Yes Mike, Hopefully it is a turning point where we look at the real reasons behind these incidents. Starting with Mental health and psychoactive drug use.

Lanza didnt obey 5 or 6 laws which were designed to prevent him from breaking an entering to a school with stolen firearms and committing murder. New laws wont stop the next guy either. Perhaps the right type of care and limiting their use of drugs which make them apathetic to suicide and murder will stop the next guy.

Unfortunately those who support gun rights the most also support cutting funding for anything at all like mental health treatment, and prefer to either send them to jail after they commit a crime (and then blame it on something else), or hope that an eight year old had been packing heat and drew down on him and shot him dead before he killed anyone.

Fish on...

Todd

Yes, it will be a turning point to some degree. I suspect we'll see some additional restrictions on number of rounds a magazine can hold.

A couple of other points though. Over the years, I've noticed that most of the hardcore pro-gun citizens are conservative and favor smaller government and less government-funded programs. Yet, these are the same people that constantly say "It is the people, not the guns". Since mental health seems to play a roll in many of these shootings, those pro-gun conservatives are going to HAVE to start favoring additional funding for mental health.

Another thing that I think will happen is we'll take more steps towards bankrupting ourselves by over-securing everything from malls to schools to movie theaters. Just like after 9/11, the fear is going to capture the public and we're going to spend a bunch of money we don't have for a bunch of security theater that won't protect anyone from anything.

"Since mental health seems to play a roll in many of these shootings, those pro-gun conservatives are going to HAVE to start favoring additional funding for mental health."


I don't know why that is only an issue with pro-gun conservatives.....you must think that anti-gun liberals would gladly fund the additional cost of treating mental illnesses?

But other than that piece of nitwittery I must say.....
Dammit.......I agree with AP.......

now I have to go shoot myself .....

(stfu Toddler)

The Fear Industry (Security, Guns, Ammo, the NRA) would not only be OK with this, but are already lining up their lobbyists to do exactly this.

Fish on...

Todd

Did it take the off duty deputy 30 rounds?

The only thing that could be changed is the involuntary commitment laws and I do not see that happening. Even if they did and you could hold someone until they were deemed better once they get out they stop taken their drugs and the ride starts all over again.

I seem to remember something about a building blowing up in OK city. They were sane and did not use guns . How about suicide bombers . There are 1000s of ways to kill many people at once , the only thing you need is the motivation. I think it scares people that there is no real solution. Your kids are safer in school than they are in your car .

LOL WHAT!!??

you need to do some research on McVeigh and then rethink your assesment on the "sane" remark...

McVeigh was as crazy as they come...

As I said above, it will serve as no turning point, just an opportunity to continue saying, and doing, exactly the same thing...only more of it.

From the right wing fruit loops you will always hear that it's a lack of guns, and too many gun regulations, that cause gun violence. More guns is always the answer.

From the left wing fruit loops you will hear that all guns need to be banned.

What will change? Nothing.

Fish on...

Todd

who are these lefties who want to ban "all" guns?

There really aren't any, topwater...it's a straw man argument that the right wing fruit loops like to use to justify their "more guns is always the answer" stance.

It's similar to their stance on taxes...a tax break is the answer to every single question regarding virtually anything other than guns.

Economy sucks? Tax breaks!

Economy is great? Tax breaks!

Same difference, only with guns.

Hank, I don't know what the answer is...but I know this: what we are doing now does not work, and it only gets worse, every single day.

Fish on...

Todd

Dhooky post your sources?

Actually all crime is at an all time low and violent crime is even lower. How is that worse? Parents are more likely to kill their kids than strangers btw. Maybe we should ban parents or require mental evaluations before parenting? The only thing that will happen is we will have an excess of people running around screaming that we need to change something to make ourselves feel better about this. You can't make your self feel better about this it just flat sucks . Gus mccrae had the best advice " the only thing you can do about death is just ride off from it"

Todd, as usual, is full of sh.it.

Check out the democrat underground. Not only do many of the leftwing fu.cksticks want all guns banned they want gunowners executed.

You could research this on your own...or do what mindless idiots like you on the darkside tend to do....which is listen to little miss dipsh.it Todd and take his endless bullsh.it as fact.

I know you'll choose the later.

sources? i dont have any specific ones theres been alot written about him... well i do have one source, its called reality..

no "sane" person goes and kills 168 innocent people for no reason other than because he had some opinions, only fvckin phsycopaths do that crap... i dont give 2 sh!ts about what the doctor said during the trial, McVeigh was in no way a sane person... he was a genius, yes, but batsh!t
crazy to the hilt...

i suppose you are going to tell me Hitler was sane too? did i go to far with him? ok, Moussalini, and if i cant use him, i will use Bin Laden...

and if you think blowing your self up for Allah, isnt crazy, then you sir, are certified fweakin nuts...

I believe this is a turning point, but how far will the turn go? Will it stop at legislation that is sure to be introduced banning assault weapons and end there or will there be more? I don't have the answers, but I do know that the problem has many facets to it and stricter control on assault type weapons is one component that I believe needs to be done; but by itself, not enough.

I do know that over a billion dollars has been cut from mental health programs over the years and is likely not ever to be restored. Arming teachers is not going to happen nor is it practical. Teachers are not police officers and I suspect most would be unwilling to carry and train regularly with firearms.

Then there is the delicate balance of hardening schools as a target. Airport type security is too much, but maybe more can be done. Security officers that are not armed and in uniform as well as properly trained are worthless. So, a lot more money would have to be spent on what truly is a very unlikely unvent. School shootings are low frequency and high risk.

I suspect this shooter was after high shock value and the overwhelming media response only helps that. Every news show I see has this guy's picture up on the screen. Got to wonder how many other whacko's are thinking of ways to out do him.

The discussion needs to move from the usual arguements of gun control Vs locking people up. We can only hope that we as a nation move this discussion to a higher level by bringing everything to the table and recognize that this problem will require a multi faceted approach.

Lol, They are both mental juveniles, one is just a bit sillier than
the other. You pick.

Even if it is a turning point, it won't be very effective, if at all. Events like this are statistical outliers, ranging somewhere between uncommon and rare. I think what is difficult for people to acknowledge and handle is that there is no solution for "preventing mass school murder shootings from ever happening again." What there is are some measures that might reduce the frequency and the extent of damage when they do occur. Changes to address the latter have already occurred. Police responders respond differently by attempting to directly engage the perp instead of waiting for the SWAT team to arrive. Schools devise strategies and drills to reduce the number of victims, which it appears the folks at Sandy Hook did.

Bans on guns labeled "assault weapons" and large capacity magazines would reduce their availability to the criminally motivated over time, probably measured in decades, but instant results would be elusive.

Meanwhile it would be of greater benefit for folks to come to terms with the notion that the certainty they seek is not attainable, at any cost. And society is always concerned about cost. Reactionary measures, like TSA and Homeland Security feel good window dressing, as was done post-9/11, is not an effective alternative.

Well put and very true.

We need to address mental illness and societies reactions and response to those that may not be able to effectively care for themselves. I read a good essay by a mother of a child prone to violent outbursts. I'll see if I can find it.

Well stated, Salmo.

I have a phrase posted on the wall at work which was not coined by me, but one of my co-workers. It seems to fit a multitude of today's reactions.......... "over-reaction to irresponsibility".

Frustratingly true.