20 elementary school children plus 6 adults shot dead by a guy with a gun

The kids involved at Columbine were from normal 2 parent families, one had a father who was in the US air force and NOBODY saw it comming.
Adam Lanza should have had the help he obviously needed.
The point surely is that sometimes things happen which you cannot control, its more about teaching kids to be a more responsible person but I still maintain that if these guns were not in the homes then there is a chance that these things would not happen.
Yes we have a problem with knife crime in the UK, our Government has taken steps to sort this out with a ban on carrying knives in the street. It has worked to a degree, but gang culture is an issue and this is often their weapon of choice. I m glad there is not the level of guns in the UK that you have in the US. It is easier to kill with a gun at a distance, with a knife you need to be closer giving the chance of some form of defence. There is also less chance of mass casualties with a knife.

I can see your point, I really can. You want to protect your rights under the constitution and there is nothing wrong with that, but I wonder if your position would be the same if you lost a child to a bullet.

 

Of course it does. More importantly, it has bearing on how your opinions are received. Its bad enough to get advice on how to run our government from someone living under a government that has failed a myriad of levels, but when the person handing out the advice is not better off than the average American, it is simply obnoxious.

OK, before I launch into this tirade, let me preface the whole thing by acknowledging that I don't know the first thing about your situation. Your husband may very well have been a violent drunk, and you very well may be a victim whose only salvation was to run to the arms of mother government with your children for protection from a vile and evil man. Conversely, you may be a drunk as well, or you may have been banging your husbands best friend and spending the family into poverty while he was at work trying to put food on the table for you and your children. These things I simply don't know, and debating the truthfulness of them, here on an anonymous forum is a complete waste of time.

What we can debate are the merits and effects of government benefits for someone hypothetically in your situation. To that end, I will speak to my knowledge of the subject, as it pertains to US, and more specifically, California law.

First, if your husband and were to divorce here for any reason, even something as normal as irreconcilable difference, your husband would owe you child support based on each of your incomes prior to the divorce. This is not something that can be won or lost in court, it is a simple factual review of income, and a judgement accordingly.

Second, after child support, comes alimony. This monthly payment is arrived at after a court fight, where many of the same elements that came into play for child support would be used as evidence. If you were a housewife prior to the divorce, and he was the sole breadwinner, the court will usually find that it is his sole responsibility to keep you in the same lifestyle you had prior to the divorce. If you were a stay at home mom prior to the divorce, you should, according to the law, be able to continue as a stay at home mom after the divorce, without involving government assistance. This is not always the case because two people can save money by pooling living expenses(rent/mortgage/etc), but in theory, it works. A person in your hypothetical situation who needs to receive government assistance as a single mother would more than likely have lived in a family dependent on government assistance prior to the divorce.

Third, single mothers who need to work receive free child care from the state. Granted, many welfare moms cheat the system by watching their neighbor's child, in exchange for their neighbor watching their child, while both families collect the government stipend for child care while not working, but for single mothers who truly want to work, day care costs are not an issue.

Fourth, as someone else has already pointed out on this thread, getting married and having children are decisions you made for which a person in your hypothetical situation should be responsible for. The fact that someone banged out a bunch of kids with the town drunk is not the responsibility of the state. Severe moral hazard there.

Now this comment I find particularly fascinating. The government has become venture capital for your new business. Again, while I love the idea of people starting new businesses and becoming successful, I am hard pressed to see where it is the government's job to underwrite your venture without so much as reviewing your business plan (do you have a business plan?).

This, by the way, is another common pattern we see in the liberal inner cities of places like Chicago and Los Angeles. People start businesses while on the dole. Invariably, those businesses generate undeclared revenue that will never be taxed. You would be amazed at how far out of the way people go to make sure that revenue is not declared, sometimes even turning down legitimate work by virtue of the fact it is above the table. Practically every last crack, cocaine, marijuana, and meth dealer in the inner cities is running a government capitalized venture, some of which are very profitable (and violent).

Are you really suggesting you are unemployable?

That would have been the responsible thing to do, though I suspect if he is really as violent and substance addicted as you claim he is, you are not a very responsible person for having produced progeny with the man. Let me guess, you had no idea before hand, right?

The lure of welfare to ease the pain of divorce is one of the principal driving causes of single mothers in inner city black neighborhoods, and correspondingly, one of the largest drivers of poverty in those communities. Hood rats raise hood rats.

I don't have a copy of that book. I do have a basic principal that I think would benefit you though.

Every time someone gives you money for "nothing", what you are actually giving in return is a small portion of your self esteem. I can appreciate that there are truly situations outside of our control that happen, and I am thankful that we have safety nets for those situations. A thinking person would use that safety net to get off of government assistance as soon as possible, because it is both addictive and destructive to the soul.

 

The comment about their manhood or lack thereof proceeded from the fact that they could have stood up to a tyrannical edict to disarm them, but wimped out. They are afraid of their rulers. Notwithstanding anything Obama thinks, he's an elected official, not our "ruler"... and we will not make the same mistake the men of England made. We are citizens, not subjects of a sovereign king.

And ftr... try to stay on topic. If you want to discuss marital bs concerning gays, keep it in the thread on that topic. It's called staying on subject. Look it up.

 

That is my point as well. Mass shootings are rare as it is, and no law can prevent them. Yes, if somehow all guns in America were destroyed tomorrow, shootings would end. But as I mentioned before, it's not an option. And just like gangs in the UK use knifes instead of guns, crazy people will still find ways to kill people.

Absolutely. I understand that the founding principles that created the most powerful nation on earth are the very things that keep us that way, and destroying the 2nd amendment knocks us down a level. There is a bigger picture here than a life, as bad as that sounds. When a family of 4 with 2 small children get crushed to death in a car accident, because a drunk driver decided to speed down the wrong side of the highway, you don't here calls to ban cars or alcohol. People understand that the car or the alcohol didn't cause the accident, it was the person that made poor choices. The same applies to guns. How can you call for guns to be banned, yet you don't care about alcohol? If you can come up with an answer as to why alcohol should be left alone, and only guns should be banned, then I will shut up.

 

The Texas concealed carry provision was enacted after a shooting at a Luby's restaurant. A woman who had a handgun in her car did not take it in with her because of the lack of a concealed carry provision at that time. A man with a gun who ignored the law (which is what criminals do) methodically shot over 20 people in the restaurant, while her gun sat in the car.

He had no resistance, so law abiding citizens were at his mercy. ONE person with a gun could have stopped him... but the lady that pushed for that concealed carry law instead sat and watched her parents bleed out after her father tried to stop the gunman and got shot, then her mother was shot.

I have stopped a bad guy with a gun before, so I am not speaking on a topic that I'm unfamiliar with. The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. If my child were shot because I was unarmed and defenseless to help them, I'd be sorry. So basically your argument doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

 

Surely you educate your own children (if you have any - or will when you do) on gun safety? And children of friends/family members who visit your property?

 

Lots of blahdy-blah and then:

I can't say for the USA, but in the UK there's often a local business/enterprise centre for advice on starting up a business. There are also programmes available which include continuing to receive benefits (state support, welfare or whatever Americanism you prefer) during the start up of the business until it's revenue generating. They need to see business plans and agree that it is viable, otherwise they won't provide any assistance.

 

Could a person (with a knife) not walk in to a classroom filled with 5 - 7 year olds and come out with more than one life?

What about a baseball bat?

 

We have those programs here as well. I did not get the impression at all that Emma was a participant to any such program. From what I could tell, she had decided she would not work until her children had left the home, living on government assistance while accepting money (under the table?) for content writing online. I doubt the government has the slightest clue regarding her plans.

 

Gun safety is the top priority for anyone around firearms. I believe not only in teaching kids about guns, but teaching them to shoot guns at an early age. I was shooting before age 10. Not only do you get rid of any curiosity about guns, you teach kids to respect something that is lethal. Unlike video games, there is no reset button. It teaches kids that things in life are serious and have consequences.

 

No, the way you think is, you are hallucinating that that if we ban guns, then kids will stop killing kids - that is to say, it won't be in the news, right? So you take care of one external symptom of this country's mental health crisis. But in this hallucination you forget about the kids that are disturbed, the kids crying for help. These kids weren't born murders - they were molded into murders by years of abuse. Your attitude seems to be if you can't see mental health, it isn't there. So you just want to let the kids suffer in silence, right?

I'm sorry but you are showing shallow thinking. You ban guns because you can SEE guns. You can't see the mind of a disturbed child. Even if your fantasy came true, it wouldn't stop the kids from using bombs, or knives, or hammers. You can try to ban them, one by one, the same way that, O.K., the U.K. banned guns so kids found another way to commit murder. So now the U.K.'s failure of mental health is to ban long knives now. When kids start killing themselves with something else, the Brits will ban that too - maybe big rocks? Anything so that you wouldn't have to worry about the kids, right?

The solution, as it has been so often stated, if that we need to give kids better access to mental health treatment. Like all liberals, you give lip service to compassion but you really don't care.

Aaaaaand - that's it.

That's all Emma has to say about mental health.

NO ideas, but hey, maybe somebody will make a phone call? I imagine Emma yawning at the keyboard, "oh, posh, kids are in pain, oh well, maybe somebody else will make some noises and do something".

Speaking as someone who worked at a suicide hotline in college, I can tell that you appear to be the type of person that ignores the pain of others.

 

What a bunch of BS. This coming from the same people who are against national health care. How the people are going to afford this help? You are just all over the map to make an excuse for free gun sales.

 

@ Corwin, Please dont assume to know how and what I think. As a Pagan I believe in the natural order of things, that every living thing has a right to life and that everything happens for a reason.
I don't live in the US, if I did then maybe I would do something about the state of mental health care but there is not much that I can do from here.
Our system for mental health is ok (maybe not great, but its ok) it falls under the remit if the NHS and is fairly easy to access through the GP's.
A big problem with mental health issues is that the patient often needs to admit that there is a problem before any intervention can take place, because of the 'stigma' surrounding mental health teens are less likely to admit the problem exists. Parents and teachers can only do so much, what if the teen refuses to have any treatment? As the sying goes 'You can lead a horse to water, but you cn't make it drink'.

 

FYI, My youngest children are just 5 years old. In order for me to receive any help from the Government I have to prove, WITH EVIDENCE, what hours I am working and how much I am earning. I make sure that any payments are made through Paypal so I can PROVE my income aand I have to keep meticulous records of the work I complete and the time this takes. It is very shllow and ignorant to assume the worst of someone just because you don't like their opinions.

 

@ grpaul, Yes someone could cause multiple casualties with a knife (obviously), but it is less likely from a psycological perspective as the closeness required is often a deterant as there is more possibility of resistance.
One of the common factors with mass shootings is that the shooter often kills him/herself when presented with any resistance.

 

Hey, shallow is my middle name, or shllow, as spelled in the UK. You must have missed this part of my post:

All I have to go on are your words, of debatable truthfulness.

Now here in backward cousin ville, 5 years old is school age. Here in backward cousin ville, the state pays for child care for those with low income.

Ah, now this makes sense. Here in backward cousin ville, Welfare requires you to have no income whatsoever, but supposedly has an expiration date (not sure of the exact rules surrounding this). I do believe, however, that there are a large number of additional assistance programs for the working poor that have no sunset date whatsoever. If you are really planning on not looking for a job until your 5 year old leaves the house, it would make sense to show periodic income.

I have no idea how the UK's tax collectors work, but here in backward cousin ville, the IRS remains completely unaware of income made through paypal until you cross the $20,000 mark in a given tax year, at which point they send off a 1099 form to Uncle "backward cousin" Sam. Even that number is completely avoidable by opening multiple payment accounts via PayPal and other services. In other words, it is completely possible and even probable that the tax authorities would be ignorant of an online income stream.

Anyway, again, I have no clue as to your actual status. Spell it out. Does your government have a copy of your business plan?

 

And to add to this, the shooter always chooses a location that has the least resistance. Sandy hook, ft hood, movie theater, etc. Gun free zones are a mass shooters best friend.

 

@O-nation, despite the fact that it's off topic,
1 the Government in the UK have not asked for a business plan, if they want it they can have it.
2 You seem very aware of how to dodge the tax system in the US, however our systen is different and requires that you daclare all income.
3 Again you are assuming that I am working below the radar when I have given no indication of this. 4You also assume that I am not willing to work until my children leave home, again I have not said this only that it was impractical to work before they started school due to childcare costs.
5 My youngest are now at school and I started working before they started school.
6 People on this thread can't seem to make up their mind, Parents get criticised for working and not being there for their kids and I get slated for working from home and actually being there for my kids.

 

Ah. Now I DO know what you think.

At one point in my life I could have been considered a pagan. What I learned is that while pagans like to tout "natural order", do as thou wilt, and right to life, etc. in actual practice pagans don't really have a solid foundation in the truth and, sadly, are awkwardly delusional as to how the real world functions, instead substituting that with an "I know better than everyone" attitude.

You don't see many financially successful pagans in business, do you? That's because a) it's not practical - in theory paganism is supposed to bring to you what you want (financial success) but in practice it has a skewed vision of the world, and b) paganism isn't Love-based. You can be defensive, but practical philosophies are always financially successful philosophies. Paganism isn't practical.

I mention this because you don't seem to see the reality of this situation. These kids that go on killing sprees were turned into killers by systematic abuse in the schools. Teachers, whose job it is to monitor the students and alert authorities to potential problems, aren't doing their jobs well.

There was just a terrific program on PBS last week that talked about Sandy Hook. They pointed to the many, many times where schools were able to spot and treat potential violent offenders. But in cases of Sandy Hook, Columbine, etc there were clear signals that these kids were potential killers way before the tragic events. The signs were ignored. How many other children out there are time-bombs waiting to go off?