Elementary school shooting

Okay, since this thread has breached its original parameters let's go for it, shall we, just because it's Christmas ?

Luke 10:25-37 (New International Version)
The Parable of the Good Samaritan

On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
“What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”
He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’[a]; and, ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.’”
“You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”
But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbour?”

In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he travelled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. The next day he took out two denarii[c] and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’

“Which of these three do you think was a neighbour to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”
The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”
Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”

A wild guess, you're not the Samaritan in the story are you? And I'm not even a practising Christian Holy **** I can't believe I've been forced to quote the bible at someone

It's at its best a humanitarian system, at its worst a "you scratch my back" system. If you don't get my point or understand the parallel just let me know and I'll be happy to enlighten you

 

Carrie What have you been told about dividing by zero.

 

Remember to duck?

 

Duck and take cover.

(And if someone confronts you about that rip in the time-space continuum, deny all knowledge.)

 

I saw what you posted first time, before the edit

 

I do understand the want for a firearm in the US. In the UK I think people forget what it's like to have a wilderness, guns are a necessity in some parts of the US, it's necessary for the way of life.

It used to be the same here a loooong time ago now, then firearms were banned from the cities, as a I believe the US should follow, then eventually the whole of the UK. However, you can still own firearms if you can show a need for one, but the types are limited.

What is needed is strict regulation and support for the mental health of the nation, free at the point of access. We also have to fight to keep that latter aspect in the UK as well.

 

I also know that no single European country has a population of +500 million people.

 

I might as well be talking to a brick wall

 

Since no single European country has the population of +500 million people you cannot automatically make the argument that socialist healthcare would work for a nation of +400 million people, using Europe as an example. Why then, do you ask? Simply because none of those 27 member states has such a population to cater for. The combined numbers of peoples doesn't matter. It would only be relevant if the EU was ONE single country.

Which it isn't.

 

A little late to the conversation here, but thought I would join in.

I am one of those rarer Americans who is pro Second Amendment but generally liberal on other issues. The minute I start talking about taking some common sense steps to stop some further tragedies, most people start screaming, "You can't take our guns away! Second Amendment, WAH WAHHHH WAHHH, WAHHHHH WAH WAHHHH!" One would get the impression they instantly revert to caveman state. It is also quickly followed by, "OMGZORS, teh Obamma and teh UN want to take r gunz!!!!!" <rolls eyes> Are these people so brainwashed by the NRA, etc. that even the mere mention of wanting to do something puts them in automatic mode?

I usually have to reiterate that I agree they should be able to own firearms to defend themselves, their family and property. It still doesn't quite get through, so they continue on with their tirade. I asked a friend on FB earlier today what suggestions (besides returning prayer to schools and the pledge of allegiance -- yes, he thinks that is part of the solution) he had that would keep firearms out of the hands of criminals, children and the mentally ill. I also added, "So you're saying all we can do is wring our hands and say to the families of the victims and future victims, this is the price you pay for living in America?" I am still awaiting an answer, which may be later tonight.

My understanding is that it is not a simple problem for which a simple law change will suffice. Obviously the problems in society are compound and require a commitment to change our laws and system in several areas.

1) Close the freaking gun show loophole already. I have that even a majority of NRA members think this is a good step. A person shouldn't have an easier time of obtaining a weapon legally than it is to obtain a car and be able to drive it legally.

2) Educate people. It amazes me how many gun owners really don't know diddly about their weapons, i.e. how a safety works or if a round is chambered or not. Obvious Darwin Awards fodder.

3) Require renewable licensing and liability insurance. As part of said insurance, they should require proper gun safes and trigger locks, plus ammo stored in a different location, also locked. Far too often we hear about a kid bringing his dad's pistol to school for show and tell or to scare off a bully.

4) People love their cool looking assault weapons, but no. Don't confiscate the ones people legally have now since the ban expired, but stop the import and sale of semi-automatic weapons and make clips, magazines and drums larger than 10 rounds illegal. If you can't bring down that wild boar charging at you in ten rounds or less, what the hell are you doing on the ground even with him? Stop being lazy about reloading. If you gotta have a bad ass looking firearm, invest in paintball equipment. Enjoy.

5) As part of this we, as a nation, need to get better at identifying and treating mental illness. There shouldn't be shame and stigma attached to receiving help when it is needed. Too many individuals are being warehoused in our prison system (which is a whole other can of worms) instead of being helped. Once they've done their time, it is back out on the street without care and supervision, but now with more anger and resentment. Yes, oh thank you great Saint Ronnie Reagan for the huge cuts out of the system you made in the 80s. It is working so well.

Anyway, I am no expert. I am just a mother and grandmother who grew up in a family where our father was a respected gun dealer, hunter, outdoorsman and provider of game for our table. We were all taught respect for what weapons can do and learned to shoot at an early age. I have my Sharpshooter medal for 22 cal rifles and at least one of my brothers, if not both, have their Distinguished Expert. I do not own any firearms myself. However, it is time we took on cowardly politicians and the gun lobby to take care of some business. I am tired of being sick to my stomach every other week from some horror that might have been prevented.

/end rant

 

Correct! That was the starter for 10

Now, on your chosen subject of "healthcare for all"

For a further 5 points for each correct answer can you tell us:

- how many countries are there in Europe?

- what is the average population of those countries, based on a European population of 500 million divided by the number of countries?

- how many states are there within the US?

- what is the average population of each state, or as I like to call them "mini countries" , based on the population of the US of 300 million divided by the number of states?

- does each state currently manage some of its own services, such as police, fire officers etc?

- is the day to day management and running of such services passed down to smaller regional control?

- does that sound somewhat like the hierarchical structure of a European country national health service?

- is there a shortage of good managers in the US?


One person does not have to run day to day health services for 300 million people in the US now do they. It's called delegation or farm-out or division of services

 

This, if additional control is to be added, is what would get the most effect without creating restrictions that criminals simply break anyway (ie: idiots shooting up a school).

Particularly training courses. Hunting, target shooting, home defense, regardless of what a prospective owner's uses are training courses are something which are useful even if not required. Even a long time firearm owner should be able to respect the need for a constant reminder of basic safety. It's already a requirement (along with background checks and mental health checks) for concealed carry permits in some states and has gone over fairly well. A "shall issue" permit for general ownership is effectively little impact on a law-abiding owner. It doesn't stop private sales to non-permit holders but that goes back to the "criminals don't follow laws" problem that would still result even in stricter situations such as a ban.

The requirement of a membership at a range is another thing which I believe, if presented correctly, actually has little impact on most firearm owners. There'd be plenty of vocal outcry about how people shouldn't need yet another permit to use what they own, but it actually makes me laugh a bit. The majority of serious firearm owners already are members of organizations such as the NRA or members at their local range, and indeed some ranges require a membership to use.

The only problem with emulating Canada is the at-home storage requirements. Again, there's the outcry of "I do as I please in my home" (possibly the source of most accidents?) on the principle of the law, but more importantly is whether anyone would actually follow it. For reasons of home/self defense how many people are going to keep at least one gun loaded? Or unloaded with a loaded magazine nearby and other such methods? It's not unlike alcohol in this respect, the legal drinking age is 21 but you can't enforce what goes on in a person's home. You can only provide information and hope good decisions are made with it. In the interest of actually reaching agreements and passing legislation which is effective we probably wouldn't see anything like this in the US, at least not presently.

 

The second amendment was written a fair while ago now, in a time when we used muskets and other such wildly inaccurate guns. Armour against being shot over any real distance would have been a padded coat.

I fully support the second amendment, if you stick to how it was intended, where you can defend your home with a musket. In other words, something where you're highly unlikely to hit something unless you're right next to them.


BRING BACK MUSKETS.

 

There actually are people who still shoot muskets (replicas of course!) for historical fun.

 

The 2nd amendment is of no less importance today than it was back then.

 

What is that supposed to mean? I'll accept you find it important, and I'm not saying take it away, I'm saying you should take it in the context in which it was written and go back to using that era of projectile weaponry.

 

why don't all Americans just carry guns that why when you hear about a shooting you can all run / drive there and start shooting anyone that's holding a gun. It's not the most effective way but after a bit of mass gendercide Americans might wake up to change.

 

A very twisted part of me has always wanted to fire a blunderbuss, just for the experience. The sheer force of explosion and the idea of loading a hand-held cannon with whatever debris I could fit in the barrel has always appealed to the child in me.

 

But the weaponry has changed a bit. Armed citizens cannot outgun a State army. Lybia did not manage without outside military help, and neither does Syria. And taking on the US army? You need more than a few rifles and guns in your cupboard. So let's not kid ourselves: plucky citizens with guns are not going to overthrow a corrupt US government.

All this "If we ban guns the criminals will still get them" ignores the proven fact that illegal guns all started out as legal guns. Stem the supply of legal guns, and you end up starving the supply of illegal guns.

 

Banning guns would go against the 2nd amendment, restricting them (in the way you've suggested) would make it more difficult (and expensive) for law abiding citizens to arm themselves. We've been over this.

It is not the guns that are causing the school shootings, there are other factors involved.

You have the right to defend yourself. You are not to sign over your life, your family, and your valuables to the state.