Newtown! Not even a nod on this board--kids have no power, especially dead ones.

[walkstall]

Here's my take on the Newtown (and other) massacres.

If all guns were made illegal right now, over the years I'm sure without a doubt they'd become less prevalent. It would take an extremely long time for this to occur given our populace's extensive rate of gun ownership, but over time you'd have less people owning firearms. Given this scenario, would Adam Lanza have been prevented from carrying out his crime of shooting all of those children that day if guns were incredibly hard to procure? Maybe. He may have used other means to carry out his plans, and that's precisely the point I'm trying to make. Regardless of whether or not Adam Lanza would've had access to firearms, the fact remains he would've still been a deranged pscyopath hell bent on killing people. The presence of easily obtainable firearms didn't cause him to become unstable. His killing of school children was predicated on the fact that he was very unstable to begin with, not because firearms were available.

In banning all guns, you wouldn't be curing society of mass-killings, or curing it of individuals losing their shit one day and snapping, you're only treating the symptoms of what appears to be a very ill society. It's like trying to cure cancer by prescribing pain killers and calling it a day. Banning guns might prevent some crimes, but if someone is crazy enough to kill children in the first place, I'm sure they'll find other ways of doing so.

One thing I've always been curious about is why seemingly normal people sometimes lose their minds and commit massacres. Ted K, VA Tech shooter, Columbine, any others... What causes people to snap? Is it loss of hope or something, lack of meaning in your everyday life? This is something I'd like to research. I've got some thoughts on this from reading over the years, but it's still something I'm curious about. Have mass killings like this always happened, or is it something unique to our modern era?

So mass killing with knives would go up.   If there's a will there's a way.

[redbeard]

Even if guns didn't exist, man always finds a way to achieve his end goal.
Look at history prior to the invention of gunpowder, they still had fire and literally burned thousands alive in their homes.
Had the citizenry had access to guns at the time, the fight would have found it's equilibrium.

That's all a gun is, a great equalizer of force.

Like This?

The Happy Land fire was an arson fire that killed 87 people trapped in an unlicensed social club named "Happy Land", at 1959 Southern Boulevard in the West Farms section of the Bronx in New York City on March 25, 1990. Most of the victims were young Hondurans celebrating Carnival.[1] Unemployed Cuban refugee Julio González, whose former girlfriend was employed at the club, was arrested soon afterward and ultimately convicted of arson and murder.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Land_fire

[Solar]

Like This?

Nailed it!!!
It would take several armed men to kill all those people, not one guy with a gun.

[Kaz]

Well, I guess the NRA was right.  They just had to wait out the 'NEWTOWN EFFECT'!

Let's see, honest citizens followed the law and didn't have guns.  Criminals ignored the law and did.  Who would have seen that one coming?

But making even more sure that honest citizens don't have guns will make it even less likely for criminals to ignore the law and shoot them, don't you think?

[No Chance Without Paul]

Liblosers don't understand that criminals DO NOT FOLLOW LAWS. Illegalizing guns, which millions of americans use to protect themselves every day, will just persecute those people.

[CG6468]

Restricting citizens from using anything that the Military might use.

You may want to rethink that opinion. It would eliminate ALL firearms, from .22 rifles and revolvers to machine guns.

Is that what you really want?

[Solar]

You may want to rethink that opinion. It would eliminate ALL firearms, from .22 rifles and revolvers to machine guns.

Is that what you really want?

Have you not been here long enough to recognize sarcasm?

[daidalos]

By "Newtown Effect," we assume you mean the predictable, perennial, mindless, knee-jerk rush to enact utterly useless and irrelevant new gun control laws (to add to the 22,000+ already on the books) in the wake of every high-profile gun crime.

Is that what you're calling the "Newtown Effect?"

Funny how we now hear nothing but praise, for a private citizen who just happened to be/have access to his firearm and stop a murderous islamist before he beheaded God only knows how many more men and women. From among others, the very people who just a few months and years back were telling us all how the Second has "outlived it's usefulness" among other things.

[ChristopherABrown]

Yep, saw that, and ya know, every mass school shooting has had a leftist connection.

I heard the left going on about guns being dangerous, so I placed my shotgun on the porch with a full load and a full box for back up in case it ran out.
During this time, kids passed going to school, mail lady delivered mail, tree trimmers trimmed the fir trees, propane guy filled the tank, Fedex let himself in the gate, placed the packages next to the shotgun, even moved it to make room.

And I'll be damned, that gun never once made a threatening move.
I guess I got one of the faulty ones, because it didn't hurt a soul.

A good sense of humor goes a long way towards creating understanding.

I've seen entire threads comprised of this perspective.  Very entertaining and effective and making the overwhelmingly true point.

[s3779m]

 Hey, I'm still waiting to hear what a good, effective gun law is that would solve all of our problems. Where did he go????

[Solar]

Hey, I'm still waiting to hear what a good, effective gun law is that would solve all of our problems. Where did he go????

Good gun law, eh? How about a law that keeps libs grubby little hands of my gun?
Oh wait, we already have one, it's called the First Amendment.

[TboneAgain]

Good gun law, eh? How about a law that keeps libs grubby little hands of my gun?
Oh wait, we already have one, it's called the First Amendment.

Well, actually, it's not a law exactly, and it's called the Second Amendment, but we all know what you mean. 

Every person I've ever known who argues for "reasonable" or "effective" or "common sense" gun control wants the exact same thing -- no guns whatsoever in the hands of private citizens. They all want the exact same thing, a completely disarmed civilian populace.

I sometimes feel kinda sorry for the NRA. The organization was formed in 1871 by a group of former Union officers for the purpose of teaching and promoting marksmanship skills in the civilian populace, because they shared a disappointment with the skills exhibited by their recruits in the Civil War. To this day, NRA teaches those skills to more people -- police and civilian -- than any other organization on the planet.

But the rise of Progressivism was a call for someone to stand against those who would erase the Second Amendment. And the NRA got drafted. These days, the bulk of the money NRA takes in is spent through NRA-ILA, the National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action, its lobbying and political action branch.

Gun control is the slipperiest slope of all. (This is why it's such an extreme "bellwether" issue.) Every measure proposed by the Left -- every single one, without exception -- is designed as a step toward total civilian disarmament. Background checks, registration, licensing, selective bans, all of it is of the same cloth. All of it is meant to move us "progressively" toward a weaponless population. It is not their goal to remove guns from the hands of criminals; they don't care about that for a second. It is their goal to remove all firearms from MY hands and YOURS and EVERYBODY's.

[Solar]

Well, actually, it's not a law exactly, and it's called the Second Amendment, but we all know what you mean. 

Every person I've ever known who argues for "reasonable" or "effective" or "common sense" gun control wants the exact same thing -- no guns whatsoever in the hands of private citizens. They all want the exact same thing, a completely disarmed civilian populace.

I sometimes feel kinda sorry for the NRA. The organization was formed in 1871 by a group of former Union officers for the purpose of teaching and promoting marksmanship skills in the civilian populace, because they shared a disappointment with the skills exhibited by their recruits in the Civil War. To this day, NRA teaches those skills to more people -- police and civilian -- than any other organization on the planet.

But the rise of Progressivism was a call for someone to stand against those who would erase the Second Amendment. And the NRA got drafted. These days, the bulk of the money NRA takes in is spent through NRA-ILA, the National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action, its lobbying and political action branch.

Gun control is the slipperiest slope of all. (This is why it's such an extreme "bellwether" issue.) Every measure proposed by the Left -- every single one, without exception -- is designed as a step toward total civilian disarmament. Background checks, registration, licensing, selective bans, all of it is of the same cloth. All of it is meant to move us "progressively" toward a weaponless population. It is not their goal to remove guns from the hands of criminals; they don't care about that for a second. It is their goal to remove all firearms from MY hands and YOURS and EVERYBODY's.

Actually...Gods law trumps mans law every time. So, yeah, I'd call it the ultimate law, considering our laws are rooted in Gods law, the Ten Commandments.
but we all know what you mean.

[daidalos]

Actually...Gods law trumps mans law every time. So, yeah, I'd call it the ultimate law, considering our laws are rooted in Gods law, the Ten Commandments.
but we all know what you mean.

I find it interesting that atheists who call that "nature's law" when it establish's the first amendment.

Meaning that it's the natural state of mankind...also say that this "natural law" which establish's our RIGHTS trumps man's law.

This means, that either way the libs argument that their laws, should trump our RIGHTS fails.

Whether a person believe's as most American's do, in a God or not.