another school shooting in U.S. of A. :(

[BDunnell]

A gun gives one a real sense of power , and is a real thrill to shoot .
The higher the destructive power in your hands , the more thrill .

That's the reality of it .

I think you'd be surprised at how long the line-ups would be if there was a chance for the average Brit to try his/her hand at just firing an automatic weapon if there was a free day at a shooting range in downtown London .

I can well understand the enjoyment factor associated with shooting as a sport or pastime, and would never seek further to restrict that. But outside of the realm of sport I believe that 'sense of power' is, for want of a better phrase, misplaced. I for one have no desire for a 'sense of power' bestowed on me purely by virtue of how big a gun I own. Add in the manner in which guns have become part of normality for many Americans and I can well imagine how the combination has become toxic.



So , maybe it is a "mindset" , but not a particularly paranoid one .

Looked at gun ownership in purely recreational terms, maybe not, but gun ownership for reasons of protection is surely born out of paranoia or deep societal problems.

[BDunnell]

If I was approached my administration I would be interested in carrying a handgun at my school, with proper training, of course. I recognize that the possibility of an attack is remote, but we are vulnerable. Our school is a private one, but not in the best area of town. We have one armed security person on campus, and for many buildings one needs a swipe card to enter. On the other hand, the door to my classroom has a big window, opens inward and, therefore, cannot be barricaded. We have lockdown procedures but have never drilled it.

To look at this another way, are you not depressed by the need for such security measures? As I stated earlier, the very notion of their being necessary is simply laughable to Europeans.

[BDunnell]

Children learning about guns, their safe operation and use, is not a bad thing.

I think it's an infinitely depressing thing. In no way do I feel I've missed out as a result of not learning about guns in school. What need do I have for such education?

[keysersoze]

To look at this another way, are you not depressed by the need for such security measures? As I stated earlier, the very notion of their being necessary is simply laughable to Europeans.

Depressed? No.It's lamentable, though. I feel quite safe. I'm sure Sandy Hook felt safe before last Friday. The odds of me or my students being hurt are clearly remote but, as I say that, I believe gun violence, with or without stricter regulations, will continue. I do sense the virtue of being perhaps a bit over-prepared.

I'm glad Europeans feel safe, and this country would do well to thoroughly consider what other countries do--and put the results in the proper context.

bÃ*i vi?t r?t chi ti?t.

vote cho bác 1 vé.








..

[BDunnell]

Depressed? No.It's lamentable, though. I feel quite safe. I'm sure Sandy Hook felt safe before last Friday. The odds of me or my students being hurt are clearly remote but, as I say that, I believe gun violence, with or without stricter regulations, will continue. I do sense the virtue of being perhaps a bit over-prepared.

I'm glad Europeans feel safe, and this country would do well to thoroughly consider what other countries do--and put the results in the proper context.

I agree very much with your sentiments. However, do you not consider it potentially counter-productive to, potentially, perpetuate the feeling of insecurity amongst your students by way of such over-preparation?

[DanicaFan]

I have felt for years that all school teachers should be armed. This would stop a lot of this nonsense.

[Starter]

I agree very much with your sentiments. However, do you not consider it potentially counter-productive to, potentially, perpetuate the feeling of insecurity amongst your students by way of such over-preparation?
Or perhaps the students will feel safer, just as they would if a uniformed policeman was in the classroom with them?

[chuck34]

I agree very much with your sentiments. However, do you not consider it potentially counter-productive to, potentially, perpetuate the feeling of insecurity amongst your students by way of such over-preparation?

I have seen the light!! Thank you BDunnell. I finally understand, being prepared for something, however remote the chances of it happening are, will only instill feelings of insecurity. You're right! How could I have ever been so dumb?

Now to go home and remove all the smoke detectors and carbon monoxide detectors from my home. Rip out the seat belts from my car. Cancel all my insurance. Remove the warning labels off of everything that I own. And live the good life of not having any feelings of insecurity.

[chuck34]

I have felt for years that all school teachers should be armed. This would stop a lot of this nonsense.


Or perhaps the students will feel safer, just as they would if a uniformed policeman was in the classroom with them?

I wouldn't go that far. But having a uniformed police officer on school grounds would not be a bad idea at all.

[schmenke]

... In no way do I feel I've missed out as a result of not learning about guns in school. What need do I have for such education?

Indeed, as a father of two it has never even dawned on me to feel the need to educate my two girls on firearms use. What possible benefit can that provide? :s

[keysersoze]

I agree very much with your sentiments. However, do you not consider it potentially counter-productive to, potentially, perpetuate the feeling of insecurity amongst your students by way of such over-preparation?

Students do get put out (just a bit) by our repeated fire drills (about one a month--I think it's mandated by the state), but I'm not advocating that we publicize our vigilance. Sort of like how the airlines have a undercover cop aboard all flights. We don't know who it is, but we all feel a bit safer. I do not think it's necessary to have school personnel openly carrying weapons. As I mentioned, we don't even practice our lock-down procedure. I feel safe in saying there will be no armed teachers here. I did, however, just return from a walk through the halls and saw a police officer--haven't seen that in a while.

I frankly think--though I don't have any anecdotal evidence--that our parents (a pretty well-off lot) would actually appreciate if security were beefed up. Nothing major--just make sure visitors obtain name tags, that the faculty always wear their name tags (sometimes we forget to put them on).

We have a drug-sniffing dog on campus once a month. When we instituted this practice late last school year, there were the usual rumblings, but now it's deemed as just "business as usual."

Large public schools across the nation have a significant police presence on campus, and have since the mid-90s. Some schools have their students enter through a gate that has a metal-detector.

[schmenke]

I have seen the light!! ....

No, I don't think you have. I think you have completely missed BDunnell's point. Perhaps re-read and reflect upon his post.

[Bagwan]

I can well understand the enjoyment factor associated with shooting as a sport or pastime, and would never seek further to restrict that. But outside of the realm of sport I believe that 'sense of power' is, for want of a better phrase, misplaced. I for one have no desire for a 'sense of power' bestowed on me purely by virtue of how big a gun I own. Add in the manner in which guns have become part of normality for many Americans and I can well imagine how the combination has become toxic.



Looked at gun ownership in purely recreational terms, maybe not, but gun ownership for reasons of protection is surely born out of paranoia or deep societal problems.

I get no kick from champagne , but there was a big thrill at shooting a .36cal black powder handgun with a good charge in it .
It was a lot of smoke and a huge bang , and a big hole in the oil barrel I killed .

That barrel won't bother me ever again .

[chuck34]

No, I don't think you have. I think you have completely missed BDunnell's point. Perhaps re-read and reflect upon his post.

Really? Tell me more ....

[BDunnell]

Or perhaps the students will feel safer, just as they would if a uniformed policeman was in the classroom with them?

Will you perhaps explain why any such measures are necessary? Furthermore, would you advocate such steps being taken in all countries, and if not, why not?

[keysersoze]

Indeed, as a father of two it has never even dawned on me to feel the need to educate my two girls on firearms use. What possible benefit can that provide? :s

I'm not advocating that you allow your girls take firearms lessons, but I will respond to your question.

1) After shooting a handgun, one would definitely have a sense for how much respect a gun deserves, and would be less inclined to be careless, or be around others who are careless. Let me elaborate: recently I saw a news report of the young man who encountered the Oregon mall shooter who killed two shoppers before turning the gun on himself. This guy, in his early 20s, was formerly a mall security guard, and had a permit to carry. When he heard the shots, he pulled his gun and encountered the gunman trying to change his magazine. He had the shot, but refused to take it because there were people behind him and he knew the risks of pulling the trigger. Eventually, the gunman (who had an AR-type weapon) saw this guy with his handgun aimed at him, and decided to kill himself at that point. I saw this kid being interviewed. He was big and tough-seeming, but when asked questions by the interviewer you could see that his training made him very level-headed and a "big-picture" person. He seemed enormously aware of his surroundings and quite willing to not pull the trigger. In short, knowledge is power. Granted, he may be an exception.

My brother, who has significant training, guns out the wazoo, and a permit to carry, told me that if he heard shots ring out, he would not approach the gunman, that his goal would be to still try to get out of the area with his family. His training has enabled him to protect his own while calmly dealing with the situation.

2) If they are ever involved in a discussion of gun control (we engage in discussion over hot button topics almost every day), they could speak with more credibility--it's much easier to converse with someone who can actually get to the other side of the question, one who actually has experience.

[BDunnell]

I have seen the light!! Thank you BDunnell. I finally understand, being prepared for something, however remote the chances of it happening are, will only instill feelings of insecurity. You're right! How could I have ever been so dumb?

Oh come on. I'd have expected better from you. Are you seriously arguing that being exposed constantly to an environment in which heightened security is the norm has no effect? That increased security does not instil a sense of threat, and thus, in some, of fear? I consider it to be the first step on a very slippery slope.

[Starter]

Will you perhaps explain why any such measures are necessary? Furthermore, would you advocate such steps being taken in all countries, and if not, why not?
I would advocate that all countries do what is best for their individual circumstance, they know it far better than I. One size does not fit all. I wouldn't dream of telling them how to run their internal affairs. Hint, hint. ;)

[BDunnell]

Large public schools across the nation have a significant police presence on campus, and have since the mid-90s. Some schools have their students enter through a gate that has a metal-detector.

I don't wish to repeat myself over and over again, but the thought of such things being the norm in Europe (I have no doubt that there are instances at some schools in Europe of heightened security, for certain, specific reasons) depresses me. Nor would it be necessary as a general measure.

[chuck34]

Oh come on. I'd have expected better from you. Are you seriously arguing that being exposed constantly to an environment in which heightened security is the norm has no effect? That increased security does not instil a sense of threat, and thus, in some, of fear? I consider it to be the first step on a very slippery slope.

How is allowing a teacher to carry a concealed weapon leading to heightened security that could possibly effect anyone? That is unless said teacher is waving the gun around. Same goes for having a uniformed officer on the grounds. As long as he is not randomly stopping kids and searching them (I feel that would be a violation), how does that do any harm?

You talk of slippery slopes, but you don't see the slope that is started down once government starts taking rights away from citizens, particularly those rights enshrined in our nation's founding documents.

[chuck34]

I would advocate that all countries do what is best for their individual circumstance, they know it far better than I. I wouldn't dream of telling them how to run their internal affairs. Hint, hint. ;)

+1. I was going to say pretty much the same thing myself.

[chuck34]

I don't wish to repeat myself over and over again, but the thought of such things being the norm in Europe (I have no doubt that there are instances at some schools in Europe of heightened security, for certain, specific reasons) depresses me. Nor would it be necessary as a general measure.

Quite honestly, there is no need for heightened security. After-all even though the US is a "violent state" according to some, the chances of having a school shooting are less than being struck by lightening. But if security measures do no harm, why not implement them? Hence my smoke/CO detector scenario.

[BDunnell]

I would advocate that all countries do what is best for their individual circumstance, they know it far better than I. I wouldn't dream of telling them how to run their internal affairs. Hint, hint. ;)

A pretty poor answer. Do you mean you don't know what things are like in other countries? Are you trying to avoid saying anything about why you feel such measures are necessary in the US and not elsewhere, which was my original question?

As for the latter point, I think the comment here from non-Americans compares most favourably with the ill-informed manner in which some Americans refer to Europe.

[BDunnell]

Quite honestly, there is no need for heightened security. After-all even though the US is a "violent state" according to some, the chances of having a school shooting are less than being struck by lightening.

I agree completely.


But if security measures do no harm, why not implement them? Hence my smoke/CO detector scenario.

Because security should only be increased if there exists a genuine reason so to do. I believe the heightened security we've seen since '9/11', for example, has been very effective in making people think they're in more danger from terrorism than they are, allowing governments then to impose more stringent measures in other areas, all justified by the same perceived level of risk and given support on that basis. This is a phenomenon I oppose most vehemently. It feeds insecurity and paranoia on the part of the public, and erosion of civil liberties on the part of politicians and the police.

[BDunnell]

How is allowing a teacher to carry a concealed weapon leading to heightened security that could possibly effect anyone? That is unless said teacher is waving the gun around. Same goes for having a uniformed officer on the grounds. As long as he is not randomly stopping kids and searching them (I feel that would be a violation), how does that do any harm?

Because there should be no reason for any teacher to carry a concealed weapon, full stop. It is simply unnecessary, just as is having an increased uniformed presence in schools.



You talk of slippery slopes, but you don't see the slope that is started down once government starts taking rights away from citizens, particularly those rights enshrined in our nation's founding documents.

You and your like-minded countrymen do not have a monopoly on seeking to preserve civil liberties. I believe their erosion in recent years, much of it predicated on the notion of the terrorist threat, to have been a pernicious process. However, I do not believe that the right to bear arms should form part of basic civil liberties in a modern, civilised country. Firearm ownership is simply where I draw the line.

[chuck34]

You and your like-minded countrymen do not have a monopoly on seeking to preserve civil liberties.

Why do you continually make this statement. I have never once said anything about any other country's liberties etc. You are simply trying to use this rhetorical device to demean those who think differently than you do. This is a lazy tactic.


I believe their erosion in recent years, much of it predicated on the notion of the terrorist threat, to have been a pernicious process.

I agree with this in the case of airport security and the TSA. Because I believe they are violating many of our rights, particularly the 4th Amendment. Sorry there I go again, saying you Europeans have no liberties. Oops.


However, I do not believe that the right to bear arms should form part of basic civil liberties in a modern, civilised country. Firearm ownership is simply where I draw the line.

And that is where the conversation breaks down. The 2nd Amendment (pardon me, but can you indulge me to reference the laws I live under one more time?) is part of the United States. Just as much as the ban on guns in many other countries is part of their country. I respect the sovereignty of other countries enough that I personally don't feel the need to tell them how to live their lives. Why is that so hard for people to do with respect to the US?

[chuck34]

Because there should be no reason for any teacher to carry a concealed weapon, full stop. It is simply unnecessary, just as is having an increased uniformed presence in schools.

Yes there should be no reason for it. Sadly evil exists. Therefore there is an infinitesimally small chance of something happening. What is the harm in being prepared. Yes, yes somehow it is going to harm the kids to be prepared.

What about the smoke alarm? There is a very very small chance of ever being in a fire. So by your logic, wouldn't the mere presence of a smoke alarm cause children to be scared out of their minds that they will die in a fire?

[BDunnell]

Why do you continually make this statement. I have never once said anything about any other country's liberties etc. You are simply trying to use this rhetorical device to demean those who think differently than you do. This is a lazy tactic.

Not at all. There is a tendency on the part of some Americans — and I say that specifically, because one never sees or hears it from people of other nationalities — to believe that their definitions of 'liberty' and 'freedom' are somehow the only true definitions. This then leads to statements such as yours below about Europeans having 'no liberties', which are patently nonsense and betray a lack of understanding of other countries. It's not rhetorical laziness at all on my part — it's based on many actual examples.



And that is where the conversation breaks down. The 2nd Amendment (pardon me, but can you indulge me to reference the laws I live under one more time?) is part of the United States. Just as much as the ban on guns in many other countries is part of their country.

I'm glad you make that distinction. Others less intelligent than you have not.



I respect the sovereignty of other countries enough that I personally don't feel the need to tell them how to live their lives. Why is that so hard for people to do with respect to the US?

You will forgive some of us non-Americans a wry chuckle at that, given your country's recent record when it comes to international interference. I say this not to make some cheap shot, but, more specifically, because the actions of one of your recent governments (all too enthusiastically supported by some of ours) have led directly to measures in the name of 'security' that I consider to have gone significantly too far down an undesirable road.

And I too respect the sovereignty of other countries. However, this doesn't mean that they are exempt from criticism.

[BDunnell]

Yes there should be no reason for it. Sadly evil exists. Therefore there is an infinitesimally small chance of something happening. What is the harm in being prepared. Yes, yes somehow it is going to harm the kids to be prepared.

Were one to seek to avoid every possible eventuality, one would never go out.

I continue to be amazed by the way in which you, and others of your opinion, would seek to normalise a situation of fear of violence.



What about the smoke alarm? There is a very very small chance of ever being in a fire. So by your logic, wouldn't the mere presence of a smoke alarm cause children to be scared out of their minds that they will die in a fire?

A smoke alarm I consider to be a reasonable, proportionate precaution. A firearm I do not.

[schmenke]

I'm not advocating that you allow your girls take firearms lessons, but I will respond to your question.

1) After shooting a handgun, one would definitely have a sense for how much respect a gun deserves, and would be less inclined to be careless, or be around others who are careless. Let me elaborate: recently I saw a news report of the young man who encountered the Oregon mall shooter who killed two shoppers before turning the gun on himself. This guy, in his early 20s, was formerly a mall security guard, and had a permit to carry. When he heard the shots, he pulled his gun and encountered the gunman trying to change his magazine. He had the shot, but refused to take it because there were people behind him and he knew the risks of pulling the trigger. Eventually, the gunman (who had an AR-type weapon) saw this guy with his handgun aimed at him, and decided to kill himself at that point. I saw this kid being interviewed. He was big and tough-seeming, but when asked questions by the interviewer you could see that his training made him very level-headed and a "big-picture" person. He seemed enormously aware of his surroundings and quite willing to not pull the trigger. In short, knowledge is power. Granted, he may be an exception.

My brother, who has significant training, guns out the wazoo, and a permit to carry, told me that if he heard shots ring out, he would not approach the gunman, that his goal would be to still try to get out of the area with his family. His training has enabled him to protect his own while calmly dealing with the situation....

Fair enough if you feel the likelihood of encountering such a scenario necessitates educating appropriate preparedness for your children.

[race aficionado]

POLARIZATION is a word that is now oh so common.

Here in the U.S.of A. we are polarized ideologically in so many areas.
The different shades of gray seem to have been squeezed out.

We are living it politically - constantly - and both sides just budge and close themselves down because they HONESTLY believe that they are right, even morally right.

And we are seeing it on this thread.
I'm on one end of the spectrum accompanied by many
and on the other side there is a very large group that probably think that we are crazy or ignorant or whatever.
We may sometimes probably feel the same way about them. :angel:

Will we agree on anything? I do hope so.
Continue to disagree? For sure.

It's a slow day at the office.

[BDunnell]

Fair enough if you feel the likelihood of encountering such a scenario necessitates educating appropriate preparedness for your children.

Well, it is often said that one should, for example, give one's kids a bit of alcohol before they are allowed legally to consume it, in order that they then know how to drink it responsibly.

However, I would contend that it's a strange society that has no problem with widespread gun ownership and yet gets all outraged when Janet Jackson shows a bit of tit on television.

[gloomyDAY]

How easy is it for someone to purchase an assault rifle (AK-47) without an ID?

Virginia Tech Survivor Fights Back Against Guns | Video - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/video/virginia-tech-survivor-fights-back-guns-18021956)

Too easy! There is a "gun show" loophole in USA where a gun-buyer can bypass the following: ID check, background check, taxes, and gun registration. A buyer simply has to show up in person, and pay in cash without any strings attached.

[race aficionado]

How easy is it for someone to purchase an assault rifle (AK-47) without an ID?

Virginia Tech Survivor Fights Back Against Guns | Video - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/video/virginia-tech-survivor-fights-back-guns-18021956)

Too easy! There is a "gun show" loophole in USA where a gun-buyer can bypass the following: ID check, background check, taxes, and gun registration. A buyer simply has to show up in person, and pay in cash without any strings attached.

And I am sure that many gun owners would agree that that situation cannot continue.

[gloomyDAY]

And I am sure that many gun owners would agree that that situation cannot continue.I'm a cynic when it comes to gun laws. Nothing will change. Nothing.

I believe that the American gun lobby has done a magnificent marketing job in convincing Americans that sport rifles, similar to assault rifles, are a necessity. Who really needs a .223 or .300 caliber semi-automatic rifle, with 30-round magazines, and 250+ yard range? Nobody, unless you're intent on killing people with brutal efficiency.

Machismo also plays a huge roll in the type of weapons Americans decide to buy. I'm seen as a weakling in the gun community because all I have is a Ruger 10/22, which is just a 10-round .22 caliber rifle. My little Ruger can easily kill a person, but I just use it to plink at the range from time-to-time. I learned how to shoot in the Army, and I know most of the jokers at the range took their training from John Wayne flicks. I cringe knowing that most gun owners have never received any kind of formal gun training and treat a weapon as a deadly toy.

My point is that laws governing the possession of weapons should be more strict. As I stated earlier, probably not going to happen, but it wouldn't be an infringement on my 2nd Amendment rights to have other people get professional training before purchasing a sport rifle. Oh, and "sport rifle" is a complete misnomer, which was done intentionally by the gun lobby. There's nothing "sporting" about a sport rifle.

Just my $.02

[race aficionado]

The next big media event that awaits us on this end is the first interview - or the first comments - from the NRA and it's top guy Wayne LaPierre.
I look forward to seeing what transpires.

Meet the Press (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/)

[nigelred5]

Because there should be no reason for any teacher to carry a concealed weapon, full stop. It is simply unnecessary, just as is having an increased uniformed presence in schools.



You and your like-minded countrymen do not have a monopoly on seeking to preserve civil liberties. I believe their erosion in recent years, much of it predicated on the notion of the terrorist threat, to have been a pernicious process. However, I do not believe that the right to bear arms should form part of basic civil liberties in a modern, civilised country. Firearm ownership is simply where I draw the line.

We have had a uniformed police officer assigned to our schools for over ten years. When I tought school just inside of the DC beltway in the late 80's , we had two full time police officers permanently assigned to that school. They were needed for problems INSIDE the school. It was a horrible neighborhood. We hadshootings at school, in a city with the tightest gun ban in the nation Baltimore City schools have police officers.

Every school in my county has had similar procedures as the school in connecticut for years. All external doors are locked once the first bell rings. Teachers or administrators are posted at all doors when the doors are unlocked. All doors have video cameras and intercoms. That has been in place since my 15 year old daugher was in pre kindergarten. Our schools are far more concerned by abductions than mass shootings.

[race aficionado]

I'm a cynic when it comes to gun laws. Nothing will change. Nothing.

I believe that the American gun lobby has done a magnificent marketing job in convincing Americans that sport rifles, similar to assault rifles, are a necessity. Who really needs a .223 or .300 caliber semi-automatic rifle, with 30-round magazines, and 250+ yard range? Nobody, unless you're intent on killing people with brutal efficiency.

Machismo also plays a huge roll in the type of weapons Americans decide to buy. I'm seen as a weakling in the gun community because all I have is a Ruger 10/22, which is just a 10-round .22 caliber rifle. My little Ruger can easily kill a person, but I just use it to plink at the range from time-to-time. I learned how to shoot in the Army, and I know most of the jokers at the range took their training from John Wayne flicks. I cringe knowing that most gun owners have never received any kind of formal gun training and treat a weapon as a deadly toy.

My point is that laws governing the possession of weapons should be more strict. As I stated earlier, probably not going to happen, but it wouldn't be an infringement on my 2nd Amendment rights to have other people get professional training before purchasing a sport rifle. Oh, and "sport rifle" is a complete misnomer, which was done intentionally by the gun lobby. There's nothing "sporting" about a sport rifle.

Just my $.02

I enjoyed your post gloomy :) but I will be an optimist when it comes to believing that some change will occur.
let's see . . . . . .

[nigelred5]

How easy is it for someone to purchase an assault rifle (AK-47) without an ID?

Virginia Tech Survivor Fights Back Against Guns | Video - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/video/virginia-tech-survivor-fights-back-guns-18021956)

Too easy! There is a "gun show" loophole in USA where a gun-buyer can bypass the following: ID check, background check, taxes, and gun registration. A buyer simply has to show up in person, and pay in cash without any strings attached.

Agreed, Where cash and carry gun sales are allowed. I have never and would never purchase a firearm at a gun show for just that reason. I believe in training, registration and regulation, and responsible ownership not outright bans.

[gloomyDAY]

The next big media event that awaits us on this end is the first interview - or the first comments - from the NRA and it's top guy Wayne LaPierre.
I look forward to seeing what transpires.

Meet the Press (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/)LaPierre is a maniac. I own a gun and he does not represent me, not in the least.

I remember Wacko Wayne ranting about how the Obama administration was behind some kind of liberal conspiracy to ransack the American people from their weapons, but there was zero evidence of that, as usual. The NRA will simply shrug off any amount of dead people and point fingers at other causes. "Guns don't kill people. They just miraculously discharge and fire lead into your skull by accident."

[BDunnell]

We have had a uniformed police officer assigned to our schools for over ten years. When I tought school just inside of the DC beltway in the late 80's , we had two full time police officers permanently assigned to that school. They were needed for problems INSIDE the school. It was a horrible neighborhood. We hadshootings at school, in a city with the tightest gun ban in the nation Baltimore City schools have police officers.

Now, all of that I much sympathise with. The same is true of some particularly troublesome schools in the worst areas of some European cities, I'm sure.



Every school in my county has had similar procedures as the school in connecticut for years. All external doors are locked once the first bell rings. Teachers or administrators are posted at all doors when the doors are unlocked. All doors have video cameras and intercoms. That has been in place since my 15 year old daugher was in pre kindergarten. Our schools are far more concerned by abductions than mass shootings.

Again, understandable, though I do tend towards the view that it's possible to go too far in terms of surveillance. There's enough of it about on our streets without introducing it to schools and the like.

[schmenke]

.... I believe in training, registration and regulation, and responsible ownership not outright bans.

Which I think many will agree is a very reasonable compromise.

[nigelred5]

Which I think many will agree is a very reasonable compromise.

Agreed, every bit of which is already in place in many jurisdictions in the US,including connecticut where the latest tragedy occurred.

[Valve Bounce]

Our country's freedom from a tyrannical government was earned through private possession of firearms ... a fact that was not lost by the writers of the constitution and the bill of rights of our country. One that was so important to our founders that is spelled out and guaranteed not to be infringed in the document that rules our country. That right is second only to the right to free expression.

I don't want to be picky here, but I think the constitution was meant to allow the Patriots to bear arms against the Poms. I really cannot imagine, in my wildest moments, that bearing arms will save anyone or groups of people from you present government's military in any circumstance whatsoever.

[race aficionado]

They threw this data to us on TV this evening. (no source was offered though)

USA is 5% of earth's population

USA owns 50% of earth's guns

[Rollo]

I don't want to be picky here, but I think the constitution was meant to allow the Patriots to bear arms against the Poms. I really cannot imagine, in my wildest moments, that bearing arms will save anyone or groups of people from you present government's military in any circumstance whatsoever.

The end of the war effectively the Treaty of Paris (1783) which wasn't ratified by congress until the end of the first fortnight 1784.
The US Constitution was finally ratified in 1789, some five years after the American Revolutionary War. I think work commenced on writing is as a result of a debt crisis (sounds familiar) at the end of 1786.

[Valve Bounce]

The end of the war effectively the Treaty of Paris (1783) which wasn't ratified by congress until the end of the first fortnight 1784.
The US Constitution was finally ratified in 1789, some five years after the American Revolutionary War. I think work commenced on writing is as a result of a debt crisis (sounds familiar) at the end of 1786.

The point here is that "Taking up arms or bearing arms" against the British military by Americans back in 1782 is quite different from taking up arms against the might of the US military and the various branches of the services like the FBI, Homeland, CIA, etc.

[Mintexmemory]

I don't want to be picky here, but I think the constitution was meant to allow the Patriots to bear arms against the Poms. I really cannot imagine, in my wildest moments, that bearing arms will save anyone or groups of people from you present government's military in any circumstance whatsoever.

Exactly, just to give Mel Gibson- alikes the opportunity to nerf us miserable English (to be distinguished from proud, oppressed Scots). From the foregoing you might interpret that I believe that the USA is a seriously effed-up society. That is your perogative, I make no comment either way, except I wish Marvin Gaye's dad hadn't been toting to enforce his inalienable right to slay a family member when arguments get out of hand!

[SGWilko]

I have seen the light!! Thank you BDunnell. I finally understand, being prepared for something, however remote the chances of it happening are, will only instill feelings of insecurity. You're right! How could I have ever been so dumb?

Now to go home and remove all the smoke detectors and carbon monoxide detectors from my home. Rip out the seat belts from my car. Cancel all my insurance. Remove the warning labels off of everything that I own. And live the good life of not having any feelings of insecurity.

Most of the items you flippently suggest to remove have been designed to preserve life, a gun, no matter how you dress up it's use, is meant for one thing - to take a life.

Maybe if I was a born and bred American, I'd have been brainwashed before my 5th birthday, bus as it is, from where I am, the whole idea and attitude towards guns in the USA is alien.

[SGWilko]

Really? Tell me more ....

This thread is full of 'telling you more', sadly, it appears that to be in one ear, and out the other.

[Knock-on]

Agreed, every bit of which is already in place in many jurisdictions in the US,including connecticut where the latest tragedy occurred.

Already in place and ignored by 'responsible' gun owners like you?

The problem seems to be that Americans will pay lip service to Legislation as long as they can justify breaking it at will. Legislation will only apply to other Americans and not them.

This is not a problem restricted to Americans only but is a basic human trait and why gun control will never work. Everyone thinks they are the sane one and it's all the other buggers that are mad.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Correct me if I'm wrong but around the time that the 2nd Amendment was dreamt up many other countries would have had similar gun laws to that of the new union? It just seems that at the turn of the 20th century, as firearm technology improved nations started to regulate firearm laws accordingly. But the U.S for whatever reason, perhaps because it was a younger nation, got left behind.

[Mintexmemory]

Correct me if I'm wrong but around the time that the 2nd Amendment was dreamt up many other countries would have had similar gun laws to that of the new union? It just seems that at the turn of the 20th century, as firearm technology improved nations started to regulate firearm laws accordingly. But the U.S for whatever reason, perhaps because it was not really a nation but a conglomerate of self -interested 'grab what you can while it's going' capitalists, got left behind.

EFA

[Rudy Tamasz]

not really a nation but a conglomerate of self -interested 'grab what you can while it's going' capitalists

The world is a bundle of hay,
Mankind are the asses that pull,
Each tugs in a different way—
And the greatest of all is John Bull!

George Byron, A Letter to Thomas Moore (1821-06-22).

[Mintexmemory]

The world is a bundle of hay,
Mankind are the asses that pull,
Each tugs in a different way—
And the greatest of all is John Bull!

George Byron, A Letter to Thomas Moore (1821-06-22).

Which was pretty rich coming from Lord Byron who having inherited his pile was as disdainful of the bourgoisie as the rest of his class. Fighting for Greek independance was 'noble'. Trying to make a difference to the lot of the kids working in the mills of England was beneath his attention.
Again, historical events may have had some relevance contemporaneously but in most cases do not prove instructive in modern times. The continuing development of the American Dream does however have a number of features as a direct result of countries / territories such as California and Texas eventually allying with the original 13 colonies to safeguard the wealth of the capital owning classes in those regions. Someone remind me what the American Civil War was all about?

[Starter]

This thread is full of 'telling you more', sadly, it appears that to be in one ear, and out the other.
We welcome input from all sources. But, like everything else, some is more valuable and worthwhile. We then consider the valuable part and throw out the rubbish.

[chuck34]

This then leads to statements such as yours below about Europeans having 'no liberties', which are patently nonsense and betray a lack of understanding of other countries.

Apparently my "Sarc" button has failed again. Speaking of the Laws/Rights/Liberties that I live under in this country, in no way say one single solitary thing about your country, or any other country for that matter.


It's not rhetorical laziness at all on my part — it's based on many actual examples.

But when you are having a debate of sorts with me in particular, and I have not said one word about your liberties, then it IS rhetorical laziness.


You will forgive some of us non-Americans a wry chuckle at that, given your country's recent record when it comes to international interference. I say this not to make some cheap shot, but, more specifically, because the actions of one of your recent governments (all too enthusiastically supported by some of ours) have led directly to measures in the name of 'security' that I consider to have gone significantly too far down an undesirable road.

And I too respect the sovereignty of other countries. However, this doesn't mean that they are exempt from criticism.

Ah yes, back to that old gem. "You guys were in wars we don't agree with, so we have the right to tell you what to do". Give me a break.

[Rudy Tamasz]

Which was pretty rich coming from Lord Byron who having inherited his pile was as disdainful of the bourgoisie as the rest of his class. Fighting for Greek independance was 'noble'. Trying to make a difference to the lot of the kids working in the mills of England was beneath his attention.

As the liberty lads o'er the sea
Bought their freedom, and cheaply, with blood,
So we, boys, we
Shall die fighting or live free,
And down with all kings but King Ludd!
Song for the Luddites (1816)



Again, historical events may have had some relevance contemporaneously but in most cases do not prove instructive in modern times. The continuing development of the American Dream does however have a number of features as a direct result of countries / territories such as California and Texas eventually allying with the original 13 colonies to safeguard the wealth of the capital owning classes in those regions. Someone remind me what the American Civil War was all about?

It was about the interests of middle classes who did not fancy being taxed and otherwise regulated by an unelected and unaccountable government. Fair enough to me.

[chuck34]

Were one to seek to avoid every possible eventuality, one would never go out.

Or try to legislate away every eventual possibility as you are doing.


I continue to be amazed by the way in which you, and others of your opinion, would seek to normalise a situation of fear of violence.

Most people who own guns do not do so out of fear. They do so out of prudence, just like installing smoke detectors. In my opinion those who call to legislate rights away are the one's acting out of fear.


A smoke alarm I consider to be a reasonable, proportionate precaution. A firearm I do not.

Why not?

[chuck34]

I believe that the American gun lobby has done a magnificent marketing job in convincing Americans that sport rifles, similar to assault rifles, are a necessity. Who really needs a .223 or .300 caliber semi-automatic rifle, with 30-round magazines, and 250+ yard range? Nobody, unless you're intent on killing people with brutal efficiency.

A gruesome thought experiment. Do you think that more or less damage would have been done at the Sandy Hook school had the shooter used a pump action shot gun loaded with buck shot and a couple of 6 round revolvers?

[chuck34]

This thread is full of 'telling you more', sadly, it appears that to be in one ear, and out the other.

As you are apparently the only one with a right to an opinion, I suppose you are right. Thanks for the lesson.

[Rollo]

A gruesome thought experiment. Do you think that more or less damage would have been done at the Sandy Hook school had the shooter used a pump action shot gun loaded with buck shot and a couple of 6 round revolvers?

Do you think that more or less damage would have been done at the Sandy Hook school had the madman used an HB Pencil? That's closer to the situation we have in Australia.

[chuck34]

Most of the items you flippently suggest to remove have been designed to preserve life, a gun, no matter how you dress up it's use, is meant for one thing - to take a life.

Burglar calls 911 to save himself from gun-wielding homeowner | The Sideshow - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/burglar-calls-911-himself-163618126.html)

I can dig up hundreds more if you would like, that's just one recent example.


Maybe if I was a born and bred American, I'd have been brainwashed before my 5th birthday, bus as it is, from where I am, the whole idea and attitude towards guns in the USA is alien.

And that is fine. But do you not have enough respect for people with differing opinions to see the other side?

[chuck34]

Do you think that more or less damage would have been done at the Sandy Hook school had the madman used an HB Pencil? That's closer to the situation we have in Australia.

So you have outlawed knives, swords, bows/arrows, baseball bats as well?

Really this is the bottom line ... This nut job was going to kill people last Friday. All we have been doing for about 30 pages now, is arguing that if we would just give up some of our rights, the body count would have been slightly less. Really that's it. When we limit these types of debates to "gun control" that is all we are doing, quibbling over body count. The roots of the problem are MUCH deeper than allowing law abiding citizens to own guns.

[SGWilko]

As you are apparently the only one with a right to an opinion, I suppose you are right. Thanks for the lesson.

Pah, it's nothing - no charge on this occasion y'all. ;)

[SGWilko]

Burglar calls 911 to save himself from gun-wielding homeowner | The Sideshow - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/burglar-calls-911-himself-163618126.html)

I can dig up hundreds more if you would like, that's just one recent example.



And that is fine. But do you not have enough respect for people with differing opinions to see the other side?

Did they bang him up for B&E?

[Rudy Tamasz]

The roots of the problem are MUCH deeper than allowing law abiding citizens to own guns.

I can agree with that. While I see a point in restricting access to deadlier weapons, I perfectly reaize that a technical solution isn't going to have an impact unless you change people's mentality. And that would be a tall order.

Speaking of pencils, knives, etc., I can recall that Joker in the "Dark Knight" movie graphically demonstarted it on the big screen how to kill with a pencil. Then a nutter dressed as Joker attacked a kindergraten in Belgium and stabbed children with a knife. No restrictions are going to work unless one erases violence from human hearts and minds.

[Bagwan]

Could we compare this to asbestos ?

It was used extensively for years as a fire retardant in buildings , but has now been judged to be too dangerous .
It was a very useful substance , but is now seen as deadly .
And , though firmly entrenched in the walls , it is being removed , or sealed in harder , to prevent us being harmed .

With proper handling , it can be safe , but our governments(well , mine is waffling on the subject for economic reasons) have banned the stuff because we can't be trusted to do that handling properly .

I might add here , that there are different forms of asbestos , and some are much deadlier than others . Some , during processing , cause far less particulate issue .
Those unfamiliar with this , call for a blanket ban .
Those in the industry see a difference .


Any comparison that can be made here ?

[SGWilko]

Could we compare this to asbestos ?

It was used extensively for years as a fire retardant in buildings , but has now been judged to be too dangerous .
It was a very useful substance , but is now seen as deadly .
And , though firmly entrenched in the walls , it is being removed , or sealed in harder , to prevent us being harmed .

With proper handling , it can be safe , but our governments(well , mine is waffling on the subject for economic reasons) have banned the stuff because we can't be trusted to do that handling properly .

I might add here , that there are different forms of asbestos , and some are much deadlier than others . Some , during processing , cause far less particulate issue .
Those unfamiliar with this , call for a blanket ban .
Those in the industry see a difference .


Any comparison that can be made here ?

Not really sure that's a good comparison, because of the timescale for asbestos to take a life - repeated exposure over a length of time.

It's removal is to prevent future deaths.

[Rollo]

The roots of the problem are MUCH deeper than allowing law abiding citizens to own guns.

Adam, Adam, Adam Smith
Listen what I charge you with!
Didn't you say in a class on day,
That selfishness was bound to pay?
Of all doctrines that was the Pith,
Wasn't it, wasn't it, wasn't it, Smith?
- Stephen Leacock

"Every man is, no doubt, by nature, first and principally recommended to his own care; and as he is fitter to take care of himself than of any other person, it is fit and right that it should be so. However, if he should continue to defend his self and his person and not prefer his neighbour or his nation above his own self, greater and more irreprable evils will be done. Death is the greatest evil which can be done, and to place the atrocious ability into a mans hands to defend his self, strains every nerve to outstrip his competitors. It is a violation of fair play with no end."
- Adam Smith, The Theory of Moral Sentiment, 1759

I think that the root of the problem is selfishness. America as the vanguard of individualism is the nation with the single greatest outworking of it's results. Smith warned of the arms race which you're now forced to participate in.
You can simple refuse to do nothing as a nation, just like you always do.


America will take 3 weeks to flagellate itself, make crying noises, boo hoo hoo and all that, forget about it and then wait another six months when another massacre will occur (in which time another 5750 people will have died because of guns) and we can all go around the merry go round again.

Incidentally, according to a writer in this month's issue of Quadrant Magazine (a publication here in Australia) you should expect the next massacre of 20 or more people within 3 days either way of the 27th of April, 2013.

[Knock-on]

The roots of the problem are MUCH deeper than allowing law abiding citizens to own guns.

But this is the problem, isn't it. Who are the Law abiding Citizens because some of the people on here in favour of Law abiding Citizens being allowed to legally own guns are in fact, Felons. I can think of 2 that have admitted such serious gun crimes that had they been caught, would have resulted in multi-year jail terms.

When people argueing in favour of guns are the criminals you talk about, doesn't that suggest to you that there is no logical way gun ownership can work?

[chuck34]

I think that the root of the problem is selfishness. America as the vanguard of individualism is the nation with the single greatest outworking of it's results.

I don't see individualism as a "problem". Rational self interest is, in my opinion, one of the best motivating factors in history. If governments would simply leave people alone, over the long term many of the "problems" with society would naturally cure themselves. Notice I said most, not all.


Smith warned of the arms race which you're now forced to participate in.

No one is forced to participate in any sort of arms race. I don't own a gun. Millions of Americans don't own a gun. Who is forcing anyone to do anything? Oh yeah, you are, buy trying to force people to give up a Constitutionally guaranteed right.


You can simple refuse to do nothing as a nation, just like you always do.

Someone said something to me the other day that really hurt my feelings. I suppose we should "do something" about that as well. Let's ban that nasty 1st Amendment too.

[chuck34]

doesn't that suggest to you that there is no logical way gun ownership can work?

What suggests to you that gun control can work?

[race aficionado]

NRA guy now giving a press conference.

One of his quotes and given agenda.

"The only thing that will stop a bad man with a gun is a good man with a gun"


He also means:
*Come buy our guns, be a good man.

[BDunnell]

But this is the problem, isn't it. Who are the Law abiding Citizens because some of the people on here in favour of Law abiding Citizens being allowed to legally own guns are in fact, Felons. I can think of 2 that have admitted such serious gun crimes that had they been caught, would have resulted in multi-year jail terms.

Or, in one case, one who's either a criminal or a liar.

[BDunnell]

And that is fine. But do you not have enough respect for people with differing opinions to see the other side?

Not on this issue. Why should I have any respect for an opinion with which I disagree more vehemently than most? By all means hold the opinion, but don't expect respect for it. After all, I'm sure you don't respect the opinions of al-Qaida, do you?

[BDunnell]

Or try to legislate away every eventual possibility as you are doing.

No, it's just the one I'd seek to legislate away. Quite different to 'every'. Enough of the hyperbole.



Why not?

Because, for some reason, I have an aversion to firearms. Can't think why I don't see them as a force for good.

[chuck34]

Can't think why I don't see them as a force for good.

Home invasion suspect killed in gunfight at DeKalb apartment... | www.ajc.com (http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/home-invasion-suspect-killed-in-gunfight-at-dekalb/nTZnJ/)
Pastor pulls gun on unsuspecting burglar | ksl.com (http://www.ksl.com/?sid=23445000&nid=148&title=pastor-pulls-gun-on-unsuspecting-burglar-)
Police: CMPD officer fires shot at would-be intruder | www.wsoctv.com (http://www.wsoctv.com/news/news/local/police-cmpd-officer-fires-shot-would-be-intruder/nTY3J/)
Movie theater shooting triggered by romantic break-up | WOAI: San Antonio News (http://www.woai.com/mostpopular/story/Movie-theater-shooting-triggered-by-romantic/xZbb4f6yXk6Q4XyZtufdiA.cspx)
Internet cafe employee fires back at armed robbers | 9 On Your Side (http://www2.wnct.com/news/2012/dec/04/9/internet-cafe-robberies-continue-pitt-county-ar-2831692/)
Intruder killed in Henderson home invasion :: WRAL.com (http://www.wral.com/intruder-killed-in-henderson-home-invasion/11885004/)
Teen Burglary Suspect Shot By Homeowner Identified | NBC 4i (http://www2.nbc4i.com/news/2012/dec/14/teen-suspected-burglar-shot-homeowner-identified-ar-1277434/)
Nick Meli, who had a concealed weapon, thought about shooting Oregon mall killer (http://now.msn.com/nick-meli-who-had-a-concealed-weapon-thought-about-shooting-oregon-mall-killer)

Do I need to go on? This is with about 30 seconds worth of googling around. Enough of the hyperbole, indeed.

[BDunnell]

Home invasion suspect killed in gunfight at DeKalb apartment... | www.ajc.com (http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/home-invasion-suspect-killed-in-gunfight-at-dekalb/nTZnJ/)
Pastor pulls gun on unsuspecting burglar | ksl.com (http://www.ksl.com/?sid=23445000&nid=148&title=pastor-pulls-gun-on-unsuspecting-burglar-)
Police: CMPD officer fires shot at would-be intruder | www.wsoctv.com (http://www.wsoctv.com/news/news/local/police-cmpd-officer-fires-shot-would-be-intruder/nTY3J/)
Movie theater shooting triggered by romantic break-up | WOAI: San Antonio News (http://www.woai.com/mostpopular/story/Movie-theater-shooting-triggered-by-romantic/xZbb4f6yXk6Q4XyZtufdiA.cspx)
Internet cafe employee fires back at armed robbers | 9 On Your Side (http://www2.wnct.com/news/2012/dec/04/9/internet-cafe-robberies-continue-pitt-county-ar-2831692/)
Intruder killed in Henderson home invasion :: WRAL.com (http://www.wral.com/intruder-killed-in-henderson-home-invasion/11885004/)
Teen Burglary Suspect Shot By Homeowner Identified | NBC 4i (http://www2.nbc4i.com/news/2012/dec/14/teen-suspected-burglar-shot-homeowner-identified-ar-1277434/)
Nick Meli, who had a concealed weapon, thought about shooting Oregon mall killer (http://now.msn.com/nick-meli-who-had-a-concealed-weapon-thought-about-shooting-oregon-mall-killer)

Do I need to go on? This is with about 30 seconds worth of googling around. Enough of the hyperbole, indeed.

Ah yes, all very convincing. How conveniently you forget, or choose to ignore, the damage also done by weapons.

I find the opinions of you and your ilk on this topic indefensible. The NRA press conference today was an absolute disgrace, a shameful exhibition of ill-conceived arguments put forward by trigger-happy madmen the like of which I would not trust to wield a shovel in my vicinity, let alone a weapon. At once you criticise others for their lack of respect for what you perceive to be liberty and freedom, and advocate the development of what would be, in effect, an armed police state.

[Dave B]

4 dead and 3 state troopers injured. I'll let that speak for itself.

DA: 4 dead, including gunman, along rural Pa. road (http://bigstory.ap.org/article/da-4-dead-including-gunman-along-rural-pa-road)

[D-Type]

4 dead and 3 state troopers injured. I'll let that speak for itself.

DA: 4 dead, including gunman, along rural Pa. road (http://bigstory.ap.org/article/da-4-dead-including-gunman-along-rural-pa-road)
A very poorly written uninformative report. Who were the four dead people? Were they armed? Were they 'innocent victims' shot by the gunman or were they 'felons' shot by the state troopers?

[chuck34]

delete.

[chuck34]

Ah yes, all very convincing. How conveniently you forget, or choose to ignore, the damage also done by weapons.

I have not forgotten, nor ignored the fact that madmen have chosen to use a firearm to spread their madness all across this world. Quite the contrary, it is you who seem to have forgotten or ignored the fact that firearms actually save lives when used in self defense.


I find the opinions of you and your ilk on this topic indefensible.

And I find your opinion and those of your ilk indefensible. You go and ask any one of those people in the links I provided, if they think their opinion is indefensible, if they were paranoid, if they live their lives in fear. Lord knows there house was defensible thanks to the rights guaranteed to them by the 2nd Amendment. Oh darn there it is again, Europeans have no rights. (I'll spell it out for you this time, that was sarcasm.)

[BDunnell]

I have not forgotten, nor ignored the fact that madmen have chosen to use a firearm to spread their madness all across this world. Quite the contrary, it is you who seem to have forgotten or ignored the fact that firearms actually save lives when used in self defense.

I have not forgotten this; rather, I dismiss your view out of hand, the possession of a firearm for self-defence purposes being something I would never advocate under any circumstances.



And I find your opinion and those of your ilk indefensible. You go and ask any one of those people in the links I provided, if they think their opinion is indefensible, if they were paranoid, if they live their lives in fear. Lord knows there house was defensible thanks to the rights guaranteed to them by the 2nd Amendment. Oh darn there it is again, Europeans have no rights. (I'll spell it out for you this time, that was sarcasm.)

They may not believe themselves to be paranoid, so ingrained is the culture of firearm ownership, but I say again that they are, for there is no other explanation for it. I would rather take my chances without a firearm — not that I believe it to be a case of taking any chance at all, because I cannot envisage a situation in which discharging a firearm would represent a reasonable response.

And if we're talking about rights, what about the right of 20-odd schoolchildren not to get shot? I've said it before and I'll say it again. The view you espouse boils down to the fact that you would rather see the same thing happen again than any tighter restrictions on gun ownership. I find this breathtaking.

(Oh, and a quick note about sarcasm — the trick is to make it clear without saying so, not to have to explain it, nor to make it indistinguishable from opinions you do actually possess.)

[chuck34]

I have not forgotten this; rather, I dismiss your view out of hand, the possession of a firearm for self-defence purposes being something I would never advocate under any circumstances.



They may not believe themselves to be paranoid, so ingrained is the culture of firearm ownership, but I say again that they are, for there is no other explanation for it. I would rather take my chances without a firearm — not that I believe it to be a case of taking any chance at all, because I cannot envisage a situation in which discharging a firearm would represent a reasonable response.

And if we're talking about rights, what about the right of 20-odd schoolchildren not to get shot? I've said it before and I'll say it again. The view you espouse boils down to the fact that you would rather see the same thing happen again than any tighter restrictions on gun ownership. I find this breathtaking.

(Oh, and a quick note about sarcasm — the trick is to make it clear without saying so, not to have to explain it, nor to make it indistinguishable from opinions you do actually possess.)

You are out of line. You and your ilk preach about tolerance and understand for others, but you "dismiss my view out of hand". Go tell those people that saved their lives, and the lives of their families that you don't advocate self-defense. How can you not see that this murderous psychopath was going to do something like this no matter the law? Outlaw every gun today. There will still be millions on the street. If somehow you could make your law tough enough to keep this vile scum from having an "assault" rifle, he would have had a shot gun. Outlaw shot guns, he would have found a sword. Outlaw swords, he would have made a bomb. If you can outlaw evil why hasn't the outright ban on murder stopped this sick twisted crap from happening?

You claim that somehow I'm happy that 20 defenseless innocent children were murdered by a madman. That is just sick and twisted. I used to have respect for you

[BDunnell]

You are out of line. You and your ilk preach about tolerance and understand for others, but you "dismiss my view out of hand".

And what are you doing with my view, other than dismissing it out of hand?

In no way am I out of line. Why should I have any respect for your viewpoint? I disagree completely with it. Worse, I think it's wrong-headed, ignorant and inherently dangerous. What is there for me to respect in that? I'm not going to lie.


Go tell those people that saved their lives, and the lives of their families that you don't advocate self-defense.

And you go to the parents of those children and tell them your view. I know in whose shoes I'd rather be.



You claim that somehow I'm happy that 20 defenseless innocent children were murdered by a madman. That is just sick and twisted. I used to have respect for you

This is a typical example of how you and some of your countrymen see no nuance in an argument. I did not say that you were happy they were murdered; I said that you would rather it happened again than see tighter restrictions on firearm ownership. This statement is true, isn't it? How can it not be, given your views?

So, try answering again, this time the question I posed rather than the one you saw in order to try unsuccessfully to make a point.

[chuck34]

And what are you doing with my view, other than dismissing it out of hand?

I am not dismissing your view. You think guns are dangerous, and you are scared of them. So I don't think you should have one. Simple, you live your life, I'll live mine. But for some reason you insist on forcing your morality upon me.


And you go to the parents of those children and tell them your view. I know in whose shoes I'd rather be.

If I ever met them I would tell them my view. That I am very sorry that this tragedy happened to them. I wish that our mental health system would not have failed this obviously deranged individual. That I wish there would have been some form of security at their school to stop this from happening or at the very least lessening it. And that if they ever need anything in the form of help, support, or love, I am at their disposal.

Now you go tell the hundreds of thousands of people (maybe millions) that have protected themselves or their loved ones from a madman by using a firearm, that you have done, and will continue to do everything in your power to ensure that the next time they are threatened by a murderous lunatic that they are completely defenseless.


This is a typical example of how you and some of your countrymen see no nuance in an argument. I did not say that you were happy they were murdered; I said that you would rather it happened again than see tighter restrictions on firearm ownership. This statement is true, isn't it? How can it not be, given your views?

And you lecture me on seeing nuance? Laughable.

Do you have your speech ready to explain why you want to disarm those that have saved themselves yet?

[ioan]

Race, my mind boggles as to how The United States of America is going to even partially get rid of 200+million guns. How can this be processed?

Melt them and make spoons out of the resulting alloy?!

[Dave B]

I'm just considering the practicalities of this "armed guard in every school" nonsense. My old school covered 30 acres and comprises about a dozen buildings. Even assuming the plan isn't utterly bonkers, exactly how many guards would be required to cover a site like that?

[ioan]

Thank you for the math lesson. The point was, the registered owner is required to keep individual guns locked, with a stricter standard of storing locked guns in locked storage for homes with children under 18. The son was not the registered owner and SHOULD NOT have had access to the locked weapons. The keys to my weapons are in my pocket with me at all times and kept in my finger print controlled gunsafe at night where only I can access them. I am a responsible gun owner. She clearly was not unfortunately for the 28, she clearly was not considering she had a 20 year old son with known neurological and emotional problems.

The guns were not locked because the law requires them to be locked away only from people under 18 years old. Seems that the Math lesson was not enough.

[ioan]

And tax me 60+% of my personal earnings to pay for those too damed lazy to work for it... Naaah, you can keep that system. Government regulation and the socialized program we already have is 90% of the problem. an I know this first hand. I work in it and strive every day to eliminate the problems we do have where I am able.

:rolleyes: I'll better not comment on this one.

[ioan]

It is at a gun club I'd like to point out.. Not at a shopping mall.

You can also call it an asylum.

[ioan]

Children learning about guns, their safe operation and use, is not a bad thing.

You're right, it is certainly good for kids to know how they can safely shoot someone! :rolleyes:

[ioan]

A gun gives one a real sense of power , and is a real thrill to shoot .

That might apply to weak people.

[ioan]

Gun ownership has been a heated topic of discussion between my wife and I for a couple of months now, before all this transpired. My brother has a veritable arsenal--a Glock 19, two Kel-tec Sub2000s, and about 3-4 others. He took a 5-day shooting course and has a permit to carry. He's over-the-top, but even my 70 year-old mother has three handguns and a shotgun.

:s

[ioan]

Or perhaps the students will feel safer, just as they would if a uniformed policeman was in the classroom with them?

Yeah that would be the real freedom in life, learning with a uniformed police man in the classroom!

[ioan]

I have seen the light!! Thank you BDunnell. I finally understand, being prepared for something, however remote the chances of it happening are, will only instill feelings of insecurity. You're right! How could I have ever been so dumb?

Now to go home and remove all the smoke detectors and carbon monoxide detectors from my home. Rip out the seat belts from my car. Cancel all my insurance. Remove the warning labels off of everything that I own. And live the good life of not having any feelings of insecurity.

Hmmm...

[ioan]

Agreed, every bit of which is already in place in many jurisdictions in the US,including connecticut where the latest tragedy occurred.

Which proves that it is not enough.

[ioan]

They threw this data to us on TV this evening. (no source was offered though)

USA is 5% of earth's population

USA owns 50% of earth's guns

Rather sad.

[ioan]

Most people who own guns do not do so out of fear. They do so out of prudence...

I don't believe that, not one bit.

[ioan]

What suggests to you that gun control can work?

What about at least trying it before dismissing it?
It certainly worked in other countries.

[Dave B]

I've just read the transcript (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/dec/21/nra-full-statement-lapierre-newtown) of Wayne LaPierre's speech, although "rant" might be a more appropriate word. Good lord, if he's the most articulate thinker the NRA can put forward to advance their argument they're in more trouble than I thought. I'm actually glad he's spoken out, the more airtime he gets hopefully the more people will see his organisation for what it is: a bunch of Neanderthals with no clue whatsoever.

He blames violent video games, the media, mental health issues, anything but gun ownership. Guess what buddy, pretty much every westernised country has those problems to one degree or another, but it's only the USA which has such a crazy murder rate.

His core policy idea of a gunman in every school should be the final nail in the coffin of this dinosaur of a gun club. His swivel-eyed paranoia is matched only by the stupidity and impracticality of his proposals.

[Dave B]

Here's a good article: NRA proposal to post armed guards in schools is debunked by critics | World news | guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/dec/21/nra-armed-guards-schools)

tl;dr: it would cost between 4 and 7 billion dollars, wouldn't (didn't) work, and is bonkers.

[SGWilko]

I've just read the transcript (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/dec/21/nra-full-statement-lapierre-newtown) of Wayne LaPierre's speech, although "rant" might be a more appropriate word. Good lord, if he's the most articulate thinker the NRA can put forward to advance their argument they're in more trouble than I thought. I'm actually glad he's spoken out, the more airtime he gets hopefully the more people will see his organisation for what it is: a bunch of Neanderthals with no clue whatsoever.

He blames violent video games, the media, mental health issues, anything but gun ownership. Guess what buddy, pretty much every westernised country has those problems to one degree or another, but it's only the USA which has such a crazy murder rate.

His core policy idea of a gunman in every school should be the final nail in the coffin of this dinosaur of a gun club. His swivel-eyed paranoia is matched only by the stupidity and impracticality of his proposals.

Gobsmacked!

[donKey jote]

NRA: The National School Shield (http://nraschoolshield.com/)

BulletBlocker | Bulletproof Protective Products Against Gun Violence (http://www.bulletblocker.com/bulletproof-school-safety-protection.html)

[race aficionado]

NRA: The National School Shield (http://nraschoolshield.com/)

BulletBlocker | Bulletproof Protective Products Against Gun Violence (http://www.bulletblocker.com/bulletproof-school-safety-protection.html)

and to continue with the commercialism aspect of this tragedy:

Centurion Tactical Vest for Children | Amendment II (http://www.amendment2.com/shop/centurion-tactical-vest-for-children/)

and to see a video on donks first link:

Video - Breaking News Videos from CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/bestoftv/2012/12/20/exp-early-marquez-bullet-proofing-kids.cnn#/video/bestoftv/2012/12/20/exp-early-marquez-bullet-proofing-kids.cnn)

[donKey jote]

I know most of you don't live like that, but the fact that anyone does, in the Land of Freedom (fries :dozey :) , is truly mind-boggling. And you clearly have a market for it all. :crazy:

[race aficionado]

I know most of you don't live like that, but the fact that anyone does, in the Land of Freedom (fries :dozey :) , is truly mind-boggling. And you clearly have a market for it all. :crazy:

Bullet proof cars were big business in Colombia during the cartel wars. Imagine that market taking hold over here.

Just imagine; The New 2013 Bullet proof Lexus LX. Dry comfortably and securely, really.


i'm being facetious here . . . . this is not at all funny.

[Rollo]

I don't see individualism as a "problem". Rational self interest is, in my opinion, one of the best motivating factors in history. If governments would simply leave people alone, over the long term many of the "problems" with society would naturally cure themselves. Notice I said most, not all.

This one isn't going to. Society won't cure itself because people do not act rationally.

http://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/johns-hopkins-center-for-gun-policy-and-research/publications/WhitePaper102512_CGPR.pdf
There are enormous economic costs associated with gun violence in the U.S. Firearmrelated deaths and injuries resulted in medical and lost productivity expenses of about $32 billion in 2005.
But the overall cost of gun violence goes well beyond these figures. When lost quality of life, psychological and emotional trauma, decline in property values, and other legal and societal consequences are included, the cost of gun violence in the U.S. was estimated to be about $100 billion annually in 1998.

If you adjust that for inflation you arrive at approximately $1.7tn or slightly over 10% of GDP. This is akin to the broken window fallacy en masse. That's not rational at all.

[gloomyDAY]

The purpose of having the 2nd Amendment is to stop the USA government from walking all over you, and taking away your rights. Wacky Wayne now points the finger to everything except for guns in a shooting spree, and proposes that American schools each have an armed guard, most likely paid by the government, on the premises?

Well, that worked beautifully with the TSA after September 11th. I feel like my rights are never violated when I go to an airport, and an armed guard sticks his hand near my testicles whilst searching for a bomb. I feel so much safer now that I can't criticize a security agent because I'll be kept waiting until my flight leaves, so I'll inevitably get stranded. I cannot wait for the same measures to be applied at my local elementary school, so kids can get searched and frisked just in case they're stashing something other than cookies in the lunch box.

[BDunnell]

I've just read the transcript (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/dec/21/nra-full-statement-lapierre-newtown) of Wayne LaPierre's speech, although "rant" might be a more appropriate word. Good lord, if he's the most articulate thinker the NRA can put forward to advance their argument they're in more trouble than I thought. I'm actually glad he's spoken out, the more airtime he gets hopefully the more people will see his organisation for what it is: a bunch of Neanderthals with no clue whatsoever.

In Europe, yes — even the most rabid conservatives would surely find his comments appalling. But where it matters? I doubt it. The fact that people here (well, one person) whose views I've sometimes found reasonably sensible seem detached from reality (or, beyond that, terms I'd rather not use) on the subject of guns suggests not.

[BDunnell]

The purpose of having the 2nd Amendment is to stop the USA government from walking all over you, and taking away your rights. Wacky Wayne now points the finger to everything except for guns in a shooting spree, and proposes that American schools each have an armed guard, most likely paid by the government, on the premises?

Well, that worked beautifully with the TSA after September 11th. I feel like my rights are never violated when I go to an airport, and an armed guard sticks his hand near my testicles whilst searching for a bomb. I feel so much safer now that I can't criticize a security agent because I'll be kept waiting until my flight leaves, so I'll inevitably get stranded. I cannot wait for the same measures to be applied at my local elementary school, so kids can get searched and frisked just in case they're stashing something other than cookies in the lunch box.

Exactly. Yet somehow none of these intrusions into basic liberties matters. Strange, that.

[BDunnell]

I am not dismissing your view. You think guns are dangerous, and you are scared of them. So I don't think you should have one. Simple, you live your life, I'll live mine. But for some reason you insist on forcing your morality upon me.

All I am doing is offering an opinion. In what position am I to force anything on you?

If there is a tone of superiority emanating from my comments on this subject, I'm glad. I'd take the views of any European, even those whose views on many other subjects I find abhorrent, over those of a gun-loving American any day.



Now you go tell the hundreds of thousands of people (maybe millions) that have protected themselves or their loved ones from a madman by using a firearm, that you have done, and will continue to do everything in your power to ensure that the next time they are threatened by a murderous lunatic that they are completely defenseless.

I'd be happy to do that in Europe, the population of which, for some reason, is not as gripped by the fear of armed intruders as are your countrymen. Maybe you might like to consider why this is, and why doing so in America might elicit a different response?



And you lecture me on seeing nuance? Laughable.

Do you have your speech ready to explain why you want to disarm those that have saved themselves yet?

Again, you fail to answer my original question. Please do so, otherwise I might begin to suspect you don't have a response to it. Would you be happier seeing another tragedy like that in Newtown than stricter restrictions on gun ownership? This ought to be a straight 'yes or no' answer. And, with respect, it is your views and those of many of your countrymen who are open to question here, not mine.

[BDunnell]

That might apply to weak people.

Well, there you have it in a nutshell. They may not think of themselves as weak, but those who require protection, or feel they require protection, ought always to ask why this is. A bit of self-awareness might not go amiss.

[ioan]

Well, there you have it in a nutshell. They may not think of themselves as weak, but those who require protection, or feel they require protection, ought always to ask why this is. A bit of self-awareness might not go amiss.

There are plenty of people who feel they need protection, this is probably the case a lil' bit everywhere, however feeling strong just because of owning a gun points towards serious issues, IMO.

[BDunnell]

There are plenty of people who feel they need protection, this is probably the case a lil' bit everywhere, however feeling strong just because of owning a gun points towards serious issues, IMO.

Yes, I agree. I should have been more specific — of course there are many in need of genuine protection, whether physical or psychological. Certainly, a gun ought never to be the answer.

[TyPat107]

It is rather ironic though today that at the NEA press conference security was extrely tight to make sure none of the press were carrying. So guns banned from a conference about not banning guns...

[BDunnell]

It is rather ironic though today that at the NEA press conference security was extrely tight to make sure none of the press were carrying. So guns banned from a conference about not banning guns...

I gather also that, in the same sentence at the press conference, it was said that the NRA was starting a debate and that no questions would be taken.

[keysersoze]

Just so some of the more judgmental on this panel can put their sweeping generalizations of Americans in the proper context, the support for stricter gun laws is increasing. More than 1-in-3 Americans supported stricter gun laws before the recent shootings. Now, the ratio is getting close to, or more than, 1-in-2, depending on the poll.

[BDunnell]

Just so some of the more judgmental on this panel can put their sweeping generalizations of Americans in the proper context, the support for stricter gun laws is increasing. More than 1-in-3 Americans supported stricter gun laws before the recent shootings. Now, the ratio is getting close to, or more than, 1-in-2, depending on the poll.

I have seen much the same range of figures quoted, but — and call me pessimistic if you wish — I don't believe there will be any substantial, meaningful change. Naturally, I would be delighted to be proved wrong.

[Prisoner Monkeys]

Wacky Wayne now points the finger to everything except for guns in a shooting spree, and proposes that American schools each have an armed guard, most likely paid by the government, on the premises?
I'm not an American. I am, however, a teacher. And, at the risk of severely understating my sentiments on the subject, I feel that this proposal to have armed security officers on school grounds at all times is incredibly disturbing.

I for one would not be comfortable teaching in a school with the knowledge that someone was there with a live weapon. And no matter how trustworthy that person might be, I would be unable to overlook the fact that they were placed there by the NRA, and that the NRA placed them there because they did not want to give up the right to bear arms on any level. If I'm reading LaPierre's comments right, they won't even support the reintroduction of a bill banning the ownership of military-grade assault rifles, weapons that - as far as I can see - civilians have no need to own. By extension of this, I feel that the NRA thinks the right to bear arms is more important than protecting the lives and livelihoods of children. Maybe that's an extreme view of the subject, but I can't be the only person thinking it.

Twenty children died at Sandy Hook Elementary. That's about the size of my Year 12 English class. Adam Lanza could have walked into my classroom. Now, LaPierre can stand at that lectern and postulate all he wants, but I know these kids. LaPierre doesn't. I work with them every day. LaPierre doesn't. Maybe his proposal for armed guards at every school will work, but I have to ask myself: what is the lesser evil - risking my students' lives and livelihoods so that LaPierre can enjoy his personal freedoms? Or enduring his fury as one element of his personal freedom is taken away or lessened for the sake of protecting my students? I'd pick the latter every single time.

Charlton Heston once said that the government could only take his gun from his cold, dead hands, and it became a rallying cry for gun lobbyists. But perhaps that time is closer than they or we think - it takes someone truly cold and dead inside to value their gun over the lives of children.

[Bagwan]

That might apply to weak people.

That "sense of power" , to which I referred , is something different to different people .

For me , it's a healthy respect .
It's kind of like when I'm driving a car carrying passengers .
I always like to remind myself about how I hold thier lives in my hands . It's not just a quick trip to the store . It's a duty to get them there safely .

There's a thrill in a fast car , too , but I'd never go looking for it with passengers in my car .

The guns I used were the tools I needed , and using them gave me a healthy respect for them .
After seeing what it did to the groundhogs I shot , I honestly don't know if I could ever pull the trigger if the aim was to stop a human .

So , is that weak ?

[BleAivano]

I think USA is going to increase the abundance of weapons and be more lenient with conceal carry laws. If anything, Sandy Hook has made people more scared and paranoid. Guns will actually be more of an expensive commodity because gun prices have done nothing but increase since the shooting at Sandy Hook.

$800 AR-15s are now going for a minimum of $1000-1200 in some places. Ridiculous!

Yeah, well, he's dead now, so I guess some widower has already snatched up that gat.

Edit: What the hell is a "true American?"

Anyone who lives anywhere between Cape Horn and either Kaffeklubben Island or Cape Columbia.

[Starter]

anyone who lives anywhere between cape horn and either kaffeklubben island or cape columbia.
That's funny as well as true.

[race aficionado]

Not the answer:
http://img.tapatalk.com/d/12/12/23/ubebu3a5.jpg

[ioan]

That "sense of power" , to which I referred , is something different to different people .

For me , it's a healthy respect .
It's kind of like when I'm driving a car carrying passengers .
I always like to remind myself about how I hold thier lives in my hands . It's not just a quick trip to the store . It's a duty to get them there safely .

There's a thrill in a fast car , too , but I'd never go looking for it with passengers in my car .

The guns I used were the tools I needed , and using them gave me a healthy respect for them .
After seeing what it did to the groundhogs I shot , I honestly don't know if I could ever pull the trigger if the aim was to stop a human .

So , is that weak ?

Baggy, I think there is some misunderstanding here. Allow me to quote again your original sentence:



A gun gives one a real sense of power , and is a real thrill to shoot .

Now, how can you compare driving passengers around with your car with the 'real sense of power' given by a using/owning a gun?

Either my English has deteriorated a lot, or you should have phrased your first post differently.

[ioan]

Not the answer:
http://img.tapatalk.com/d/12/12/23/ubebu3a5.jpg

Very true, and equally sad.

[Jag_Warrior]

Now, how can you compare driving passengers around with your car with the 'real sense of power' given by a using/owning a gun?

Either my English has deteriorated a lot, or you should have phrased your first post differently.

Other than to say that the Sandy Hook shooting was a horrible tragedy, I have no interest in getting into this 650 post pissing contest. I am a gun owner, have been for all of my adult life and I believe in responsible gun ownership, should one choose to own a firearm. I've already made dozens of posts on this topic over the years and I have no interest in re-stating what I've already said many, many times. The solutions to gun violence are complex, as it pertains to American society, and creating more pieces of paper with words on them won't do much. It is not as simple as some seem to want it to be. But believe as you wish.

To Bagwan's point though, not to speak for him, but I think what he meant was, there typically is a certain thrill factor when shooting certain types of firearms that can easily be compared to driving certain types of high performance cars. Years ago, I took my (then) fiancee to a range that I frequented. They would rent you an Uzi (among other full auto weapons), and for something like $20 an hour, you could fire away to your heart's content. This was my idea for a different sort of date night. This girl was a real girly-girl... quite the little princess. I wasn't sure if she'd be into it or not. But once I got her all set, put my arms around her to show her how to handle it (see, I always had a "good reason" for taking girls to the range :) ) she loved it. It was a thrill to shoot that thing. It didn't have any meaningful recoil - it was more like a giant squirt gun because the cycle rate was so fast (something like 700+ rounds per minute!). She shot it more than I did... and since you had to buy the ammo from the range, she almost broke me - think about ammo at $25+/- for a 50 round box... for a gun that shoots 700 rounds a minute!!! :eek: The range owner was a pal of mine and offered me some extra mags. I told him, "Hell no! The only way my credit card can stand this is because of the time we spend reloading the two mags that you gave us!" But we had some good, harmless, naughty fun. It was nice. It was fun. It was a thrill for both of us.

The only thing about that date that disturbed me was when she told me that some of the men who worked for her father (in Peru) carried guns just like that. "Wait... what?! I thought your dad was a farmer?!" This was back during the hellish days of the Shining Path guerrilla/terrorist movement down there, so I let it go. Best not to dwell on that which I might not want to know... ignorance is bliss.

But anyway, even to her (a non gun owner from a society that saw guns in a different light), that was a thrill ride. Same as when I'd nail the gas in my car - she got a huge kick out of hearing that V12 open up and wail too. My current girl is a pretty anti-gun person. She's not into them at all. But when we've gotten together with mutual friends, she's shot everything from Glocks to Sig pistols to a (legal) MP5 submachine gun. And it really is weird to see a pretty liberal girl who was raised in a quiet suburb (and who works in the school system BTW) get such a thrill out of firing these weapons. Would she ever own a gun? Not even! If she could wish them all away, would she? Probably. Does it bother her that her man is an NRA Life member? Well, let's just say that we've had some spirited discussions from time to time. But for the most part, I'm fairly reasonable and sane about how I feel and fairly rational about why I feel the way that I do. She respects that and I respect her viewpoint as well. We just don't agree on this particular issue. But since I know that firing that guy's MP5 got her all warm and tingly... I hold that over her head, as any good boyfriend would. :)

Sorry to interrupt. Continue on with the pissing match now. I've got a bet that youse guys can get to 700 posts by Christmas Eve! :bounce:

[Roamy]

Not the answer:
http://img.tapatalk.com/d/12/12/23/ubebu3a5.jpg

Race - People have to be trained properly in the positions of security. The above could have all been easily prevented if the security people had
the slightest clue. People think arming a guy and letting them sit around or walk around is security - it is a joke. Any of the above would be tough to defense though as
the shooters had permission to be there. As we continue down the path bombs will become more and more prevalent and the dead innocents will increase. Sad but the world is what we have made it.

[Bagwan]

Baggy, I think there is some misunderstanding here. Allow me to quote again your original sentence:



Now, how can you compare driving passengers around with your car with the 'real sense of power' given by a using/owning a gun?

Either my English has deteriorated a lot, or you should have phrased your first post differently.

"...there typically is a certain thrill factor when shooting certain types of firearms that can easily be compared to driving certain types of high performance cars." Jag_Warrior

That's reasonably accurate , as I see it .

It's danger , I guess .
It's a thrill to have the tires singing on the edge of grip around a corner because of the danger .

That makes me respect the edge , and know where it is .

I guess , to be more accurate , I should added "because of the danger involved ." .


What Jag described as a date wouldn't be something I'd think of for a date .
Now , go-karts would be a different story .

I can't say I even know of any gun clubs around here .
The average redneck around these parts does have a few rifles , a few more fishing rods , and a truck with big tires to thrash on the weekends that neither deer season or favourite fish seasons are open .

[gloomyDAY]

In case you did not know by now, there's panic buying all across the USA due to the Sandy Hook shooting, and the announcements from certain politicians to reform gun laws. There's a run on everything from Glock 17s, AR-15s (none under $1000), and even 30-round magazines. The purchasing prices for these items has reached a high level of stupidity (http://www.skdtac.com/Magpul-PMAG-Gen-M3-30-rnd-AR-M4-p/mag.502.htm). Yes, I do understand the supply and demand curve, but the panic buying has reached worse proportions than in 2008 when Obama was elected, and the NRA conducted a smear campaign to increase gun sales.

I will state again that I am a proud gun owner, but the NRA does not represent me, not in the least. The rhetoric coming out of this organization makes me think of scared group of men, huddled in a corner, firmly gripping their weapons, and looking for a way out of jam. I also do not agree with my fellow countrymen that the status quo should be upheld in USA. The NRA is responsible for the $30 billion per annum gun industry in America, and when mass shootings happen, then it's time to face the music. The NRA are cowards. The NRA are an embarrassment to responsible gun owners. The NRA should have at least had the temerity to find a reasonable solution to avoiding another mass shooting, not completely shut out criticism. They've stupidly suggested that the only way to prevent another Sandy Hook is to hire armed guards at every school.

Do you know what the future of USA entails? Here is the future (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/sales-of-kids-bullet-proof-backpacks-soar/2012/12/20/6cba668a-4a1e-11e2-820e-17eefac2f939_story.html). Some parents have thrown in the towel and decided that bulletproofing their children is a better idea than dealing with guns.

[gloomyDAY]

Other than to say that the Sandy Hook shooting was a horrible tragedy, I have no interest in getting into this 650 post pissing contest.Afraid of a little criticism? I don't think this is a piss contest. Twenty kids are dead, and it's getting swept under our American rug because it's a necessary sacrifice for gun-owning freedom. No, that's senseless. I don't want to be a part of that whatsoever.

If you want to get a "thrill" as you mentioned, then lose a few pounds and buy a 1000cc motorbike.

[race aficionado]

If you want to get a "thrill" as you mentioned, then lose a few pounds and buy a 1000cc motorbike.


Dang! I never knew Jag had extra pounds http://www.motorsportforums.com/webkit-fake-url://FE3EACAC-8474-4D38-BAFE-41B4CAD8B8BE/oh.gif but I did know that being on a powerful motorbike is a pleasure that I have feasted on and yes, I did own a bee-bee gun when I was young and many birds have signed a petition to send me to bird hell when that time comes.


What I do know that has to be done (my personal opinion) as I contribute to reach our goal of a gazillion posts on this thread is that the second amendment of the USA's constitution should be allowed to - as it's name clearly states- to be amended: making the ownership of fire arms a privilege (not a right).

[BDunnell]

Race - People have to be trained properly in the positions of security. The above could have all been easily prevented if the security people had the slightest clue. People think arming a guy and letting them sit around or walk around is security - it is a joke.

So you think people like anthonyvop would be able to do better? Really?


Any of the above would be tough to defense though as the shooters had permission to be there.

In which case, then, where does the problem lie?

I don't think the solution should ever be found in turning such places (I live the army base aside for obvious reasons) into armed fortresses.


As we continue down the path bombs will become more and more prevalent and the dead innocents will increase. Sad but the world is what we have made it.

I don't feel it's what I have made it, but each to their own.

[Jag_Warrior]

Afraid of a little criticism? I don't think this is a piss contest. Twenty kids are dead, and it's getting swept under our American rug because it's a necessary sacrifice for gun-owning freedom. No, that's senseless. I don't want to be a part of that whatsoever.

I've been on this message board for going on 13 years, Gloomy. Have you ever gotten the sense that there's anything shy about me or that I'm afraid of a discussion or criticism? ;) But I have no real desire to restate the exact same opinion that I've expressed dozens of times in dozens of threads when this exact same topic has come up before. It always starts the same way and it always ends the same way. What is this, like an episode of Lost? No, because even Jacob said, "It only ends once." This will just go on & on & on & on (& on!!!) until someone finally snaps and Mark or Pino have to close the thread.

Look, at this stage of the game, I pretty much know who thinks what. And I assume that anyone who has been here for more than 30 days knows what I think on this topic. Would it tickle your ivories to hear me regurgitate it again? Ask away. What would you like to know about my positions and thoughts on the NRA, gun control, so called assault weapons, etc.??? I have opinions on those topics, as well as what I think is the ideal bra size and hip/waist ratio for women. I'll discuss anything that won't cause Mark to have to ban me before my 13th "birthday"... he's getting me a cake this year and there are going to be pony rides! Yeeeah dawg! I can't wait! :bounce:


If you want to get a "thrill" as you mentioned, then lose a few pounds and buy a 1000cc motorbike.

I actually owned a 1200cc motorcycle once upon a time. It was a 70-something Harley-Davidson (Hardly-Ableson) Sportster. I remember it starting... once or twice. Real piece of junk. That was back in the AMF days. But you're probably talking about one of those boy-racer, wannabe sport bike, crotch-rocket thingies. I hate those things. I have no use for them. And I'm not into bikes anymore anyway - I had a taste for a Kawasaki GPZ 750 Turbo waaaay back when... then my brain got fully developed and I've stuck to fast cars and hot womens (or is it hot cars and fast womens?) ever since. But if that's how you get your thrill on Strawberry Hill, go for it, my man. My basic approach to most things is this: To each his own. Buy a Rottweiler to play with your kids if you want to. As long as he doesn't eat my cat or crap in my yard, I honestly do not care what other people do with their time and money.

Oh, my weight is actually just fine - thanks for your concern though. I went and got myself darn healthy this year, after a couple of major scares over the past couple of years. And if you'd like to do a bench press contest for say, $100, I'd be game. I could use some duckets... the TV stand that I had to buy for that new plasma, on top of the new dishwasher, dug into my account a bit. Daddy needs a new pair of shoes.

[Jag_Warrior]

What I do know that has to be done (my personal opinion) as I contribute to reach our goal of a gazillion posts on this thread is that the second amendment of the USA's constitution should be allowed to - as it's name clearly states- to be amended: making the ownership of fire arms a privilege (not a right).

There's really no "should be" to amending the 2nd Amendment... or any of the other amendments. The long established amendment process for accomplishing that isn't any different for the 2nd than it would be for the 1st or the 15th. It's right there. Easy squeezy.

But considering the attitudes of the American people toward firearms these days, the chances of accomplishing that are about the same as my chance of getting that job with Cosworth Racing back in the 90's - in fact, my chances were probably better. I still didn't get it though. Damn them! If only we could wish for what we want to happen and it would happen, the world would be so much more interesting, eh? :)

[donKey jote]

(I leave the army base aside for obvious reasons)
fixed it, teehee :andrea: :p

[nigelred5]

I'm not an American. I am, however, a teacher. And, at the risk of severely understating my sentiments on the subject, I feel that this proposal to have armed security officers on school grounds at all times is incredibly disturbing.

I for one would not be comfortable teaching in a school with the knowledge that someone was there with a live weapon. And no matter how trustworthy that person might be, I would be unable to overlook the fact that they were placed there by the NRA, and that the NRA placed them there because they did not want to give up the right to bear arms on any level. If I'm reading LaPierre's comments right, they won't even support the reintroduction of a bill banning the ownership of military-grade assault rifles, weapons that - as far as I can see - civilians have no need to own. By extension of this, I feel that the NRA thinks the right to bear arms is more important than protecting the lives and livelihoods of children. Maybe that's an extreme view of the subject, but I can't be the only person thinking it.

Twenty children died at Sandy Hook Elementary. That's about the size of my Year 12 English class. Adam Lanza could have walked into my classroom. Now, LaPierre can stand at that lectern and postulate all he wants, but I know these kids. LaPierre doesn't. I work with them every day. LaPierre doesn't. Maybe his proposal for armed guards at every school will work, but I have to ask myself: what is the lesser evil - risking my students' lives and livelihoods so that LaPierre can enjoy his personal freedoms? Or enduring his fury as one element of his personal freedom is taken away or lessened for the sake of protecting my students? I'd pick the latter every single time.

Charlton Heston once said that the government could only take his gun from his cold, dead hands, and it became a rallying cry for gun lobbyists. But perhaps that time is closer than they or we think - it takes someone truly cold and dead inside to value their gun over the lives of children.

I'd mentioned earlier our schools have had resource police officers for years. Teachers and students are quite used to them being in the school. I thought in a school with two full time police officers and was actually quite comfortable with them present.

[nigelred5]

Melt them and make spoons out of the resulting alloy?!

There will be civil unrest the day the federal government tries to enter and forcibly remove firearms from law abiding citizens.

[Valve Bounce]

There will be civil unrest the day the federal government tries to enter and forcibly remove firearms from law abiding citizens.

I really don't see the point. As I mentioned before there are 200+million firearms in the United States of America, and I cannot see any procedure, protocol that could possibly be effective in anyone's lifetime to take back guns. All that can be done is a voluntary handback of guns but I cannot see that happening either. In other words , citizens of the United States of America are in a Catch 22 situation, and the only solution is when the "Good Guys" shoot all the "Bad Guys" like the Rifle Association advocates. Inthe meanwhile, people in the United States of America will continue to die from gunshot wounds like this: Huffington Post lists the 100 shot dead in week since Sandy Hook as NRA calls for armed cops in every school | News.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/world/obama-vows-action-after-online-petition/story-fndir2ev-1226542151230?from=igoogle+gadget+compact+news_rss )

And just in case, this comes up: No! bullet proof back packs will not work - it will just make any nutter aim for the head.

[Rollo]

The purpose of having the 2nd Amendment is to stop the USA government from walking all over you, and taking away your rights. Wacky Wayne now points the finger to everything except for guns in a shooting spree, and proposes that American schools each have an armed guard, most likely paid by the government, on the premises?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/22/opinion/the-nra-crawls-from-its-hidey-hole.html?_r=1&
In the 62 mass-murder cases over 30 years examined recently by the magazine Mother Jones, not one was stopped by an armed civilian. We have known for many years that a sheriff’s deputy was at Columbine High School in 1999 and fired at one of the two killers while 11 of their 13 victims were still alive. He missed four times.
People like Mr. LaPierre want us to believe that civilians can be trained to use lethal force with cold precision in moments of fear and crisis. That requires a willful ignorance about the facts. Police officers know that firing a weapon is a huge risk; that’s why they avoid doing it.
- Editorial, New York Times, 21st Dec 2012

Perhaps we should review who Wayne LaPierre is:
Letter of Resignation Sent By Bush to Rifle Association - NYTimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com/1995/05/11/us/letter-of-resignation-sent-by-bush-to-rifle-association.html)
I was outraged when, even in the wake of the Oklahoma City tragedy, Mr. Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of N.R.A., defended his attack on federal agents as "jack-booted thugs." To attack Secret Service agents or A.T.F. people or any government law enforcement people as "wearing Nazi bucket helmets and black storm trooper uniforms" wanting to "attack law abiding citizens" is a vicious slander on good people.
...
However, your broadside against Federal agents deeply offends my own sense of decency and honor; and it offends my concept of service to country. It indirectly slanders a wide array of government law enforcement officials, who are out there, day and night, laying their lives on the line for all of us.

You have not repudiated Mr. LaPierre's unwarranted attack. Therefore, I resign as a Life Member of N.R.A., said resignation to be effective upon your receipt of this letter. Please remove my name from your membership list. Sincerely, [ signed ] George Bush
- Published in the New York Times, May 11, 1995.

Wayne LaPierre caused the then President of the US to resign his membership of the NRA. Is this the image that the NRA wish to project? Who do they actually represent, gun owners or manufacturers?

[Valve Bounce]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/22/opinion/the-nra-crawls-from-its-hidey-hole.html?_r=1&
[i]
Wayne LaPierre caused the then President of the US to resign his membership of the NRA. Is this the image that the NRA wish to project? Who do they actually represent, gun owners or manufacturers?

Manufacturers , I reckon. It is incredible how much strength this well organised lobby can wield on politicians. The only way to fight them is on FACEBOOK, although I really don't think that would work.

[Rollo]

It is incredible how much strength this well organised lobby can wield on politicians.

And indeed on the general population. You can make people do all sorts of crazy stuff by constantly keeping them fearful. Fighting against "the government" and making them out to be the bad guy is also a cheap an easy thing to do because no-one questions that.

[nigelred5]

I am a staunch advocate of responsible gun ownership, but I am not a member of the NRAa because of their tactics.
I agree whole heartedly that something needs to be done, however they need to start with actually enforcing the existing laws we have. Until I see proof that firearms are no longer in the hands of criminals, the majority of firearms owners will not even consider surrendering theirs. I know I won't.

[nigelred5]

And indeed on the general population. You can make people do all sorts of crazy stuff by constantly keeping them fearful. Fighting against "the government" and making them out to be the bad guy is also a cheap an easy thing to do because no-one questions that.

You can look straight to the media that perpetuates the fear. Fwiw, I work for the federal government.

[Knock-on]

There will be civil unrest the day the federal government tries to enter and forcibly remove firearms from law abiding citizens.

So, a law is legally changed by a democratically elected government an because some citizens don't agree, they will break the Law.

Do you agree with this course of action? Democracy whn it suits you?

[Starter]

So, a law is legally changed by a democratically elected government an because some citizens don't agree, they will break the Law.

Do you agree with this course of action? Democracy whn it suits you?
Our country was not founded on majority rules alone. It was founded on the principle of majority rule with protection of the rights of minorities.

[gloomyDAY]

Wacky Wayne was interviewed this morning, and clarified the NRA's stance on gun laws.

NRA chief: If putting armed police in schools is crazy, 'then call me crazy' - NBC Politics (http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/23/16101856-nra-chief-if-putting-armed-police-in-schools-is-crazy-then-call-me-crazy?lite)

Talk about your head in the sand...

Edit: I suggest people watch the video, so you can get an understanding of how badly Wacky Wayne is out of touch with reality.

[race aficionado]

To quote a quote from senator (Democrat) Schumer:
Schumer said that LaPierre believes "the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is good guy with a gun. What about trying to stop the bad guy from getting the gun in the first place? That's common sense. Most Americans agree with it"

[gloomyDAY]

Look, at this stage of the game, I pretty much know who thinks what.I'm not sure why you have so much disdain for someone else's opinion on this board. You could at least read what others have to say. One reason I like this site is because people the world over can give you a different perspective.


I went and got myself darn healthy this year, after a couple of major scares over the past couple of years. And if you'd like to do a bench press contest for say, $100, I'd be game.Bench pressing is pretty tame. I'd rather box or wrestle.

[Jag_Warrior]

There will be civil unrest the day the federal government tries to enter and forcibly remove firearms from law abiding citizens.

If you look at the approval ratings for Congress among Americans of all political stripes, it's apparent that very few citizens are big fans of the government these days. And many of us also see judicial and law enforcement activities which are corrupt and biased. Multi-billion dollar money laundering scheme for drug cartels and organized crime by HSBC... uh, is anyone going to jail? No, but the kid with half pound of weed that got caught on the interstate is going to be pulling 15 years. Hip-hip-hooray!

Criminals are already prohibited from owning firearms in the United States. So the only people who you can (effectively) get guns away from are those who legally possess them. And yep, that's going to be a problem. If law abiding people begin to sense that they are the focus of the government, while criminals get a pass... there might be trouble.

Why did I leave banking? I really should have stayed. I mean, unless you get caught in a motel room with a dead teenage girl or a live teenage boy, there's just not much that can get you sent to the pokey these days. Yep, either banking or politics. As long as you can keep your conscience in the closet for about 18 hours a day, that's the way to go. You can fund drug cartels, take some points for laundering money, do some insider trading, write some subprime mortgages to people with decent credit... always a way to turn a dollar - and still be a respectable member of society. Damn my conscience!

[Jag_Warrior]

I'm not sure why you have so much disdain for someone else's opinion on this board. You could at least read what others have to say. One reason I like this site is because people the world over can give you a different perspective.

Don't mistake my lack of desire to participate as disdain for the opinions of others. I have read much of what others have said. And on both sides, people are generally saying in this thread what they've said in every other thread on the topic. I have no desire to play that game right now. Maybe next week, after Christmas is over. We'll see.

But I've been here longer than I've been with any company or stayed in any relationship because I like sharing ideas with the people here too. Whether I agree with someone or not, if their position is rational and well stated, I can still respect and appreciate it.


Bench pressing is pretty tame. I'd rather box or wrestle.

Amish rake fighting! Don't p###y out on me! Pick up that rake and meet me behind the barn. The winner gets to take Miss Lucy Mae to the hoedown.

[ioan]

I'd mentioned earlier our schools have had resource police officers for years. Teachers and students are quite used to them being in the school. I thought in a school with two full time police officers and was actually quite comfortable with them present.

Hopefully not English.

[ioan]

Wayne LaPierre caused the then President of the US to resign his membership of the NRA. Is this the image that the NRA wish to project? Who do they actually represent, gun owners or manufacturers?

I suppose this was a rhetorical question. ;)

[Roamy]

To quote a quote from senator (Democrat) Schumer:
Schumer said that LaPierre believes "the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is good guy with a gun. What about trying to stop the bad guy from getting the gun in the first place? That's common sense. Most Americans agree with it"

so how are you going to do that ?????

[nigelred5]

Hopefully not English.
Didn't teach typing, that's for, sure, but I also don't even try to edit on a freaking iphone. I can barely type on it to begin with.

US history, civics and contemporary politics actually. I couldn't stand teaching a county mandated, revisionist, afrocentric curriculum that absolutely *******ized US history. 1900 to 1950 was one 12 Page chapter. World War II was one and a half pages, mostly about the war being won singlehandedly by the Tuskegee Airmen. No mention of Hitler, the atomic bomb, or the events of the pacific war or the effects the wars had on domestic life in the United States. The holocaust was not even mentioned. Honestly it was the worst curriculum I have ever seen, even trying to teach what was included, and I was not allowed to deviate the least bit.

[Alexamateo]

I am an American and a gun owner who fully supports the second amendment. So often we are told that we should not support any gun restrictions because it will start us down the "slippery slope" to getting our guns taken away from us. Lately, though, if you look at the facts, the "slippery slope" is only running the other direction towards more and more freedom to own whatever arms we want and to carry them with us at all times wherever we want.

The NRA Surge: 99 Laws Rolling Back Gun Restrictions | Mother Jones (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/map-gun-laws-2009-2012)


Since 2009, the NRA and its allies in state capitols have pushed through 99 laws making guns easier to own, easier to carry in public—eight states now even allow them in bars (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/map-gun-laws-2009-2012#gun_laws)—and harder for the government to track.

Well what has that gotten us? Well, it's gotten a couple of guys who could easily be my neighbors in a lot of trouble. On Feb. 6, 2009, 59 year-old Harry Coleman shot 52 year-old Robert Schwerin in the parking lot of Trinity Commons shopping center outside of the Villa Castrioti, an Italian restaurant I have been to several times that is less than a mile from my house.

A Killing in Cordova - Memphis Magazine - September 2012 - Memphis (http://www.memphismagazine.com/Memphis-Magazine/September-2012/A-Killing-in-Cordova/)


Prosecutors at Coleman’s trial would make much of the gesture that followed. Standing only inches from Schwerin, Coleman placed the tip of his gun on Schwerin’s lips and forced the muzzle into his mouth, according to multiple testimonies. (Coleman disputes this characterization and says instead that he placed the gun “between [Schwerin’s] nose and his mouth,” though one imagines a jury drawing little distinction between the two acts.) The men paused in this tableau for a moment. Then, fewer than 15 minutes after the encounter had begun, Coleman took several steps backward, raised his gun, and shot Schwerin in the chest."

Schwerin, who had recently lost his wife to cancer, died and left 3 children without a mother and a father, and Coleman who should be enjoying his golden years and grandchildren is going to prison for 18 years. Yes, alcohol was involved, and Schwerin was a jerk, vandalizing Coleman's car, but the fact remains a man was killed over a parking lot dispute because of easy access to guns. It's a perverse, ghetto attitude invading the middle-class community. "He disrespected me so I showed him."

That's kind of the point,isn't it? All of the guns in these stories right now are legal and are being committed by people, who up until the moment the deed is done have never committed a crime in their lives. I don't fear criminals right now, I fear my fellow law-abiding citizen who in a moment of weakness or lapsed judgement is going to accidentally shoot me or someone in my family.

[race aficionado]

so how are you going to do that ?????

there-in lies the challenge.

[Starter]

there-in lies the challenge.
Which the ban guns advocates here have no answer to and refuse to acknowledge that they have no answer.

[Rollo]

Which the ban guns advocates here have no answer to and refuse to acknowledge that they have no answer.

No. There is an answer, the practicality of it is impossible since anyone to tried to carry it out would start shooting Federal officers.
Therefore, the cycle goes on ad infinitum.

Basically the United States is in a permanent holding cycle of firearm murders because as a nation, you're fine with that.

[ioan]

US history, civics and contemporary politics actually. I couldn't stand teaching a county mandated, revisionist, afrocentric curriculum that absolutely *******ized US history. 1900 to 1950 was one 12 Page chapter. World War II was one and a half pages, mostly about the war being won singlehandedly by the Tuskegee Airmen. No mention of Hitler, the atomic bomb, or the events of the pacific war or the effects the wars had on domestic life in the United States. The holocaust was not even mentioned. Honestly it was the worst curriculum I have ever seen, even trying to teach what was included, and I was not allowed to deviate the least bit.

I have to agree with you, that curriculum looks like something difficult to get along with.

[ioan]

Which the ban guns advocates here have no answer to and refuse to acknowledge that they have no answer.

Yeah sure. And every time someone came with a solution you've just dismissed it as impossible. How convenient.
The solution is rather simple and it has a lot to do with civilizing and educating the US American nation.

[Starter]

Yeah sure. And every time someone came with a solution you've just dismissed it as impossible. How convenient.
The solution is rather simple and it has a lot to do with civilizing and educating the US American nation.
Can't be done, We uns is uncivil to start with and done likes it that way. :p

[donKey jote]

Freedumb !!!! (http://news.sky.com/story/1029589/piers-morgan-thousands-want-him-deported) :laugh:

[Roamy]

Well you want gun ban:

1. ban all guns except 3 round shotgun and rifle for hunting
2. Allow 6 months to retrieve all outstanding guns
3. If caught 3 month trial death penalty within 90 days
4. Offer 50,000 cash reward for anyone reporting a illegal gun - you can be anonymous

So imo we can't afford to imprison people so execute them.
So there you have it and good luck with enforcing it. But the result would definitely reduce the population and to the point where GB could probably take us over.
You have to have the big reward so people will turn in the criminals with guns.

Ok bring on the next solution "World Savers"

[gloomyDAY]

I'm disgusted by the gun nuts. The lack of empathy has a borderline sense of sociopathy. 12,000 gun related deaths per annum is an acceptable price, just as long as the weapons industry can also make their $30 billion.



3. If caught 3 month trial death penalty within 90 days

So imo we can't afford to imprison people so execute them. You have a bizarre obsession with killing people. You don't have to kill every person that commits a crime. Hell, you're an advocate for death when someone is in possession of an illegal narcotic. Your solution to crime reminds me of a theocracy.

[gloomyDAY]

Hey! You want to see what it's like to witness children running away from an armed maniac?

Here is the video. (http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_t2#/video/world/2012/12/24/china-school-knife-attacker-video.cnn)

Fortunately, the attacker was wielding a large knife and not a gun. Now imagine what the little kids from Sandy Hook went through as they were shot in the back as they ran away from the Adam Lanza.

[Rollo]

So there you have it and good luck with enforcing it. But the result would definitely reduce the population and to the point where GB could probably take us over.

Why would anyone want to take over the United States? The reward for doing so is the United States. Every creditor would be banging on the door for payment almost immediately afterwards.
China's solution of simply buying out what it wants is the most efficient. It appears to be working quite nicely.

The United States has as much chance of being invaded in the next 50 years as a manned expedition to the sun.

[Starter]

How about we all, both sides, just give it a rest over the holidays?

[race aficionado]

Happy Holidays.
:)

[Roamy]

I'm disgusted by the gun nuts. The lack of empathy has a borderline sense of sociopathy. 12,000 gun related deaths per annum is an acceptable price, just as long as the weapons industry can also make their $30 billion.

You have a bizarre obsession with killing people. You don't have to kill every person that commits a crime. Hell, you're an advocate for death when someone is in possession of an illegal narcotic. Your solution to crime reminds me of a theocracy.

yes you are right - I would off all the meth people - meth has killed way more than lanza but i would let you do coke which you are obviously on. no penalty

[Valve Bounce]

How about we all, both sides, just give it a rest over the holidays?

Both sides? I didn't know there was another side! :( I thought we were all striving for some means to effect some sort of gun control.
Now I read that some nutter ambushed a fire crew going to a fire that he started, and then shot the firefighters. I suppose it will take another week for wacky Wayne to think of how to put swat teams all over the United Sates of America, designate them as [b]"Good Guys"/b] and have them shoot anyone watching a fire engine crew fight a fire.
Where this will end, God knows, but I am willing to bet that I won't be around when something is finally worked out.

[Robinho]

There have been in excess of 100 people killed in gun crime in the USA since Lanza, including on duty and armed police on routine enquiries.

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

[Roamy]

Here you go - i suppose you Euro's want to ban cars now

Chinese man drives car into students, injuring 13 - SFGate (http://www.sfgate.com/news/world/article/Chinese-man-drives-car-into-students-injuring-13-4144574.php)

[Starter]

Both sides? I didn't know there was another side! :( I thought we were all striving for some means to effect some sort of gun control.
Now I read that some nutter ambushed a fire crew going to a fire that he started, and then shot the firefighters. I suppose it will take another week for wacky Wayne to think of how to put swat teams all over the United Sates of America, designate them as [b]"Good Guys"/b] and have them shoot anyone watching a fire engine crew fight a fire.
Where this will end, God knows, but I am willing to bet that I won't be around when something is finally worked out.
And I thought that the members of this board had the restraint and good taste to leave the subject alone over Christmas. Obviously I was wrong by at least three. And a Merry Christmas to you all.

[Jag_Warrior]

Happy Holidays.
:)

And the same to you and everyone here as well, Race. :wave:

[Valve Bounce]

And I thought that the members of this board had the restraint and good taste to leave the subject alone over Christmas. Obviously I was wrong by at least three. And a Merry Christmas to you all.

Well, let's be serious here. We are all worried how things are shaping for the safety of people - I am not sure that this was ever meant to be a ghoulish argument. Having said that, if you didn't want to discuss anything about this topic over Christmas, you could have logged onto the F1 forum instead.

[D-Type]

And I thought that the members of this board had the restraint and good taste to leave the subject alone over Christmas. Obviously I was wrong by at least three. And a Merry Christmas to you all.
Sadly, 26 families will not be able to ignore this over Christmas.

It is time that the 'gun lobby' members in the USA took their heads out of the sand and recognised that much as they like: playing with their 'big boys' toys', the feeling of apparent security that carrying and possessing a gun carries, their rather tenuous claim to be members of a militia that has the right to bear arms and the other arguments put forward, the reality is that any move to reduce the number of these lethal devices in circulation will reduce the likelihood of people being killed by them. So they should be formulating means of achieving a cut down in ownership and incresed controls.

And please, let's not have any smart-alec sarcastic comments about moderators not being allowed to express a personal opinion.

[Jag_Warrior]

One of the reasons that I said I had no interest in becoming involved in this thread or this discussion is because I felt it would go down the same path as every other thread we've had on this topic. And for the most part, sadly, it has.

May I propose something new? Would it be possible for most of us (no matter where we stand on the issue of civilian gun ownership in the United States) to agree on a few things... based on the facts? Let me start by presenting this fact: a large percentage of the gun crimes committed in the United States are committed by people who are already legally prohibited from owning or possessing firearms. Can we all agree that, since it's already illegal for these people to own or possess firearms, they shouldn't have them and we could reduce gun crimes if we could determine how they are procuring these weapons and go after that supply chain? According to a 2002 study on the United States Dept. of Justice website:

- Of inmates who carried a firearm during their offense, 8 in 10 had a handgun


- Fewer than 1 in 50 State and Federal inmates used, carried, or possessed a military-style semiautomatic gun or a fully automatic gun during their current offense.


- In 1997 among State inmates possessing a gun, fewer than 2% bought their firearm at a flea market or gun show, about 12% from a retail store or pawnshop, and 80% from family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source.

By Caroline Wolf Harlow, Ph.D. BJS Statistician (http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/ascii/fuo.txt)


Rather than continuing to beat a (long) dead horse about which guns should or should not be legal in the U.S. or how Americans should or should not feel about gun control and private ownership of firearms, in my opinion, this discussion might actually go somewhere if we could leave the emotion aside (even though gun tragedies evoke emotions). Solutions that are based on data and facts would probably be more meaningful and effective than those based on emotion and knee jerk responses. For anyone who wants to have a fact based discussion, I'd love to take part. But for those who just want to throw darts back & forth, I have no interest in doing that. Please take a look at the link that I pasted. There's some interesting data in there and it's not biased to one side or the other. It *could* provide the basis for a good, healthy discussion/debate here. Since most of us have known each other for awhile and I think there are a lot of intelligent people here, isn't it worth a try?

[ioan]

One of the reasons that I said I had no interest in becoming involved in this thread or this discussion is because I felt it would go down the same path as every other thread we've had on this topic. And for the most part, sadly, it has.

May I propose something new? Would it be possible for most of us (no matter where we stand on the issue of civilian gun ownership in the United States) to agree on a few things... based on the facts? Let me start by presenting this fact: a large percentage of the gun crimes committed in the United States are committed by people who are already legally prohibited from owning or possessing firearms. Can we all agree that, since it's already illegal for these people to own or possess firearms, they shouldn't have them and we could reduce gun crimes if we could determine how they are procuring these weapons and go after that supply chain? According to a 2002 study on the United States Dept. of Justice website:

- Of inmates who carried a firearm during their offense, 8 in 10 had a handgun


- Fewer than 1 in 50 State and Federal inmates used, carried, or possessed a military-style semiautomatic gun or a fully automatic gun during their current offense.


- In 1997 among State inmates possessing a gun, fewer than 2% bought their firearm at a flea market or gun show, about 12% from a retail store or pawnshop, and 80% from family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source.

By Caroline Wolf Harlow, Ph.D. BJS Statistician (http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/ascii/fuo.txt)


Rather than continuing to beat a (long) dead horse about which guns should or should not be legal in the U.S. or how Americans should or should not feel about gun control and private ownership of firearms, in my opinion, this discussion might actually go somewhere if we could leave the emotion aside (even though gun tragedies evoke emotions). Solutions that are based on data and facts would probably be more meaningful and effective than those based on emotion and knee jerk responses. For anyone who wants to have a fact based discussion, I'd love to take part. But for those who just want to throw darts back & forth, I have no interest in doing that. Please take a look at the link that I pasted. There's some interesting data in there and it's not biased to one side or the other. It *could* provide the basis for a good, healthy discussion/debate here. Since most of us have known each other for awhile and I think there are a lot of intelligent people here, isn't it worth a try?

There is no dead horse to beat about which guns should or should not be allowed to be owned, the bottom line is no guns should be owned by anyone but police and military, it is that simple.
Countries that have a very tight and well implemented gun ownership legislation have very few fire arm related crimes, and there are many examples in this thread that proves that this works.

[D-Type]

There is no dead horse to beat about which guns should or should not be allowed to be owned, the bottom line is no guns should be owned by anyone but police and military, it is that simple.
Countries that have a very tight and well implemented gun ownership legislation have very few fire arm related crimes, and there are many examples in this thread that proves that this works.
This reads rather like "Who will bell the cat?" It's all very well to say that the US Authorities should pass legislation to ban gun ownership, but how can they imlement it and tackle the issue of the very large number of guns in circulation, both legally held and not legally held?

[Rollo]

May I propose something new? Would it be possible for most of us (no matter where we stand on the issue of civilian gun ownership in the United States) to agree on a few things... based on the facts? Let me start by presenting this fact: a large percentage of the gun crimes committed in the United States are committed by people who are already legally prohibited from owning or possessing firearms. Can we all agree that, since it's already illegal for these people to own or possess firearms, they shouldn't have them and we could reduce gun crimes if we could determine how they are procuring these weapons and go after that supply chain?

That supply chain is massive.

I'd wager that most illegally held weapons are already outside the realms of existing documentation. The only real way you'd reign these in is either under a buy-back scheme where inflated prices for weapons was posted or if by some other event, they become know because of reported crime. The problem is that in a lot of cases, you can't even issue a warrant to search and seize illegal items if you don't even know that there are illegal items to be found.

The supply chain itself is hideously massive. It also includes guns shop owners to are legally licensed to sell weapons. Since there is a profit motive for them to sell stock and to skimp on checks, how do authorities enforce that?

[keysersoze]

There is no dead horse to beat about which guns should or should not be allowed to be owned, the bottom line is no guns should be owned by anyone but police and military, it is that simple.
Countries that have a very tight and well implemented gun ownership legislation have very few fire arm related crimes, and there are many examples in this thread that proves that this works.

Your first comment is spectacularly naive. If civilians are not allowed to own a handgun for protection in this fairy tale land of your imagination, how do you propose to ensure the bad guys don't get them? Oh yes, I get it--everyone will start to behave and the bad guys will just stop being bad. :rolleyes:

Using your shaky logic, there are also numerous examples to suggest that 1) the best way to deter mass murderers is the conceal carry law, and 2) that "gun-free zones" in this country are practically asking for some nutcase to carry out some nefarious plot. I mean, who better to attack than a place that will not have any armed citizens nearby.

I'll tell you what the bottom line is: that my country is a unique one with a complicated, multi-faceted problem, and for people on this forum to think other countries' laws and customs can magically solve them is beyond foolish.

[Jag_Warrior]

There is no dead horse to beat about which guns should or should not be allowed to be owned, the bottom line is no guns should be owned by anyone but police and military, it is that simple.
Countries that have a very tight and well implemented gun ownership legislation have very few fire arm related crimes, and there are many examples in this thread that proves that this works.

It is beating a dead horse because it is an unrealistic wish, as far as the United States is concerned. There's an old saying that when you want something unrealistic (good or bad), you can wish in one hand and s### in the other and see which one gets you your wish the quickest. Whether it's a good wish, a bad wish, a right wish or a wrong wish... it is (nothing more than) a wish. And it ain't gonna happen here. So let's bury that horse before he starts to smell, m'kay? :)

There is no political will for such a thing to become law in the U.S. And even if it somehow managed to make it into law, the Supreme Court would probably strike down such a law as unconstitutional. So yes, that is a non-starter. And that's why I said participating in yet another tired thread, that would just go in circles and whack the dead pony again, was a waste of (my) time.

Let me try again... From a realistic and practical standpoint, do you have any constructive ideas, vis–à–vis the link and data that I presented?



That supply chain is massive.

I'd wager that most illegally held weapons are already outside the realms of existing documentation. The only real way you'd reign these in is either under a buy-back scheme where inflated prices for weapons was posted or if by some other event, they become know because of reported crime. The problem is that in a lot of cases, you can't even issue a warrant to search and seize illegal items if you don't even know that there are illegal items to be found.

I would say that you are most correct, in that these weapons have probably already gone underground. As the data showed, only once there had been some sort of violation (not necessarily a shooting) by a convicted felon did anything become known about the weapons.

Finding ways to enhance the existing traceability of firearms might be workable. The background check system is already pretty good and pretty accurate, from what I've read. But are there ways to improve and enhance it? Finding ways to (legally) make it easier find and prosecute gun smugglers might also be workable. It is impossible for a civilian to legally purchase a full auto or select fire weapon in the U.S. if it was made after 1986(?). And as best I recall, there have been no crimes committed by people who legally owned or possessed these weapons in a decade or more. But crimes have been committed by people who have used illegally procured automatic weapons. Organized crime operations around Brighton Beach, NY and Miami, FL seem particularly crafty at smuggling them in (Uzis, MP5's, AK's, etc.). And some of those then get smuggled into Mexico to the cartels. And even though those particular weapons (or their so-called "assault weapon" cousins) aren't really a major source of the violence problem here (it's primarily handguns), some of the same smuggling operations also deal in black markets weapons of all types, as well as drugs, prostitutes (including children) and fencing operations. Our port security is said to be a joke. How could we improve there?


The supply chain itself is hideously massive. It also includes guns shop owners to are legally licensed to sell weapons. Since there is a profit motive for them to sell stock and to skimp on checks, how do authorities enforce that?

It is a big and complex problem. And I don't believe that the answer(s) will be simple. As much as I know about firearms, I still find myself asking more questions than I have (realistic and practical) answers. But by approaching it from a rational, root cause standpoint, I believe that at the very least, the problem can be attacked and lessened. For instance, gun shop owners probably won't sell new firearms straight off the shelf to a felon or someone with funny I.D. The penalty for that is loss of his FFL, and then he's out of business... after he gets out of jail. The problem of "strawman" purchases, where someone buys for another, is one that would have to be looked at very hard, IMO. Also, from reading that study, friends and family members also seem to be major sources for felons to secure firearms. I wouldn't think that they could (realistically) plead ignorance at not knowing that Jimmy Joe Bob had been in prison for the past ten years. So severely prosecuting those people should be another effective avenue.

Just some things/ideas/questions off the top of my head. But I'd like for others to read that study and see what ideas come to your mind. I really would like to have a good, constructive discussion about this topic. None of us wants to hear about innocent people getting shot and killed. So what are some real ideas here, folks? But I have no time or patience to discuss a Santa's wishlist. That's like those ditzy girls who are running for Miss World Bikini Queen, who foolishly wish for world peace when they ask them a deep question. Let's talk about the issue at a rational, unemotional, mature, data driven level. Yeah?

Whether we agree on the topic in general or not, I figured Rollo wouldn't let me down. Thanks, man!

[race aficionado]

There is no political will for such a thing to become law in the U.S. And even if it somehow managed to make it into law, the Supreme Court would probably strike down such a law as unconstitutional.

So going back to the probable unconstitutionality of proposed changes - what do you think is the real possibility that the second amendment be actually amended to, for example, change "right" to "privilege"?

Is the second amendment really written in stone?

[keysersoze]

So going back to the probable unconstitutionality of proposed changes - what do you think is the real possibility that the second amendment be actually amended to, for example, change "right" to "privilege"?

Is the second amendment really written in stone?

Dunno. But, it's part of our Bill of Rights (which we modeled, sort of, after England's), so it's pretty sacred.

We have repealed an amendment, however. The 21st overturned the 18th (Prohibition) so, theoretically, it may be possible to "amend" and amendment.

Politically, this would have very little traction. Philosophically and practically, we like our guns (I'm not a gun owner).

[Roamy]

So going back to the probable unconstitutionality of proposed changes - what do you think is the real possibility that the second amendment be actually amended to, for example, change "right" to "privilege"?

Is the second amendment really written in stone?

Don't worry Race - We keep letting the Islams in so i a bit they will throw out the entire constitution. ie see egypt

[Rollo]

Dunno. But, it's part of our Bill of Rights (which we modeled, sort of, after England's), so it's pretty sacred.

We have repealed an amendment, however. The 21st overturned the 18th (Prohibition) so, theoretically, it may be possible to "amend" and amendment.

Politically, this would have very little traction. Philosophically and practically, we like our guns (I'm not a gun owner).

I think that the words of Paul Ryan, VP hopeful are appropriate here:

"We face a very big choice. What kind of country are we going to be? What kind of country are we going to give our kids?"
- Congressman Paul Ryan, VP Debate, 12th October 2012.

Any constitutional change isn't going to change the country overnight. I do ask the question though, to what extent does the constitution shape the thinking of the nation. How different would have America had been if the wording of the Second Amendment been closer to that of the Bill of Rights Act 1689 and which is still in force in most Commonwealth Countries (re the Doctrines of Acceptance and relevant acceptance acts).

Bill of Rights [1688] (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/WillandMarSess2/1/2/introduction)
Subjects’ Arms.
That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law.
- Bill of Rights Act 1689.

How would America have turned out if the Amendment had read something like:
The people may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law.

The reason why I suggest this is largely because through various High Court interpretations, the rights of citizens in Commonwealth countries equate with that of "Protestants" (which one very important exception in the Succession to the Crown Act 1707). Countries like Australia and New Zealand and even Canada and the UK have far lower rates of firearm related homocide and crime, yet their citizens still retain the right to arms through the Bill of Rights Act 1689.

What kind of country are you going to be? What kind of country are you going to give your kids?

[Jag_Warrior]

So going back to the probable unconstitutionality of proposed changes - what do you think is the real possibility that the second amendment be actually amended to, for example, change "right" to "privilege"?

Is the second amendment really written in stone?

None of the amendments is written in stone. Any of the amendments can be amended. But doing that is even more difficult than just passing a law. If the Constitution (or Bill of Rights) had to be amended in order to make some future/proposed law constitutional, then I see that as a very time consuming and politically costly task. Would that, in itself, "fix" the problem? Would it help? How much would it help? Over what period of time? How would such a law be enforced, since now you'd be talking about prohibiting firearms ownership among the law abiding, as well as the convicted criminals (who couldn't own guns before)??? Open questions, as I do not know the answers there.

But IMO, it is not the wording of the Bill of Rights (or any other law) which is the root cause of the problem. There are already laws prohibiting convicted criminals from possessing firearms. They have neither the right nor the privilege to own firearms. But as is their nature, criminals tend not to follow the law. So rewording a law seems to have little effect on their behavior. And restricting the rights (or calling rights "privileges") of the generally law abiding might cause them to react very negatively.

I posed my question the way that I did because I believe it's very unlikely that the various people on this board will ever agree on the issue of private firearms ownership in the U.S. But I would think that we actually could agree on some measures or laws (or something) that might decrease the availability of guns or the incidence of gun violence by those who, as the data showed, commit a disproportionate number of gun crimes (and other crimes), considering their representation within the population.

[BDunnell]

I'll tell you what the bottom line is: that my country is a unique one with a complicated, multi-faceted problem, and for people on this forum to think other countries' laws and customs can magically solve them is beyond foolish.

In being 'unique', your country is — how do I put this? — hardly unique. And while I agree that there can be no 'one size fits all' solution, it is always unwise for any country to ignore lessons found elsewhere.

[BDunnell]

But IMO, it is not the wording of the Bill of Rights (or any other law) which is the root cause of the problem. There are already laws prohibiting convicted criminals from possessing firearms. They have neither the right nor the privilege to own firearms. But as is their nature, criminals tend not to follow the law. So rewording a law seems to have little effect on their behavior. And restricting the rights (or calling rights "privileges") of the generally law abiding might cause them to react very negatively.

Is that really the root cause, though? I would argue that it's not, and that the root cause is to be found rather deeper in society, more specifically in the culture of widespread gun ownership. It follows, surely, that as well as there being more legal owners of firearms there are also going to be more illegal owners?

[keysersoze]

Is that really the root cause, though? I would argue that it's not, and that the root cause is to be found rather deeper in society, more specifically in the culture of widespread gun ownership. It follows, surely, that as well as there being more legal owners of firearms there are also going to be more illegal owners?

Is there any other country that values gun ownership, and the right to protect one's self, like the U.S.A.?

And your second comment, though perhaps true, isn't true based on the logic you used. Maybe being the most populous western nation helps as well.

[keysersoze]

In being 'unique', your country is — how do I put this? — hardly unique. And while I agree that there can be no 'one size fits all' solution, it is always unwise for any country to ignore lessons found elsewhere.

I'm not saying that we are unique because we are unique. We are unique because we have a culture, and laws, and a psychology, and a society, an ecomony, and an ethic, and politics, that make us different from any other country. There is no one way to approach a hot-button topic. Doing so is such an incomplete way to deal with an issue.

I'll give you just four angles, because my wife is nagging me to go shopping.

Society: the U.S., unlike many other nations, is a confluence of so many cultures, particularly in and near large metros, that we are less trusting of each other within our own borders.

Psychologically: We are more narcissistic than other nations.

Ethics: gun ownership is deeply entrenched in our sense of justice.

Economy: we sell lots of guns. Taking that away, or limiting it, hurts small business owners and their families.

[D-Type]

Since this thread started, I have taken a good look at the Second Amendment and its background. Clearly it was originally intended to lay down the right of a state or even a city to have an armed militia, a [British] Territorial Army or [US] National Guard type of organisation, ie the right of the People (the citizens of the USA) to bear arms as members of the militia. It does not appear that the writers of the amendment intended that it should give individual citizens to carry pistols either openly or concealed. In their wisdom, the US courts have extended (or interpreted) the meaning of the amendment to also include individuals owning and wearing side arms, and owning a personal arsenal.

If the will is there, the courts could rule for some curbs and controls on gun ownership without contravening the original intent of the amendment.

The reality is that with the huge number of guns in circulation it is very difficult for any attempt at regulation to do more than scratch on the surface of the problem. I don't live in the USA and don't know what controls there are, whether they work or whether they are enforced, but I am sure that something can be done to reduce gun ownership and the risk to the populace as a whole - if there is the will to do so.

[Tazio]

Dunno. But, it's part of our Bill of Rights (which we modeled, sort of, after England's), so it's pretty sacred.

We have repealed an amendment, however. The 21st overturned the 18th (Prohibition) so, theoretically, it may be possible to "amend" and amendment.

Politically, this would have very little traction. Philosophically and practically, we like our guns (I'm not a gun owner).

I'm not a gun owner either but I would simply like to add one thing to this barbecue:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8i5PEhtWzY

[Rollo]

Since this thread started, I have taken a good look at the Second Amendment and its background. Clearly it was originally intended to lay down the right of a state or even a city to have an armed militia, a [British] Territorial Army or [US] National Guard type of organisation, ie the right of the People (the citizens of the USA) to bear arms as members of the militia. It does not appear that the writers of the amendment intended that it should give individual citizens to carry pistols either openly or concealed. In their wisdom, the US courts have extended (or interpreted) the meaning of the amendment to also include individuals owning and wearing side arms, and owning a personal arsenal.

As has been vociferously explains by Starter when I mentioned this, the Second Amendment basically is only the second half:
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". Not once in any discussion and especially anything by the NRA is the first half of the clause ever admitted. Also, the right to "self-defence" which is also put forward as the excuse is not only not mentioned in the constitution at all but the right itself or so-called "Castle Doctrine" which is supposed to come from English Common Law, never exists in any case law pre-1776 or after it in the UK at all. It is a pure invention of people who wish to intrepret the Second Amendment as an absolute.

As an aside, the Second Amendment refers to "the right of the people" as a collective whereas the Fifth Amendment specifically relates to a "person" in the singular. Again, I've never heard any sensible argument which adequately explains why the Second Amendment should have even ever been applied to an individual and certainly not in the absolute sense.


If the will is there, the courts could rule for some curbs and controls on gun ownership without contravening the original intent of the amendment.


I personally fail to see how any semi-automatic or automatic weapons in the hands of individuals either fulfils the requirement of being "well regulated" nor "being necessary to the security of a free State". If anything it is not well regulated and endangers the security of a free State and forms a less perfect Union.

[keysersoze]

I'm not a gun owner either but I would simply like to add one thing to this barbecue:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8i5PEhtWzY

You're a cool cat, Doc. Not only do you live in my favorite city (my brother lives north of you, in Vista) but you are a fan of the greatest college football program ever. I'm very much looking forward to kicking some Irish @$$ next week.

[Tazio]

You're a cool cat, Doc. Not only do you live in my favorite city (my brother lives north of you, in Vista) but you are a fan of the greatest college football program ever. I'm very much looking forward to kicking some Irish @$$ next week.Due to my Father being an alumni of The University of Miami, which had as you know a rivalry of biblical proportions in the 90's with Notre Dame, I developed a tremendous dislike for, as my father would put it "The Crying Irish” :D
Myself being a fan of “The Red Elephants” since the 60’s I remember that rivalry with Notre Dame all too well, and believe we owe them another thorough a$$whippin’ :s mash:
Yea' Vista That is still S.D. as far as we are concerned!!! :up:

[BDunnell]

Is there any other country that values gun ownership, and the right to protect one's self, like the U.S.A.?

I don't know, but I would certainly say that valuing the right to protect oneself can be taken to extremes. Firearms, to me, represent that extreme.

As for other countries, weaponry of all types seems quite highly valued by the populaces of Iraq and Afghanistan.

[BDunnell]

I'm not saying that we are unique because we are unique. We are unique because we have a culture, and laws, and a psychology, and a society, an ecomony, and an ethic, and politics, that make us different from any other country.

I hate to say so, but in none of this is the USA unique.

[keysersoze]

I hate to say so, but in none of this is the USA unique.

Then please name a country that is similar to the U.S. in all those areas.

[keysersoze]

I don't know, but I would certainly say that valuing the right to protect oneself can be taken to extremes. Firearms, to me, represent that extreme.

As for other countries, weaponry of all types seems quite highly valued by the populaces of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Tell that to the American Indians of the 1700s and, if you want a more recent example, the Jews of the 1930s, or perhaps a litany of nations in Africa during the last few decades.

And I'd say one of the reasons (I'm not an expert on either of those countries) Iraq and Afghanistan citizens value firearms is that their governments do such a poor job of protecting them. Protecting its citizens, from foreign and domestic attacks, is job #1 for any government.

I will agree, however, that the measures we will take to defend ourselves can be extreme. There is little need for AR-type weapons, or for someone to have as many firearms as some own (my brother has a half-dozen, only two whose purpose is hunting). I believe that I can protect my wife and myself in our home with one 9mm handgun, a spare magazines, and 100-ish rounds on hand at all times.

[anthonyvop]

So let me get this straight.


People with guns are telling me I can't have guns?

[D-Type]

Then please name a country that is similar to the U.S. in all those areas.

You could substitute any other country name for the US and this statement, or in your original one, and it would be equally valid. Every country is different.
But in no way is the US morally superior to other countries, nor is the US way necessarily the right way.

[keysersoze]

You could substitute any other country name for the US and this statement, or in your original one, and it would be equally valid. Every country is different.
But in no way is the US morally superior to other countries, nor is the US way necessarily the right way.

And so I thank you, D-type, for helping me to make my point. When posters offer blanket solutions (because, you know, it works in this corner of the world) for a complex problem, it needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

Who the feck said the US was morally superior? Who the feck said the US way is the right way? I know what I wrote and I didn't state or imply that the US was superior to any country in any aspect.

[D-Type]

You didn't - but some have implied that they feel that way.

[race aficionado]

Okay, I know . . . . another cut and paste but . . . .

If more guns == safer society, we (USA) should already be the safest country in the world.
( Number of guns per capita by country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country) )


* and this is 2007 - and gun sales have boomed a couple of times already since then.

[BDunnell]

So let me get this straight.


People with guns are telling me I can't have guns?

The fact that someone holds one view doesn't necessarily mean they automatically hold another one, you know.

[BDunnell]

And so I thank you, D-type, for helping me to make my point. When posters offer blanket solutions (because, you know, it works in this corner of the world) for a complex problem, it needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

Who the feck said the US was morally superior? Who the feck said the US way is the right way? I know what I wrote and I didn't state or imply that the US was superior to any country in any aspect.

You didn't, I know. But you did suggest that, in effect, the US was unique in being unique, which is patently an absurd notion.

[Jag_Warrior]

Is that really the root cause, though? I would argue that it's not, and that the root cause is to be found rather deeper in society, more specifically in the culture of widespread gun ownership. It follows, surely, that as well as there being more legal owners of firearms there are also going to be more illegal owners?

There's certainly a correlation, as without the firearm, there cannot be a firearm related crime. But a correlation does not prove causation. If that were the case, then communities with very high per capita firearms ownership should have higher than average firearms related crimes. But that is not the case. The area where I live has extremely high per capita firearms ownership, yet I don't believe there was a firearms related homicide in this area (so far) in 2012. I used to live near Washington, D.C. Handgun ownership (legal) was all but banned there when I lived in that area, yet Washington had one of the highest firearms related murder rates in North America back then. So that's why I would say that firearms ownership (in itself) is not a root cause. Firearms don't cause people to kill each other. They do assist in that endeavor though.

IMO, too often we continue to tip-toe around what the data shows us. That's why I posted that link. Finding better ways to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals (those who have already been convicted of violent crimes) is the low hanging fruit on this issue. And while I'm sure there is a wide variety of socio-economic reasons and explanations for how and why people commit crimes, the data points to criminals (and mental defectives) possessing firearms as the primary area that should be addressed. I would say that the root cause in their case is their complete and selfish disregard for the property and lives of others and their willingness to take or steal what they want. Why did you rob the bank? I wanted the money. Why did you rape the girl? I wanted her. Why did you jack the car? I wanted to see how it drove and then sell it. Why did you shoot and kill Jose and Pookie? I didn't like them. So on and so forth...

And while an examination and study of American culture would probably be interesting, I'm not sure that that would assist in getting firearms away from criminals. Maybe it would. And if so, I'd be all for that too. BTW, based on what I saw this weekend at a gunshow, I now feel that open gunshows may also be an area that needs to be re-examined - and that's not a position that most NRA members or gun owners would want to hear.

[Starter]

As has been vociferously explains by Starter when I mentioned this, the Second Amendment basically is only the second half:
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". Not once in any discussion and especially anything by the NRA is the first half of the clause ever admitted. Also, the right to "self-defence" which is also put forward as the excuse is not only not mentioned in the constitution at all but the right itself or so-called "Castle Doctrine" which is supposed to come from English Common Law, never exists in any case law pre-1776 or after it in the UK at all. It is a pure invention of people who wish to intrepret the Second Amendment as an absolute.

As an aside, the Second Amendment refers to "the right of the people" as a collective whereas the Fifth Amendment specifically relates to a "person" in the singular. Again, I've never heard any sensible argument which adequately explains why the Second Amendment should have even ever been applied to an individual and certainly not in the absolute sense.
The intent of the writers of our Constitution is further explained in the 'Federalist Papers', as has been noted before. Those documents go at length to talk about many of our basic freedoms and not just the second amendment. They are relied upon by the Supreme Court when interpretations of the Constitution are in question.

[Starter]

But in no way is the US morally superior to other countries, nor is the US way necessarily the right way.
I'm not going back to read 700+ posts, but I don't think anyone has postulated the first part of your statement and the second part applies to most countries including the US.

[keysersoze]

You didn't, I know. But you did suggest that, in effect, the US was unique in being unique, which is patently an absurd notion.

Correct, that would be an absurd notion. When did I suggest that?

[anthonyvop]

The fact that someone holds one view doesn't necessarily mean they automatically hold another one, you know.

Not necessarily but usually they do. You are a perfect example. Your anti-freedom, Fascists beliefs fall directly in line with your desire that the people be prevented from questioning your policies by disarming them.

[BDunnell]

Not necessarily but usually they do. You are a perfect example. Your anti-freedom, Fascists beliefs fall directly in line with your desire that the people be prevented from questioning your policies by disarming them.

More proof, as if it were needed, that your mental equilibrium, sense of judgment and level of intelligence are not those of a person fit to have in their possession a dangerous weapon of any sort.

I do hope you realise that I find you hilarious, by the way.

[BDunnell]

Correct, that would be an absurd notion. When did I suggest that?

Statements such as 'I'll tell you what the bottom line is: that my country is a unique one' would seem to suggest that you feel this applies solely to the USA. Certainly, it's very much implied in your tone.

[anthonyvop]

More proof, as if it were needed, that your mental equilibrium, sense of judgment and level of intelligence are not those of a person fit to have in their possession a dangerous weapon of any sort.

I do hope you realise that I find you hilarious, by the way.


The truth hurts you so much that you have to resort to infantile personal insults?

You are for a Centrally, government controlled economy, You are for the Government control and support of Industry, You are for the state over the rights of individual.(don't even try to deny that one. You call for Gun control is Clear evidence). You oppose freedom of speech and expression and gladly support any government action to squash any "speech" you find unacceptable.


Soooooooooooooo please explain to us how you beliefs aren't fascist!

[BDunnell]

The truth hurts you so much that you have to resort to infantile personal insults?

In no sense have I said anything about you that isn't true. Would that the same could be said of your good self, sir.

[anthonyvop]

In no sense have I said anything about you that isn't true. Would that the same could be said of your good self, sir.

What I have said about you is Factual. What you have stated about me is based on your fascist opinion.


BIG DIFFERENCE.

[keysersoze]

Statements such as 'I'll tell you what the bottom line is: that my country is a unique one' would seem to suggest that you feel this applies solely to the USA. Certainly, it's very much implied in your tone.

Sure, pull the quote out of its context. Nice try.

"The bottom line" (presumably where you read my tone) was mocking ioan, who used the exact phrase in the post I replied to.

[Rollo]

The intent of the writers of our Constitution is further explained in the 'Federalist Papers', as has been noted before. Those documents go at length to talk about many of our basic freedoms and not just the second amendment. They are relied upon by the Supreme Court when interpretations of the Constitution are in question.

The Federalist Papers though are not law, do not hold the weight of law and as legal opinion hold zero weight. Second to that, the right to self-defence as applied to defending one's self against other citizens is never discussed not even once in all 85 of them. Thirdly, even Hamilton warned about including the Bill of Rights in No.84 on the grounds that they would lead to a dangerous outcome which is precisely what you have now.

The Avalon Project : Federalist No 84 (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed84.asp)
I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted.
- The Federalist Papers : No. 84, -Andrew Hamilton

Is discussion relating to events 236 years ago, useful of helpful in relation to a set of conditions never envisaged? If law is to remain static, then are you still in favour of a man with a red flag walking in front of motor cars? How far down the rabbit hole do you want to go?

[Jag_Warrior]

Meh... :dozey:

My name will not appear on this "award"... see ya! :wave:


http://img272.imagevenue.com/loc415/th_732565738_beat_a_dead_horse_122_415lo.jpg (http://img272.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=732565738_beat_a_dead_horse_122_415l o.jpg)

[BDunnell]

What I have said about you is Factual. What you have stated about me is based on your fascist opinion.


BIG DIFFERENCE.

Great stuff, Tony! Keep it up!

[BDunnell]

There's certainly a correlation, as without the firearm, there cannot be a firearm related crime. But a correlation does not prove causation. If that were the case, then communities with very high per capita firearms ownership should have higher than average firearms related crimes. But that is not the case. The area where I live has extremely high per capita firearms ownership, yet I don't believe there was a firearms related homicide in this area (so far) in 2012. I used to live near Washington, D.C. Handgun ownership (legal) was all but banned there when I lived in that area, yet Washington had one of the highest firearms related murder rates in North America back then. So that's why I would say that firearms ownership (in itself) is not a root cause. Firearms don't cause people to kill each other. They do assist in that endeavor though.

IMO, too often we continue to tip-toe around what the data shows us. That's why I posted that link. Finding better ways to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals (those who have already been convicted of violent crimes) is the low hanging fruit on this issue. And while I'm sure there is a wide variety of socio-economic reasons and explanations for how and why people commit crimes, the data points to criminals (and mental defectives) possessing firearms as the primary area that should be addressed. I would say that the root cause in their case is their complete and selfish disregard for the property and lives of others and their willingness to take or steal what they want. Why did you rob the bank? I wanted the money. Why did you rape the girl? I wanted her. Why did you jack the car? I wanted to see how it drove and then sell it. Why did you shoot and kill Jose and Pookie? I didn't like them. So on and so forth...

And while an examination and study of American culture would probably be interesting, I'm not sure that that would assist in getting firearms away from criminals. Maybe it would. And if so, I'd be all for that too. BTW, based on what I saw this weekend at a gunshow, I now feel that open gunshows may also be an area that needs to be re-examined - and that's not a position that most NRA members or gun owners would want to hear.

I am far from in agreement with much of what you say, but at least you put it in an educated, sensible manner.

[Starter]

Sure, pull the quote out of its context. Nice try.
His stock in trade, thought you knew that?

[Jag_Warrior]

I am far from in agreement with much of what you say, but at least you put it in an educated, sensible manner.

Thank you. And (unlike some here), I'm not insulted or threatened when someone doesn't agree with me. In fact, when done in a constructive manner, that's precisely how solutions to a complex issue can be found.

I'd say that most of the European members and quite a few from the U.S. may not share my views on this topic. And I have some views that some of the gun owners on here probably wouldn't care for either. But if we want to discuss realistic, practical solutions, that can actually come to fruition, then trading ideas and relying on data (and not emotion!) is how we could accomplish that.

It's the holidays and I've already had enough emotional discussions (in real life) to last the rest of the new year... so if the thread can't progress, then (to me) it's a pointless exercise. Maybe a few of us can take it up a notch though and we can have a good discussion.

[BDunnell]

His stock in trade, thought you knew that?

To be fair, I am very clearly not the only one to have reached the same conclusion here.

[anthonyvop]

As of Dec. 7, Stars and Stripes reports that 212 soldiers have died in combat-related deaths in Afghanistan. The ENTIRE country of Afghanistan is MUCH safer than the CITY of Chicago with its draconian, anti-gun laws.

Chicago police confirm 'tragic number' of 500 homicides - chicagotribune.com (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-chicago-2012-homicide-toll-20121228,0,5456581.story)

[BDunnell]

as of dec. 7, stars and stripes reports that 212 soldiers have died in combat-related deaths in afghanistan. The entire country of afghanistan is much safer than the city of chicago with its draconian, anti-gun laws.

Nurse!

[anthonyvop]

Any Liberal, Euro-Weenie types who read this will no doubt scream “Eeeeek! Facts!” and run. So tell us again why we need more gun control regulations? Oh right, it’s touchy-feely time and we feel we need to outlaw all those nasty guns regardless of reality.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/assets/Murders%201.bmp


http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/assets/Murder%202.bmp


Articles: Murder by Numbers (http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/12/listening_to_the_latest_media.html)

[BDunnell]

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/assets/Murder%202.bmp

What a fantastic selection of countries to come in behind.

[ioan]

Your first comment is spectacularly naive. If civilians are not allowed to own a handgun for protection in this fairy tale land of your imagination, how do you propose to ensure the bad guys don't get them? Oh yes, I get it--everyone will start to behave and the bad guys will just stop being bad. :rolleyes:

It worked in other countries, so no fairy tale there, the one living in LaLa land is you.

[ioan]

Is there any other country that values gun ownership, and the right to protect one's self, like the U.S.A.?

Nope, you're unique with these levels of paranoia.

[ioan]

This reads rather like "Who will bell the cat?" It's all very well to say that the US Authorities should pass legislation to ban gun ownership, but how can they imlement it and tackle the issue of the very large number of guns in circulation, both legally held and not legally held?

If they do not even try then can not know if it works or not.
Or are we going by the saying: The only way not to fail is by not giving it a try.

[donKey jote]

Articles: Murder by Numbers (http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/12/listening_to_the_latest_media.html)
Here is the list of European countries whose most recent murder rates exceeded the U.S.'s.
• Greenland (19.2)
• Russia (10.2)
• Moldova (7.5)
• Lithuania (6.6)
• Ukraine (5.2)
• Estonia (5.2)
• Belarus (4.9)


Read more: Articles: Murder by Numbers (http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/12/listening_to_the_latest_media.html#ixzz2GOYWf5VS)
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rw?id=dlia0Qbjyr4BNDacwqm_6l&u=AmericanThinker) | AmericanThinker on Facebook (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rf?id=dlia0Qbjyr4BNDacwqm_6l&u=AmericanThinker)



"Take out the black underclass from the statistics, and even American murder rates fall to European levels."

Read more: Articles: Murder by Numbers (http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/12/listening_to_the_latest_media.html#ixzz2GOY1sb00)
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rw?id=dlia0Qbjyr4BNDacwqm_6l&u=AmericanThinker) | AmericanThinker on Facebook (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rf?id=dlia0Qbjyr4BNDacwqm_6l&u=AmericanThinker)




nice "facts" you read vop :dozey:

[Starter]

Thank you. And (unlike some here), I'm not insulted or threatened when someone doesn't agree with me. In fact, when done in a constructive manner, that's precisely how solutions to a complex issue can be found.

I'd say that most of the European members and quite a few from the U.S. may not share my views on this topic. And I have some views that some of the gun owners on here probably wouldn't care for either. But if we want to discuss realistic, practical solutions, that can actually come to fruition, then trading ideas and relying on data (and not emotion!) is how we could accomplish that.

It's the holidays and I've already had enough emotional discussions (in real life) to last the rest of the new year... so if the thread can't progress, then (to me) it's a pointless exercise. Maybe a few of us can take it up a notch though and we can have a good discussion.
Contrary to the opinions of some, I'll be the first to agree that we (the US) have a problem with mass murder. Where we differ is the cause. I do not believe that ownership of firearms is a prime cause, else there would be many, many more of them (mass murders). Further, any attempt to restrict ordinary citizens from ownership is doomed to failure for several reasons mentioned in this thread already. I do believe that our attitudes toward mental health and complete failure to take action to remedy the situation are much more of an issue. Perhaps we can look at some suggestions in that line?

[ioan]

I hate to say so, but in none of this is the USA unique.

But the mix is a special one, mostly because of the gun related culture that no other civilized country developed to such perfection.

[ioan]

The truth hurts you so much that you have to resort to infantile personal insults?

You are for a Centrally, government controlled economy, You are for the Government control and support of Industry, You are for the state over the rights of individual.(don't even try to deny that one. You call for Gun control is Clear evidence). You oppose freedom of speech and expression and gladly support any government action to squash any "speech" you find unacceptable.


Soooooooooooooo please explain to us how you beliefs aren't fascist!

You obviously do not know what fascist means.

[BDunnell]

Contrary to the opinions of some, I'll be the first to agree that we (the US) have a problem with mass murder. Where we differ is the cause. I do not believe that ownership of firearms is a prime cause, else there would be many, many more of them (mass murders). Further, any attempt to restrict ordinary citizens from ownership is doomed to failure for several reasons mentioned in this thread already. I do believe that our attitudes toward mental health and complete failure to take action to remedy the situation are much more of an issue. Perhaps we can look at some suggestions in that line?

I believe this to be skirting around the edges of the problem.

As regards mental illness, in making comments about the state of mind of a couple of people in this thread I have done so not out of a desire to seem cheap or insulting, but because to me it genuinely proves a point about some of the most vehement gun enthusiasts.

[ioan]

Sure, pull the quote out of its context. Nice try.

"The bottom line" (presumably where you read my tone) was mocking ioan, who used the exact phrase in the post I replied to.

And you think that was great and unique, huh?!
Not sure why it starts to look that all the pro gun ownership people posting around here a re a bit infantile?

[BDunnell]

You obviously do not know what fascist means.

Quite. I have been called both a Communist and a fascist by anthonyvop, which suggests a degree of confusion.

[BDunnell]

And you think that was great and unique, huh?!
Not sure why it starts to look that all the pro gun ownership people posting around here a re a bit infantile?

Not all, as I said above. Let's be fair — some are much more palatable and educated than others.

[ioan]

Any Liberal, Euro-Weenie types who read this will no doubt scream “Eeeeek! Facts!” and run. So tell us again why we need more gun control regulations? Oh right, it’s touchy-feely time and we feel we need to outlaw all those nasty guns regardless of reality.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/assets/Murder%202.bmp



Hey, look, the US is doing better then a bunch of 3rd world countries like for example Zimbabwe and Sudan! :s
And worse then Turkmenistan, Sri Lanka, Fiji! Good reason to use it as a pro-gun argument.

[ioan]

I believe this to be skirting around the edges of the problem.

As regards mental illness, in making comments about the state of mind of a couple of people in this thread I have done so not out of a desire to seem cheap or insulting, but because to me it genuinely proves a point about some of the most vehement gun enthusiasts.

The best part is that the pro-gun people are also the people who mostly oppose Obama's push for a free access to medical services in the USA.
Whichever way you try they will be against it.

[ioan]

Not all, as I said above. Let's be fair — some are much more palatable and educated than others.

My bad, some are better than avop.

[anthonyvop]

The best part is that the pro-gun people are also the people who mostly oppose Obama's push for a free access to medical services in the USA.
Whichever way you try they will be against it.

Let me explain it to you.

Being able to protect yourself is a right.

Free stuff isn't.

Simple huh?

[BDunnell]

Let me explain it to you.

Being able to protect yourself is a right.

Free stuff isn't.

Simple huh?

Your explanation is certainly simplistic. Not quite the same thing, I know. Your definition of what constitutes a right is not, I have to tell you, gospel.

[Rollo]

Let me explain it to you.

Being able to protect yourself is a right.

In the US, it is not.

Link please :D

[Starter]

I believe this to be skirting around the edges of the problem.

As regards mental illness, in making comments about the state of mind of a couple of people in this thread I have done so not out of a desire to seem cheap or insulting, but because to me it genuinely proves a point about some of the most vehement gun enthusiasts.
There is nothing wrong with being a gun enthusiast, vehement or otherwise. It's what you DO with the gun that counts. Using it to hunt, target shoot, for personal protection, or having one just because the law says you can harms no one. It's those who use a gun to steal, maim or kill without any provocation that is the issue. The gun is only the instrument of choice which the criminal uses in their crime. I do not believe that taking guns from millions of law abiding owners, who have committed no crime, in order to address a couple of dozen mentally deranged individuals is a reasonable solution. So I say again, what about addressing what causes those very few people to commit such crimes?