Great points billethkid. I hadn't even considered from that angle. Too bad we can't have term limits for our Congress just as we have for the President.

because cars were developed as a means of transportation and are used in those instances inappropriately. guns were developed to kill, that is their only purpose.

no one wants to take away people's guns or the right to own them. and the Texas case is different from Parkland but still an underage teenager was able to procure guns. and nothing would prevent him from buying guns from a private source.

Gun control starts behind your front door. Gun safety starts behind your front door. Growing up I was taught at a very early age when and where a gun was to be used. As far back as I can remember their where always 3 guns behind the headboard of my parents bed and we knew they were off limits unless we were supervised using them. My parents took the time to teach us the difference between right and wrong. And they did this while they both worked full time jobs and my dad worked 2 jobs. These people who think having the government control guns is the correct why to handle mass killings need to wake up . Sometime when you have a minute sit down in front of your computer and google How to make a pipe bomb or How to make a steam pot bomb. Then they will see how easy it is for children to find other ways to make weapons of mass killings. Gun control starts behind your front door. Gun safety starts behind your front door.

No, securing the firearms you may own is
just common sense.
Which the vast majotity of gun owners posess!

This is just beating a dead horses

Of courses.

Gun Violence: Facts and Statistics | Violence Prevention Initiative

States rejecting bills intended to keep guns away from kids



:ohdear:

There are those who believe more guns in more hands, hardened facilities, and armed guards in abundance is the appropriate future. Some folks believe fewer guns and open facilities is what you would expect of an advanced society and can actually be found in some advanced countries. These two groups will never agree on a path forward.

Personally, I find it a pretty dismal future to comtemplate, that access to a lot of facilities is actually like entering a prison. But let me ask a few questions of those who advocate hardening public facilities.

What do you do with a place like the University of Massachusetts which has about 24,000 students and hundreds of buildings on over 1400 acres? And all the other universities like it?

What do you do about a place like Saint Mary-of-the-Woods college, a small catholic womens' college in Indiana with about 700 students on 67 acres? And all the literally thousands of small colleges in this country?

And what do you do about all the shopping malls and transportation terminals and nursing homes and hospitals and performing arts centers?

And how do you ensure that somebody who today has been screened and deemed safe to own a weapon of tremendous destructive capability doesn't go off the rails at some time in the future and use that weapon to wreak havoc?

It seems to me that one component of the answer is to limit the destructive capability that individuals can own. Certainly there are social issues that need to be addressed as well. But some people believe that there are already too many guns out there and control is now impossible. Unfortunately, especially for lack of will, I fear that is true.

Let us, however, remember an incident that occurred a few years ago at night in Spanish Springs. There was an armed robbery at a restaurant and some folks had money and who knows what else stolen. I don't know if the perpetrators were captured or if the folks got their money back. But there were no shots fired. Nobody was hurt. No innocent bystanders were killed. If somebody had pulled out a gun to shoot it out with the robbers, isn't it just possible that one of the victims or somebody at the Rialto theater or on the square would have wound up dead? Just some food for thought.

Thank you. So much false information out there, and people just lap it up without doing any fact checking. I think it might have originally come from Breibart news, no surprise.

Bobby Rush is undoubtedly another example of people running the state that can't even provide gas to get a witness to court for a trial. Never so glad to get out of Illinois.

Yes, but it is also possible that, if all law abiding people gave up their guns, there would be a lot more robberies because the criminals would have no fear about commiting crimes at will.

Actually those don't work. Look at their population and number of incidents (and include all incidents using guns, knives, cars, etc, violent crimes) and they are not that much different. OZ has less then 1/20th of our population and as a % of population is over 80% of our incidents with strict gun control.

You can take away all weapons but until you fix the people issues you will still have problems. People have to know there will be severe consequences to their behavior and in this country the lawyers have ruined that possibility.

The lawyers though only seem to work that way for very high profile cases like OJ Simpson and the rich/famous but not so much for ordinary people. That goes more to the luck of the draw with picking jurors and getting the right judge and avoiding cliques in court houses or local communities which can lead to unfair outcomes. Death of Caylee Anthony - Wikipedia

What we need is communities working to solve local problems with the resources in those communities or those available via the Internet. It takes a Village....

Eventually the distraction of gun control will give way to those who would venture to address the needed school safety and protection of the children in attendance there.

The other lark some take pleasure in commenting on is gun owners in the USA giving up their guns. There will be a snowball sale in hell long before that EVER happens.
Just think about it for a nano second. Nobody knows where the guns are or who has them and how many. Just another gun control uninformed anecdotal seizure....

Back to the real subject.....safety in the school and protection of the children!

You must take them from the criminals first
 

You must take them from the criminals first.