James S. Brady / Ronald Reagan

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Yesterday, James S. Brady, died.

Reagan came out supporting the Brady Bill:

While the NRA has been effectively cock-blocking new reasonable gun-control legislation, Steve Kornacki filed a report showing some progress at the state level.

Comments

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

The Washington Post has a depressing 'then and now' story,
how gun politics seems to have only deteriorated since the Brady Bill.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/02/28/its-been-20-years-since-the-brady-law-passed-how-have-gun-politics-changed/

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Thanks for that link. Interesting read.

[mudryikot.livejournal.com]

Not a really good comparison, actually. An insane perpetrator will always get a first shot (or first seconds of shooting), just like any attacking party gets a first move. Armed teachers may prevent further shooting. Just like in case of attempted Reagan assasination bodyguards prevented the perpetrator from re-loading and shooting again and members of the public from tearing the perpetrator apart. If you read the reports of school shootings it is a constantly recurring thing that the criminal "reloaded and movent into next classroom".

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

An armed insane perp. An unarmed insane perp can only throw his poop.

[deborahkla.livejournal.com]

An unarmed insane perp can only throw his poop at Repooplicans.

[mudryikot.livejournal.com]

AFAIK school shootings generally occured when a person who suddenly went off their rocker stole weapons from some legitimate owner. And anyhow the argument is presumably about arming teachers, not about background checks.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

"school shootings generally occured when a person who suddenly went off their rocker stole weapons from some legitimate owner"

Citation needed.

[hurleyman.livejournal.com]

+1 for using "legitimate" and not "responsible"

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Did the Fort Hood shooter have time to reload?

[mudryikot.livejournal.com]

If you are referring to 2014 shooting than as far as I understand a soldier who just suddenly snapped was stopped and neutralized by the first armed person that he encountered. If soldiers in the very first room where he started shooting were armed then he probably would have been shot down earlier.
The 2009 shooting was apparently a case of your army being infiltrated by terrorists. So its not really a good comparison to civilian-on-civilian shooting.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

"The 2009 shooting was apparently a case of your army being infiltrated by terrorists"

First of all, at the *very* worst, it would be "terrorist" it was a single guy.

Second of all, the bottom line is that *being surrounded by people with guns* does not prevent a madman with a gun from shooting people and reloading.

The goalposts, you are moving them.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Armed teachers may prevent further shooting

No, they would not. And never mind the cultural issues of teachers carrying guns in class rooms.
They would more than likely miss and hit other other people.
Police officers miss a lot, and they receive a lot more training and hands on training.

If you read the reports of school shootings it is a constantly recurring thing that the criminal "reloaded and movement into next classroom".

Incidentally, that's why legislation to limit the size of ammunition magazines seems pretty reasonable. In several instances, the shooter was stopped when they went to reload, or the magazine jammed. Specifically in the Gabby Giffords' shooting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Tucson_shooting), Loughner dropped the gun while trying to reload.

[mudryikot.livejournal.com]

Certainly a person armed with something would have a better chance to stop an armed criminal than a person unarmed.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

And in our current school system I wouldn't trust teachers to hold guns anyways. ; )

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars.

— Political Humor (@PoliticalLaughs) August 5, 2014 (https://twitter.com/PoliticalLaughs/statuses/496689598039220225)

Not true, but I thought it was funny. Of course, we just want to make sure drunk people don't drive, as well as make sure people are licensed to drive, nor should people be able to drive around on the streets in tanks - SUVs are bad enough.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

Why do you hate freedom? Abrams tanks and rocket launchers aren't restricted by the Constitution!

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

Not only is it restricted by the Constitution, the Constitution actually provides absolute protection to your right to roll with tanks and carry around rocket launchers at McDonald's. Guns rights are more important than the right to vote!

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

Yeah it's funny because it's already so much more difficult to own a car than a gun.

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

Exactly! We all understand tyranny, but a few rules are good sometimes.

[catlin.livejournal.com]

Its sad. As pointed out above, it is harder to get birth control then own a gun, in many places.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Heh, just on the insurance issues alone....

[brother-dour.livejournal.com]

It's a good thing we all agree on 'reasonable'

[telemann.livejournal.com]

32 round magazines ain't reasonable.

[brother-dour.livejournal.com]

Nor is taking firearms away from someone suspected of being mentally ill or involved in a divorce without standards to determine possible threat, without right to appeal, without a time limit on how long such an individual can be deprived of firearms. Yet laws have been proposed in many states which ignore those very concerns.

See what I mean by my above statement?

[madscience.livejournal.com]

Two seconds before Reagan was shot once.