“I think if we’re going to control guns, we really have to do it massive”
Later in his appearance, Brooks added that, although Friday’s shooting likely won’t change public opinion on gun control in the long run, he favors strict gun control measures.
“These kinds of shootings historically have had no effect on public opinion in the gun debate,” Brooks said. “I think if we’re going to control guns, we really have to do it massive. I think I’m all for getting rid of the assault weapons and machine guns and all that … but if we want to prevent something like this, we have to really think seriously about drastically reducing the number of guns in our society, and particularly — this is an old Patrick Daniel Moynihan idea — the number of bullets. It is very hard to control 300 million guns. The bullets are a little easier to control.”
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3
That didn’t come out right. I meant to say that the presence of arms in a school would likely not prevent every death, not that another shooting spree is unlikely.
Point being, if every school had armed teachers, etc, then you might lower the death toll from a murder spree from 20 to 10 by having an armed intervention, but in the years between such extremely rare incidences we could see 1000 people killed, one at a time, from the accidental or intentional discharge of just a few of hundreds of thousands of firearms carried by well-meaning people. And the school systems would be liable for every death and every injury from employees carrying.
Allowing armed people inside every school and similar facility would have its own consequences, which need to be calculated.
shuzilla on December 16, 2012 at 12:07 AM
Was he TRYING to kill anyone? I can shoot a bunch of people without killing them too. Just sayin’.
xblade on December 16, 2012 at 12:07 AM
This.
BallisticBob on December 16, 2012 at 12:08 AM
To make myself clear: Adam Lanza pumped three to eleven rounds from a Bushmaster into each one of twenty children. I am not anti-gun, I am anti-Murderous Adam Lanza, and HIS mother Nancy’s irresponsibility in allowing her deranged son access to so much firepower.
‘Nuff said.
Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on December 16, 2012 at 12:09 AM
If there were armed police at that school, he would have killed who knows how many children/adults at a daycare instead, or at a different school, or at a church, or at a movie theater, or at a shopping mall, or at a grocery store, etc. Those children may have been saved, but unless you’re advocating a police state with armed guards posted all over the state of Connecticut, someone elses children would have taken their place. When a person like this is hellbent on committing mass murder, there is no law that can prevent it.
But that wasn’t the case. She didn’t own these guns because she felt the need to protect herself from her child, at least that’s not what has been reported.
xblade on December 16, 2012 at 1:02 AM
I would agree with 30 armed teachers. You are not going to get an argument from me.
My point about having police officers stationed in schools is it is the easiest politically possible solution we can do right now. Yes he might have killed both of them, of five police office, of fifty police officers, but the fact remains that two armed police officers had a good chance to stop the lunatic. He forced his way into the school, and may have been a good shot, but he is not some delta force member. People need to stop acting like this guy was some kind of unstoppable force and no security measures would have stopped him. The reason he killed so many people is there was no one there to shoot back.
The real point of this story is automatic locks on doors, and other expensive security systems are no substitute for armed security, no matter if that armed security comes in form of teachers with guns, security guards with guns, or police with guns.
William Eaton on December 16, 2012 at 1:03 AM
I am not advocating a police state, but what I am advocating is that once that child is in the care of the public school system it is the responsibility of the state to take care of that child. Schools are a prime target, for gangs, for jihadist, for deranged lunatics. We have armed guards at military installations, at nuclear power plants, at government buildings, etc. God forbid if local hack politicians can get police protection, I would think we could at least could spare a few to protect school kids. It is not fool proof, I know that for nothing is, but it least offers some resistance and makes the schools in this country less of a hard target.
BTW: I know the insane lunatic could go somewhere else, like the local mall, but at least we will have made it harder to attack the school. Maybe you prefer we don’t do anything, and let the leftwing in this country keep milking stories like this to push for more gun control. Every nut and copycat psycho is now going to be hitting schools left and right to get their names in the paper and on TV, and the media will love it….
William Eaton on December 16, 2012 at 1:20 AM
What idiot called for this “national conversation.”
Kenosha Kid on December 16, 2012 at 1:23 AM
CORRECTION ABOVE:
God forbid if local hack politicians can get police protection, I would think we could at least spare a few to protect school kids. It is not fool proof, I know that for nothing is, but it least offers some resistance and makes the schools in this country MORE of a hard target.
William Eaton on December 16, 2012 at 1:23 AM
Mark DeMoss, advisor to Romneys Presidential campaign and christian conservative states that the pubs should break ranks and go in for gun control. Are they gonna fold on this issue too? Wimps are what they are. What a disgrace…
tommy71 on December 16, 2012 at 1:28 AM
As usual, things are a quite a bit more complicated than you make them out to be.
http://www.davekopel.com/2A/Foreign/Japan-Gun-Control-and-People-Control.htm
Maybe you should “read something more worthwhile”.
Dreadnought on December 16, 2012 at 2:36 AM
From my cold, dead, pudgy hands.
mythicknight on December 16, 2012 at 4:16 AM
The “progressives” have brought us the culture of the “no value for human life”. It began with abortion on demand and its latest peak is the disgusting, vividly graphic murderous video games that these mentally imbalanced, disturbed Godless young boys play for countless periods of time. Not measured in hours but by days.
stenwin77 on December 16, 2012 at 4:40 AM
ThePrimordialOrderedPair on December 15, 2012 at 9:34 PM
Why do you always use names? I am not a moron. You don’t know history. Have you ever read the preamble the first 10 amendments. They are directed towards congress? You don’t understand what Federalism is.
When the federal constitution was adopted all of the states had their own constitutions and were sovereign.
Read about the Virginia ratification debates. Without an agreement to these amendments they never ratify the constitution which means the union does not hold together in all likelihood.
They wanted the amendments because they felt the constitution made the federal government stronger. They were not passing these amendments to give the federal government control of more laws like gun laws.
So before you retort with another insult, read a little history.
ReformedDeceptiCon on December 16, 2012 at 7:46 AM
A) There was little CT could have done to make it more difficult for Lanza to get a gun than it already was, and…
B) it would not have changed a thing about the carnage anyway.
Anyone who really believes that restricting gun ownership would have somehow eliminated or lessened this tragedy is some combination of stupid and dishonest…Ern.
gryphon202 on December 15, 2012 at 9:34 PM
I agree with that. CT already has very strict gun laws. What we need to start focusing on is the treatment of people with mental health issues.
ReformedDeceptiCon on December 16, 2012 at 7:51 AM
Ah yes. The incorporation doctrine. That is not at all what the 14th amendment was intended to do. It was not until the FDR court that the concept of incorporation doctrine came into existence.
ReformedDeceptiCon on December 16, 2012 at 8:01 AM
This whole thing stinks.
“Never let a crisis go to waste?”
There truly are MINDLESS idiots in this country because anyone with even half a brain knows the gun control argument is juat a massive governmental power grab.
redlucy on December 16, 2012 at 8:35 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3