failed.
As solution, by defintion, needs to be effective, or else it is not a soltion,
Personally, I do not see a solution that is consistant with the Church’s teaching on the right and duty of self defense. Firearms, like any material object, can be used for good or for ill. They themselves, being objects, are morally neutral.
When used as an aid in defense of one’s own life, or in the defense of the lives of those of whom one has care over, they take on the character of moral good, as it is used in fulfillment of the active prescripts of the 5th Commandment. If used as they were in CT, they take on the character of moral evil, as it is used in opposition to the 5th Commandment
But neither are intrinsic to it’s nature ( unlike the case of abortion, which is intrinsically evil). The very existance is neither a fulfillement nor contrary to any Commandment of God. Rather, it takes on the character first by Intent: why is it being possessed, if for defense of one’s life, that is a moral good, if to commit a violation of the Commanments of God, then that is a moral evil. And finally in Act. How exactly is it used?
And that is why I see no solution. For as I mentioned, any proposal has to be effective to be a solution. Any proposal that denies the moral good must be abandoned. Any solution that fails to oppose a violation of the 5th Commandment must likewise be seen as a failure.
Nobody should be forced to carry a firearm, but the responsible people who do want to should be able to.And what makes one fall off the mental rocker? I qualified what I said to include that some who have concealed weapons permits have committed crimes, or suffered mental instability. Now, everyone has preached it, how many teachers would actually be interested in carrying a weapon? What would we do if none wanted to?
That works both ways and the evil one can do as much damage if the good is armed or not but even if it ends up to be a lottery, you can’t win if you don’t buy a ticket.The problem we’re seeing is that quality exists on both sides of good and evil when it comes to handling a gun. If the first one hits the target of the good, the evil one can do much damage. We need to consider ways to keep it out of their hands altogether.
What pray are you so afraid of .? Is having a gun in your possession that vital to you?just simply to have one to look and play with. To collect just to have.What exactly is your plan? By the way, conserves aren’t against gun control, we are only against banning them from law abiding citizens.