What The Research Says About "Rampage Violence"

Cool, figure out how to stop crazy. In the mean time, maybe it's time to consider force on force. If you are charged with the care and protection of ~30 kids, perhaps it's time to arm yourself sufficiently to protect them. How many kids might have been saved had every teacher in the school been armed and trained for such and event? They have drills for fire, why not insurgence and assault?

I am at a mystery to a better solution for stopping these mad men. It does not feel correct to arm teachers and train them like military solders as NVDragon suggest.

This is a complicated issue and everyone is current emotional shocked.

I want the children\babies to be safe and I want them to be free too.

Perfect answer for a solution STOP IGNORING MENTAL HEALTH! Some state governments have already adopted measures to help decrease mental health cases by actually investing money in the care needed for individuals who could lead "normal" lives by giving them therapy. However when state and local governments are fixated on cutting back expenses the first thing to go is services for those who usually need therapy and are willing to get better. Everyone wants to be a productive member of society at heart. Given the right help they can be and perhaps other social services wouldn't be needed as much

Unfortunately, the psychopath-killers have notoriety paired with a need for suicide in mind while pre-meditating their terrible intentions. It's a terrible reality that we all feel the need to remedy.
Most of the "rampage attackers" DO have a mental disability or similar psychological malady.
I know this isn't about gun control but when will the fascists feast buckets that we pay to maintain our FREE nation get off their pimpled behinds and Think!
No matter how so-called control is placed there will always be a miserable soul that is willing to break the laws and kill.
My rant ends as such: What if the firearm manufacturers create a bio-metric firearm that can only be used by the owner? (like in the new bond movie) There's already registration and guns privately sold can be registered to the new owner at he local sheriff's office while resetting the bio-metrics.
That is about all I'm willing to bend on my 2nd amendment.
I'm so disgusted at people that think if the guns are outlawed their problems are solved. If gun control worked; Chicago, New York and other "no firearms" areas would be a safe place for everyone...it's not. Every location of rampages like these have some kind of gun restriction effectively disarming everyone while the law ignoring psycho picks them off.
I say arm everyone so the cowards that premeditate these horrendous acts could never stand a chance. It sounds scary to most I know but facts prove that the method of arm everyone works. Lose the fear, be an important part of society and don't ever allow the fat, bureaucratic pile of dung that claim to represent us get rich while strapping us down to heir ideals of rule!
...Ahhh, I feel better already. : ^ )

This type of behavior CANNOT be predicted no matter how many expensive get rich studies they may have to try and convince people. This is not the Minority Report. People snap, wether that be ordinary people or those with Pds. Add to that a weapon of choice and a suicidal thought, and voila, you ave a mass murderer. Trust, they are thousands of people that have those same thoughts, wether it be to kill themselves or take others with them, but as quick as they snap into it is as quick as they snap out of it. Some don't have guns laying around to fulfill they thought, THANK GOD FOR THAT. This is something that we must be prepared for. As society is being more exposed to realistic scenarios played out on our tv, games, and movie theaters, we are being numbed to violence and don't even know it.

We live in a new day where , schools, hospitals, churches ,any where that something like this could happen, should train a small percentage of they staff in tactical and firearm usage. Maybe hire 3-5 qualified army reserve as personel to be able limit the casualties. What if 3-5 staff members were registered army reserve that had proper training and firearm on hand....things would of definately been different.

All of these mass shootings occur in gun-free zones. End the gun-free zones, and let the faculty carry. That would provide a deterrent, and also any crazed gunman can be taken out.

Here in the Netherlands only one school shooting (no fatalities) ever occured. Guess two differences between the Netherlands and the states.

If you guessed firearms are illegal and every mental patient receives proper medication, you are right!!

Observation; Whether by police or suicide these events end in the death of the shooter. The shooter knew from the start it would, so if suicide was the goal why not eliminate the killing in between and go straight to the suicide? Is the killing being used as an insurance policy to prevent the person from backing out of the suicide they might otherwise be unable to perform? Once they have killed they know the only options are a miserable lifetime in prison or a quick death.
There is never any one reason behind these killings. Even the copycat, is doing it for different reasons than the original. And the one after that is different from the copycat.

People talk about guns, but for me the main issue here may be how to tackle mental health problems, and turn unhappy folk into happy ones, so these events become impossible to occur. When you feel excluded, and it's very easy to feel excluded at that age, you tend to develop an angry view of the world.

I hear several people proposing the solution: more arms! arm and train a small number of people from the school.
1 Word: crazy.

I am amazed how the weapon industry managed to turn the situation in their favor, amazed by the stupidity of the USA citizens.

You cannot fight violence with more guns, in schools, hospitals, etc. Sooner or later those guns will end up too in the wrong hands.

Its time to adress the matter: what on earth is the reason for having civilians free access to any fire weapon let alone free access to assault weapons, are you crazy?

Its time for USA to join the civilized developed world and pose Zero tolerance for civilian weapon use.

Gun-free zones should only happen when there is heavy armed security. It is appropriate in the courtroom to protect all from a rage outburst when the verdict is read. Any school that wants to have a gun-free zone must provide security--if not by hiring police or private security, then by letting parents and faculty carry--either open or concealed.

to New and all that see a solution in "more guns"

"Gun-free zones should only happen when there is heavy armed security"
"by letting parents and faculty carry--either open or concealed"

problem n°1:
what happens when one of those armed parents/teachers in school, snaps or has a "bad day"...?

problem n°2:
what happens if the weapons of the armed parents get in the hands of their children?

You cannot fight the problem with the same thing that created it - more guns. More guns makes just more problems. The solution is ZERO guns, not more guns, not armed civilians, not private justice.

I don't see why more people consider the best solution as the primary solution. Better gun restriction.

This is a terrible tragedy. Politics shouldn't even be brought up yet, but hell since we've started. Better gun restriction is not the issue. A gun is a tool, nothing more. Criminals by defintion break laws, so why do people think by making it harder to get guns or even take them away from good citizens that criminals will no longer have access to guns. Yeah, every once one in a while a sane person snaps and uses one but this does not happen often; that sane person is just as likely to use any other weapon necessary. Did you know that baseball bats are actually the number one weapon used in our society? I don't hear anyone restricting those. Hell, if hypothetically we did get rid of guns, do you think that'll stop the crazy? Knives, blunt objects, and oh yeah, free recipes online for bomb making will still exist! Hell, even in those other countries that claim "look at us, this doesn't happen here," I only ask how many terrorist attacks do you still hear about going on these places? I approve the heightened security measure. Yeah, it'll suck having schools with metal detectors, police, and even trained teachers but this is really the only feasible way. Why has it not been discussed? Because it costs too much, but I think our children deserve the same protection that any federal building has.

Self righteous, opinioned, egotistical, categorical, verbally aggressive PoP-Sci writers are on the top of the list for rampage violence due to their predisposition for a lot of guesswork and shaky connections. They make their kills in daylight as Pseudocommandos that attempt to analyze everything in light of environmentalism or mass hysteria socialism.

This once fine publication is a victim of such Pseudocommando rampage violence.

@b.a.baracas

I disagree. Guns are far more dangerous than baseball
Bats and knives. That's why firearms make up 2/3 of murders in the US. A person who premeditates a mass murder wearing a ballistics vest and wielding 6 guns (one of which was an assault rifle), is going to do a lot more killing than a person running around with a knife or a baseball bat.

I agree that crazy people will still find ways to do crazy things, but the primary way of successfully dealing with it would be to reduce the harm they can inflict. I think having police officers on duty at schools, and putting more money towards mental health issues are great ideas, but the best one would be to limit the damage these types of people can inflict.

@ Baracas
I highly disagree, and I fail to get your point.
Ok, a gun is a tool.. A pretty dangerous tool too, a kind of tool that should not be easily accessable to civilians. You can say that chemical, biological and nuclear weapons are tools too, so give free access to them to everyone, that would make this a better place, right?

What is the point of having armed civilians?? In any scenario, a gun in hand makes everything worst. If you have an armed robber in front of you, having a gun in hand, will make a simple robbery a life-or-death situation. Apparently having all those guns around has not made things better, the contrary. Time to say no to this madness.

Greetings from Czech Republic. I am trying to remember, whether we ever had a shooting comparable to the one that happened in Newtown. [or Columbine and other locations] I guess not.
Frits from Netherlands said it. We don' t allow people to have guns and crazy people are being monitored.
People need permits to get a gun. They need to apply for it at the police. Needed as perwikipedia: written and oral exam, mainly concentrated on the legislation about guns and first aid, as well as passing the shooting test. You need to get an approval from a doctor - total psychopaths should be filtered out.
Teachers carrying M16 rifles sound great. It could also help with overall bad performance of pupils. You did not write the essay? Let' s have some target practise!

How about not treating mental illness as a taboo? Imagine walking around with a broken arm because it was taboo to let people know it was broken.

-

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours"

- Stephen Roberts

Look, guys...

I understand the sentiment that arming teachers and or guards would be a good and effective way to prevent and deter school shootings. A shooter rushes into a school, and before he starts to shoot, he is taken down by some armed guard or teacher. In theory, this appears so simple.

Think again, because it is anything but.

First of all, the shooters have mostly been suicidal. They don't really care if they perish themselves. This means two things. One; they are not deterred by deadly force. Two; they are prepared to take risks that can result in instant death for them.

Second, unless the teachers and/or guards are constantly drilled as an armed unit (think SWAT), all that you will get is more chaos added to the pandemonium that breaks out when people panic.

Third, when the police eventually arrives, they will have to locate and isolate the actual shooter, if he is still alive. This is not going to be any easier if the site is milling with agitated armed teachers and guards, who are more often than not wearing ordinary civilian clothes rather than a distinguishable uniform.

Shooting on a range in controlled circumstances is quite different from shooting amid confusion and chaos.

Please, be sensible and think about this seriously. This problem is not going to go away by adding still more guns to this messy equation, quite the contrary.

Using the same logic,the world will be safer if we allow any country possess
Nuclear weapon..

Conflict and crazy people will appear from time to time for any reason.A crazy or angry people with gun is a hell lot more dangerouse than the one with a baseball bat

@Quintus

I agree. Also, there is the likelihood of a school shooter using a student as a hostage to get teachers to lower their weapons...

It's just too messy trying to limit mass killings by throwing more guns into the equation.

Obama couldn't have said it better last night. It is unacceptable as a nation to deem these occurrences as a natural happenstance. We can't let ourselves get used to these horrific events as if they are inevitable. We need to take action now, and I am sure he will be using his power to make some significant changes in mental health, threat awareness, and hopefully gun control.

@xc43t
Something interesting for you to read...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_serial_killers_by_country

chemical,biological, and nuclear weapons are....wait for it....weapoms not tools. Firearms are tools. Many millions of people use them each day with out killing someone....

there are many cases of where and armed citizen not trained in SWAT tactics was able to stop crimes, and mass shooting before they got bad. You just don't here the good stuff on the news.....
@Quintus
Hell a 12 year old stopped a robber, think she was trained in close quarter combat?

@lanredneck: Was the robber armed with an assault weapon, and two semiautomatics? No? Did the robber have a death-wish? No, again?

There are reasons why professional tactical units drill, drill and drill. And drill again. And even so, collateral damage cannot be completely ruled out. It's hard to imagine, that ordinary schoolteachers, janitors or plain ordinary guards could fare very much better. Do you disagree?

The smartest thing to do, is probably to enforce the doors leading to the classrooms, and keep them locked during classes. In addition to this, hallways should be compartmentalized in order to avoid long lines of sight within the buildings. This just to start with. Deny the ground, and delay the action.

"there are many cases of where and armed citizen not trained in SWAT tactics was able to stop crimes, and mass shooting before they got bad. You just don't here the good stuff on the news....."

References, please. Once a situation goes really bad, there is very little an ordinary, armed citizen can do that wouldn't make the overall situation even worse.

how about the guy in oregon who had a handgun and had a death wish but only killed two people because someone witha gun stopped him, mind you the guy who stopped him never fired a shot because there were other people behind the shooter.
I Do disagree mearly brandishing a weapon in defense can stop criminal acts.

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-2466711.html

http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/07/the-aurora-shooting-you-didnt-hear-about-in-the-media/

need more?

Also i agree to beefing up school, i have no problem with armed cops in schools either, and i have no problem with designated teachers/administrators that are trained, tested yearly psychologically to carry guns in school. Best option would be an admin. With gun locked in the office. I have no problem with that.

@Quintus

Trying not to weigh in to heavily between the two of you (ianredneck)... I do want to point out that this most recent shooting did not involve an assault rifle... the shooter left it in his car. This was done entirely with two pistols.

It's curious... You seem to be of the opinion that having a death wish provides an assailant with a measure invincibility or masterful tactical skill - that an armed civilian would somehow be less prepared to respond to and subdue a man who does not make an effort to protect himself than a person who would more cautiously attack.

Regardless of whether a man is suicidal, or willing to take a deadly risk more so than a rational human being, they can still be subdued with lethal (emphasis on lethal) force as easily as anyone else, and they do not gain any grand tactical insight that would requiring extensive tactical training in order to confront them, as you have suggested.

@Quintus/IanRedneck

Another good example is a shooting in colorado springs in 2007 at the New Life Church.

http://web.archive.org/web/20071214043017/http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CHURCH_SHOOTINGS?SITE=TXBEA&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2007-12-09-23-11-41:

After shooting and killing two at one location, the gunman attacked the church with two pistols and a semi-automatic rifle, killing two outside the church. As he entered the church, a civilian shot and mortally wounded the gunman before anyone else was shot.

Do you fear the Law Enforcement officer with a gun? He likely practices once a month or so. He has a background check and about 6wks of training. He likely has a highschool degree. This is particularly true of the officers assigned to school campuses (usually those a little on the rotund side).

A teacher has a college degree. They have the same background checks. Many of those who would want to carry are gun enthusiest who shoot much more often and better than the standard officer.

(I am not out to denegrate our officers, as they will be the first to admit that someone meeting the minimium qualifications is in poor condition indeed to provide safety to an entire school campus).

I am also rather tired of the compairison to Europe. We fought two wars so that we would not have to be disarmed and enslaved as the UK's population is.

Disarmed population centers are the most likely place to die from gun violence. Out in the country where every toothless hillbilly has a gun or 10, there is very little gun violence.

Columbine happened during the middle of the assault weapon ban. So did Oklahoma City (fertilizer) and 9/11 (boxcutters). 8 years later, and there still have not been any tragedies to equal those.

Gun violence has been on a steady decline as more and more states pass concealed carry laws. Now, we just need to abolish gun free zones, so that our citizens are able to protect themselves in the spirit of independence.

@oaksparr7777

Wrong.

Normally I am against using google as a means for finding credible statistics, but I'm using my phone here...

http://smartgunlaws.org/category/gun-studies-statistics/gun-violence-statistics/

I don't know why people keep saying more lax gun policies mean less gun violence. That's so incredibly wrong, and not backed by statistics. I encourage everyone to view the link above.

@iambronco

You are forgetting that this attack was premeditated. It was planned. The killer knew who he wanted to kill, and came prepared to deal with opposition, as well as a way out (suicide). So I would argue that in any scenario (though his impact would be less severe with armed teachers or school police officers) that he would have a tactical advantage. If someone were to do it again with police at the school, they would plan for even greater opposition and come even more prepared.

Zero guns is a fantasy and any mention of it only proves that the commenter is just as insane as the shooters in these cases only insane in a different way.
Only a fool believes that self defense can be done for him by someone else or that an unarmed population can be free.
Taxes in the Netherlands are 33.5%, 42%, 42%, and 52%... you only think you are free in a society that charges usurious rates of taxation for the "privilege" of existing.
No steps have been taken to protect our children, none will be proposed and gun control will not make such steps any less necessary.

@TheKID11

Do you propose then, because some criminals will make plans to mitigate the impact of security measures we might employ, we should abandon efforts to provide security all together? That seems a rather absurd suggestion (though I am inferring it from your wording, so correct me if that is not what you meant).

I don't disagree with you on one level. A gunman will certainly be more prepared having decided before hand that he intends to kill many people, but I don't feel that is very relevant. Honestly, being shot at in a civilian environment is ALWAYS a surprise, so any gunman will enjoy an advantage regardless of whether or not there are armed civilians or police in the area.

That being said, having an advantage does not provide the gunman any immunity to lethal force, and I argue that his advantage is minimal to begin with. Just as I cannot anticipate who around me will pull a gun and begin firing, that man cannot, in an environment where civilians are armed, know who will return fire. That may very well even the odds and reduce the loss of life, or prevent it all together.

Less important to the point above... I don't necessarily agree that this man came prepared to respond to opposition. In fact, the most capable weapon he had available to him was left in the car. That indicates to me that he felt there would be nothing opposing him, and a larger more conspicuous weapon was unwarranted.

Of course, we presume he was sane enough to actually think any of this through; I am not convinced of this.

@iambronco

To answer your first question. NO, that is not what I meant. I have already stated that I support the idea of upping security measures in schools (preferably through the addition of police).

Secondly, in reference to paragraph two, I agree. (but am curious as to why you then state te obvious and contradict yourself in the next paragraph).

In reference to the 4th paragraph, he absolutely came prepared in the anticipation of opposition. Hence the ballistic best.

My view in general is that we need to emply many policy changes, including the one you discussed, but that the primary policy towards preventing such horrific occurrences would be to limit the impact such individuals could make through better gun restriction.

It happens in the Netherlands too.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13024785

Security is the answer... turning the entire country into an unarmed shooting gallery, expecting someone else to provide self protection, believing that an unarmed population can be free... these are bizarre concepts at the very least, arguably insane.

I see a lot of comments going back and forth regarding statistics of gun violence in a societies with civilian access to guns vs societies without. To be honest none of this sways me one way or the other. I own a gun and I consider myself to be a responsible gun owner. The for vast majority of my life my gun sits in a locked safe with exception of being taken out for target practice and cleaning with the exception of one time I needed to protect myself during an attempted break in. Granted I do not know if my incident is part any statistical analysis on gun violence as the sheer sight of me armed was enough to scare off the burglars without any escalation. I can tell you from that experience I was glad I owned a gun. The police showed up 10 minutes later. It only takes a brief amount of time to become a victim. I do not advocate restricting access firearms to any adult who is shown to be sane, responsible and law abiding. I do believe that there should be some kind of gun safety class on a national level that each person interested in owning a gun should be required to attend and pass as well as the background check.

@ bobbyg

"Security" and "freedom" are nice things, but you sure will not get them with weapons-to-civilians mind set.

Lanza used the weapons from his mother. She bought them to be "secure" she trained her son "for his protection"...

That is how fake that logic is. Guns-to-civilians are not solving the problem, guns-to-civilians ARE the problem.

badbot,
The idea that self defense can be done for you by someone else is insane and indicative of someone who is entirely detached from reality.
Disarming the population is the first step to tyranny with the taxation without representation, end of property rights, freedom of speech, right to travel freely and eventual revolt and even holocaust that go along with it.
No one in there right mind trust government or the people who aspire to have power over other people.
The streets are one thing, not everyone is cut out to carry a weapon but, if you are not armed in your own home you need a psychiatrist. The chances of law enforcement reaching you in time to save you in a life threatening situation are for all intents and purposes... zero.
Security in our schools is the only step we can actually take now and any argument against it is ridiculous. Even the strictest gun control measures imaginable will not eliminate the threat or significantly reduce the need for such security.
Judging from your post I'd say it's a good thing that you don't have guns.

@ bobbyg

what world/century do you live in? 1500 middle ages? or perhaps you live in a third world state in a middle of civil war? Zambia? Honduras.. to need so desperately firearms, a matter of life or death...
The gun in your hand will just worsen any critical situation.

If its a robbery, you have an armed robber in fron of you, he wants your money.
Situation A. you give him the small amount of money you have, he leaves.
Situation B. you take out a gun. he will have to shoot you b4 you shoot him. You die.

Armed civilians is a thicking time bomb, and we all see the effects. Disarming the population is a "first step to tyranny" lol. Funny how the tyrannies and thirld world states, have their population armed to the teeth, killing each other, while the most civilized world, has the civilians free of arms.
Just as if you let anyone have free access to nuclear or biological weapons, thats crazy.

Armed civil population is the problem that needs to be solved.

Situation C. Two men break into your home and render you unconscious. After tying you up they proceed to rape and strangle your wife then set your house on fire with your two daughters still tied in their bedrooms.

Situation D. A man breaks in your front door. After beating to a pulp he robs you. By the time you are discovered you have severe brain damage from the swelling and after a week your family is forced to make the decision to remove you from life support.

By the way these are not hypothetical situations but true stories. I can site a hundred others where having the ability to defend yourself and family with lethal force would have made all the difference. People cannot have a real perspective on this until they themselves have been put in a position where their choices can effect a life or death situation. Sorry but I would rather have the choice to defend myself.

A B C D... bad things happen, in any society.
Free civilian access to weapons does not make the situation better, it makes this worst.

If you weight evenly, one more gun in hand, will make any situation more dramatic. Making a murder/deth out of what could have been a simple robbery. If its a deterrent, there are ways to do this with out use of guns. Furthermore a gun poses a permanent potential threat, accident, your kids manage to pose their hands on it, someone crazy gets hold of it etc etc.

Bottom line you lose more than you gain with free civilian access to weapons.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexington/2012/12/gun-control
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/interactive/2012/jul/22/gun-ownership-homicides-map

@badbot
yes bad things happen and sometimes they happen with guns, i can point to more mass murders that have killed with hands and rope than murders with guns.
Actaully stats have proven that people with guns in bad situations have better outcomes than people without them. And often no one ever dies.
Knives also poses a "a permanent potential threat, accident"
Household chemicals pose a "a permanent potential threat, accident"
more than 2 inches of water "a permanent potential threat, accident" In a household where firearm safety, and respect for firearms are taught you don't see as many accidents.
So are all of our individual rights, the bill ofrights, something your willing to let go? And don't say tyranny can never happen in a "first world" country. Think Egypt is 3rd world? How about China? Russia?......

@Technodude0022:

Just out of curiosity, at which particular moment would the victims in cases C. and D. have engaged the intruder with his, or her firearm?

Sure, in case D. there might have been time to fetch the weapon, but not necessarily in case C. unless the victim was keeping it in an easily and quickly accessible place. Which carries its own risks in itself.

Even if we accept that in some singular and very particular cases a firearm could have protected (and this is an extremely qualified maybe) its owner, a single action snub-nosed revolver should be more than enough to do that very job.

If the action gets so hot, that you actually need a semi-automatic pistol or even an assault rifle to "protect yourself", something is very, very wrong with your life and the society where you live your life.

On a general level, it would be very good if everyone realized, that the total annual firearm-related death-rate in the U.S. 9.2 per 100 000 population per year (years 2008-2010, OAS 2012).

The only countries in the world(!) where this rate is higher are peaceful little havens like South Africa, the Philippines, Mexico, Panama, Brazil, Colombia, Swaziland, Guatemala, Honduras, Jamaica and El Salvador.

Not one, I repeat, not one, developed country anywhere on this planet comes even close to the firearm-related death-rate that the U.S. has.

To disregard the hard statistics, and base the argument on some what-if games concerning the possible, but very hypothetical outcomes of gruesome, but still somewhat anecdotal real-life cases is proof of a very peculiar mindset, but not of much else.

Claiming that more, not less firearms is the solution to this problem, is at least disingenuous with the not so subtle facts staring you right in the face.

If the shooter's exit plan is suicide, usually committed as soon as real resistance is met, doesn't it make more sense to encourage him to kill himself with his first round than his hundreth?

These guys are cowards, which is why they look for defenseless victims. Take away the victims, and the nutjobs will still exist - but they will think twice, meet quick resistance, and possibly will have their plans thwarted before they even begin.

@Oakspar77777: I'm not a psychologist, so I won't even try to follow the mind on someone intent on going on a killing rampage. However, if I venture a guess on the issue on suicidal intent, it is very possible that a person in this state of mind doesn't really give a damn one way or another as long as he gets his orgy in blood and loss of life.

In that sense, it's a bit hard to comment on if the perpetrator actually acts in a cowardly fashion even though the deed itself is cowardly. Of course.

My main issue is actually with that a surprising amount of people think the solution is to incapacitate the shooter by shooting him. Yes. True, that is a solution, and an effective one at that. However, the primary goal should really be to isolate the shooter from his intended targets and limit the actual damage he is able to cause by his own actions, /or the actions of others/.

I really don't give a flying "Big F" of the loss of the life of the shooter, but once the bullets start flying there really is no telling where they eventually end up, especially in crowded and closed spaces.

I read more than one comment on the Aurora, Colorado massacre that if the moviegoers had been armed, the massacre could have been stopped. Maybe. But at what cost in life? A dark, crowded, noisy place, with bright lights flashing and everyone armed but not knowing each other. Oh boy... Not good. Not good at all.

Why is it so hard to admit, that if it wasn't so easy to acquire automatic weapons, it would be infinitely harder to commit these kinds of atrocoties in such a short time? If you want to shoot powerful guns, join the National Guard or something. They have them in great quantities...

@quintus

Finally, someone with some common sense.

I will say this in defense of everyone who has posted here. There is rarely a single solution to any problem, or at least an end all be all policy that will have a beneficial effect on such a complicated matter. The solution will arise from multiple policies that best address the issue. Here's what I've taken out of this discussion: the best way to limit mass killings and their horror/destruction is to utilize multiple policies.

1. Better gun control (limits access to guns and killin potential)
2. Increased police or personell traine in firearm usage at schools.
3. Better access to mental health, as well as better funding for mental health.
4. Change in how our media chooses to cover such stories (a lot more difficult to manipulate)

@Quintus, TheKID11
Look I think you guys are missing a huge point when talking about gun control. If you look at the bill of rights and when they were written you will understand why each one was written and heck even in which order they were written.
The first 2 really have to do with proctecting yourself aginst a tyrannical gov. The founding fathers understood that any gov. was one step away from being tyrannical....because it happened to them. The first amendment gave you the power to voice dissent and keep the gov. from suppressing you. If that failed they gave you the 2nd amendment. The right to defend yourself by force. If you think that our current modern gov. would never be tyrannical, then i think your a little niave. And i will let you in on a couple of secrets. With every right we are given there are un-intended consequences that occur with them. With each right there are things we give up to ensure that we don't lose that right. With the first amendment and the freedom of speech we see people abuse it by burning flags(ironically) and protesting funerals, even plans of protesting funerals in CT. And with the second amendment we give up a little sense of security, unless your excersising it. Now don't get me wrong, a little regulation is fine, i'm not one of those guys that says "guns for all f*** the police!!! 'Murica" because as we know some people shouldn't own firearms. Violent offenders etc. but once we start restricting we start slipping down the slipepry slope. Where do we stop?

@iantheredneck

Once again I am going to disagree with you here. You keep referencing the possibility of a tyrannical gov as a means for why we should't restrict guns (which it appears you now somewhat changed your mind, ad that's okay), when you are not considering the PROBABILITY of a tyrannical gov within our democratic system. In the other article you referenced the revolutionary war as an example, which is all fine and dandy, but occurred over 200 years ago. We haven't since seen any evidence or the failure of our democratic system or how a rampage killing would spur the formation of tyrannical government. I think your argument is not irrelevant but rather tangential and escapes the foundations of hat makes our system of checks and balances so great.

@TheKID11
Have you heard of the Battle of Athens? I'll leave a youtube link of a movie about it. This was the intent of the 2nd amendment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncdXfUAkMUI

Tyranny will always be here as long as there is greed, and human nature.

@Ianredneck

That was an interesting clip. I never much liked hollywood style dramatizations though...

did you know the guy that was shot at the polling location was actually an African American trying to vote, who was being denied by one of the deputies?

I thought it was interesting how the video changed that bit.

@iantheredneck

That was an interesting clip. I'm not sure why you think I fail to realize what the second amendment was established for. What you fail to realize however is how it pertains to my argument. Gun control is a necessary step (In addition to other policies) in preventing future rampage killings. There is room in the second amendment to make changes in gun control without effecting citizens inalienable right to bear arms. We have significantly more guns per capita than any other country in the world. We need laws in place to prevent these guns from getting into the wrong hands so that rampage killers can't inflict as much damage.

@iambronco
the details maybe changed, even big ones liek theo ne you pointed out, but the message is the same tyranny exists even in out perfect democratic republic society.

@TheKID11
there is restrictions, and then there is restrictions with the intent for eventually banning weapons. Its a slippery slope, one that must be weighed, discussed etc.
And i don't think you understand the purpose of the 2nd amendment. As this clip shows citizens as soon as 70 years ago have had to fight tyranny with firearms. If all we got a revolvers pistols, low powered. And we have to go up against forces with automatic weapons....how do you think thats going to turn out? With it be another battle of Athens or Tienem Square?

@iantheredneck

Again, you're paranoid.

I DO understand what the second amendment was designed for, as that video clip fully illustrated, BUT once again you are not fully understanding the probability of a tyrannical government forming within our democratic system. You cited one example from 70 years ago...the time and context was completely different man. I'm not trying to deny the purpose of the second amendment. It was an important right that our founding fathers established, but we can maintain that right without having to be paranoid about the government becoming tyrannical. Please consider the probability of such an occurrence. Just because it is possible doesn't mean it will likely happen.