As far as gun laws, we already prohibit the mentaly ill from owning guns, as well as ex convicts. We also limit the ownership of true military firearms with the class 3 licence (difficult to obtain, expensive to maintain, allows ownership of sub/machine guns, silencers etc) Most of the gun masacres have involved people breaking the laws already in place, as in this example.

The framers in the constitution wanted a well armed militia to prevent the government from growing too large and taking away our civil liberties. With the crushing economic poverty at the bottom of the american dream, I cant help but fear that these kooks might be the presure relief valves venting a pressure cooker of discontent and violence.

The problem is, none of those things prevent any crime or detect any criminals. Sure, they create a lot of administration to keep some civil servants employed, and they annoy the bejeezus out of gun owners, but where is the crime prevention? How does it help the police prevent a crime when they know I have a shotgun, but the loner next door has a glock he bought illegally from Guido down the street so it’s not registered and is planning to go shoot up the neighbourhood school?

And that’s the real problem with gun control. Gun control legislation doesn’t target the problem of criminals with guns… it targets regular folks with guns.

I also think that by opposing even sensible gun legislation, the NRA may be setting us up for a future situation where the government is forced to use utterly draconian measures to control an increasingly unstable culture.

Don’t misunderstand me, please! I do not trust the government on anything…and I do not want to eliminate all guns. But the situation as it is—no real control with ever more frightful advances in technology—simply cannot continue on indefinitely.

in theory there is no end to that right. it was written that way on purpose. this is so the people can overtake the government when they need to. of course, that’s now impossible because the government does not let the people have weapons anywhere near as powerful as it’s own to make sure the people can’t overthrow it. the constitution is in shambles, but that’s nothing new. also, if you take away the guns, when these nuts decide to go on killing sprees, they will be using bombs instead. that will surely kill many more innocent people (imagine the building full of people blowing up instead of just 1 person being killed). guns are not the problem, killers are the problem. when guns become illegal, the only people left with guns in these situations are the nut jobs who are crazy enough to murder people, so obviously they aren’t concerned with following gun laws.

There has been some speculation from parties not involved as to whether Bill Phillips performance was the issue, or if there was some management decisions causing the weaknesses of being late to meetings and such. If he was overburdened with work, that makes it hard to get to all your activities on time. It is true that the work force is currently understaffed in a lot of areas. This certainly could have been a factor. However, there appear to be indicators that workload was not the cause, because of the performance review process and the documented improvement plan status. This indicates it was personal performance related.

Apparently Bill Phillips thought his job was at stake, that he was going to be fired. Jacobs management states firing was not currently in consideration. The first stage of performance complaints is to create a plan to work with the employee to improve their performance, and retain them. For some reason, Bill Phillips decided that he was going to lose his job, that he didn’t have anything else to live for, and that he was going to kill the person responsible, whom he felt was David Beverly, his NASA technical monitor. Bill smuggled in a gun illegally (guns are not permitted on JSC property because it is federal property and thus not subject to Texas concealed carry laws). It appears his intent was certain already.

Regarding the possible effects of someone else being armed, I believe these two shooting incidents are very different in nature, and the value of other people having firearms can be contrasted.

In the Virginia Tech shootings, you have a person on a rampage. In that situation, if someone else had a gun, they might could have taken him down early and reduced the overall casualty rate.

However, more guns create more confusion. There could have been injuries or deaths due to that person having accidents, or having multiple people trying to “solve the situation” and not knowing who is whom.

In this situation, if Fran or David had had a gun there might have been an opportunity to defend themselves after the first couple shots when Bill stepped out of the office. Dave had tried to barricade the door with a desk (while injured), but Bill returned and shot him again, fatally. During that time access to a gun might have changed the results.

But other people hearing the shots and coming in with guns would likely have increased the damage. Trading gunshots could have gotten another shooter dead, and Fran injured or killed as well. In this situation, the best solution for outsiders was what happened. They evacuated, and the police established a perimeter and tried to establish contact to negotiate.

As far as the societal issues of guns, I’m of a mixed mind. I do agree there is a widespread culture of using guns to solve your own problems. Gang-bangers aren’t the only ones running around shooting people. At the same time, there is something to be said for the ability to defend yourself. Also, liberty versus security is an ongoing conflict that does not have a perfect solution. The issue is debatable, with strong arguments and justifications from both sides.