# Another school shooting today



## Tia (Dec 14, 2012)

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...necticut-elementary-school-official-says?lite

Twenty-six people were killed, including 18 children,


----------



## Passepartout (Dec 14, 2012)

Heartbreaking. When will something be done????? How many more must die????? Call it a contentious issue. Call it what you must. It HAS to end!


----------



## Zac495 (Dec 14, 2012)

I hate guns - I realize it's the person pulling the trigger, but without the gun, there wouldn't be 26 dead this "easily." GUN CONTROL will help.


----------



## SueDonJ (Dec 14, 2012)

This is heartbreaking, makes no sense at all in our society.  God's blessings on everyone in that community.  I can't imagine their grief.


----------



## Texasbelle (Dec 14, 2012)

*Too late smart*

There may be a legitimate use for guns, but automatic, repeating guns have no good purpose.  Criminals have them now, but why keep selling them?


----------



## TUGBrian (Dec 14, 2012)

Zac495 said:


> I hate guns - I realize it's the person pulling the trigger, but without the gun, there wouldn't be 26 dead this "easily." GUN CONTROL will help.



How so, schools are already gun free zones, meaning its illegal to carry guns there.  Its also illegal to shoot innocent people and children.


----------



## Sandi Bo (Dec 14, 2012)

How incredibly sad.  Prayers and sympathy to the families and community don't begin to express my feelings.

Since being illegal isn't a deterrent, we need to make it harder for guns to get into the wrong hands. What does the shooter care if fines are doubled - he's dead?

I understand the argument, that people kill people, but how else are we going to stop this? I cannot understand anyone needing an automatic gun or rifle.


----------



## gjhardt (Dec 14, 2012)

*Perhaps more a mental health issue than gun control*

My first instincts went to our broken mental health system not guns.


----------



## Passepartout (Dec 14, 2012)

TUGBrian said:


> How so, schools are already gun free zones, meaning its illegal to carry guns there.  Its also illegal to shoot innocent people and children.



True, Brian, but so far this has proven to be unenforceable. So how do you ensure that existing laws in a country awash with handguns and semi-autos be enforced? I doubt people and parents will tolerate swat teams walking the corridors of grade schools. And please, the answer is not to arm more people.

Carrying guns to schools, theaters, and places where innocents gather has become the M.O. for the unbalanced to go to commit suicide and get their moment of misguided fame.

Jim


----------



## Phydeaux (Dec 14, 2012)

My first thought went to our corrupt and failed judicial system, not guns. When will people stop blaming the tool, and start placing blame on an obviously flawed judicial system? And forks are responsible for obesity too, right?


----------



## hypnotiq (Dec 14, 2012)

If only the government had made narcotics illegal before they started the war on drugs, we would have no drug problems.

Why haven't we banned airplanes yet, I mean they are responsible for how many thousands of deaths on 9/11??

I can go on and on.

Fine, take away everyone's guns. 

What are you going to do when the *crazy* person drives a car through a crowded playground? I mean cars are pretty easy to come by.

What are you going to do when the *crazy* person puts a bomb in the middle of a crowded area? Any idiot with google can get the steps to build one in less than 90 seconds.

The problem is not the tool and to focus on the tool will only produce a pyrrhic victory.


----------



## easyrider (Dec 14, 2012)

Its not the guns, its not the justice system but a total lack of values and common sense. In the past at public schools and still at most private schools people are taught values and discipline from day one. Most of what a child learned was from adults, not video games, smart phones, internet and technology.

Many of the best selling video games are very violent. Many of the shows kids watch are violent or sexual. There is no discipline or enforcable structure at many public schools. How can a teacher compete with a smart phone or video game ? 

Anyway, I really feel bad for the folks involved in these type of situations and have prayed that things get better for them.

Bill


----------



## Sandy VDH (Dec 14, 2012)

And now they are reporting both his father in NJ and his mother in CT are also both shot dead. 

He apparently has a brother who they are picked up for questioning as well.

Randon craziness is so hard to protect against.


----------



## ricoba (Dec 14, 2012)

I personally agree with President Obama's press secretary Jay Carney, today when he was asked by reporters about the event,

_*"Today's not ... a day to engage in the usual Washington policy debates, that day will come, but today's not that day."*_

To me, today should be a day of grief and reflection.


----------



## SueDonJ (Dec 14, 2012)

The way I see it we'll never be able to completely eradicate gun violence in this country.  And it's true, there does appear to be enough restrictions already legislated that should prevent mass shootings.

Every gun begins as a legal gun, at the point of manufacture.  But obviously there is a disconnect somewhere in the chain that is making it far too easy for guns to end up in the wrong hands and/or be tricked out to the nines where they can no longer be considered legal.  That disconnect is what we need to focus on and try to eradicate.

But as long as the NRA is as powerful a lobby as we've allowed it to become, we're never going to be able to legislate gun restrictions that are enforceable within the current police/legal/mental health systems as they exist.  As long as the gun lobby continues to espouse the mantra that every attempt at gun control is nothing more than a forced first step in a slippery slope toward gun eradication, we're never going to be able to reach a reasonable discourse, nevermind a workable solution.

We should not be so willing to sacrifice our children and other citizens in the name of protecting Second Amendment rights.  We just shouldn't.  It's not humane.


----------



## SueDonJ (Dec 14, 2012)

ricoba said:


> I personally agree with President Obama's press secretary Jay Carney, today when he was asked by reporters about the event,
> 
> _*"Today's not ... a day to engage in the usual Washington policy debates, that day will come, but today's not that day."*_
> 
> To me, today should be a day of grief and reflection.



I used to think that way, that it was more respectful to the victims and their families to save the gun control discussion for another day.  But when is that day?  It never seems to come while the mass shootings are happening more and more frequently.  So now I think that the rest of us, those of us who are not victims today, are doing a disservice to the victims and their families by  not focusing on the much-needed discussion while our shock and horror and grief is immediate.


----------



## ace2000 (Dec 14, 2012)

No matter how far you go with the gun laws, it still will not prevent these types of episodes from occurring in the future.  

P.S.  I hope I'm wrong about that, but I just don't see a solution.  The gun lobby is too strong and too well funded.  We're a society that is just waiting for the next incident to occur, and then we all get upset all over again the next time.


----------



## Passepartout (Dec 14, 2012)

For those who seem unwilling to even discuss some kind- any kind- of restriction on anything that goes BANG, maybe we can discuss outlawing *crazy*?

Oh, and outlawing forks might go some distance to curbing obesity. You don't see a lot of overweight folks in societies where chopsticks- or fingers- are the dominant table utensil.


----------



## Ken555 (Dec 14, 2012)

My sympathy is with those affected by this horrible act.

However, I disagree with many of you. But, this isn't the appropriate forum, nor the time, to discuss the merits of gun control. It's a socially contentious issue, and this thread should be immediately closed.


----------



## am1 (Dec 14, 2012)

ricoba said:


> I personally agree with President Obama's press secretary Jay Carney, today when he was asked by reporters about the event,
> 
> _*"Today's not ... a day to engage in the usual Washington policy debates, that day will come, but today's not that day."*_
> 
> To me, today should be a day of grief and reflection.



Sadly sounds like politics.


----------



## riverdees05 (Dec 14, 2012)

Terrible - terrible - terrible !!!


----------



## ouaifer (Dec 14, 2012)

_This is a picture of our flagpole that stands in the very center of Newtown, CT. It is a massive "structure" where all the roads meet...one cannot pass through the town without going around this flag in the very middle of the road. It will soon be at half staff...RIP... G-d bless all involved....RIP.

If you turn toward the right around this flag...you will come to the school. _


----------



## ace2000 (Dec 14, 2012)

And in today's news in China...

Knife-wielding man injures 22 children in China

http://www.courant.com/sns-rt-us-china-stabbingsbre8bd065-20121213,0,5592318.story

P.S.  IMO, we need to really analyze what's happening in our society, as opposed to gun laws.


----------



## Pens_Fan (Dec 14, 2012)

Norway has extremely strict gun laws, but that didn't keep that freak from going nuts there.

If a person wants a gun, they'll get a gun.

If a nut wants to go kill people, they will find a way.


----------



## pjrose (Dec 14, 2012)

Mental Health screening in high school, maybe middle school as well.  Help for those for whom the screening suggests.  
No (legal) gun purchases for those with specific mental health concerns.
Locks on gun cabinets, trigger locks that only the owner can bypass. 
Metal detectors in all public places.
Social Change to deal with the violence in our culture, though that's the hardest of all. 

The discussion has to happen, and has to happen soon.  Mental health professionals, Gun (or any weapon) rights advocates and safety advocates, law enforcement, media (violent programs and games?), clergy,...let the hunters hunt, let the target shooters shoot targets, let the self defenders defend themselves, let the collectors collect, let the 2nd Amendment stand...but somehow the less legitimate uses need to be dealt with. 

No system is perfect, someone who is determined will find a way, yes, it could be a car running through the playground or doing something to the ketchup, but that's no reason to not start a serious discussion about how to reduce the violence.


----------



## pranas (Dec 14, 2012)

The school just got a new security system.  The shooter was buzzed in and allowed to enter because he had connections to the school  He arrived in  combar geat with guns but it seems the camera only takes head shots.Terrible tragedy!


----------



## Liz Wolf-Spada (Dec 14, 2012)

My prayers go out for the families. How incredibly heart breaking. It truly is every parent's worse nightmare. Pray for comfort and help for these heartbroken, grieving families.
Liz


----------



## Beaglemom3 (Dec 14, 2012)

Warning: Slightly graphic here:

For many years I worked at Boston City Hospital during the "Tong Wars", the cocaine wars in Boston during the early 80s. I worked in the SICU (surgical intensive care unit) and had more GSW (gunshot wound) victims/patients than I care to remember. I had so many that I could tell you the caliber of the bullet just by doing the dressing/packing change; .22, .38 and the dreaded .45 and these were just the entrance wounds. Won't describe the exit wounds. Sometimes there were no exit wounds. Many were head wounds and the only dressings done were just the reinforcement of the primary surgical dressing due to the never-ending grey matter seepage. Then the posturing and seizing all night. After a few days, when the heart is beating very slowly (not really perfusing) and only because of primal brainstem function, the odor... it is unforgettable. This is the reality of the end care of shooting victims, those who get through surgery. Saying all this not for shock value, but for a reality check of sorts, truly. This is what the public doesn't get to see. Some survive, but I can't really call that living.

Having been in a somewhat sanitized up close & personal situation to GSWs, I can say that I have done much soul-searching and know that something has to be done and a good start would be with banning automatic weapons.

There, I've said it.


----------



## pjrose (Dec 14, 2012)

pranas said:


> The school just got a new security system.  The shooter was buzzed in and allowed to enter because he had connections to the school  He arrived in  combar geat with guns but it seems the camera only takes head shots.Terrible tragedy!



Wow.

And thank you BeagleMom. I agree. And perhaps if seeing or experiencing what you did were somehow part of mandatory safety education it would help too.


----------



## pedro47 (Dec 14, 2012)

This is a very sad day in the history of the American public school system.

Twenty (20) young children lives were taken away for no reason.


----------



## TUGBrian (Dec 14, 2012)

none of the weapons used today were "automatic"


----------



## ace2000 (Dec 14, 2012)

TUGBrian said:


> none of the weapons used today were "automatic"


 
And the elementary school incident in China today was a man using a knife.  Again, we've got a problem in society.  Why didn't these things happen 50 years ago?


----------



## Beaglemom3 (Dec 14, 2012)

* I know. A good place to start.*

                A semi-automatic .223 assault rifle and 2 hand guns today. 







=


----------



## BevL (Dec 14, 2012)

Just got home and logged onto my computer and of course it's all over every news website.

I literally feel sick to my stomach.  My grandson is seven and I have another that will start preschool next year - should I be kissing them goodbye like it's the last time when I take them to school?

It's just beyond words.


----------



## Beaglemom3 (Dec 14, 2012)

I used to have mixed feelings about home schooling. That has changed now.









/


----------



## TUGBrian (Dec 14, 2012)

the rifle was found in his car and was also not "automatic"...he used two pistols.

Semi automatic is another word for "not automatic".  the manual transmission in your car can be considered "semi automatic" for that matter.


----------



## TUGBrian (Dec 14, 2012)

id also like to point out that fully automatic weapons while not "illegal" are some of the most difficult and expensive firearms to obtain as it is due to the requirements one must complete to legally own one.


----------



## PStreet1 (Dec 14, 2012)

ace2000 said:


> And in today's news in China...
> 
> Knife-wielding man injures 22 children in China
> 
> ...



YOU ARE SO RIGHT!  As long as we have a society that glorifies violence every day and sells video games that focus on killing, we can hardly be surprised when susceptible members of society respond with the kind of thing they see on video games/t.v./movies.  I just saw The Hobbit--even there, lots and lots of killing; in this case, of course, only killing the evil ones, but nonetheless, killing masses.


----------



## easyrider (Dec 14, 2012)

I have a bunch of friends that are involved with showing up to accidents such as emt's, firemen and law enforcement. One of the things that really messes up a persons thoughts is having to witness or clean up a human body that suffered bad injuries. Even worse if you know the person or family. Worse still when they are kids and there are so many. 

While Im not in favor of more gun control I do think that mandatory gun training and a permit should be required to use any gun. It is all ready mandatory in most states to have gun training to have a concealed weapon permit.

Bill


----------



## bogey21 (Dec 14, 2012)

easyrider said:


> Many of the best selling video games are very violent.



There may be many ways to look at this, and no doubt there are issues with rapid fire guns, but have you ever watched kids, adults, whomever playing some of these games on big screen TVs?

George


----------



## heathpack (Dec 14, 2012)

In 2006, Japan had 2 gun-related deaths.  

In the same year, the US had 12,000.

In Japan, in order to own a gun, one must:
1.  Take a gun safety course
2.  Pass a written gun safety exam
3.  Undergo mental health screening
4.  Get cleared by a background check
5.  Demonstrate the ability to safely handle & fire the gun at a shooting range
6.  Agree to keep gun & ammunition in seperate locations in your home, both under lock & key
7.  Register the locations of both (ie where you keep them in the house) with local police
8.  Repeat steps 1&2 every 3 years


H


----------



## heathpack (Dec 14, 2012)

TUGBrian said:


> the rifle was found in his car and was also not "automatic"...he used two pistols.
> 
> Semi automatic is another word for "not automatic".  the manual transmission in your car can be considered "semi automatic" for that matter.



Mr H explained it thus:

Non- automatic is a single shot gun that has to be reloaded to fire a second time.  Think revolutionary war musket.

Semi- automatic is what essentially all "normal" hand guns are now.  They use compressed gas to expel spent cartridges while simultaneously reloading gun automatically.  They require one trigger push per bullet expended but can be fired very rapidly because the compressed gas moves the bullets so quickly.  A old timey gunslinger revolver is also semi-automatic, but because the bullets sat in the barrel and the trigger moved the barrel mechanically, they can not be fired as quickly and they require more force on the trigger (increasing movement of the gun and decreasing accuracy).  Hence, modern semi-automatic weapons make it easier to kill more people with less skill in a shorter amount of time.

Automatic guns are illegal for regular people.  They require only 1 trigger push to expell bullets continuously.  They are the most deadly.

Mr. H owns multiple guns, is an ex-military guy, sharpshooter medalist, and likes to shoot recreationally.  But even he is in favor of making gun ownership a more stringent process and generally decreasing the number of guns floating around.  He points out, however, that there are millions of guns in the US right now and they don't exactly deteriorate quickly.  Short of getting people to turn in their firearms, there will be millions of guns out there in this country for many, many decades.

H


----------



## PStreet1 (Dec 14, 2012)

bogey21 said:


> There may be many ways to look at this, and no doubt there are issues with rapid fire guns, but have you ever watched kids, adults, whomever playing some of these games on big screen TVs?
> 
> George



Yes.  That's part of why I believe our culture encourages "the susceptible" to react in this way.  A reaction like this used to be unthinkable; now, for some disturbed people, it is thinkable.


----------



## Beaglemom3 (Dec 14, 2012)

heathpack said:


> Mr H explained it thus:
> 
> Non- automatic is a single shot gun that has to be reloaded to fire a second time.  Think revolutionary war musket.
> 
> ...



  HP,
  Thank you for your post. Nicely explained. I am not challenging here, but thought that automatic weapons were not illegal to own, just_ very tightly _regulated (Hughes Amendment 1986). I have not kept up with gun laws since 2004, so any information is helpful.  Thanks, B.


----------



## Beaglemom3 (Dec 14, 2012)

Navigating away from gun talk here, a favorite quote of mine:

_"When I was a boy and I would see scary things in the news, my mother would say to me, 'Look for the helpers. You will always find people who are helping.' To this day, especially in times of 'disaster,' I remember my mother’s words, and I am always comforted by realizing that there are still so many helpers - so many caring people in this world."

                                                                                                                      -- Mister Rogers_


----------



## Ken555 (Dec 14, 2012)

heathpack said:


> In 2006, Japan had 2 gun-related deaths.
> 
> In the same year, the US had 12,000.
> 
> ...



Great post. 

Since its apparent that the TUG policy on discussing contentious social issues is being waived for this thread, I'll chime in further now.

Gun control works elsewhere. Thinking it won't work here without exhaustive discussion regarding objective facts is not being fair to those who were victims of gun violence. It is difficult for me to believe that making it harder to obtain a gun naturally wouldn't lower crime. Similarly, saying that someone who wants to commit a crime will find a way to get a gun doesn't obviate society's responsibility to making it as difficult as possible for that criminal to obtain a gun - after all, why make it easy? 

We're not all going to agree on this issue. But, I really dislike hearing the benefits of gun possession or even that controlling gun sales in America is a futile exercise on days like today.


----------



## Clemson Fan (Dec 14, 2012)

One of the great things about living in Hawaii is the very strict gun laws we have and the safety they provide.  It’s very difficult to get a gun license in Hawaii and very few people in Hawaii own guns.  Due to this, our violent homicide rate per capita due to guns is 48th in the country.  I hate to say it, but most of our gun related homicides are usually within the military families that have more access to guns and they are usually domestic in nature.  You can still own a rifle to go hunting for your wild boar and to protect your constitutional rights, but those insane assault guns  are thankfully nearly impossible to get.

I don’t want to hear all the things that the NRA crowd likes to spew out!  There’s NO  need to have these assault weapons available to any deranged person to get their hands on!  There were over 100 rounds fired today in probably just a few minutes!  Enough is enough!!!  Ban it now!!!


----------



## TUGBrian (Dec 14, 2012)

Beaglemom3 said:


> HP,
> Thank you for your post. Nicely explained. I am not challenging here, but thought that automatic weapons were not illegal to own, just_ very tightly _regulated (Hughes Amendment 1986). I have not kept up with gun laws since 2004, so any information is helpful.  Thanks, B.



the hoops you have to jump through to obtain a legal fully automatic weapon in the USA are pretty ridiculous....to the point where its pretty absurd for a criminal to even try...much less a legitimate gun enthusiast.

and thats even before the actual out of pocket expense comes into play to pay for said weapon (note even the most expensive semi automatics arent nearly expensive as the least legal to own fully automatic)


----------



## TUGBrian (Dec 14, 2012)

Ken555 said:


> Great post.
> 
> Since its apparent that the TUG policy on discussing contentious social issues is being waived for this thread, I'll chime in further now.
> 
> ...



there are plenty of states, and cities in america that have a strict ban on guns...many of these are prime examples of how banning guns do nothing to curb gun related crime.

as stated before, there are already bans on murdering people, yet people get murdered every day.  another law isnt going to stop that.


----------



## TUGBrian (Dec 14, 2012)

and to answer the questions, I have no problem with civil discussion...and ive yet to see anyone fly off the handle and or make absurd insults on either side.

as long as that stays true, ill happily discuss this matter...as its one I have strong feelings on.

I am not a fan of gun control, not because I dont believe the people that are fans of it dont want the same thing I do (less crime)...but because ive yet to hear a valid argument backed up with legitimate facts that supports more laws having any impact on crime in this country.

(and fair warning on those who want to derail the thread to get it closed...ill simply ban you and delete your post vs closing the thread)


----------



## Beaglemom3 (Dec 14, 2012)

I am not saying that this is etched in stone, but this article seems to support a correlation of gun laws to gun deaths. I am sure that someone may find opposing data to refute this, but I found this interesting. 
 From:  http://blogs.roanoke.com/dancasey/2011/01/gun-deaths-by-state-gun-laws-by-state/  Cannot vouch for the source. Also, as one who has done research and constructs arguments for a living, I cannot tell if this is inclusive of accidental (hunting, misfiring, cleaning, etc) events. 

"And, as the article notes, you’re 5 times as likely to die from a gun in Arizona (which the article calls the most permissive gun state in the nation) as in Hawaii (the least permissive state for guns).

Go to the jump for the rankings.

Top 5

#1, Mississippi
 Gun deaths per 100,000: 18.3
 Permissive gun laws: 4th out of 50

#2, Arizona
 Gun deaths per 100,000: 15
 Permissive gun laws: 1st out of 50

#3, Alaska
 Gun deaths per 100,000: 17.6
 Permissive gun laws: 11th out of 50

#4, Arkansas
 Gun deaths per 100,000: 15.1
 Permissive gun laws: 7th out of 50

#5, Louisiana
 Gun deaths per 100,000: 19.9
 Permissive gun laws: 23rd out of 50

Bottom 5

#46, New Jersey
 Gun deaths per 100,000: 5.2
 Permissive gun laws: 49th out of 50

#47, Connecticut
 Gun deaths per 100,000: 4.3
 Permissive gun laws: 46th out of 50

#48, Rhode Island
 Gun deaths per 100,000: 3.5
 Permissive gun laws: 42nd out of 50

#49, Massachusetts
 Gun deaths per 100,000: 3.6
 Permissive gun laws: 48th out of 50

#50, Hawaii
 Gun deaths per 100,000: 2.8
 Permissive gun laws: 47th out of 50 "


----------



## TUGBrian (Dec 14, 2012)

i prefer to look up cities where guns are completely banned
(or have laws designed to ban guns in a major way)....and see what their gun crime statistics are.

those like detroit, nyc, district of columbia etc....chicago is a great example

the problem with more laws IMO, is that the only people that follow them are the ones who arent at risk of breaking the law in the first place in killing someone...or robbing them.


----------



## slip (Dec 14, 2012)

TUGBrian said:


> and to answer the questions, I have no problem with civil discussion...and ive yet to see anyone fly off the handle and or make absurd insults on either side.
> 
> as long as that stays true, ill happily discuss this matter...as its one I have strong feelings on.
> 
> I am not a fan of gun control, not because I dont believe the people that are fans of it dont want the same thing I do (less crime)...but because ive yet to hear a valid argument backed up with legitimate facts that supports more laws having any impact on crime in this country.



TUGBrian, I couldn't say it any better and I agree with every post you have in
This thread. Thank You.


----------



## TUGBrian (Dec 14, 2012)

Clemson Fan said:


> One of the great things about living in Hawaii is the very strict gun laws we have and the safety they provide.  It’s very difficult to get a gun license in Hawaii and very few people in Hawaii own guns.  Due to this, our violent homicide rate per capita due to guns is 48th in the country.  I hate to say it, but most of our gun related homicides are usually within the military families that have more access to guns and they are usually domestic in nature.  You can still own a rifle to go hunting for your wild boar and to protect your constitutional rights, but those insane assault guns  are thankfully nearly impossible to get.
> 
> I don’t want to hear all the things that the NRA crowd likes to spew out!  There’s NO  need to have these assault weapons available to any deranged person to get their hands on!  There were over 100 rounds fired today in probably just a few minutes!  Enough is enough!!!  Ban it now!!!



I edited your post to remove some of the more colorful comments...i must have missed it earlier.

I do admit I was not familiar with hawaii law in terms of gun control, but looking it up, it seems that concealed carry and ownership of handguns is not limited in the least.

One can obtain and legally own and carry both of the weapons used today in the shooting (both semi automatic pistols) in the state of hawaii.


----------



## Talent312 (Dec 14, 2012)

We all bemoan these senseless, horrific acts, wring our hands and speculate on what can be done. However, objectively and statistically, schools, malls & movie theaters, are very safe places, and such incidents are extremely rare.

For sure, that brings no comfort nor lessens the trauma to the families and loved-ones of those involved; however, for the many thousands of folk who go to such places, it should not also lessen the belief and trust that these are safe places without undue risk of harm.


----------



## easyrider (Dec 14, 2012)

This act of violence has nothing to do with guns and everything to do with mental illness. 

The United Kingdom has very strict gun laws and that didnt stop Tom Hamaton from killing 15 kids and a teacher.

In Norway the only way you can own a gun is to belong to a sports club. That didn't stop Anders Brivek from killing close to 100 people and injuring 200.

Mexico has very strict gun laws but has more gun crime than most countrys. 

There seems to be confusion about gun control. Most legal gun owners obey the laws and most gun crime is perpetrated by people that are not legal gun owners. These criminals will not obey any gun laws that don't suit them because they are criminals. 

I could go on but the point Im trying to make is a person can commit mass murder anywhere under any law. 


Bill


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Dec 14, 2012)

The problem with the current gun laws isn't that they don't go far enough...they ARE pretty strict, its that they vary state by state....I live in NY, so getting a handgun or 'assault' rifle for me is next to impossible....That is, unless i drive across the border to Pennsylvania...where the requirements are much more relaxed then NY...And don't get me wrong, the laws are still strict in Pennsylvania...But not as strict as NY

IF i were a criminal, that is exactly what i would be doing...If i drive to Pennsylvania i can buy a handgun or assault rifle without a permit and now in NY i will own something that less non-criminals own...I have more firepower available or a more 'hide-able' weapon, i have the advantage

IMO, this is the problem, it is too easy for criminals to get the upper hand...If the laws were consistent across all the states, we would all be on equal footing

IF i could change anything about the gun laws it would be two things, first, i'd push for consistency among the states...the second, i would ADD gun training and education as part of the school corriculum


----------



## Beefnot (Dec 15, 2012)

ace2000 said:


> And in today's news in China...
> 
> Knife-wielding man [COLOR="red[B][/B]"]injures[/COLOR] 22 children in China
> 
> ...



I will take that over the alternative. Knives for guns any day.


----------



## Beefnot (Dec 15, 2012)

TUGBrian said:


> i prefer to look up cities where guns are completely banned
> (or have laws designed to ban guns in a major way)....and see what their gun crime statistics are.
> 
> those like detroit, nyc, district of columbia etc....chicago is a great example
> ...



In other words, you prefer selective facts. If a city bans guns that are not as restrictive to obtain in immediately surrounding areas, what does that prove exactly?


----------



## eal (Dec 15, 2012)

Mental illness in children and adolescents is a serious problem in North America.  Diagnosis opportunities are hard to come by for many parents and treatment options can be even harder to access.  

This youth had serious and long-standing problems and we don't know what access he had to effective treatment.


----------



## Beaglemom3 (Dec 15, 2012)

Media hype, IMHO, only fuels those seeking notoriety (for lack of a better term) and spawns copy-cat massacres. One of the London papers listed the following actions to tone down the hype:

*If you don't want to propagate more mass murders...*

_Don't start the story with sirens blaring.

Don't have photographs of the killer.

Don't make this 24/7 coverage.

Do everything you can not to make the body count the lead story.

Not to make the killer some kind of anti-hero. _


----------



## pjrose (Dec 15, 2012)

Beaglemom3 said:


> Media hype, IMHO, only fuels those seeking notoriety (for lack of a better term) and spawns copy-cat massacres. One of the London papers listed the following actions to tone down the hype:
> 
> *If you don't want to propagate more mass murders...*
> 
> ...



Notoriety is exactly the right term; though often confused with fame, it is a type of fame for negative reasons, for being bad or evil.  

I'd add to the list, not to put in any superlatives - the biggest, the most victims, the worst, the second worst - that just sets a bar for more crazies.


----------



## pjrose (Dec 15, 2012)

easyrider said:


> This act of violence has nothing to do with guns and everything to do with mental illness.
> 
> . . .



It's the combination that's the problem.  

A sane person with access to guns isn't likely to kill people unless necessary in self-defense, law-enforcement, or military conflict. 

A person who has a violent form of mental illness may or may not kill people - but if s/he has access to guns it makes it a lot easier.  Access to a car does too, as does access to knives, baseball bats, rat poison etc.  

A major difference is that with certain types of weapons - semi-automatic, assault - that person can kill a lot more people a lot more quickly, much more quickly than s/he can be stopped.


----------



## pjrose (Dec 15, 2012)

heathpack said:


> In 2006, Japan had 2 gun-related deaths.
> 
> In the same year, the US had 12,000.
> 
> ...





Ken555 said:


> Great post.
> 
> Since its apparent that the TUG policy on discussing contentious social issues is being waived for this thread, I'll chime in further now.
> 
> ...



Thank you for these posts.


----------



## TUGBrian (Dec 15, 2012)

Beefnot said:


> In other words, you prefer selective facts. If a city bans guns that are not as restrictive to obtain in immediately surrounding areas, what does that prove exactly?




not sure how your selective facts are somehow more "valid" than mine.  your statistics prove what you want to believe is true, as do mine.


----------



## TUGBrian (Dec 15, 2012)

an interesting read on japanese gun/crime...even if written nearly 15 years ago

http://www.davekopel.com/2A/Foreign/Japan-Gun-Control-and-People-Control.htm


----------



## CarolF (Dec 15, 2012)

There is no point in discussing "one off" homicide events which occurred in (name country here), nor comparing the US to less developed countries with lower education, income etc.

Statistical evidence comparing "like with like" very clearly demonstrates the problem guns are causing in the US.  Violent TV and video games are accessible in other developed countries so you would think they would impact their statistics if they were the problem.

*Useful statistics worldwide are supplied by public health authorities*.

Gun violence is a U.S. public health problem
Posted by Celeste Monforton, DrPH, MPH of George Washington University School of Public Health & Health Services on July 23, 2012  
http://scienceblogs.com/thepumphandle/2012/07/23/gun-violence-is-a-u-s-public-health-problem/



> Gun violence is uniquely an American problem compared to other industrialized countries.  The rate of gun-related deaths per 100,000 individuals in Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom is 0.1, 0.5, and 0.03, respectively.  In the U.S., the overall rate is 2.98.




http://www.gunpolicy.org/


> GunPolicy.org provides evidence-based, country-by-country intelligence from a broad range of official and academic sources. This university site is for researchers, officials, journalists and advocates who need accurate citations and rapid access to credible sources.



Rate of Civilian Firearm Possession per 100 Population comparison
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/c...irearm_possession/10,69,88,162,177,178,192,31

Here is the number of gun homicides in the US compared to some other developed countries.
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compare/194/number_of_gun_homicides/10,18,88,125,162,192,31,69

Here is the number of homicides (any method) in the US compared to some other developed countries.
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/c...ny_method/10,18,88,125,162,177,178,191,192,31

Rate of Gun Suicide per 100,000 People
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compare/194/rate_of_gun_suicide/10,69,88,136,162,178,192,31,177

Number of Unintentional Gun Deaths
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/c...tional_gun_deaths/10,18,31,69,162,177,178,192

You can do your own comparisons.

Also, google "In Medical Triumph, Homicides Fall Despite Soaring Gun Violence" there is a cached copy of an article discussing the number of people treated for gunshot attacks from 2001 to 2011 which has apparently grown by nearly half.


----------



## Beaglemom3 (Dec 15, 2012)

Deleted my own post.













.


----------



## Beefnot (Dec 15, 2012)

TUGBrian said:


> not sure how your selective facts are somehow more "valid" than mine.  your statistics prove what you want to believe is true, as do mine.



Not all facts are created equal.  Facts without reasoning can be very deceptive, be it borne of ignorance or malevolence. To subordinate state statistics to city stats without applying a logical filter is disingenuous.


----------



## Talent312 (Dec 15, 2012)

Motor vehicles are considered dangerous instrumentalities.
Motor vehicle crashes result in many deaths + injuries.
Owners are required to register and obtain insurance for them, and if driving, get a DL.

Why not apply that to all guns? Register and insure them, and get public use permits.
I guess we have the 2nd Amendment to thank.

What if the Amendment protected the right to own + use cars?
A well regulated _[transportation system]_ being necessary to the _[conduct of commerce]_,
the right of the people to keep and _[use motor vehicles]_ shall not be infringed.

... _No, I'm not in one of those states that recently legalized the use of cannabis._.
.


----------



## myoakley (Dec 15, 2012)

IMO, what is being omitted from this discussion is the very real existence of evil.  I believe that evil is growing in inverse proportion to the degree that God is being eliminated from the public square and secularism is becoming the new "religion".  As a high school teacher for many years, I remember my principal lamenting how nasty and mean many students were to each other.  I asked her how she expected to have kind, empathetic young people in a moral vacuum, which is what our society and our public schools are today.


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Dec 15, 2012)

myoakley said:


> IMO, what is being omitted from this discussion is the very real existence of evil.  I believe that evil is growing in inverse proportion to the degree that God is being eliminated from the public square and secularism is becoming the new "religion".  As a high school teacher for many years, I remember my principal lamenting how nasty and mean many students were to each other.  I asked her how she expected to have kind, empathetic young people in a moral vacuum, which is what our society and our public schools are today.



religion is something we dont discuss on this board, but i must say, history has PROVEN religion ≠ morals,


----------



## myoakley (Dec 15, 2012)

I am not referring to any religion.  I am talking about a philosophy which acknowledges God as our Creator and by whom we will one day be held accountable based on how we have treated one another.


----------



## ace2000 (Dec 15, 2012)

myoakley said:


> I am not referring to any religion.  I am talking about a philosophy which acknowledges God as our Creator and by whom we will one day be held accountable based on how we have treated one another.



In my post above, I asked what's changed in our society to enable these events to occur.  You've mentioned one possibility, someone else brought up video games, and someone else brought up violence in the movies and tv.  

I think each of these have merit.


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Dec 15, 2012)

myoakley said:


> I am not referring to any religion.  I am talking about a philosophy which acknowledges God as our Creator and by whom we will one day be held accountable based on how we have treated one another.



discussing god without religion is a tricky subject, not just because they go hand in hand, but because there is no 'context' for god without religion...without religion god is just a word

But i'll try...many travesties throughout history have been committed in the name of god, going back centuries from the crusades to ww2 to even more recently like 9/11.  taking a god as a creator has become the disconnect many many people have used to treat people not as equals but as pawns

we need to start treating each other as fellow humans again and get past this whole god thing, only then can the healing begin


----------



## CarolF (Dec 15, 2012)

1 in 5 Americans have no religious affiliation. 
http://www.pewforum.org/uploadedFil...iliation/Unaffiliated/NonesontheRise-full.pdf

22% of Australians say they have "no religion". 
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ow-loss-of-faith/story-fn59niix-1226404867350

nearly 25% of the people in England and Wales profess no religion.

There isn't a link between religiousness and homicide statistics from what I can see.


----------



## beejaybeeohio (Dec 15, 2012)

*Mental Illness*

Even with proper diagnosis, a person with a mental illness cannot be forced into therapy nor forced to take medications.  The days of 'insane asylums' ended in the 60s with idea that people with mental illness could and should be treated in their communities.  For the vast majority of people with disorders such as bipolar, PTSD, and schizophrenia, the current system is appropropriate. Even if the killer's family was aware of the young man's issues, I don't believe he could have been involuntarily committed for even a short-term hospitalization unless he was exhibiting dangerous behavior that resulted in police or EMS being called.

Not only is my heart aching for the families of the children, but also, the families of the adults killed.


----------



## Tia (Dec 15, 2012)

I feel very sorry too for the young man who was the brother of the perpetrator. Seems  he lost his mother who lived with the brother,  read they were her guns, and was originally id'd because his brother had his old id on him. 

News journalists rush to be first then get facts wrong, makes things harder.  Now too the news is focusing on this tragedy, as always happens, and some other mentally unstable person is watching


----------



## Loggie (Dec 15, 2012)

Pray for all us teachers out there ........... Monday is going to be a difficult time in MANY schools.  I have cried so much about this tragedy and think about all of the Kinders in our school.  I think about my room and how to hide from the door and the BIG window in my room.  My classroom will definately be ALWAYS locked now.


----------



## vacationhopeful (Dec 15, 2012)

beejaybeeohio said:


> Even with proper diagnosis, a person with a mental illness cannot be forced into therapy nor forced to take medications.  The days of 'insane asylums' ended in the 60s with idea that people with mental illness could and should be treated in their communities.  For the vast majority of people with disorders such as bipolar, PTSD, and schizophrenia, the current system is appropropriate. Even if the killer's family was aware of the young man's issues, I don't believe he could have been involuntarily committed for even a short-term hospitalization unless he was exhibiting dangerous behavior that resulted in police or EMS being called.
> 
> Not only is my heart aching for the families of the children, but also, the families of the adults killed.



Was posting my similar experiences in NJ. I used to deal with those living in the communities in independent housing - the support programs available included daily observations of medicine being taken each day, daytime M-F programs, after-hours social programs (some weekends) (most with free dinners), transportation programs (including a van with peer drivers), etc. There were some success stories, but the failure rate were higher, IMHO. Most clients daily life was better - but the bigger failures were handled in the criminal justice system from threaten persons with loaded guns to pet hoarding to physical attacks of other clients to self injury and staged auto accidents for insurance claims, and my favorite, setting FIRE to their apartment to avoid eviction to keep their subsidized status with the local HUD office (3 other families got burned out of their homes as collateral damaged).


----------



## heathpack (Dec 15, 2012)

TUGBrian said:


> an interesting read on japanese gun/crime...even if written nearly 15 years ago
> 
> http://www.davekopel.com/2A/Foreign/Japan-Gun-Control-and-People-Control.htm



Actually from an article written 5 months ago:
http://m.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/a-land-without-guns-how-japan-has-virtually-eliminated-shooting-deaths/260189/

H


----------



## Phydeaux (Dec 15, 2012)

Passing laws against robbery & murder has not stopped people from robbing and murdering. Thus, passing laws against guns will not stop dope dealers, organized crime families, terrorists, or crackpots from having them.

    Passing laws against guns will prevent law-abiding citizens from having them. This means we are more distrustful of law-abiding citizens than we are fearful of people whose career goal in life is to rob and murder. Insane? Hmm.

    The police are not our private 24-hour personal bodyguards. There are not enough police to go around to each home. There are more criminals than police now, and the job of the police is normally after the fact. Thus, when it comes to protecting yourself, you are on your own. Thus...

    If criminals always have an extreme advantage, via exclusive use of firearms, then they will rule the land.

    And, those 45,000 Americans killed while committing a crime would be free to kill the 45,000 people who would have stopped them!

This is not just theory. Think through the logic. And, if that doesn't convince you, read about the effects of Australia's gun ban or just look at the crime numbers for such pro-crime cities as New York, Chicago, and Boston--where gun bans are in force. Or look at the crime numbers for those anti-crime Florida cities that enacted right-to-carry laws. The facts don't lie: ban guns = crime goes up; promote responsible gun ownership = crime goes down.


This isn't Rome

Rome existed and flourished for centuries. Then, the rulers banned private ownership of weapons. This allowed tyranny and incompetence in government so bad, the nation fell in a generation (and you thought it couldn't get any worse than it is now). Gun ban proponents think their fellow citizens are raving lunatics kept in check merely by difficult access to guns, when it's really the other way around--we need guns to help us protect ourselves from raving lunatics. And from government corruption of the sort that happened in ancient Rome or in Hitler's gun-banned Germany.


To kill or not to kill?

*The right of a living creature to defend itself is a right granted by nature. It is not a privilege granted by law. Personal protection is a personal responsibility,* not that of a cop who makes less than the average wage in an already stressful job. Your choice is to kill the killer or let the killer kill you. If you let the killer kill you, then that killer is free to kill and kill again. And you are an accessory to each subsequent crime. All because you did not value human life enough to provide a way to defend your own. This is not theory or opinion. It just is.


To ban or not to ban

Banning guns does not save lives--it has the opposite effect. We have shown here that gun bans increase crime. Further, deaths from guns are statistically insignificant compared to other causes, many of which are preventable. Smoking, for example, serves no useful purpose.


----------



## SueDonJ (Dec 15, 2012)

"Gun control" doesn't automatically translate to a total ban on gun ownership.  I'm in favor of responsible gun ownership but whenever I'm in a discussion about it, the gun owners I know accuse me of trying to take their guns from them.  They say that every measure introduced must be shot down because adopting one measure will lead to another and then to another and on and on to a complete removal of gun rights.  There's no middle ground, no attempt to compromise.

For example, it's not unreasonable to me to prohibit having a gun in a home where an unstable person lives.  CT may have some of the most strict gun laws in the country but from the reports, this shooter was unstable, his family and friends knew it, yet still he obviously had access in his home to his mother's legal weapons of mass destruction.  Does that make sense to anyone, that even where the laws are strict it's still possible to put guns in the hands of unstable people that easily?  It doesn't make any sense to me.  None whatsoever.

Like everyone else has said there are far more contributing factors than just the staggering amounts of guns that are embedded in our society, and we'll never be able to completely eradicate gun violence.  But doing all we can to limit accessibility by unstable people should be tops on the list.  Shouldn't it?


----------



## myoakley (Dec 15, 2012)

Ridewithme,
I cannot let you get away with the old canard that religion has caused more harm than good.  Although I know I cannot convince you, and this will be my last post on the subject,  I ask you to consider who, in history has committed the worst atrocities by the sheer magnitude of the crimes committed and the millions of people massacred.  In my book, Hitler, Stalin, Pot Pol, Mao Tse-Tung, none of whom believed in a Creator, have to top the list.


----------



## Phydeaux (Dec 15, 2012)

SueDonJ said:


> "Gun control" doesn't automatically translate to a total ban on gun ownership.  I'm in favor of responsible gun ownership but whenever I'm in a discussion about it, the gun owners I know accuse me of trying to take their guns from them.  They say that every measure introduced must be shot down because adopting one measure will lead to another and then to another and on and on to a complete removal of gun rights.  There's no middle ground, no attempt to compromise.
> 
> For example, it's not unreasonable to me to prohibit having a gun in a home where an unstable person lives.  CT may have some of the most strict gun laws in the country but from the reports, this shooter was unstable, his family and friends knew it, yet still he obviously had access in his home to his mother's legal weapons of mass destruction.  Does that make sense to anyone, that even where the laws are strict it's still possible to put guns in the hands of unstable people that easily?  It doesn't make any sense to me.  None whatsoever.
> 
> Like everyone else has said there are far more contributing factors than just the staggering amounts of guns that are embedded in our society, and we'll never be able to completely eradicate gun violence.  *But doing all we can to limit accessibility by unstable people should be tops on the list.  Shouldn't it?*




A question for you: A criminal pulls out a weapon and murders an innocent human being because that innocent person bumped them while walking past. The criminal has zero remorse. They killed the innocent person as they would a person stepping on an ant. Do you feel this person is unstable? If so, how would you propose limiting their accessibility to the weapon?

Switzerland issues every adult male a gun! Switzerland's government trains every adult they issue a rifle. Switzerland also has the lowest gun related crime rate than any civilized country in the world!  Explain this, please.


----------



## SueDonJ (Dec 15, 2012)

Phydeaux said:


> A question for you: A criminal pulls out a weapon and murders an innocent human being because that innocent person bumped them while walking past. The criminal has zero remorse. They killed the innocent person as they would a person stepping on an ant. Do you feel this person is unstable? If so, how would you propose limiting their accessibility to the weapon?



I think anyone (excepting civil employees/military members with extensive training and psychological evaluation) who would shoot someone is unstable but it's not my standards that I would expect to be implemented in gun control legislation.  In your scenario our existing legal system is adequate - police would investigate and hopefully apprehend and file charges against that shooter, then he'd be tried in our legal system which makes allowances for mental illness if it's a factor.

But that scenario is a far cry from what's happened in Newtown and many of the other mass shootings.  If there isn't already, there should be a question on gun ownership permit applications to the effect of, "Will you store your gun in your home in such a way that it will not be accessible to a minor, a person undergoing mental health treatment, or a person known to you to be unstable or violent?"  If the answer is "no," the permit shouldn't be issued.

I understand that would limit by acquaintance gun ownership for people who are not unstable or mentally ill, but it makes sense to me that a would-be responsible gun owner would not want to be the conduit to weapons used in a mass shooting.


----------



## Beaglemom3 (Dec 15, 2012)

Phydeaux said:


> Switzerland issues every adult male a gun! Switzerland's government trains every adult they issue a rifle. Switzerland also has the lowest gun related crime rate than any civilized country in the world!  Explain this, please.



  This is true, but there's more to the story............. here's the rest of the story:  http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/switzerland.asp


----------



## BobDE (Dec 15, 2012)

Doesn't it all boil down to one thing?

*Criminals and stupid people do not follow laws!*

Pass all the laws and control all of the guns. Criminals will still be criminals and there is no cure for stupid!

I live in a rural community and have always. Just about everyone I know owns guns and many, like myself, carry one daily legally. Yet none of these people has ever committed a crime. But they will be the ones to suffer from more stupid unenforceable laws and tougher gun control. 

There are many ways to kill people and guns are just one. They will always find a way.  




Phydeaux said:


> Passing laws against robbery & murder has not stopped people from robbing and murdering. Thus, passing laws against guns will not stop dope dealers, organized crime families, terrorists, or crackpots from having them.
> 
> Passing laws against guns will prevent law-abiding citizens from having them. This means we are more distrustful of law-abiding citizens than we are fearful of people whose career goal in life is to rob and murder. Insane? Hmm.
> 
> ...


----------



## SueDonJ (Dec 15, 2012)

Phydeaux said:


> ... Switzerland issues every adult male a gun! Switzerland's government trains every adult they issue a rifle. Switzerland also has the lowest gun related crime rate than any civilized country in the world!  Explain this, please.





Beaglemom3 said:


> This is true, but there's more to the story............. here's the rest of the story:  http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/switzerland.asp



As Beags pointed out, Switzerland issues the weapons because all males are required to submit to a period of military training and service, a program established to ensure protection of their homeland.  When their military service is over they can either decline keeping the weapon, or if they want to keep it they have to turn it over to the authorities so it can be re-modified for civilian use.

If you're suggesting that all would-be gun owners in our country must submit to a period of military training and psychological evaluation in order to keep a weapon, I'd be all for that program.


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Dec 15, 2012)

myoakley said:


> Ridewithme,
> I cannot let you get away with the old canard that religion has caused more harm than good.  Although I know I cannot convince you, and this will be my last post on the subject,  I ask you to consider who, in history has committed the worst atrocities by the sheer magnitude of the crimes committed and the millions of people massacred.  In my book, Hitler, Stalin, Pot Pol, Mao Tse-Tung, none of whom believed in a Creator, have to top the list.



hitler:


> Hitler wrote: "I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.."



the rest i haven't researched...


----------



## Beefnot (Dec 15, 2012)

BobDE said:


> Doesn't it all boil down to one thing?
> 
> *Criminals and stupid people do not follow laws!*
> 
> ...



And thus, the logical conclusion is that there should be absolutely no gun control?

Rocket launchers, hand grenades, and land mines should also be legal. All currently illicit drugs should be legalized.  All currently controlled substances (e.g., oxycodone, morphine, steroids, et al.) should now be available over the counter.  The U.S. should permit unfettered flow of firearms, animal parts of endangered species, etc.  The international law enforcement effort to make it more and more difficult to use the banking system to finance terrorism should be terminated effective immediately.

...because such laws inconvenience us law abiding citizens, and besides only criminals will abuse the laws for nefarious purposes and there is no cure for that. Uh, ok boss.


----------



## Phydeaux (Dec 15, 2012)

Beaglemom3 said:


> This is true, but there's more to the story............. here's the rest of the story:  http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/switzerland.asp



Thank you for posting this. It provides even more information to support my point.


----------



## MULTIZ321 (Dec 15, 2012)

From the Editor's Desk: Sandy Hook - by Phil Nickinson/ Editorial/ Android Central.com


Richard


----------



## Beefnot (Dec 15, 2012)

Phydeaux said:


> Thank you for posting this. It provides even more information to support my point.



Which point was that?


----------



## bogey21 (Dec 15, 2012)

eal said:


> Mental illness in children and adolescents is a serious problem in North America.....This youth had serious and long-standing problems and we don't know what access he had to effective treatment.



You are inferring (at least I think your are) that there is more mental illness today than let's say in the 40s or 50s.  If so, why?  Is it self inflicted (via drugs, for example) or just better diagnosed?

George


----------



## geoand (Dec 15, 2012)

Someone sent this via email to me and at first I was offended.  I forced myself to continue reading and I realized that it describes much of what is good in our society.  If I offend anyone, that is not my intent.

I look at Connecticut and I am proud to be an American. I am touched and inspired by the goodness and courage of average people, and the extent to which decency and faith spring from the American breast.
I mean no disrespect, and I am not overlooking the great pain the carnage wrought on so many lives and families, but as I look at what happened today I see proof not that things are going wrong in America, but that things are going right.
Countless people will wax gravely about what the school murders "say about us."
People will say it all started when "they took prayer out of schools."
For days we will hear from people who will blame abortion, poor parenting, a lack of personal responsibility, President Obama, liberals in general, the NRA and a growing lack of spirituality in our society. Each of them will see some great flaw in the American heart that gave rise to the butcher in Connecticut.
And each of them will be wrong.
Because to see the murderer and the evil he did as a product of our national soul, and then to simultaneously ignore the heroes and the goodness they certainly did, is to misrepresent the truth. If the tiny evil minority is a product of this society, so too is the overwhelming good majority.
If you look at our failures, you must also look at our successes.
I'm humbled to belong to a society which has undoubtedly produced hero teachers who stepped up to protect their students and led groups of students to safety.
I am proud to know that my country raised youngsters who certainly clustered around each other tending to wounds as best they could.

It was this culture which produced teachers, their charges hiding in rooms, brave enough to stand to drive away a threat to their students' safety.
You will hear that students knelt to shield and comfort wounded classmates-- they grew up in this society. You will hear that students and teachers carried injured to safety and stopped to pray with the frightened, they were acting out of a set of values they learned as Americans.
We will hear that people at the school used their own bodies to protect students. These heroes grew up in a world with legal guns, violent video games, hateful rock'n'roll, no prayer in schools, countless abortions, grizzly movies, Barack Obama in the White House and record divorce rates. Yet we will find out that they, and hundreds of others, acted with the purest of human virtues and in a noble and selfless fashion.
What does that "say about us?"
It says we are a good people. And while we have weaknesses and challenges, we are fundamentally strong. Our heart is essentially good, our children are raised with natural decency.
We will hear that lunch ladies shouted directions for students to flee. We will hear that teachers organized their students into groups for protection. We will hear that children used their cell phones to call the police and tell them  where the shooting was and when it had died down.
And in the wake of it all, children and teachers with shattered lives will stand before cameras and politely and clearly tell a nation what they had seen.
Strong enough to care, strong enough to endure, strong enough to witness.
As the tears are wiped away and the shock and grief begin to fade, Connecticut
will leave me with pride. Pride in the students and teachers of that suburban school, one little community that represents us all.
With dignity, compassion and courage.
The America those kids grew up in helped them to be some of the best and strongest people in the world. They are not the product of a failed society, they are the offspring of the greatest culture and nation on earth.
Those who hate our way of life, or who seek to use tragedy to advance their political causes, will see deep trouble in the American soul. But their perception is not true. It doesn't reflect us, it reflects them.
This is a good land. We are a good people.
The children we raise are overwhelmingly decent and pure.
For us to mistakenly assert otherwise is to deny them and their virtue.
It is to deny the testament of the heroes that will emerge from Connecticut.


----------



## Beefnot (Dec 15, 2012)

That message is rah rah and uplifting and all, but other than that, it is empty. To point out sickness and problems and evil of some in no way undermines the good of others.


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Dec 15, 2012)

bogey21 said:


> You are inferring (at least I think your are) that there is more mental illness today than let's say in the 40s or 50s.  If so, why?  Is it self inflicted (via drugs, for example) or just better diagnosed?
> 
> George



This is a great question!  I remember being able to run around my neighborhood completely without adult supervision when i was my daughters age, today i would be looked at as putting my daughter in danger, in the same neighborhood with basically the same neighbors

Has it really gotten more dangerous since 1987 or just more publicized?


----------



## geoand (Dec 15, 2012)

Beefnot said:


> That message is rah rah and uplifting and all, but other than that, it is empty. To point out sickness and problems and evil of some in no way undermines the good of others.



Empy, I think not.  What I do know is that reading all the posts one would think we need to make some drastic changes.  While that may be true, the changes we make must not destroy the goodness in our society.  May I point out that I didn't see anything that even remotely described the goodness in our society and that is why I posted this.  If we are cognizant about what is good in the land that we love, then we will be able to have a more knowledgeable debate.  Did anyone object to the on tv interviews of some of the surviving children?  I thought that was tacky at best.  However, I know in my gut that there were children there that were heroes.


----------



## Beefnot (Dec 15, 2012)

geoand said:


> Empy, I think not.  What I do know is that reading all the posts one would think we need to make some drastic changes.  While that may be true, the changes we make must not destroy the goodness in our society.  May I point out that I didn't see anything that even remotely described the goodness in our society and that is why I posted this.  If we are cognizant about what is good in the land that we love, then we will be able to have a more knowledgeable debate.  Did anyone object to the on tv interviews of some of the surviving children?  I thought that was tacky at best.  However, I know in my gut that there were children there that were heroes.



There were stories of heroes and uplifting behavior on tv. That is not being overlooked, and during any tragedy, it never is. So why debate a straw man? It is a red herring to suggest that when something terrible happens, by addressing the bad it is somehow dishonoring the good.


----------



## geoand (Dec 15, 2012)

Beefnot said:


> There were stories of heroes and uplifting behavior on tv. That is not being overlooked, and during any tragedy, it never is. So why debate a straw man? It is a red herring to suggest that when something terrible happens, by addressing the bad it is somehow dishonoring the good.



Yes, and there has been much debate on how to get better control of guns.  There has been discussion that it is a mental health issue and I think that is where the focus has been.  However, there are many more folks that have mental health issues that would never even consider doing anything such as this.  I do get concerned when a group of people get thrown into the limelight and if they could be better controlled and then perhaps this would not happen.  What in our history has proven that this is not a good idea?  I have seen nothing here that is "addressing the bad."  It appears to me that first it was guns as the problem and then when that was going nowhere, then the finger was pointed to those with mental illness.

I am not mentally ill as far as I know.  I do not own a gun, but I do have a friend who takes me target shooting at a range and I do enjoy that.  I will not ever own a gun.

None of us have the answer to what will help prevent these kinds of tragedies.  I do become afraid when fingers are pointed at a group.  So, I don't see anything that is "addressing the bad."  I see finger pointing.


----------



## pgnewarkboy (Dec 15, 2012)

The constitution should be amended to ban all guns.  If you want to defend yourself learn karate. 

Now we will hear from hysterical members of the gun religion.   My answer to all of you in advance is IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT TOO BAD.   The defense of gun ownership has cost the loss of so many lives it cannot be calculated.


----------



## easyrider (Dec 15, 2012)

Most people that want more gun control have never even fired a weapon. I would also speculate that most women have no clue on how to fire a weapon. This might explain the fear of guns this group has and urge to try to control them. It is true that a guns real purpose is to kill. Guns are attack weapons. Arguments that take away from this point are not really valid. You cant cut a steak with a gun, like you can a knife. You cant drive a gun to the store like a car. The way a gun saves a life is by taking a life. 

There is no way to regulate guns to the point where criminals or crazy people wouldn't have access. Strict regulations via bans creates a black market and makes it harder for a law abiding person to defend with a gun. 

With all of these type of shootings it makes me wonder how this type of situation would play out if some one other than the criminal was armed. 

Bill


----------



## Beaglemom3 (Dec 15, 2012)

Phydeaux said:


> Thank you for posting this. It provides even more information to support my point.



  Actually, it refutes your broad sweep.


----------



## Beaglemom3 (Dec 15, 2012)

I posted this last night, but deleted it. I think it's a good, but pointed read.

Some will agree with it, some will not and some will mull it over. All of these are good. That's what makes us human.

Gun control does not equal gun banning. Something has got to change. Those 26 lost souls had constitutional rights as well.



A FB friend sent this to me yesterday...



*
 "If only one of the teachers had a gun..."

 One did. She owned several, in fact. Her son used them to kill her, her colleagues, and 20 children.

 ...so you'll pardon me if my respect for the "Responsible Gun Ownership" argument has taken a long walk off a short pier.

 I know I know I know I know, you own an AK-47 or an 
AR-15 and the world didn't end...because you're responsible, right?

 Is every one you know responsible? Is everyone who might rob your home responsible?

 ...pssst...

 You don't need an assault weapon. You really really really don't.

 You're going to defend yourself against a government that has nuclear weapons, stealth bombers, drones, SEALs and the United States fa-chrissakes Marine Corps with your piddly-ass AR-15? Good luck with that; send me a note from the front.

 Grow up.

 You don't need it. You want it. End of file.

 Your right to bear whatever fantastically lethal thing you set your cap to is infringing upon everyone else's right not to die in another f_____g bloodbath.

 You don't need it.

 You want it.

 There's a difference.

 And that's the beginning of real reform, if you decide to accept it.

 Make the very Christian decision that you will, in fact, be your brother's and sister's keeper.

 You don't need an AR-15 or an AK-47.

 You just want it.

 Other people want them, too. See: Newtown.

 Exert a little self-control over your desires. Your ability to responsibly enjoy an AR-15 is NO LONGER argument enough to defend their wide, wild availability.

 This is not rocket science. This is basic humanity, and enlightened self-interest.

 The old saying goes, "An armed society is a polite society."

 Well, we've been an armed society - 300 million guns and counting - for a long while now.

 I'm sure everyone will be very polite at the 20 funerals for those 20 kids.

 Mission accomplished.*


----------



## zinger1457 (Dec 15, 2012)

TUGBrian said:


> the rifle was found in his car and was also not "automatic"...he used two pistols.



The latest report states that all 3 guns, including the rifle, were next to his body in the school.  Will have to wait for ballistic test to find out which weapons were used.


----------



## Ken555 (Dec 15, 2012)

The details of one criminal horror, such as what occurred yesterday, simply reinforce that it is too easy for those who should not have access to weapons are able to obtain them. Whether it be from family, friends, legally or illegally. Many whom I personally know that have guns are quite careful with how they're kept, maintained, etc. But, mistakes happen.

As has already been pointed out, State law on gun sales are not consistent. In many cases, it is relatively easy to go to a neighboring state to buy a gun and then return to your own. Why is it so easy for this to occur? Shouldn't the federal government create consistent laws on gun ownership, background checks, required training, etc - which all states need to adhere to? As I posted yesterday, why are we making it easy to buy guns? This makes absolutely no sense to me.


----------



## zinger1457 (Dec 15, 2012)

Ken555 said:


> As I posted yesterday, why are we making it easy to buy guns? This makes absolutely no sense to me.



The gun manufacturers and their main lobbying group (the NRA) would like everyone to believe it's a 2nd amendment issue but it really comes down to a business wanting to maximize profits.


----------



## easyrider (Dec 15, 2012)

Beaglemom3 said:


> I posted this last night, but deleted it. I think it's a good, but pointed read.
> 
> Some will agree with it, some will not and some will mull it over. All of these are good. That's what makes us human.
> 
> ...





The author is speaking with emotion and not reality. A person doesn't need an asualt weapon to kill a bunch of people. Most civilians killed with guns are killed with handguns. 

Why are people so freaked out about tactical weapons ? It just shows their ignorance. What they should be against are large magazines. Many handguns have the ability to use large capacity magazines. A M-100 calico can hold 101 bullets. A glock 19 can hold 101 bullets. Mac 10 and Mac 11 has a 32 round magazine as standard.

People that don't know anything about guns sure have odd thoughts on about what is safe. My revolver can kill with 6 shot capacity, wouldnt that qualify as dangerous ?

Bill


----------



## ace2000 (Dec 15, 2012)

There's one common theme that runs through all of these shootings. 

With very rare exceptions, the shooter has been an avid "gamer".


----------



## ouaifer (Dec 15, 2012)

*I'd like to get this back "on topic" as*

_It's important to remember what actually happened here yesterday.  In that vain, this was written last night and picked up by the local publication.

There's a lot of healing that has not as yet begun.  RIP and may G-d bless._


----------



## Beefnot (Dec 15, 2012)

geoand said:


> Yes, and there has been much debate on how to get better control of guns.  There has been discussion that it is a mental health issue and I think that is where the focus has been.  However, there are many more folks that have mental health issues that would never even consider doing anything such as this.  I do get concerned when a group of people get thrown into the limelight and if they could be better controlled and then perhaps this would not happen.  What in our history has proven that this is not a good idea?  I have seen nothing here that is "addressing the bad."  It appears to me that first it was guns as the problem and then when that was going nowhere, then the finger was pointed to those with mental illness.
> 
> I am not mentally ill as far as I know.  I do not own a gun, but I do have a friend who takes me target shooting at a range and I do enjoy that.  I will not ever own a gun.
> 
> None of us have the answer to what will help prevent these kinds of tragedies.  I do become afraid when fingers are pointed at a group.  So, I don't see anything that is "addressing the bad."  I see finger pointing.



There are people who have no business owning guns, whether they would actually do harm with them or not.


----------



## Beefnot (Dec 15, 2012)

easyrider said:


> The author is speaking with emotion and not reality. A person doesn't need an asualt weapon to kill a bunch of people. Most civilians killed with guns are killed with handguns.
> 
> Why are people so freaked out about tactical weapons ? It just shows their ignorance. What they should be against are large magazines. Many handguns have the ability to use large capacity magazines. A M-100 calico can hold 101 bullets. A glock 19 can hold 101 bullets. Mac 10 and Mac 11 has a 32 round magazine as standard.
> 
> ...



But as I pointed out earlier in the thread, this is where your logical extension disintegrates. You are implying therefore that restrictions are asinine. That is an absurd argument, which I exposed earlier.


----------



## ace2000 (Dec 15, 2012)

Beefnot said:


> But as I pointed out earlier in the thread, this is where your logical extension disintegrates. You are implying therefore that restrictions are asinine. That is an absurd argument, which I exposed earlier.


 
deleted response...


----------



## easyrider (Dec 15, 2012)

Beefnot said:


> But as I pointed out earlier in the thread, this is where your logical extension disintegrates. You are implying therefore that restrictions are asinine. That is an absurd argument, which I exposed earlier.



Tell me where I posted that there shouldn't be restrictions or rules. Restrictions on tactical weapons accomplish what ? Wouldn't it be that restrictions on firing capacity is what your looking for ?

As far as your thoughts on having to travel out of state to purchase a gun in cities that have bans you are wrong. All this does is create a black market. You think some inner city kid is going to travel 200 miles to buy a gun. No. Just like drugs, guns are easy to find.

Bill


----------



## Beefnot (Dec 15, 2012)

easyrider said:


> Tell me where I posted that there shouldn't be restrictions or rules. Restrictions on tactical weapons accomplish what ? Wouldn't it be that restrictions on firing capacity is what your looking for ?
> 
> As far as your thoughts on having to travel out of state to purchase a gun in cities that have bans you are wrong. All this does is create a black market. You think some inner city kid is going to travel 200 miles to buy a gun. No. Just like drugs, guns are easy to find.
> 
> Bill



Both firing capacity and ammunition caliber, the latter which goes straight to those tactical weapons I am so ignorant for seeking restrictions on who should be legally permitted access to them.

I was actually referring to one of my other posts making an reductio ad absurdum argument about restrictions that inconvenience law abiding citizens. As for the city/state black market thing, you are debating an argument that I have never made. My argument was that state statistics are superior measures of the relationship between gun control laws and gun related deaths in the U.S. than that of individual cities.


----------



## Tia (Dec 15, 2012)

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_gun_vio_hom_ove_hom_rat_per_100_pop-rate-per-100-000-pop 

Look at #32, never been there.


----------



## easyrider (Dec 15, 2012)

Beefnot said:


> Both firing capacity and ammunition caliber, the latter which goes straight to those tactical weapons I am so ignorant for seeking restrictions on who should be legally permitted access to them.
> 
> I was actually referring to one of my other posts making an reductio ad absurdum argument about restrictions that inconvenience law abiding citizens. As for the city/state black market thing, you are debating an argument that I have never made. My argument was that state statistics are superior measures of the relationship between gun control laws and gun related deaths in the U.S. than that of individual cities.[/QUOTE
> 
> ...


----------



## pgnewarkboy (Dec 15, 2012)

I am totally against gun control.  I seek a constitutional BAN on all guns.  If nothing else it will end these absurd arguments about types of guns used in crime.


----------



## Beefnot (Dec 15, 2012)

easyrider said:


> In these statistics can you see that a huge majority of killings are perpetrated by people using low caliber, unregistered handguns illegally ? The most common handgun used by criminals are 9mm and .380 which are considered low caliber.
> 
> How does restricting gun use or type of gun concerning law abiding citizens make any difference in situations where a gun is used to break the law ?
> 
> ...


 You are using an argument of frequency of occurrence to defend an argument of magnitude of impact upon occurrence. These are two separate considerations, both of which civilized societies should always be vigilant to explore methods to reduce.


----------



## Beefnot (Dec 15, 2012)

If this were to happen to any of my children, and entering the holidays at that, I don't know how I could go on. Even if I could go on, I really do not believe I would go on.


----------



## SueDonJ (Dec 15, 2012)

Beefnot said:


> If this were to happen to any of my children, and entering the holidays at that, I don't know how I could go on. Even if I could go on, I really do not believe I would go on.



These families are facing years of psychological effects that our experts have not yet been able to study in depth or counter.  The children who witnessed it face almost insurmountable odds of leading what might be considered "normal" lives.  The parents who lost children will never again be whole.  The adult witnesses will be scarred forever.

So unspeakably horrible.  Children, suffering PTSD.  I don't know all the answers but I know that what we have now doesn't work.  We owe it to our children and our fellow citizens to at least TRY to fix it.  In fact it's long past time.


----------



## easyrider (Dec 15, 2012)

pgnewarkboy said:


> I am totally against gun control.  I seek a constitutional BAN on all guns.  If nothing else it will end these absurd arguments about types of guns used in crime.





Beefnot said:


> You are using an argument of frequency of occurrence to defend an argument of magnitude of impact upon occurrence. These are two separate considerations, both of which civilized societies should always be vigilant to explore methods to reduce.



@ pgnewarkboy.. I kind of agree but know that it is imposible to have an effective ban on guns in the USA. The ban would only be applied to those that use guns responsibly and are law abiding. It wouldn't work on illegal use.

@Beefnot.. You are suggesting that you have an answer to gun crime. You really don't. No one likes gun crime. Currently the only real answer to lethal gun crime is to kill the criminal before the criminal kills you. That would be difficult to do without a gun.

Bill


----------



## SueDonJ (Dec 15, 2012)

pgnewarkboy said:


> I am totally against gun control.  I seek a constitutional BAN on all guns.  If nothing else it will end these absurd arguments about types of guns used in crime.



I'm with you but I'm resigned to the fact that it will never happen or if it does, it will be decades from now.  So in the meantime we must figure out how to keep guns out of the hands of people who should never have access to them.  If we're ALL inconvenienced in some ways by that, so be it.


----------



## dioxide45 (Dec 15, 2012)

All law abiding citizens that wish to travel by air are inconvenienced by the TSA in order to prevent a small number of idiots from getting on airplanes and committing crimes. Is it too much to ask the law abiding citizens that wish to legally own guns to go through some additional inconveniences in order to buy/own them to help prevent the few idiots that decide to use them for crimes?


----------



## easyrider (Dec 15, 2012)

SueDonJ said:


> These families are facing years of psychological effects that our experts have not yet been able to study in depth or counter.  The children who witnessed it face almost insurmountable odds of leading what might be considered "normal" lives.  The parents who lost children will never again be whole.  The adult witnesses will be scarred forever.
> 
> So unspeakably horrible.  Children, suffering PTSD.  I don't know all the answers but I know that what we have now doesn't work.  We owe it to our children and our fellow citizens to at least TRY to fix it.  In fact it's long past time.



Each one of these victims personally have families and friends. There are so many people affected by this senseless crime. Nothing is ever going to ease the pain of what has happened. 

I understand the feeling of needing to "try to fix this" but there is no way to fix unstable minds without placing structure, values and dicsipline back into school and home. 

Bill


----------



## Beaglemom3 (Dec 15, 2012)

I've been thinking about all I've read here and have drawn a few conclusions for myself:

1. The sane, non-criminal and reasonably responsible person should be considered for ownership after passing stringent tests and background checks. Sort of like Switzerland.  Need to develop a "sanity" test first. Legally sane is a broad term. 

2. Criminals, no.

3. Insane, mentally ill, emotionally disturbed, sociopaths: anyone have the answer ?  How can you discern this group from the "sane" group. After 33+ years of being in health care and law, I say that this is the most dangerous and hardest to identify group. Won't work.

Not so easy.


----------



## easyrider (Dec 15, 2012)

dioxide45 said:


> All law abiding citizens that wish to travel by air are inconvenienced by the TSA in order to prevent a small number of idiots from getting on airplanes and committing crimes. Is it too much to ask the law abiding citizens that wish to legally own guns to go through some additional inconveniences in order to buy/own them to help prevent the few idiots that decide to use them for crimes?



I agree and feel if you own guns you should be responsible for those guns. That means know who has access.  
The ATF has been lacksadazical in its job of monitoring gun sales because they just don't have the man power. That being said, more gun regulation will only be obeyed by lawful gun owners, not criminals. More gun bans creates profitable black markets.  

Bill


----------



## Beefnot (Dec 15, 2012)

easyrider said:


> @ pgnewarkboy.. I kind of agree but know that it is imposible to have an effective ban on guns in the USA. The ban would only be applied to those that use guns responsibly and are law abiding. It wouldn't work on illegal use.
> 
> @Beefnot.. You are suggesting that you have an answer to gun crime. You really don't. No one likes gun crime. Currently the only real answer to lethal gun crime is to kill the criminal before the criminal kills you. That would be difficult to do without a gun.
> 
> Bill



I have never suggested I have the answer. I don't have it. But I do know that it is not to pretend like there is no problem.


----------



## Beaglemom3 (Dec 15, 2012)

You can be law-abiding with no criminal background, pass all the CORIs and be deranged, mentally ill or emotionally unstable.





-


----------



## Tia (Dec 15, 2012)

So very very TRUE!



Beaglemom3 said:


> You can be law-abiding with no criminal background, pass all the CORIs and be deranged, mentally ill or emotional unstable.
> 
> 
> 
> -


----------



## dioxide45 (Dec 15, 2012)

easyrider said:


> I agree and feel if you own guns you should be responsible for those guns. That means know who has access.
> The ATF has been lacksadazical in its job of monitoring gun sales because they just don't have the man power. That being said, more gun regulation will only be obeyed by lawful gun owners, not criminals. More gun bans creates profitable black markets.
> 
> Bill



The thing is that if someone has easy access to the weapon, they can do a lot of damage. If the access to a gun for the shooter was difficult but they had easy access to a rope, perhaps he would have only taken his own life instead of going on a shooting spree.

I agree that you will never keep guns out of the hands of criminals, but perhaps you can keep them out of the hands of those that are in between the law abiding citizens and the hardened criminals.


----------



## easyrider (Dec 15, 2012)

Beaglemom3 said:


> I've been thinking about all I've read here and have drawn a few conclusions for myself:
> 
> 1. The sane, non-criminal and reasonably responsible person should be considered for ownership after passing stringent tests and background checks. Sort of like Switzerland.  Need to develop a "sanity" test first. Legally sane is a broad term.
> 
> ...



For me to have a concealed carry permit in 36 states I had to take a required class on gun rules and go through back ground checks. To own my guns I had to wait a certain number of days after purchase so the seller could run background check. 
To use my guns I have had gun use training which is not required and very different than taking a class to learn rules. My guns are always locked down with the exception of the one I carry. 
It is easy to skirt background checks by purchasing a gun from a private seller verus a dealer. 

This was a tragic event but so are suicides, many of which include guns. There are more suicides than homicides committed in the USA by guns each year. 

There is no workable answer that would satisfy every one but until a law abiding gun owner breaks the law why should this group have more rules placed on them. 

I would also like thank every one for their thoughts on this subject and their ability to post like adults and not flame the thread.

Also, the guy in Oregon was stopped by a person with a concealed carry permit.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuLgO4wo4xI

Bill


----------



## Ken555 (Dec 15, 2012)

By David Frum, earlier this year. I suggest everyone read this article.

Fear drives opposition to gun control



> [...]people hesitate to own guns themselves because they recognize that keeping a gun in the house is a dangerous thing to do. A gun in the house minimally doubles the risk that a household member will kill himself or herself. (Some studies put the increase in suicide risk as high as 10 times.) An American is 50% more likely to be shot dead by his or her own hand than to be shot dead by a criminal assailant. More than 30,000 Americans injure themselves with guns every year.





> In the land of the Second Amendment, nobody will take your guns away. But if you love your children, you should get rid of them voluntarily.


----------



## CarolF (Dec 15, 2012)

Beaglemom3 said:


> Warning: Slightly graphic here:
> 
> For many years I worked at Boston City Hospital during the "Tong Wars", the cocaine wars in Boston during the early 80s. I worked in the SICU (surgical intensive care unit) and had more GSW (gunshot wound) victims/patients than I care to remember. I had so many that I could tell you the caliber of the bullet just by doing the dressing/packing change; .22, .38 and the dreaded .45 and these were just the entrance wounds. Won't describe the exit wounds. Sometimes there were no exit wounds. Many were head wounds and the only dressings done were just the reinforcement of the primary surgical dressing due to the never-ending grey matter seepage. Then the posturing and seizing all night. After a few days, when the heart is beating very slowly (not really perfusing) and only because of primal brainstem function, the odor... it is unforgettable. This is the reality of the end care of shooting victims, those who get through surgery. Saying all this not for shock value, but for a reality check of sorts, truly. This is what the public doesn't get to see. Some survive, but I can't really call that living.



Good post.  

Your current health systems which emphasize prevention over punishment have been successful in reducing the rates of injury and death from infectious disease, car accidents, and tobacco consumption - they can be applied to gun violence.

Presenting the facts around the carnage of gun related incidents could have the same impact in changing public perception as the introduction of wearing seat-belts to reduce road death/injury.  Although I suspect the US Gun manufacturers would put up a fight. 

http://www.cdc.gov/MotorVehicleSafety/pdf/PolicyImpact-SeatBelts.pdf


----------



## CarolF (Dec 15, 2012)

Ken555 said:


> In the land of the Second Amendment, nobody will take your guns away. But if you love your children, you should get rid of them voluntarily.[/URL]



Yes, the birth of my child made me realise that I didn't want a gun in the house.  We got rid of them via a gun amnesty years ago.  We still have gun amnesties.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-11-01/record-haul-from-sa-gun-amnesty/4346204



> Over three months, people handed in thousands of guns, of which 77 are yet to be properly identified.
> 
> SA Attorney-General John Rau praised the community for the level of cooperation.
> 
> ...


----------



## pjrose (Dec 15, 2012)

easyrider said:


> . . .
> I would also like thank every one for their thoughts on this subject and their ability to post like adults and not flame the thread.
> 
> Bill



Thumbs up to this - good job TUGgers!


----------



## easyrider (Dec 15, 2012)

*Darrell Scott ..*

On Thursday, Darrell Scott, the father of Rachel Scott, a victim of the Columbine High School shootings in Littleton, Colorado, was invited to address the House Judiciary Committee’s subcommittee.

“Since the dawn of creation there has been both good & evil in the hearts of men and women. We all contain the seeds of kindness or the seeds of violence. The death of my wonderful daughter, Rachel Joy Scott, and the deaths of that heroic teacher, and the other eleven children who died must not be in vain. Their blood cries out for answers.

“The first recorded act of violence was when Cain slew his brother Abel out in the field. The villain was not the club he used.. Neither was it the NCA, the National Club Association. The true killer was Cain, and the reason for the murder could only be found in Cain’s heart.

“In the days that followed the Columbine tragedy, I was amazed at how quickly fingers began to be pointed at groups such as the NRA. I am not a member of the NRA. I am not a hunter. I do not even own a gun. I am not here to represent or defend the NRA - because I don’t believe that they are responsible for my daughter’s death. Therefore I do not believe that they need to be defended. If I believed they had anything to do with Rachel’s murder I would be their strongest opponent

I am here today to declare that Columbine was not just a tragedy — it was a spiritual event that should be forcing us to look at where the real blame lies! Much of the blame lies here in this room. Much of the blame lies behind the pointing fingers of the accusers themselves. I wrote a poem just four nights ago that expresses my feelings best.

Your laws ignore our deepest needs, Your words are empty air. You’ve stripped away our heritage, You’ve outlawed simple prayer. Now gunshots fill our classrooms, And precious children die. You seek for answers everywhere, And ask the question “Why?” You regulate restrictive laws, Through legislative creed. And yet you fail to understand, That God is what we need!

“Men and women are three-part beings. We all consist of body, mind, and spirit. When we refuse to acknowledge a third part of our make-up, we create a void that allows evil, prejudice, and hatred to rush in and wreak havoc. Spiritual presences were present within our educational systems for most of our nation’s history. Many of our major colleges began as theological seminaries. This is a historical fact. What has happened to us as a nation? We have refused to honor God, and in so doing, we open the doors to hatred and violence. And when something as terrible as Columbine’s tragedy occurs —politicians immediately look for a scapegoat such as the NRA. They immediately seek to pass more restrictive laws that contribute to erode away our personal and private liberties. We do not need more restrictive laws. Eric and Dylan would not have been stopped by metal detectors. No amount of gun laws can stop someone who spends months planning this type of massacre. The real villain lies within our own hearts.

“As my son Craig lay under that table in the school library and saw his two friends murdered before his very eyes, he did not hesitate to pray in school. I defy any law or politician to deny him that right! I challenge every young person in America , and around the world, to realize that on April 20, 1999, at Columbine High School prayer was brought back to our schools. Do not let the many prayers offered by those students be in vain. Dare to move into the new millennium with a sacred disregard for legislation that violates your God-given right to communicate with Him. To those of you who would point your finger at the NRA — I give to you a sincere challenge.. Dare to examine your own heart before casting the first stone! My daughter’s death will not be in vain! The young people of this country will not allow that to happen!” - Darrell Scott


______________________________________________
I totally agree with Darell

Bill


----------



## CarolF (Dec 15, 2012)

Other developed countries that do not permit prayer in schools and are less religious than the US, have much less death and injury from gun related incidents.  The US is unique.

As the saying goes "Trust in Allah, but tie up your camels"


----------



## eal (Dec 15, 2012)

Eric and Dylan would not have been stopped by metal detectors. But would they have been stopped by an active community and school-based mental health program? Their behaviour was off-track for a long time before the shootings - someone could have noticed and done... something !?!


----------



## easyrider (Dec 15, 2012)

CarolF said:


> Other developed countries that do not permit prayer in schools and are less religious than the US, have much less death and injury from gun related incidents.  The US is unique.
> 
> As the saying goes "Trust in Allah, but tie up your camels"




In the UK gun crime has almost doubled since their strict gun regulation went into effect.

The latest Government figures show that the total number of firearm offences in England and Wales has increased from 5,209 in 1998/99 to 9,865 last year - a rise of 89 per cent. 

In some parts of the country, the number of offences has increased more than five-fold. 

In eighteen police areas, gun crime at least doubled.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...e-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html#ixzz2FADXPUFp

In the USA, kids in Christian or private schools are less likely to encounter violence and drug use. Most of these kids end up in college. 

Bill


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Dec 15, 2012)

easyrider said:


> In the USA, kids in Christian or private schools are less likely to encounter violence and drug use. Most of these kids end up in college.
> 
> Bill



This has more to do with the 'resources' of the parents then the children themselves


----------



## SueDonJ (Dec 15, 2012)

Ridewithme38 said:


> This has more to do with the 'resources' of the parents then the children themselves



As well, private schools can choose to expel "problem" children while the public systems must make some type of provisions for them.


----------



## SueDonJ (Dec 15, 2012)

I have faith, I believe.  But my faith isn't the only thing that makes me subscribe to a moral code.  Also, I know many non-believers whom I would also consider moral and good.  In fact, most of them used to share my same belief system but they left it when our church leaders were exposed as completely immoral.

Probably this isn't a good tangent to travel, but I'm only mentioning it because IMO it's not necessary to have religion in order to have good morals and faith in your fellow humans.  I think we're incorrectly placing blame when we accuse atheists and other non-believers for the societal failings being discussed in this thread.


----------



## bobpark56 (Dec 15, 2012)

Beaglemom3 said:


> I've been thinking about all I've read here and have drawn a few conclusions for myself:
> 
> 1. The sane, non-criminal and reasonably responsible person should be considered for ownership after passing stringent tests and background checks. Sort of like Switzerland.  Need to develop a "sanity" test first. Legally sane is a broad term.
> 
> ...


----------



## CarolF (Dec 15, 2012)

easyrider said:


> In the UK gun crime has almost doubled since their strict gun regulation went into effect.
> 
> The latest Government figures show that the total number of firearm offences in England and Wales has increased from 5,209 in 1998/99 to 9,865 last year - a rise of 89 per cent.
> 
> ...



There are a number of UK newspapers that reference their statistics.  This article provides a very different picture and sourced its data from the Home Office.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10220974

There is no doubt that some years are worse than others, however, the UK is looking at further restricting gun usage to combat what is actually a small proportion of overall recorded crime.

http://www.politics.co.uk/reference/gun-crime
Source: Home Office – February 2012



> More recently concerns have been increasing about the use of illegal firearms by street gangs and organised criminals. In February 2012, the Home Office launched a consultation on proposals to strengthen the law in this area; in particular on whether the penalty should be increased for illegal importation of firearms and also whether there was a need for a new offence of possession of illegal firearms with intent to supply.
> 
> Although firearms offences account for only a small proportion of overall recorded crime, the Home Office said that gun crime associated with street gangs and organised crime, particularly in the UK's largest cities, was a cause of major concern "with young people featuring disproportionately among both perpetrators and victims."



The US has an enormous problem compared to the UK and other developed countries and I agree that it is unlikely that gun control alone will solve the problem.

Rate of Civilian Firearm Possession per 100 Population
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compare/194/rate_of_civilian_firearm_possession/192

Number of gun homicides
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compare/194/number_of_gun_homicides/192


----------



## pianodinosaur (Dec 15, 2012)

Sudden mass murders by maniacs are all too frequent.  G-d only knows what all these young children and adults could have accomplished with their lives in Newtown, Connecticut.  Unfortunately, far more innocent people are systematically butchered by governments than individual maniacs.  

How many people will be killed or crippled by drunk drivers today?  Should we ban automobiles?  The prohibition did not work.  Taking away the driver's license does absolutely nothing to stop a drunk driver from committing a repeat offense.  Our laws against drunk driving are not working.

Bad things happen to good people.  A deeper discussion of this phenomenon would get into the realm of religion.


----------



## TUGBrian (Dec 15, 2012)

pgnewarkboy said:


> I am totally against gun control.  I seek a constitutional BAN on all guns.  If nothing else it will end these absurd arguments about types of guns used in crime.



there is a ban on heroin and meth already.

as is a ban on murder/rape/arson/etc.


----------



## TUGBrian (Dec 15, 2012)

Beaglemom3 said:


> I've been thinking about all I've read here and have drawn a few conclusions for myself:
> 
> 1. The sane, non-criminal and reasonably responsible person should be considered for ownership after passing stringent tests and background checks. Sort of like Switzerland.  Need to develop a "sanity" test first. Legally sane is a broad term.
> 
> ...



These laws already exist in many states.


----------



## TUGBrian (Dec 15, 2012)

Just my quick observation for the evening (been a long day)

I firmly believe that the average law abiding citizen is capable of owning a gun, and not commuting any crime with it.  Tens of millions of guns are not used in crimes every day, the same millions of owners do not commit crimes with them every day....this is indisputable fact.

Those who wish guns banned completely, or restricted to an absurd level (this of course is the true grey area over what should be banned and what shouldnt...even im not such a die hard to believe that the general public should be allowed to own whatever they want)....seem to believe that a common average citizen cannot be trusted to own a firearm.

I cringe to think at how this is acceptable to some, and if that is acceptable, why does it only apply to guns?  There are far more deadly and dangerous things anyone can obtain at any time (far easier than guns) to cause death and mayhem.  cars are a great example of this.  alcohol is another. Noone really proposes the ban of either of these completely (and most would sound ridiculous in doing so IMO)...yet they (both alone and together) are the causes of more death and crime around the world than all the private guns owned combined.

Tobacco is another, its perfectly clear this kills people...yet the right for you to do it (and subject others to it around you, especially your children) is not challenged on a regular basis like when tragedies like this take the lives of a few dozen innocent children.  (note more than 5 million people die every year due to tobacco use...thats FIVE MILLION PEOPLE).  Everyone knows it...but its one of those things that most people simply say "well you are a responsible adult, you can make your own decisions"

I wont ever argue that shootings like these are sensless and tragic, and I see how they tug on heart stirings and feelings to make people become more vocal about controlling firearms.

I just dont comprehend how so many other things could be addressed that would save so many more lives than the few tragedies like this that happen.

Ill post more later, either way I do like to have rational and insightful discussion with those who have a different opinion than mine...and I also thank you all for not letting this get anywhere near what many feared would happen in this thread =)


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Dec 15, 2012)

So Brian, do you believe there is a solution to be found?  Or do you not think we need to look for a solution?


----------



## pjrose (Dec 15, 2012)

The White House has a petition site; petitions representing many of these views are up there now.  

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petitions


----------



## CarolF (Dec 16, 2012)

*FBI Data*

Murders
by State and Type of Weapon 

(Fire Arms - Handguns, Rifles, Shotguns, Knives or cutting instruments, Other weapons, Hands/Fists/Feet etc)

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-20


----------



## Beefnot (Dec 16, 2012)

TUGBrian said:


> Just my quick observation for the evening (been a long day)
> 
> Tobacco is another, its perfectly clear this kills people...yet the right for you to do it (and subject others to it around you, especially your children) is not challenged on a regular basis like when tragedies like this take the lives of a few dozen innocent children.  (note more than 5 million people die every year due to tobacco use...thats FIVE MILLION PEOPLE).  Everyone knows it...but its one of those things that most people simply say "well you are a responsible adult, you can make your own decisions"



It's not about the number of victims, but the willingness of those victims.


----------



## MuranoJo (Dec 16, 2012)

ace2000 said:


> There's one common theme that runs through all of these shootings.
> 
> With very rare exceptions, the shooter has been an avid "gamer".



Interesting.


----------



## Conan (Dec 16, 2012)

“Everybody was hit more than once,” some from close range, [the Medical Examiner] said. “This is a very devastating set of injuries.”

You can buy his gun at many Wal*Mart stores (only in America, of course)
http://www.walmart.com/ip/Bushmaster-M4A3-.223-REM-16-Patrol-Carbine/19235996


> *Bushmaster Patrolman's Carbine M4A3 Rifle, 5.56 NATO*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Twinkstarr (Dec 16, 2012)

SueDonJ said:


> As well, private schools can choose to expel "problem" children while the public systems must make some type of provisions for them.



With a private school, a "problem" child is probably not even admitted or if they are it is on probation. 

I know our local Country Day has a child's current teacher fill out a fairly lengthy questionare that covers more than just grades. They do a lot of "weeding out" in their preschool/kindergarten of children who don't match their profile of the right student for the school.


----------



## ace2000 (Dec 16, 2012)

Conan said:


> “Everybody was hit more than once,” some from close range, [the Medical Examiner] said. “This is a very devastating set of injuries.”
> 
> And you can buy his gun at many Wal*Mart stores (only in America, of course)
> http://www.walmart.com/ip/Bushmaster-M4A3-.223-REM-16-Patrol-Carbine/19235996


 
Interesting... thank you for sharing this. I have switched sides and will say that I now definitely favor gun control, and your post did it.

I had to research and validate it, and it appears to be the actual gun used.  Here's another good article...

http://www.pressherald.com/news/gunmans-weapons-each-carry-deadly-punch_2012-12-16.html


----------



## ace2000 (Dec 16, 2012)

ace2000 said:


> I had to research and validate it, and it appears to be the actual gun used. Here's another good article...


 
Meant to include the headline and subtitle...

*Gunman's weapons all capable of massive punch*

*The Bushmaster rifle he carried fires high-velocity bullets that explode in tissue.*


----------



## Tia (Dec 16, 2012)

I can't figure why a woman, like this guys mother who was the registered owner, would own 3 such weapons .... esp the rifle. 

I think we need to look into our society deeper to try and figure out how to change this in the future.  There are plenty of irresponsible people raising kids and that to me is not comforting.


----------



## bogey21 (Dec 16, 2012)

SueDonJ said:


> As well, private schools can choose to expel "problem" children while the public systems must make some type of provisions for them.


Very true.  This is a hugh plus for parents who have the resources to send theie kids to private schools.  I sent my kids to one of the "Christian" schools starting in 5th grade as it was significantly less costly than some of the more mainstream private schools.  Technically, each child had to reapply for admission every year.  If a kid was really trouble, they tossed them out during the school year but if a kid just didn't fit for one reason or another, they would just deny them admission for the next school year.

George


----------



## Elan (Dec 16, 2012)

Tia said:


> I can't figure why a woman, like this guys mother who was the registered owner, would own 3 such weapons .... esp the rifle.
> 
> I think we need to look into our society deeper to try and figure out how to change this in the future.  There are plenty of irresponsible people raising kids and that to me is not comforting.



  Yeah, that's the direction I keep turning as well.  You've got a mentally unstable son, yet you've got 3 weapons, including an assault rifle, in your house?   

  I heard an interview of a family member (ex sister in law, IIRC) that described the mom as being of the "survivalist" mentality, which would explain a lot of irrational decision making.


----------



## Ken555 (Dec 16, 2012)

Tia said:


> I can't figure why a woman, like this guys mother who was the registered owner, would own 3 such weapons .... esp the rifle.
> 
> I think we need to look into our society deeper to try and figure out how to change this in the future.  There are plenty of irresponsible people raising kids and that to me is not comforting.



I hate to say it, but some (a lot) of people...just like guns. As a general statement, many of those I personally know (and I don't know many, especially those who admit it) can't defend the practice when pushed for an explanation. Of course, there are ex-military and police who have quite a high opinion of their own capabilities of managing gun ownership. Many gun owners think they are the exception - that no problem could occur with their guns, in their home, to their family...because after all, they keep their guns in a safe manner, instruct their family, etc.

I think your comment of "irresponsible people raising kids" goes a lot further than perhaps you think. Who are these irresponsible people? Certainly there are a lot of irresponsible people out there, given the USA's current lack of education and insight in many issues. Not all of them are gun owners. But are many? I don't know. 

Regardless, it seems that the facts of this particular incident are now becoming clear. The shooter didn't own the guns. His mother did. Gun control has a long way to go to accommodate this situation, even if it is expanded in some way. How do we go about qualifying everyone who has access to a gun? I would think to be virtually impossible, at least in the near term. 

I still am quite dismayed at, in my opinion, the obvious inability of many gun owners to accept that their sport (for lack of a better word) is so dangerous that it permits mass killings in schools. Some of you have compared guns to an automobile, which I would suggest is disingenuous. 

Something needs to be done. Is it more gun control? Education? What? 

Keep in mind that the country, and the world, is a drastically different place than it was when our country was founded. The right to arm yourself was created during a very different time - I would like to think that we are much more civilized now, with massive progress on a variety of issues (many of which weren't even thought of hundreds of years ago). I'm sure many of you won't agree, but I think America needs to change with the times. Sure, we all require the right to defend ourselves. But, that doesn't mean, at least to me, that I should have the right to buy as many guns as I want and store them in a location where other people can have access to them. It's time our society demand a discussion on this issue. After all, if not now, when?


----------



## Ken555 (Dec 16, 2012)

Elan said:


> Yeah, that's the direction I keep turning as well.  You've got a mentally unstable son, yet you've got 3 weapons, including an assault rifle, in your house?
> 
> I heard an interview of a family member (ex sister in law, IIRC) that described the mom as being of the "survivalist" mentality, which would explain a lot of irrational decision making.



Ah... That certainly adds some insight into this - perhaps she was also a bit off balance...


----------



## pgnewarkboy (Dec 16, 2012)

TUGBrian said:


> there is a ban on heroin and meth already.
> 
> as is a ban on murder/rape/arson/etc.



You go to jail for murder, rape, heroine, after the police hunt you down.   When the constitution is changed people will also go to jail for having a gun.   That will protect society against gun violence.   Imagine how many more rapes, robberies and murders there would be if it was legal and you couldn't be put in jail.


----------



## Beaglemom3 (Dec 16, 2012)

Great discussions on "Sunday Morning" and especially, "Face the Nation".  If you can, turn it on now.  CBS news.  No hype, just solid exploration of the issues.

I hope some got to watch today. Riveting. The NRA declined to come on to the panel discussion. This would have helped to understand the other side.


I have to say that this has been a thought-provoking thread and despite our differing opinions and thougts on solutions, we have all risen above petty bickering or cheap shots.





-


----------



## Ironwood (Dec 16, 2012)

For many of us who live north of the border, your Second Amendment, and the likes of Florida's 'stand your ground' laws shared with some 23 states seem absolutely bizarre.  At the same time I know there are many fellow Canadians who would stand unwaveringly with the NRA against any tightening of gun laws, but for heavens sake, why do you need so many guns?  I also recognize that further restrictions on gun ownership or availability may well not prevent all tragedies like we have just witnessed, but it would be a start in the right direction.  But as in the past after a couple of weeks of soul searching and gut wrenching discussion, nothing will change.


----------



## Beaglemom3 (Dec 16, 2012)

Beefnot said:


> It's not about the number of victims, but the willingness of those victims.



  Agree. Good point. Inflict whatever you want on yourself such as smoking. It is, sadly, for lack of a better term, self-inflicted . This is exactly what banning smoking in public places has done to mitigage harm to others. That law was enacted.


----------



## Tia (Dec 16, 2012)

easyrider said:


> Also, the guy in Oregon was stopped by a person with a concealed carry permit.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuLgO4wo4xI
> 
> Bill



I listened to link and it said the concealed carry didn't shoot because he was afraid he'd hit someone else who moved behind the shooter. Concealed carry guy said the shooter saw him and he thinks that was the last shot shot before shooter took own life. So maybe the sighting ended it or maybe it didn't.

Watching ABC ThisWeek  one guest said the mother of shooter had been upset with the school system for not helping her with her son........ guess we can look for more on that.


----------



## Beaglemom3 (Dec 16, 2012)

A word of praise for the brave school employees, in particular, Victoria Soto, for herding the children into safety and shielding them.


----------



## TUGBrian (Dec 16, 2012)

pgnewarkboy said:


> You go to jail for murder, rape, heroine, after the police hunt you down.   When the constitution is changed people will also go to jail for having a gun.   That will protect society against gun violence.   Imagine how many more rapes, robberies and murders there would be if it was legal and you couldn't be put in jail.



You also go to jail for using a gun to kill people already.


----------



## TUGBrian (Dec 16, 2012)

Beaglemom3 said:


> Agree. Good point. Inflict whatever you want on yourself such as smoking. It is, sadly, for lack of a better term, self-inflicted . This is exactly what banning smoking in public places has done to mitigage harm to others. That law was enacted.



and I agree with it completely!


----------



## TUGBrian (Dec 16, 2012)

Ridewithme38 said:


> So Brian, do you believe there is a solution to be found?  Or do you not think we need to look for a solution?



A solution to ending crime?

no, I dont have one of those...I think id be quite popular if I had a successful and realisitic idea on how to accomplish that though yes!


----------



## ace2000 (Dec 16, 2012)

Brian, I have a question for you (and I don't want to have to re-read the thread)... 

Hopefully you saw the post that displayed the weapon that was utilized in the last shooting. Are you in favor of that type of weapon being legal?


----------



## pgnewarkboy (Dec 16, 2012)

TUGBrian said:


> You also go to jail for using a gun to kill people already.



Exactly.  But if you went to jail for having a gun you wouldn't get to shoot somebody with it.


----------



## geoand (Dec 16, 2012)

Ken555 said:


> Of course, there are ex-military and police who have quite a high opinion of their own capabilities of managing gun ownership. Many gun owners think they are the exception - that no problem could occur with their guns, in their home, to their family...because after all, they keep their guns in a safe manner, instruct their family, etc.



This reminds of the situation with the police officer in county north of here that was in the family van with the family.  Both he and wife got out of the van to talk to some people.  They remained very close to the van with the young children still in it.  Sadly, one of the children found father's gun in the car.  If I remember correctly the child was under the age of 5 and shot and killed his 7 year old sister.

Police officer was charged with a crime and jury was deadlocked.  Prosecutor said he wouldn't be tried again.

In another county south of us, an officer was at home and his 3 year old son found dad's personal weapon and shot and killed himself.  Apparently, the Sheriff had issued lock boxes to all his officers.


----------



## easyrider (Dec 16, 2012)

Tia said:


> I listened to link and it said the concealed carry didn't shoot because he was afraid he'd hit someone else who moved behind the shooter. Concealed carry guy said the shooter saw him and he thinks that was the last shot shot before shooter took own life. So maybe the sighting ended it or maybe it didn't.
> 
> Watching ABC ThisWeek  one guest said the mother of shooter had been upset with the school system for not helping her with her son........ guess we can look for more on that.




Pointing a gun at someone often times makes people reconsider their actions. One of the things discussed in concealed carry class is the consequences of killing someone. You are totally responisble for each bullet, where it goes, who or what it hits. I think the guy in Clackamas was very responsible by waiting for a shot. 

Here are some other reasons a concealed hand gun saved lives.

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-07-25/news/32853144_1_gun-control-jeanne-assam-gunman-intent

http://charlotte.cbslocal.com/2012/...pon-saves-church-from-man-armed-with-shotgun/

http://nakedlaw.avvo.com/crime/8-horrible-crimes-stopped-by-legal-gun-owners.html

There are many cases to be made for concealed handguns saving lives. 99% of this type of life saving by deterent never makes the news. 100% of situations like the school shooting is sensationized in the news for weeks. With all of this coverage of this shooting it makes me wonder who will be the next idiot to decide to copy cat kill. Not only news people are getting in on this but politicians will be using this to get air time under the guise of caring. 

Bill


----------



## ace2000 (Dec 16, 2012)

ace2000 said:


> Brian, I have a question for you (and I don't want to have to re-read the thread)...
> 
> Hopefully you saw the post that displayed the weapon that was utilized in the last shooting. Are you in favor of that type of weapon being legal?


 
Question is open for anyone, I'm really curious... does anybody feel that type of weapon should be legal?

http://tugbbs.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1397458&postcount=156


----------



## Passepartout (Dec 16, 2012)

I have no quarrel with mentally stable, trained people owning and carrying appropriate firearms. But unstable folks with large capacity assault weapons whose only suitable function is killing people must be stopped. Sure, those folks could drive a car into a crowd, or fer crissakes get out the kitchen knives or grandpa's antique samuri sword off the mantle and get their 15 minutes of fame. It's a choice- get rid of the weapons, or get the unstable out of society. Make the choice.

Jim


----------



## ace2000 (Dec 16, 2012)

Passepartout said:


> It's a choice- get rid of the weapons, or get the unstable out of society. Make the choice.


 
What would be the basis on "getting someone out of society"?  Do you know of a test that is capable of making that determination?  Easy to say, but very difficult to implement.


----------



## Passepartout (Dec 16, 2012)

ace2000 said:


> What would be the basis on "getting someone out of society"?  Do you know of a test that is capable of making that determination?  Easy to say, but very difficult to implement.



No. I doubt that such a test exists. We closed the assylums 50 years ago. Put the mentally ill on the streets and/or medicated them. Didn't work so well, did it? So that leaves the alternative. Maybe it's REAL background checks and 'cooling off' period before acquiring certain classes of gun. Like is done today with fully automatic guns. 

Whatever is done, and I hope something is done, those 28 will be forever dead.

I mourn for them.

Jim


----------



## slip (Dec 16, 2012)

ace2000 said:


> Question is open for anyone, I'm really curious... does anybody feel that type of weapon should be legal?
> 
> http://tugbbs.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1397458&postcount=156



Yes, this weapon should be legal. I did part time gunsmithing for about 15 years
And there is no difference between this gun and most hunting rifle besides the
Looks. They function the same and this gun uses a much less powerful round 
Than most hunting rifles. An assault rifle is still a rifle and the attributes that
Make it useful in combat also make it useful for hunters.

All guns that were designed for war have been adapted to be used for hunting
And target shooting. This holds true going all the way back to the first gun
Invented.


----------



## easyrider (Dec 16, 2012)

Passepartout said:


> I have no quarrel with mentally stable, trained people owning and carrying appropriate firearms. But unstable folks with large capacity assault weapons whose only suitable function is killing people must be stopped. Sure, those folks could drive a car into a crowd, or fer crissakes get out the kitchen knives or grandpa's antique samuri sword off the mantle and get their 15 minutes of fame. It's a choice- get rid of the weapons, or get the unstable out of society. Make the choice.
> 
> Jim



These tactical weapons like the cheap bushmaster sold at Wallmart are not the only weapon that have a large capacity magazine. Many weapons can use a larger clip.

A glock 19 9mm holds 15 bullets in a standard clip and fires as fast as you can pull the trigger. Reloading takes less than 2 seconds. 

Guns were designed to kill. It really doesn't matter what type of gun it is especially if the shooter is unstable. 

Bill


----------



## siesta (Dec 16, 2012)

ace2000 said:


> Question is open for anyone, I'm really curious... does anybody feel that type of weapon should be legal?
> 
> http://tugbbs.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1397458&postcount=156


seems like a weak argument to try to ban a type of weapon (so called assault weapons) that are used in  in so few crimes. Do you want it banned because it looks scary and makes you feel better?

Assault weapons are used in about one-fifth of one percent (.20%) of all violent crimes and about one percent in gun crimes. It is estimated that from one to seven percent of all homicides are committed with assault weapons.

Seems to me your misguided intentions should be directed towards cheap handguns, because those at least are involved in about 90% of homicides.

Why are assault weapons used so rarely in crime? Because they are expensive, sometimes a few grand or more. They are difficult to conceal as well as handguns, and they are more expensive to shoot. Is not a surprise then that .22 and 9mm caliber handguns kill more people than any otherin the US, and are most frequently used in crime.


----------



## siesta (Dec 16, 2012)

pgnewarkboy said:


> The constitution should be amended to ban all guns.  If you want to defend yourself learn karate.
> 
> Now we will hear from hysterical members of the gun religion.   My answer to all of you in advance is IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT TOO BAD.   The defense of gun ownership has cost the loss of so many lives it cannot be calculated.


 the 2nd amendment is 1 of 10 amendments that make up the bill of rights, the corner stone of our constitution. I say to you, start changing the bill of rights and see where that gets us. When someone wants to change the 1st amendment to limit free speech and limit violence in media, movies, music to make us more safe, will you concede. What about when they want to change the 4th amendment that prevents unlawful search and seizure, will you concede then? Surely if police could stop anyone they like and search them for any reason it will get more contraband off the street and make us safer? 

America's citizens are the most free in the world, we are also the most armed citizenry in the world. These go hand in hand. Our founding fathers felt that you truly cannot have freedom if you cant defend it, from external threats and internal.  But free isnt the same as safe. But I would rather be more free and less safe than more safe and less free. And by the way, the founding fathers agree with me and so does the US Supreme Court as recently as 2008 and 2010 reaffirming the individual right to own a gun for self defense and as a last resort against tyranny.

IF YOU DONT LIKE the principles our country was founded upon, and the principles that have ben reaffirmed, you are free to go to China, they have great gun control there.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin


----------



## pianodinosaur (Dec 16, 2012)

Seemingly sane people can snap and commit criminal acts.  Dr. Clara Harris was a pillar of our society until her husband committed one too many infidelities.  Then she ran him over with her automobile several times in the parking lot of the Hilton NASA.  Dr. Clara Harris was a perfectly normal dentist up until that moment in time.  

We have stayed at The Hilton NASA without killing anybody as have numerous other people.  Clearly, without her automobile and the parking lot, this crime of passion would never have occurred.  The parking lot would not have been there without the hotel, which provided an excellent location for her husband to have his extramarital affair.  We can make the world a much safer place for adultery if we were to ban automobiles, parking lots, and hotels.


----------



## Ken555 (Dec 16, 2012)

siesta said:


> America's citizens are the most free in the world



Are you sure about that? This sentiment is mentioned often, yet I don't think it's real any longer. There are quite a number of 'free' countries in the world these days. Just look to Canada, or almost anywhere in Europe. Certainly America is a leader among the free societies, but I'm not convinced its the 'most' free.


----------



## easyrider (Dec 16, 2012)

This is from David Desarano's , MS Comunications Theroy , Masters Thesis.


13.) Its very difficult for a human being to kill a member of their own species; they have to be manipulated to do so. During World War II, it’s been estimated that, when left to their own devices, only 15-20% of individual riflemen would fire their weapon at an exposed enemy target. This was blamed primarily upon the training they received in which they would practice shooting at a bull's-eye. Of course, bull's-eyes don't appear on the battlefield and after the war, the military switched to human-shaped targets. By the Vietnam War, 95% of the riflemen fired their weapons when the right opportunity arose. Today, the Marine Corps use a modified version of the first-person action game Doom (known as Marine Doom) as a training device, along with the traditional live ammunition range targets as a means of normalizing killing amongst their personnel. In fact, this has been so successful, the Marine Corps Combat and Development Command in Quantico, VA have evaluated more than thirty commercially available electronic games for their potential use as training tools. This brings up a very disturbing question. If the US military has acknowledged for decades the success of using human-like targets to normalize killing, what, then, is the effect of the same or similar games on kids, where the objective is the near indiscriminate killing of "the enemy" using toy guns? With this in mind, the rise of school shootings should come as no surprise (Jhally & Huntemann, 2000; Naisbitt, et al., p. 76-77).

____________________________________________________

So, YES, there is a link to kids, mostly young males and violent video games.

Bill


----------



## siesta (Dec 16, 2012)

Deleted---


----------



## geoand (Dec 16, 2012)

I have seen posts here that discuss the constitution and our right to possess guns so that we can defend ourselves from external and internal threats and from tyranny.  It already has been mentioned somewhere, maybe on this thread, but I think we are fooling ourselves when we mention that we are protecting ourselves from internal threats and tyranny.  Any of the police agencies have far more firepower than we could go up against and survive.  The ARMY, NAVY, AIR FORCE, SPECIAL FORCES, are so strong that citizens arming themselves against them is like a lit candle existing in the full force of the biggest hurricane.


----------



## siesta (Dec 16, 2012)

geoand said:


> I have seen posts here that discuss the constitution and our right to possess guns so that we can defend ourselves from external and internal threats and from tyranny.  It already has been mentioned somewhere, maybe on this thread, but I think we are fooling ourselves when we mention that we are protecting ourselves from internal threats and tyranny.  Any of the police agencies have far more firepower than we could go up against and survive.  The ARMY, NAVY, AIR FORCE, SPECIAL FORCES, are so strong that citizens arming themselves against them is like a lit candle existing in the full force of the biggest hurricane.


 the syrian military has an army, navy, air force, special forces, and chemical weapons and missles and tanks and artillery. The rebels have small arms and seem to be doing well?


----------



## geoand (Dec 16, 2012)

siesta said:


> the syrian military has an army, navy, air force, special forces, and chemical weapons and missles and tanks and artillery. The rebels have small arms and seem to be doing well?



What was the ? after your last sentence?


But I will say, Wow, you got me there.  

I didn't say that we shouldn't own guns and I won't bring out any more examples of what we have allowed our government to amass in weaponry.  However, I do believe that as a citizenry, we have much more power to defend against a tyranny by our voice and relying upon voting for the right people to represent us.


----------



## siesta (Dec 16, 2012)

geoand said:


> However, I do believe that as a citizenry, we have much more power to defend against a tyranny by our voice and relying upon voting for the right people to represent us.


 I agree, but just in case, we'll hold onto our 2nd amendment.


----------



## Ken555 (Dec 16, 2012)

siesta said:


> the syrian military has an army, navy, air force, special forces, and chemical weapons and missles and tanks and artillery. The rebels have small arms and seem to be doing well?



According to Wikipedia, the Syrian army had a FY2011 budget of just US$1.8 Billion. Do you really think the American civilian population could compete in a similar manner to the US military, with it's $549.4 Billion budget for FY2011? Really, this is a laughable comparison. (Oh, and don't forget that other governments are helping the Syrian rebels).

There is just no practical manner in which the American population could compete with our military, and to think otherwise is to ignore rather obvious facts.


----------



## Ken555 (Dec 16, 2012)

geoand said:


> This reminds of the situation with the police officer in county north of here that was in the family van with the family.  Both he and wife got out of the van to talk to some people.  They remained very close to the van with the young children still in it.  Sadly, one of the children found father's gun in the car.  If I remember correctly the child was under the age of 5 and shot and killed his 7 year old sister.
> 
> Police officer was charged with a crime and jury was deadlocked.  Prosecutor said he wouldn't be tried again.
> 
> In another county south of us, an officer was at home and his 3 year old son found dad's personal weapon and shot and killed himself.  Apparently, the Sheriff had issued lock boxes to all his officers.



Yes, this is another example of how individuals think this particular problem would never occur to them, or to their families. They are exempt from such situations because they "know better", no doubt. It's really quite unreal to hear similar sentiments from gun owners, that they simply cannot understand the objective facts. 

It's time for everyone to acknowledge the truth. There is no need for the right to own unlimited guns. There is every need for a complete overhaul of the process by which gun sales occur, and which types of guns are sold. There are many ways to make it harder to purchase weapons, and raising the bar cannot but help the overall situation. We have to start somewhere, and until I hear otherwise (and so far I haven't seen any real suggestions on this thread) my belief is rather firm in that more restrictions, longer waiting periods, hunting guns only and so forth should be along the lines of what could help. Some of the politicians are already discussing a renewal of the assault weapon law which expired some years ago (which in itself is rather unbelievable), but I think that needs to be just the beginning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban


----------



## Ken555 (Dec 16, 2012)

slip said:


> Yes, this weapon should be legal. I did part time gunsmithing for about 15 years
> And there is no difference between this gun and most hunting rifle besides the
> Looks. They function the same and this gun uses a much less powerful round
> Than most hunting rifles. An assault rifle is still a rifle and the attributes that
> ...



Assuming I understand this correctly, under the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, this is not the case. As long as it looks like an automatic weapon, it was banned. For instance:



> Assault weapon (semi-automatic) refers primarily (but not exclusively) to firearms that possess the cosmetic features of an assault rifle (which are fully-automatic). Actually possessing the operational features, such as 'full-auto', is not required for classification as an assault weapon; merely the possession of cosmetic features is enough to warrant such classification as an assault weapon. Semi-automatic firearms, when fired, automatically extract the spent cartridge casing and load the next cartridge into the chamber, ready to fire again; they do not fire automatically like a machine gun; rather, only one round is fired with each trigger pull.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban


----------



## siesta (Dec 16, 2012)

Ken555 said:


> According to Wikipedia, the Syrian army had a FY2011 budget of just US$1.8 Billion. Do you really think the American civilian population could compete in a similar manner to the US military, with it's $549.4 Billion budget for FY2011? Really, this is a laughable comparison. (Oh, and don't forget that other governments are helping the Syrian rebels).
> 
> There is just no practical manner in which the American population could compete with our military, and to think otherwise is to ignore rather obvious facts.


ken if you want to talk facts, America has nearly 300 million guns and over 80 million gun owners. If just 5% banded together that would be over 4million, larger than any army on earth, even NATO forces.


----------



## Ken555 (Dec 16, 2012)

siesta said:


> ken if you want to talk facts, America has nearly 300 million guns and over 80 million gun owners. If just 5% banded together that would be over 4million, larger than any army on earth, even NATO forces.



You really think quantity is going to overpower quality?

And yes, I think we need to have some facts in this thread. If I'm wrong, I expect others to correct me. What's the point of a discussion if we don't have facts?


----------



## siesta (Dec 16, 2012)

Ken555 said:


> You really think quantity is going to overpower quality?
> 
> And yes, I think we need to have some facts in this thread. If I'm wrong, I expect others to correct me. What's the point of a discussion if we don't have facts?


 Again, what I think is not important ill stick to facts.

In regards to quantity over quality, during ww2 the Japanese scrapped plans for a ground invasion of California  in part due to the threat the armed citizens posed. It would not be the cakewalk and slaughter the invasion of China was.


----------



## Beaglemom3 (Dec 16, 2012)

Ken555 said:


> Assuming I understand this correctly, under the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, this is not the case. As long as it looks like an automatic weapon, it was banned. For instance:
> 
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban




  It expired in March of 2004.


----------



## Beaglemom3 (Dec 16, 2012)

siesta said:


> the 2nd amendment is 1 of 10 amendments that make up the bill of rights, the corner stone of our constitution. I say to you, start changing the bill of rights and see where that gets us. When someone wants to change the 1st amendment to limit free speech and limit violence in media, movies, music to make us more safe, will you concede. What about when they want to change the 4th amendment that prevents unlawful search and seizure, will you concede then? Surely if police could stop anyone they like and search them for any reason it will get more contraband off the street and make us safer?
> 
> America's citizens are the most free in the world, we are also the most armed citizenry in the world. These go hand in hand. Our founding fathers felt that you truly cannot have freedom if you cant defend it, from external threats and internal.  But free isnt the same as safe. But I would rather be more free and less safe than more safe and less free. And by the way, the founding fathers agree with me and so does the US Supreme Court as recently as 2008 and 2010 reaffirming the individual right to own a gun for self defense and as a last resort against tyranny.
> 
> ...





  I have always been intrigued how Americans love to aruge their 2nd Amendment right and define this one, in particular, so narrowly while broadening others. Take the 1st amendment, you do have" freedom of speech", yet you cannot yell "fire" in a theatre (or other venues), use obscenities in certain media and cannot say "hijack" or similar words at the airport or on an aircraft or make slanderous & libelous statments without challenge. 

I won't respond to your "love it or leave it" reference. I'm more of a "fix it or forget it" type of American. It's one of the things that has advanced this nation of ours forward.Oh, my Dad and I served our country, so I find this rhetoric distasteful, strike that, lame and lacking any merit.

  As for what our great nation was founded upon by our founding Fathers, thankfully, we fixed a few things like abolishing slavery and giving women and other minorities the right to vote. This is how a nation evolves.   The 18th amendment was repealed by the 21st.


----------



## Conan (Dec 16, 2012)

Replying To My Pro-Gun Friends
http://www.coffeepartyusa.com/progun_friends


----------



## Beaglemom3 (Dec 16, 2012)

Conan said:


> Replying To My Pro-Gun Friends
> http://www.coffeepartyusa.com/progun_friends




  Excellent.

ETA: "If only guns disappeared the way the NRA has since Friday" Andy Borowitz




-


----------



## geoand (Dec 16, 2012)

siesta said:


> ken if you want to talk facts, America has nearly 300 million guns and over 80 million gun owners. If just 5% banded together that would be over 4million, larger than any army on earth, even NATO forces.



Some folks are logical and some are not.  You do realize that with your response equating the Syrian Armed forces to US Armed Forces, you could not have found a worse example.  There is no military force that can equal what we have.  My apologies to all that have served our great country on behalf of that poster.

Furthermore, if just 5% banded together - wow that means the other 95% are going to support that 5%.  I seriously doubt it.  I would think that the other 95% in this scenerio you came up with would recognize that the arsenal against them is too overwhelming with unlimited stockpiles of weapons and ammo.  Just how much ammo do you think that the 5% would have?  I have full faith and confidence in our form of government and it will never come to the point where you and the rest of the 5% you mention would never have to protect my freedoms.

There never will be a need for us to begin a war against our troops.  Our nation is to together for that to happen.

What is more likely to happen are some paramilitary type groups who think they have the answer for all of our problems and they are going to take action to do so.  Our military will not take care of this situation but it will be handled appropriately by our law enforcement agencies.


----------



## Liz Wolf-Spada (Dec 16, 2012)

I believe if you look at the second amendment you will see it talk about a well regulated militia, not a bunch of individuals with assault weapons.
Liz


----------



## slip (Dec 16, 2012)

Ken555 said:


> Assuming I understand this correctly, under the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, this is not the case. As long as it looks like an automatic weapon, it was banned. For instance:
> 
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban



The assault weapons ban put a definition to the weapon. It does not change the
Fact that an assault rifle has a different look than a hunting rifle. The ban
Said an assault rifle could have two of these three things but not all three: a folding 
Buttstock, a bayonet lug and a detachable 10 round magazine. The ban also only
Stopped the manufacture of magazines greater than 10 rounds. It did not make
The magazines greater than 10 rounds illegal.

This definition was done by the lawmakers. it doesn't change the fact, that in 
Function and assault rifle is the same as many hunting rifles.


----------



## siesta (Dec 16, 2012)

geoand said:


> Furthermore, if just 5% banded together - wow that means the other 95% are going to support that 5%.


 that is not in any way what I was saying. You must have poor reading comprehension.

Ken was hypothetically saying there was no way citizens of the US could stand up to the armed forces if need be. And I was merely pointing out that just 5% of gun owners equates to 4x the number of US troops. Please dont twist my words either on purpose or out of ignorance.

Done with this thread, now I finally understand the no politics on tug rule...The writers of tug rules must have been channeling the wisdom ofthe founding fathers


----------



## Talent312 (Dec 16, 2012)

The Second Amendment was written at a time when the common defense was provided by citizens' militias composed of men-folk who showed up with their own muskets. Thus, to compose a "well regulated" militia, they needed unfettered access to firearms.

In the 18th Century, history was rife with attempts by the crown to deny arms to certain groups of people. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court said it's purpose was to allay fears that the feds would disarm the people and disable citizens’ militias. But the Court went on to say that, while the prefatory clause announced a purpose (preservation of citizens' militias), it did not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause which enshrined an individual's right to keep and bear arms.

... Not that I agree this 18th Century concern has stood the test of time.
... Talk about being a hostage to the past.
.


----------



## TUGBrian (Dec 16, 2012)

ace2000 said:


> Brian, I have a question for you (and I don't want to have to re-read the thread)...
> 
> Hopefully you saw the post that displayed the weapon that was utilized in the last shooting. Are you in favor of that type of weapon being legal?



as far as ive seen, the reported weapons (used) were two pistols...one of which I personally own at the current time.

so to answer your question, no I dont believe that.

he could have killed the children just as easily with a 100 year old revolver.  It was clear he reloaded numerous times given the number of shots fired...all before police arrived.

While I see the point you are trying to make in the argument and dont want to dismiss it, I dont see how making those guns illegal would have stopped him from his quest.

after all, he didnt own the guns, his mother did...and he killed her first and took them.  Lets say guns are illegal to civilians, he could simply go kill a cop and steal his guns (all cops here have fully automatic versions of the "rifle" being mentioned in this shooting in their police cars)


----------



## TUGBrian (Dec 16, 2012)

pgnewarkboy said:


> Exactly.  But if you went to jail for having a gun you wouldn't get to shoot somebody with it.



I go to jail for having drugs, while I personally dont use them...i doubt it would be difficult to get ahold of some if I set my mind to it.


----------



## geoand (Dec 16, 2012)

siesta said:


> that is not in any way what I was saying. You must have poor reading comprehension.
> 
> Ken was hypothetically saying there was no way citizens of the US could stand up to the armed forces if need be. And I was merely pointing out that just 5% of gun owners equates to 4x the number of US troops. Please dont twist my words either on purpose or out of ignorance.
> 
> Done with this thread, now I finally understand the no politics on tug rule...The writers of tug rules must have been channeling the wisdom ofthe founding fathers



I don't think Ken was hypothetically speaking.  You were the one stating that 5% of the gun owners equates to 4x number of US troops.  Only interpretation of that is that you thought that was a large enough force that could effectively resist our armed forces.  What other reason for you to bring that up?

Gun owners in their totality do not have enough firepower, ammo, weaponry and training to put up an effective resistance to US Armed Forces.  That is why it doesn't make sense to believe owning guns is an effective deterrent against internal threats or tyranny.

Don't give up on this thread.  We all have been civil about this discussion.

We can all learn from it.  I think Ken and I were trying to point out what we disagree with you on in terms of protecting ourselves against internal threats and tyranny.  That is just a narrow part of this discussion.

If you believe in anything, believe that we can have open discourse about the problems we all face.  It is my belief that you and I, or anyone else and I, can have opposing beliefs but still live peacefully with one another.  However, that also means we can discuss those beliefs with one another and yes disagree.


----------



## TUGBrian (Dec 16, 2012)

Ken555 said:


> You really think quantity is going to overpower quality?
> 
> And yes, I think we need to have some facts in this thread. If I'm wrong, I expect others to correct me. What's the point of a discussion if we don't have facts?



one would think if our military can simply overwhelm a relatively smaller group of armed civilians....the war in afghanistan would have been over in days.

That said, I certainly didnt purchase any firearm to defend myself from my own government....there are simply too many people in this world who seemingly live by a different set of rules than the rest of us.  I firmly believe its better to have a gun and not need it, than need one and not have it.

Id imagine that even the most die hard anti gun person would have gladly picked up a weapon and fired a bullet into that lunatics head if given the chance to save those innocent children and teachers.


----------



## eal (Dec 16, 2012)

Ken555 said:


> Are you sure about that? This sentiment is mentioned often, yet I don't think it's real any longer. There are quite a number of 'free' countries in the world these days. Just look to Canada, or almost anywhere in Europe. Certainly America is a leader among the free societies, but I'm not convinced its the 'most' free.



Speaking of freedoms to timeshare folks who like to travel - Americans still can't legally travel to Cuba, unlike citizens of the countries mentioned above...


----------



## TUGBrian (Dec 16, 2012)

Beaglemom3 said:


> I have always been intrigued how Americans love to aruge their 2nd Amendment right and define this one, in particular, so narrowly while broadening others. Take the 1st amendment, you do have" freedom of speech", yet you cannot yell "fire" in a theatre (or other venues), use obscenities in certain media and cannot say "hijack" or similar words at the airport or on an aircraft or make slanderous & libelous statments without challenge.
> 
> I won't respond to your "love it or leave it" reference. I'm more of a "fix it or forget it" type of American. It's one of the things that has advanced this nation of ours forward.Oh, my Dad and I served our country, so I find this rhetoric distasteful, strike that, lame and lacking any merit.
> 
> As for what our great nation was founded upon by our founding Fathers, thankfully, we fixed a few things like abolishing slavery and giving women and other minorities the right to vote. This is how a nation evolves.   The 18th amendment was repealed by the 21st.



and the 2nd amendment has limits too, like I cant go out and buy a fully automatic assault rifle tomorrow....because that would be illegal.

nor can I modify a currently legal semi automatic rifle to be fully automatic...as that is also illegal.

noone is arguing that every law ever made has no exceptions....even "you cant kill someone" has exceptions....for instance if they are about to kill someone else.


----------



## geoand (Dec 16, 2012)

TUGBrian said:


> one would think if our military can simply overwhelm a relatively smaller group of armed civilians....the war in afghanistan would have been over in days.



That is an interesting point.  I think there are a few flaws in that point of view.  Our military will not sacrifice innocent civilians to shoot or fight with the Afgan enemy.  If we had to raise arms against our own forces to protect our way of life, the military would or most likely see all of us as enemy combatants.
In addition, we as a general rule are highly UNtrained.  The enemy in Afghanistan have been trained either in camps or due to more than 50 years of combat.  The terrain is Afghanistan works for the enemy.  Here in the US, we have wide open lands thru out.


----------



## Beaglemom3 (Dec 16, 2012)

For those who hold the 2nd Amendment as sacrosanct, consider this:

Suggestion: The Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms as such arms existed at the time of  ratification, that is , only weapons in use in 1791 allowed.




-


----------



## hypnotiq (Dec 16, 2012)

Beaglemom3 said:


> For those who hold the 2nd Amendment as sacrosanct, consider this:
> 
> Suggestion: The Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms as such arms existed at the time of  ratification, that is , only weapons in use in 1791 allowed.
> 
> -



Sure. As soon as you get the criminals to agree to the same!


----------



## hypnotiq (Dec 16, 2012)

Forget the militia argument. 

The police only have a duty to protect the community as a whole, not the individual. Refer to the LA riots for more info on this.

The problem is most are not suggesting more gun control, they are suggesting a 100% ban. That I have a problem with. Until you guarantee that criminals will not possess a firearm, I will not support the elimination of the right to protect my family.


----------



## Ken555 (Dec 16, 2012)

TUGBrian said:


> one would think if our military can simply overwhelm a relatively smaller group of armed civilians....the war in afghanistan would have been over in days.



I think you know better than this. Afghanistan is not your everyday insurgency. There are rather unique issues which are intrinsic to the country, which help explain why multiple countries over decades have been unable to succeed. Just search a bit and you'll find vast numbers of articles on this issue. For instance a quick search found this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/benjamin-r-barber/15-reasons-why-we-cant-wi_b_541130.html

Again, having weapons is one thing. Having an unlimited number of them is another. And, having weapons designed for nothing other than killing people (or that look like military weapons designed for such a purpose) have little intrinsic value and in my opinion should be banned completely. 

I'm sure we're all aware of the recent terrible act of violence in a Chinese school. While a number of students were injured, none died. Why? Because the attacker didn't have access to a gun. He used a knife.


----------



## Ken555 (Dec 16, 2012)

TUGBrian said:


> I go to jail for having drugs, while I personally dont use them...i doubt it would be difficult to get ahold of some if I set my mind to it.



Are you really comparing the use of drugs to gun ownership? Wow - that's a serious stretch.


----------



## TUGBrian (Dec 16, 2012)

Beaglemom3 said:


> For those who hold the 2nd Amendment as sacrosanct, consider this:
> 
> Suggestion: The Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms as such arms existed at the time of  ratification, that is , only weapons in use in 1791 allowed.
> 
> ...



Sadly, if we limit the laws afforded to us in the bill of rights to 1791 when it was written....

we would still have slaves

and

you couldnt vote


----------



## TUGBrian (Dec 16, 2012)

Ken555 said:


> Are you really comparing the use of drugs to gun ownership? Wow - that's a serious stretch.



not at all, I am merely pointing out that just because something is illegal, doesnt make it mysteriously disappear.

as someone pointed out above, ill gladly agree to a ban on all guns if you can come up with a way to make sure criminals cant have them.


----------



## Ken555 (Dec 16, 2012)

Talent312 said:


> The Second Amendment was written at a time when the common defense was provided by citizens' militias composed of men-folk who showed up with their own muskets. Thus, to compose a "well regulated" militia, they needed unfettered access to firearms.
> 
> In the 18th Century, history was rife with attempts by the crown to deny arms to certain groups of people. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court said it's purpose was to allay fears that the feds would disarm the people and disable citizens’ militias. But the Court went on to say that, while the prefatory clause announced a purpose (preservation of citizens' militias), it did not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause which enshrined an individual's right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> ...



Wow, facts! Thank you! 

And yes, it's unbelievable that this has been twisted to permit extreme use and ownership of guns. How many current gun owners participate in a local militia which has been called upon to defend the community?


----------



## SueDonJ (Dec 16, 2012)

hypnotiq said:


> Forget the militia argument.
> 
> The police only have a duty to protect the community as a whole, not the individual. Refer to the LA riots for more info on this.
> 
> The problem is most are not suggesting more gun control, they are suggesting a 100% ban. That I have a problem with. Until you guarantee that criminals will not possess a firearm, I will not support the elimination of the right to protect my family.



But those of us who would prefer a gun ban pretty much know that's not going to ever happen.  We recognize that the Second Amendment can be and has been legally interpreted to bestow a right to own guns on every citizen (even while we question the interpretation.)  If we're willing to at least have reasonable conversations about all of the related issues in an effort to reach a workable compromise, an effort to do more to protect the most innocent among us, why are our words dismissed so easily with claims that we won't settle for anything other than a total gun ban?  The NRA, especially, does not give one quarter to any thought of compromise.  The NRA is the most powerful lobby in this country and it's time for more of us to recognize that the NRA is a self-interest group, not a benevolent group working towards a more civil country.

I just watched the inter-faith service.  It was beautiful, very well done, and I applaud our President for bringing the conversation to it.  To those who will say that the conversation didn't belong, I have to ask you when and where it will be appropriate?  Every day in this country there are episodes of gun violence.  Granted, some are more heinous than others, but all of them are tragic.  Each and every one represents a breakdown in our civility.  So I keep asking, if it's not appropriate to have the conversation in the immediate aftermath, when will it ever be?


----------



## TUGBrian (Dec 16, 2012)

Ken555 said:


> I think you know better than this. Afghanistan is not your everyday insurgency. There are rather unique issues which are intrinsic to the country, which help explain why multiple countries over decades have been unable to succeed. Just search a bit and you'll find vast numbers of articles on this issue. For instance a quick search found this:
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/benjamin-r-barber/15-reasons-why-we-cant-wi_b_541130.html
> 
> ...




again, just making a point at where an armed minority is clearly not easily defeated by the most powerful army the world has ever known.


per the latter part, maybe it was a butter knife...i have no idea....I doubt it was a machete or other long/heavy blade.

While im not really up to test the theory (quite morbid if you ask me)...so Ill base my theory on what I see on the walking dead show.

I think you could just as effectively kill someone with a machete as with a gun.  Murder wasnt invented when firearms came out.


----------



## Ken555 (Dec 16, 2012)

eal said:


> Speaking of freedoms to timeshare folks who like to travel - Americans still can't legally travel to Cuba, unlike citizens of the countries mentioned above...



Well, this particular restriction is due to political reasons. I'm not sure I'd use this as an example of lack of freedom as defined as personal liberty, etc.


----------



## TUGBrian (Dec 16, 2012)

SueDonJ said:


> But those of us who would prefer a gun ban pretty much know that's not going to ever happen.  We recognize that the Second Amendment can be and has been legally interpreted to bestow a right to own guns on every citizen (even while we question the interpretation.)  If we're willing to at least have reasonable conversations about all of the related issues in an effort to reach a workable compromise, an effort to do more to protect the most innocent among us, why are our words dismissed so easily with claims that we won't settle for anything other than a total gun ban?  The NRA, especially, does not give one quarter to any thought of compromise.  The NRA is the most powerful lobby in this country and it's time for more of us to recognize that the NRA is a self-interest group, not a benevolent group working towards a more civil country.
> 
> I just watched the inter-faith service.  It was beautiful, very well done, and I applaud our President for bringing the conversation to it.  To those who will say that the conversation didn't belong, I have to ask you when and where it will be appropriate?  Every day in this country there are episodes of gun violence.  Granted, some are more heinous than others, but all of them are tragic.  Each and every one represents a breakdown in our civility.  So I keep asking, if it's not appropriate to have the conversation in the immediate aftermath, when will it ever be?



I have never seen a normal gun owner dismiss anyones lucid and valid argument on limiting the sorts of weapons that may or may not be legal to own.

I have yet to however see anyone actually argue that point.  I will admit perhaps my eyes focus on the "get rid of all guns now" posts....did I miss where someone just wanted certain weapons banned?

I think i did see some talk about the AR15 picture?  And I certainly agree that a fully automatic ar15 with a 30 round magazine should not be something someone can buy off the street.  youll never hear me argue otherwise.  but there are already laws that prohibit that...so im not sure whats being argued?


----------



## Ken555 (Dec 16, 2012)

TUGBrian said:


> again, just making a point at where an armed minority is clearly not easily defeated by the most powerful army the world has ever known.
> 
> per the latter part, maybe it was a butter knife...i have no idea....I doubt it was a machete or other long/heavy blade.
> 
> ...



It is really disingenuous to reach the conclusion that a civilian militia can defeat the US military because of the experience in Afghanistan. 

As for the incidents in China, I think some additional facts are needed. Read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_(2010–2011)

In it, you'll see that of the multiple knife attacks in China in recent years some had rather serious knives. A "cleaver", a "60 cn knife", an "axe", and so on. 

I'm not sure why you think you can kill just as easily with a knife as with a gun. I've held a knife. I've held a gun. One is rather easy to use and the other requires a significant effort. Of course, this is just my opinion. Perhaps you can find some objective facts to add to your argument and post those links? I'd like to see a comparison of knives vs guns and how they are equal.

While murder wasn't invented when guns were invented, and that there are many dangerous weapons available, why is it that you think guns should be permitted because of the other weapons? Why not restrict access to such dangerous, easily obtainable and usable, weapons?

Another interesting article from NIH on the use of guns:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2848468/


----------



## Ken555 (Dec 16, 2012)

TUGBrian said:


> not at all, I am merely pointing out that just because something is illegal, doesnt make it mysteriously disappear.
> 
> as someone pointed out above, ill gladly agree to a ban on all guns if you can come up with a way to make sure criminals cant have them.



From a practical standpoint, I don't think removing all guns from our society is feasible. But, restricting new gun sales severely is possible and should be implemented. Comparing other criminal acts to guns, as you've been doing, doesn't make guns any better. 

What are your constructive, positive steps toward solving the issue of readily available guns in America? Unless something changes, we are simply going to see history repeat itself forever. At some point, we need to change. Why not now?


----------



## TUGBrian (Dec 16, 2012)

Ken555 said:


> It is really disingenuous to reach the conclusion that a civilian militia can defeat the US military because of the experience in Afghanistan.
> 
> As for the incidents in China, I think some additional facts are needed. Read this:
> 
> ...



I never once mentioned that a civilian milita could defeat the US military, the point was that the "all powerful" US military would likely find it impossible to literally "conquer" the united states population.

----

dead is dead my friend....if you dont believe you could be killed easily with objects other than bullets fired from a gun...that is certainly your right to believe that.  It doesnt make it accurate however.


----------



## SueDonJ (Dec 16, 2012)

I agree with those who say that the gun owners in this country don't stand a chance against the military if it ever is called upon to defend the government, just by virtue of the weaponry available to the military.  But n this day and age I think the argument that gun ownership is necessary to defend our freedoms from our own government has been completely debunked anyway by the Patriot Act.  Not getting in to the politics of whether it was necessary to serve its intended purpose, nobody can deny that it removed formerly constitutionally-protected rights of the citizenry.  If the gun owners who believe that their mission is to protect the citizenry from tyrannical government actions didn't rise up in protest against the Patriot Act, they never will.


----------



## slip (Dec 16, 2012)

Ken555

You are not taking into account the thousands of times guns are used by 
Civilians to stop crime and save lives. Your acting like it never happens.


----------



## TUGBrian (Dec 16, 2012)

Ken555 said:


> From a practical standpoint, I don't think removing all guns from our society is feasible. But, restricting new gun sales severely is possible and should be implemented. Comparing other criminal acts to guns, as you've been doing, doesn't make guns any better.
> 
> What are your constructive, positive steps toward solving the issue of readily available guns in America? Unless something changes, we are simply going to see history repeat itself forever. At some point, we need to change. Why not now?



Ill still fall back on the argument that murder is already illegal and the law doesnt prevent it from happening.

As I have mentioned in the past, the kid that killed those people didnt care about the law, he wasnt allowed to own a gun in the first place, that didnt stop him from killing an owner of 3 guns and taking them himself.

he didnt care that there was a law against taking firearms into school property.

he didnt care that there was a law against murdering 26 innocent people and children.


had he walked into walmart and purchased all of these guns on his way to the school and used them in the crime, id be the first one to stand next to you and claim that is ridiculous and something should be done immediately to prevent that.

but it didnt (and couldnt have) happened that way.


----------



## SueDonJ (Dec 16, 2012)

I hope similar conversations to this one are taking place all over the country by all manner of communication.  We must be talking, we must be civil.  We must prove that we're capable.


----------



## Ken555 (Dec 16, 2012)

TUGBrian said:


> I never once mentioned that a civilian milita could defeat the US military, the point was that the "all powerful" US military would likely find it impossible to literally "conquer" the united states population.
> 
> ----
> 
> dead is dead my friend....if you dont believe you could be killed easily with objects other than bullets fired from a gun...that is certainly your right to believe that.  It doesnt make it accurate however.



Err...now you're defining the theoretical issue of an uprising even further so it fits your opinion.

"Dead is dead" doesn't matter one iota if a criminal is unable to harm multiple people as quickly as is feasible with a gun. There are huge differences between guns and knives and your reluctance to accept that is unfortunate. Naturally, a criminal will find a way to make or use available weapons, but again - why make it easy? I've yet to see any rational explanation for this in this thread.


----------



## TUGBrian (Dec 16, 2012)

I guess I dont see how "killing someone and taking their guns" equates to "society making it easy to obtain firearms"


----------



## Ken555 (Dec 16, 2012)

slip said:


> Ken555
> 
> You are not taking into account the thousands of times guns are used by
> Civilians to stop crime and save lives. Your acting like it never happens.



Please post links to articles supporting your contention that guns have been used thousands of times to stop crime in a safe manner.


----------



## TUGBrian (Dec 16, 2012)

and im deleting offtopic and smartass remarks


----------



## SueDonJ (Dec 16, 2012)

TUGBrian said:


> Ill still fall back on the argument that murder is already illegal and the law doesnt prevent it from happening.
> 
> As I have mentioned in the past, the kid that killed those people didnt care about the law, he wasnt allowed to own a gun in the first place, that didnt stop him from killing an owner of 3 guns and taking them himself.
> 
> ...



The only thing that makes sense to me is that his mother had guns because she felt threatened in her home by her son.  I can't imagine that he was able to get his hands on them easily, I have to believe that it was necessary for him to overpower her completely in order to get his hands on them.

If nothing else, I would like a law to be implemented that says if you know you are living with an unstable person (which by all accounts she did) then you can not be permitted to own guns.  That's the least of the compromise I'd like to see.  It isn't all about the numbers although the number of guns in circulation in this country is downright obscene.  It isn't all about the type of weapons that are considered legal although some of them are just downright obscene.  It's about keeping the guns out of the wrong hands by whatever means necessary.


----------



## Ken555 (Dec 16, 2012)

SueDonJ said:


> I agree with those who say that the gun owners in this country don't stand a chance against the military if it ever is called upon to defend the government, just by virtue of the weaponry available to the military.  But n this day and age I think the argument that gun ownership is necessary to defend our freedoms from our own government has been completely debunked anyway by the Patriot Act.  Not getting in to the politics of whether it was necessary to serve its intended purpose, nobody can deny that it removed formerly constitutionally-protected rights of the citizenry.  If the gun owners who believe that their mission is to protect the citizenry from tyrannical government actions didn't rise up in protest against the Patriot Act, they never will.



Finally! I've been waiting for someone to mention the Patriot Act. Thank you!


----------



## slip (Dec 16, 2012)

Ken555 said:


> Please post links to articles supporting your contention that guns have been used thousands of times to stop crime in a safe manner.



You've posted a few times about doing a simple search. Do one but before you
Do let me know how many times you think it happens.


----------



## TUGBrian (Dec 16, 2012)

Ken555 said:


> Please post links to articles supporting your contention that guns have been used thousands of times to stop crime in a safe manner.



a long paper is linked in this article...some of the highlights are discussed in the article itself.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/7589-guns-used-in-self-defense


----------



## TUGBrian (Dec 16, 2012)

SueDonJ said:


> The only thing that makes sense to me is that his mother had guns because she felt threatened in her home by her son.  I can't imagine that he was able to get his hands on them easily, I have to believe that it was necessary for him to overpower her completely in order to get his hands on them.
> 
> If nothing else, I would like a law to be implemented that says if you know you are living with an unstable person (which by all accounts she did) then you can not be permitted to own guns.  That's the least of the compromise I'd like to see.  It isn't all about the numbers although the number of guns in circulation in this country is downright obscene.  It isn't all about the type of weapons that are considered legal although some of them are just downright obscene.  It's about keeping the guns out of the wrong hands by whatever means necessary.



Id have no problem with that law.


----------



## Ken555 (Dec 16, 2012)

slip said:


> You've posted a few times about doing a simple search. Do one but before you
> Do let me know how many times you think it happens.



If you can't post links in favor of your argument, why should I go look for them? I've posted numerous links to articles in this thread for you and others to read. Do me the simple courtesy of doing the same for me.


----------



## SueDonJ (Dec 16, 2012)

TUGBrian said:


> Id have no problem with that law.



You're reasonable.  The NRA is not.  They'd never capitulate to that restriction, because it's based on the mental stability of someone other than the would-be gun owner.


----------



## Ken555 (Dec 16, 2012)

TUGBrian said:


> a long paper is linked in this article...some of the highlights are discussed in the article itself.
> 
> http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/7589-guns-used-in-self-defense



Thanks. And can you post anything similar from any organization other than one as ultraconservative as the John Birch Society?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Birch_Society


----------



## slip (Dec 16, 2012)

Ken555 said:


> If you can't post links in favor of your argument, why should I go look for them? I've posted numerous links to articles in this thread for you and others to read. Do me the simple courtesy of doing the same for me.



TUGBrian already did. How often do you think it happens?


----------



## TUGBrian (Dec 16, 2012)

Ken555 said:


> Thanks. And can you post anything similar from any organization other than one as ultraconservative as the John Birch Society?
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Birch_Society



that was the first thing that came up under a google search and fit the bill just fine.


generally takes an "ultra conservative" opinion to argue with an ultra liberal one (ban all guns)


----------



## TUGBrian (Dec 16, 2012)

the article was not written by the john birch society, it just links to it.

here

http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/WP-Tough-Targets.pdf

now its linked thru TUG...so you dont have to go through the other site to view it.


and please quit bickering...im growing weary of deleting nonsense. (goes for both parties)


----------



## slip (Dec 16, 2012)

Ken555 said:


> Post some facts, Jeff!



Just because you put a link on your post, it doesn't make them facts.
You never answered my question, how often do you think it happens.
Or do you think it never happens.


----------



## amycurl (Dec 16, 2012)

For those who might be unfamiliar, the Cato Institute was founded and is funded Charles Koch.

Just trying to provide further context for the article previously posted.


----------



## SueDonJ (Dec 16, 2012)

slip said:


> Just because you put a link on your post, it doesn't make them facts.
> You never answered my question, how often do you think it happens.
> Or do you think it never happens.



I don't care how often it happens, quite frankly.  The focus needs to be on how often guns are used incorrectly, not correctly.  Nobody has a problem with guns when they're used correctly.  The price that we are paying for incorrect gun use is too high.  Far far too high.


----------



## slip (Dec 16, 2012)

SueDonJ said:


> I don't care how often it happens, quite frankly.  The focus needs to be on how often guns are used incorrectly, not correctly.  Nobody has a problem with guns when they're used correctly.  The price that we are paying for incorrect gun use is too high.  Far far too high.



But this is why it is such a divisive issue. They are used for good also and that
Can't be ignored.


----------



## Ken555 (Dec 16, 2012)

slip said:


> Just because you put a link on your post, it doesn't make them facts.
> You never answered my question, how often do you think it happens.
> Or do you think it never happens.



Ah, now it's quite true that a link doesn't make it a fact. But, if you read it, and then read more articles about the topic, your opinion might be influenced by the facts presented.

I just read the link Brian posted (the original at the JB Society site and parts of the the Cato report). I also searched myself (per your request). I found a number of contrary articles. Here's one:

Do guns make us safer? by David Frum, who is - by the way - a Republican.


----------



## SueDonJ (Dec 16, 2012)

slip said:


> But this is why it is such a divisive issue. They are used for good also and that
> Can't be ignored.



But I'm not ignoring it.  I recognize it, but IMO it's a non-factor in the discussion of how to enact reasonable, responsible gun ownership in this country.


----------



## slip (Dec 16, 2012)

Ken555 said:


> Ah, now it's quite true that a link doesn't make it a fact. But, if you read it, and then read more articles about the topic, your opinion might be influenced by the facts presented.
> 
> I just read the link Brian posted (the original at the JB Society site and parts of the the Cato report). I also searched myself (per your request). I found a number of contrary articles. Here's one:
> 
> Do guns make us safer?



Of course there are. That's why it doesn't help to post those links.
You seem to be denying that guns have been used to save lives.
They have and they have saved the lives of children also.


----------



## Ken555 (Dec 16, 2012)

amycurl said:


> For those who might be unfamiliar, the Cato Institute was founded and is funded Charles Koch.
> 
> Just trying to provide further context for the article previously posted.



Yup. Always good to put things in context. But, this doesn't mean that everything the Cato Insitute promotes is what Charles Koch wants...some of the opinions are conservative and others liberal in nature.


----------



## slip (Dec 16, 2012)

SueDonJ said:


> But I'm not ignoring it.  I recognize it, but IMO it's a non-factor in the discussion of how to enact reasonable, responsible gun ownership in this country.



The definition of reasonable and responsible is where the contention is.


----------



## Ken555 (Dec 16, 2012)

slip said:


> Of course there are. That's why it doesn't help to post those links.
> You seem to de denying that guns have been used to save lives.
> They have and they have saved the lives of children also.



Now you've lost me. Posting links is wrong? Err...how else do you think we should objectively research and reach a conclusion without original material to refer to? I'm not about to take anyone's opinion, certainly not from a public forum, over that of someone who is widely respected and published. I try to read contrary viewpoints on all contentious issues so that I can form my own opinion. 

I agree that it's undoubtably true that guns are used for good. As others have said, that really isn't the main issue at hand. The issue at hand is how to make certain they aren't used for evil.


----------



## TUGBrian (Dec 16, 2012)

Ken555 said:


> Ah, now it's quite true that a link doesn't make it a fact. But, if you read it, and then read more articles about the topic, your opinion might be influenced by the facts presented.
> 
> I just read the link Brian posted (the original at the JB Society site and parts of the the Cato report). I also searched myself (per your request). I found a number of contrary articles. Here's one:
> 
> Do guns make us safer? by David Frum, who is - by the way - a Republican.



I dont see any facts in his article at all, its merely his opinion on a study he read.

he merely points out (with no research done at all on his part, and no study done) that the facts he is disputing are "old and outdated".

I didnt see anything in his article that provides any proof or rebuttal to the facts hes questioning.


----------



## SueDonJ (Dec 16, 2012)

slip said:


> The definition of reasonable and responsible is where the contention is.



Yes, and it seems that the NRA fosters that contention.  I find it interesting that the majority of NRA members are actually in favor of more strict gun control measures, or at least that's how they respond to polls.  But the more-powerful leaders of the NRA do not act in accordance with the majority members' beliefs.  One thing I've never been able to find an answer to, is whether or not the conversation is ongoing among NRA members and the leaders.  If you're a member, do you feel that the leaders represent your individual beliefs, or do you feel that your voice goes unheard within the organization?  Or, some other middle ground or extreme that I haven't considered?  I guess what I'm asking is, if you're a member, do you believe that the NRA as it currently acts is a force for good in the interest of the entire country?


----------



## TUGBrian (Dec 16, 2012)

Im not an NRA member...I cant answer that.

I believe they simply exist now to battle those who want a total ban on guns...and thus some sort of stalemate is achieved.

sadly, I dont feel that anyone with any sort of useful decision making ability or power will meet anywhere in the middle on this issue.


----------



## slip (Dec 16, 2012)

Ken555 said:


> Now you've lost me. Posting links is wrong? Err...how else do you think we should objectively research and reach a conclusion without original material to refer to? I'm not about to take anyone's opinion, certainly not from a public forum, over that of someone who is widely respected and published. I try to read contrary viewpoints on all contentious issues so that I can form my own opinion.
> 
> I agree that it's undoubtably true that guns are used for good. As others have said, that really isn't the main issue at hand. The issue at hand is how to make certain they aren't used for evil.



I don't see many people posting here that are on the fence. I know I'm not
Going to change your mind and you know your not going to change mine.
My opinion or yours is not going to change just because I or you post a link.
Ohhh, Ken555, I didn't see that link of course your right. I just don't think
The links matter.

And as far as them used for good, yes that is important. Your trying to limit
Something that has saved lives also. It seems to me your putting the figure or
The lives saved very very low.


----------



## TUGBrian (Dec 16, 2012)

heck we cant even curb the blatant crime of timeshare resale fraud in this country...and it happens hundreds if not thousands of times a day.

I dont hold much hope in any truly divided issue like this to have any sort of beneficial movement for the greater good.

too many people set in their ways.


----------



## Ken555 (Dec 16, 2012)

TUGBrian said:


> I dont see any facts in his article at all, its merely his opinion on a study he read.
> 
> he merely points out (with no research done at all on his part, and no study done) that the facts he is disputing are "old and outdated".
> 
> I didnt see anything in his article that provides any proof or rebuttal to the facts hes questioning.



In referencing a study often used to support gun ownership due to guns used to prevent crime, he states that:



> There are some problems with these government numbers, beginning with the fact that they are based on data from the early 1990s, when crime rates were much higher than they are today. The number of criminal attempts has declined 30% to 40% since then, and one would expect the number of occasions for self-defense to decline correspondingly.



I have not researched independently whether or not these numbers are correct. But, he's a well respected Republican who writes books and is published often. If he doesn't research well and posts incorrect facts, such as this one, then I would expect the article to be retracted after it's contested. 

I think this may be fundamental to our discussion, in that we need to acknowledge that some sources of information are more suspect than others. Frankly, I suspect the aims of the JB Society in telling me that gun ownership is good. Similarly, I'm not trying to post links from completely left organization (yes, a few links to the Huffington Post got in there...but fwiw, I don't go to that site often, I only find articles there when searching...and I even subscribe to the Wall Street Journal!). More information is always better, but even more so we need to discover factual information. It's not easy, especially with so many web sites posting erroneous data.


----------



## buceo (Dec 16, 2012)

Guns play no role in my personal life.  I pay a lot of taxes that in part provide guns to professionals trained in their use, good idea.  That's all I need.
I personally know many people for whom guns are literally part of their soul.
"gun control" language is used by the NRA for hysterical "gov will take your guns", that's not the point and frustrating.  Humans enjoy killing (most always males and youth helps, say 17-37, then we really like to kill), really we enjoy it.  We can easily buy weapons that provide us the ability to do a lot of killing with little or no talent, no brains yet it makes us feel important. Just rent about any movie.
IMO starting tomorrow gun sales particularly the models used in these murders of children and semi automatics will increase dramatically.
It's who we are as a nation.


----------



## easyrider (Dec 16, 2012)

Ken555 said:


> Please post links to articles supporting your contention that guns have been used thousands of times to stop crime in a safe manner.



""" So it appears that civilians armed with guns are sometimes willing to intervene to stop someone who had just committed a mass shooting in public. In what fraction of mass shootings would such interventions happen, if gun possession were allowed in the places where the shootings happen? We don’t know.
When we attempt to understand random gun violence that is typically committed by a mentally unstable individual, the greater question should be: If more folks were armed, would these deranged shooters have succeeded in killing as many folks as they did? """ 

"""Let's talk about Kennesaw, GA because the media was stroking out over Kennesaw passing a law in 1982 requiring that at least one member of every household be armed and firearms proficient.  Before 1982, Kennesaw had experienced soaring crime rates so it passed a law with the goal of crime reduction. The crime rate plummeted.  While the media castigated Kennesaw and dubbed it 'Guntown USA' and predicted that Kennesaw would become a Wild West styled shootout town full of gun violence, the truth is much different.  The crime rate plummeted and at one point in 2007, Kennesaw was deemed a murder free down for 25 years. """

http://judymorrisreport.blogspot.ca/2012/12/the-snooty-and-snarky-anti-2nd.html In this link there are some paragraphs naming people that saved others by having their weapon with them.

In my own city a person recently used a handgun to rob a woman at a grocery store. Another person with a concealed weapon stopped this from happening.

A few days ago a kid walked into Clackamas Mall with a bushmaster and killed 2 people before another person with a concealed weapon stopped him.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/okla-woman...perators-shoot/story?id=15285605#.UM6ZMeSaUmk

You will rarely hear about some one doing good with a weapon but you will usually allways hear about the times they are misused. In my own life time I have used a handgun a few times to deter a crime. Most bad guys don't want a fight if they think they could get shot. I have a friend who woke to the sound of some one in his house at 3 am. He grabbed his hand gun and went to see what was going on. The bad guy shot multiple rounds at him right away, my friend shot once. The bad guy died. My friend and his wife + 2 kids were fine.

Bill


----------



## TUGBrian (Dec 16, 2012)

i have no idea what a "criminal attempt" is...nor do I see him define it...or how its dropped 30 - 40% in the past 20 years.

furthering my attempt to keep this a timeshare site =)  I could argue that the "criminal attempts to rip off timeshare owners has increased substantially in the past 3-5 years"  but that has little to do with the argument relating to gun crime.


----------



## slip (Dec 16, 2012)

SueDonJ said:


> Yes, and it seems that the NRA fosters that contention.  I find it interesting that the majority of NRA members are actually in favor of more strict gun control measures, or at least that's how they respond to polls.  But the more-powerful leaders of the NRA do not act in accordance with the majority members' beliefs.  One thing I've never been able to find an answer to, is whether or not the conversation is ongoing among NRA members and the leaders.  If you're a member, do you feel that the leaders represent your individual beliefs, or do you feel that your voice goes unheard within the organization?  Or, some other middle ground or extreme that I haven't considered?  I guess what I'm asking is, if you're a member, do you believe that the NRA as it currently acts is a force for good in the interest of the entire country?



I am an NRA member and I never saw the poll that said the majority of the
Members want more gun control but I've heard that in the media before.
Every NRA poll I have seen in the NRA magazine shows the opposite.

As far as if the NRA is acting for the good of the country, I would say yes. They
Are pro second ammendment. We had an assault weapons ban before and we 
Still had these shootings. They will just use another type of gun. Then we will
Ban that one. It's only natural to keep going and ban everyone that's used in a
Shooting. That's why we can't ignore the lives that are saved by firearms.


----------



## Ken555 (Dec 16, 2012)

slip said:


> I don't see many people posting here that are on the fence. I know I'm not
> Going to change your mind and you know your not going to change mine.
> My opinion or yours is not going to change just because I or you post a link.
> Ohhh, Ken555, I didn't see that link of course your right. I just don't think
> ...



If we can't have some objective information included in discussions like this, then how can we ever move forward as a society? 

Your opinion that you cannot change my mind on this issue is completely incorrect. I make decisions logically and rationally (no offense to anyone) and do so upon the presentation of indisputable facts. So far, the facts that I've read force me to reach the conclusion that guns are used for evil much more than than they are used for good. 

FWIW, I intend to continue researching this issue. We all know there's no quick answer. Hopefully our country will debate it, as we've started to do here, with objective facts (though that will be difficult) to help us reach a positive outcome, whatever it may be. 

Also, I read the post much earlier in this thread about Switzerland with interest. I can see the notion that training everyone in the use of guns during army training, or perhaps other, can be to the good for all. Without contrary factual information, as included with the info on Switzerland, I might be inclined to support such a program. And for the record, I learned how to shoot with the Israeli army during a brief training program, and I know first hand how guns can be used to the good during everyday life.


----------



## Beaglemom3 (Dec 16, 2012)

TUGBrian said:


> Sadly, if we limit the laws afforded to us in the bill of rights to 1791 when it was written....
> 
> we would still have slaves
> 
> ...


 
  Your "argument" is baseless and does not equate. As in prior posts with other posters, you do this a lot.You do not understand the Constitution and amendments. Allowing slavery and barring women from voting is not in the Bill of Rights.

  No, just follow the amendment to the letter of the law just as the amendments abolishing slavery and giving the women the right to vote have been followed.


----------



## TUGBrian (Dec 16, 2012)

neither of those things were legal in 1791...

I guess we can only go back to 1791 for the things that you want changed and dont like....and all the other good stuff that came later can stay.

I firmly believe that the 2nd amendment was written to prevent the government from taking guns away from the general public, to ensure that every citizen had the right to own a weapon to defend himself and his family from whatever threat may be facing them (be it a british government trying to control them, or someone breaking and entering).

Your opinion of it clearly means something else entirely.


----------



## SueDonJ (Dec 16, 2012)

slip said:


> I am an NRA member and I never saw the poll that said the majority of the
> Members want more gun control but I've heard that in the media before.
> Every NRA poll I have seen in the NRA magazine shows the opposite.
> 
> ...



It's an odd thing.  If a poll is taken and the question is, "are you in favor of stricter gun control?" then the admitted NRA members are overwhelmingly against it.  But if the poll questions are specific to certain measures and the words "gun control" are not contained in the questions, the responses reflect a more studied approach to reasonable and responsible measures.  (And I'm sorry, but I don't have links to back this up.  I have heard variations of it all over the different media outlets this weekend.)

Maybe the first step is we should stop saying "gun control" and start talking specifics.


----------



## TUGBrian (Dec 16, 2012)

I agree sue....just as with every large organization...you can ask a poll to get whatever answer you are looking for.

Id find it hard to swallow that the bulk of the members of the NRA would be opposed to reasonable action taken that had a legitimate shot of reducing gun crime.

That said, from my point of view...all of those "actions" seem to come wrapped in a huge bitter wide sweeping pill of somewhere just south of "banning all guns"


----------



## slip (Dec 16, 2012)

Ken555 said:


> If we can't have some objective information included in discussions like this, then how can we ever move forward as a society?
> 
> Your opinion that you cannot change my mind on this issue is completely incorrect. I make decisions logically and rationally (no offense to anyone) and do so upon the presentation of indisputable facts. So far, the facts that I've read force me to reach the conclusion that guns are used for evil much more than than they are used for good.
> 
> ...



But it's also subjective. We can read the same article and you can choose not
To believe that article for whatever reason. If this is decided by simple math,
Would it change your mind if you find out that guns are used to save more lives
A year than are killed with guns?

I don't have to read an article of research because I know we had an assault 
Weapons ban and we still had these shootings. If we redo the ban, we will still
Have these shootings but we can't talk about this and ignore how many people
Are saved using firearms.


----------



## easyrider (Dec 16, 2012)

Without a weapon.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Jd3vWsa4ags#!

With a weapon.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-ExC7fE1LaY

Reason why its better to be ready.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=M1u0Byq5Qis#!


Some thoughts of what the 2nd amendment is that are being entertained around here are a bit off. Simply the 2nd amendment protects me from you by allowing me to protect myself.

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms..disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one."
~Thomas Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria, Criminologist in 1764.

Bill


----------



## Ken555 (Dec 16, 2012)

slip said:


> But it's also subjective. We can read the same article and you can choose not
> To believe that article for whatever reason. If this is decided by simple math,
> Would it change your mind if you find out that guns are used to save more lives
> A year than are killed with guns?
> ...



I don't think this issue will be decided with simple math. But, facts help. You seem to think you know all the facts and that research isn't relevant. 

As for the assault weapon ban, I'm not sure how effective it was. I believe that most crimes, as has been posted, are done using smaller guns. But, making it more difficult get assault weapons can only be good, right? I mean, how can you logically oppose it?


----------



## slip (Dec 16, 2012)

SueDonJ said:


> It's an odd thing.  If a poll is taken and the question is, "are you in favor of stricter gun control?" then the admitted NRA members are overwhelmingly against it.  But if the poll questions are specific to certain measures and the words "gun control" are not contained in the questions, the responses reflect a more studied approach to reasonable and responsible measures.  (And I'm sorry, but I don't have links to back this up.  I have heard variations of it all over the different media outlets this weekend.)
> 
> Maybe the first step is we should stop saying "gun control" and start talking specifics.



I'm the one who doesn't need the links. I am a life member and I have never
Seen that more members want more gun control in my NRA magazine. I really
Find it hard to believe that it's true but I could be wrong. One thing I do know
Is the NRA is around 3 million members strong but if the country wants an
Assault weapons ban it will happen. It did before. Shootings happened before 
The ban , after the ban and after the ban lapsed. I don't see where that's the
Answer.


----------



## Ken555 (Dec 16, 2012)

slip said:


> I'm the one who doesn't need the links. I am a life member and I have never
> Seen that more members want more gun control in my NRA magazine. I really
> Find it hard to believe that it's true but I could be wrong. One thing I do know
> Is the NRA is around 3 million members strong but if the country wants an
> ...



After a quick search...

This Poll Defies Conventional Wisdom About Gun Control And The NRA


----------



## easyrider (Dec 16, 2012)

Ken555 said:


> As for the assault weapon ban, I'm not sure how effective it was. I believe that most crimes, as has been posted, are done using smaller guns. But, making it more difficult get assault weapons can only be good, right? I mean, how can you logically oppose it?



A ban doesn't help. I can shoot as many bullets with my handgun as I can with my AR-15.

Bill


----------



## buceo (Dec 16, 2012)

I mentioned that humans (young males particularly) enjoy killing, stats are ~45 gun murders a day.

And 29 minutes ago:
*Authorities say two Topeka police officers were shot outside a grocery store and died later at a hospital.

Topeka police say a 22-year-old male suspect...*


----------



## Ken555 (Dec 16, 2012)

I just found this interesting Gallup poll.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx


----------



## Ken555 (Dec 16, 2012)

easyrider said:


> A ban doesn't help. I can shoot as many bullets with my handgun as I can with my AR-15.
> 
> Bill



So all guns should be legal? Where would you draw the line?


----------



## slip (Dec 16, 2012)

Ken555 said:


> I don't think this issue will be decided with simple math. But, facts help. You seem to think you know all the facts and that research isn't relevant.
> 
> As for the assault weapon ban, I'm not sure how effective it was. I believe that most crimes, as has been posted, are done using smaller guns. But, making it more difficult get assault weapons can only be good, right? I mean, how can you logically oppose it?



Because with that reasoning we may as well ban them all. Especially if the
Other guns are used in most crimes. Why ban the one that is used the least.
That makes no sense to me.

I certainly don't know everything but people seem to cherry pick articles to try
To prove their points. The only way I see to stop these shootings is no more 
Guns and that will not be possible. To say we can limit them isn't correct either,
Look at the drug war. All the bans do is harm the law abiding citizen. If the solution was
Easy it would have been done already.


----------



## TUGBrian (Dec 16, 2012)

45 gun murders a day would be over 16,000 gun homicides a year.

I think perhaps thats total homicides per year, not just those with guns.


----------



## TUGBrian (Dec 16, 2012)

Ken555 said:


> I just found this interesting Gallup poll.
> 
> http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx



be more interesting if the poll showed how many people were polled...where they were polled...etc etc.

its also from 04.


----------



## slip (Dec 16, 2012)

Ken555 said:


> After a quick search...
> 
> This Poll Defies Conventional Wisdom About Gun Control And The NRA



Yep, this is the link I missed. Your right we need to ban assault weapons.


----------



## slip (Dec 16, 2012)

Ken555 said:


> So all guns should be legal? Where would you draw the line?



This is the same question I have with an assault weapons ban. If These are 
Illegal now where do we draw the line?


----------



## Ken555 (Dec 16, 2012)

TUGBrian said:


> be more interesting if the poll showed how many people were polled...where they were polled...etc etc.
> 
> its also from 04.



Yes, I agree! A more current and complete poll would be nice, but the results are still somewhat pertinent.


----------



## ace2000 (Dec 17, 2012)

TUGBrian said:


> as far as ive seen, the reported weapons (used) were two pistols...one of which I personally own at the current time.
> 
> so to answer your question, no I dont believe that.


 
Guess you didn't bother to research it.  I don't think there's any doubt that the rifle was the weapon used.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/...ooting-assault-rifle-20121216,0,3808586.story

Connecticut school shooter used assault rifle, had many bullets


----------



## ace2000 (Dec 17, 2012)

Those kids in that classroom didn't stand a chance...


----------



## MuranoJo (Dec 17, 2012)

Years ago, a wise mentor advised me to look to the root cause when faced with a problem.  That advice has served me well in many ways.  Guns are not the root cause in these shootings.

Here's an article about a local mother who knows she has a son with a problem and can't seem to find help.


----------



## TUGBrian (Dec 17, 2012)

ace2000 said:


> Guess you didn't bother to research it.  I don't think there's any doubt that the rifle was the weapon used.
> 
> http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/...ooting-assault-rifle-20121216,0,3808586.story
> 
> Connecticut school shooter used assault rifle, had many bullets



eh...mainstream media has so many reports these days...hard to differentiate between fact and fiction.

at one point, it was two pistols...then a mention of a rifle but found in the car...then a mention of the rifle but he only used pistols...etc etc.

I will comment that this particular rifle, equipped with a 30 round magazine of .223 ammo is not something anyone would legitimately hunt with.


----------



## easyrider (Dec 17, 2012)

TUGBrian said:


> I will comment that this particular rifle, equipped with a 30 round magazine of .223 ammo is not something anyone would legitimately hunt with.



One of my Ar's has a critter gitter barrel and nice glass and is my favorite pest animal control. All of the guys I hunt with use AR's for this type of hunting. 

I also recently bought a semi automatic tactical shotgun. Im allowed 3 shots for duck and geese but I can load 10 with the extra clip I purchased.


----------



## TUGBrian (Dec 17, 2012)

you cant hunt (at least in florida) with a 30 round magazine.   Id imagine this rule exists elsewhere though.  I agree the AR platform is very popular and used in hunting itself, just not in that caliber and not with a 30 round magazine.  Sadly it can be transformed to fire just about any round made today.

I still believe, that in the configuration shown above (although again, this is just a stock media photo vs what he actually used).... is not something any valid "hunter" would pick to go hunting with...if given the option.


----------



## easyrider (Dec 17, 2012)

TUGBrian said:


> you cant hunt (at least in florida) with a 30 round magazine.   Id imagine this rule exists elsewhere though.  I agree the AR platform is very popular and used in hunting itself, just not in that caliber and not with a 30 round magazine.  Sadly it can be transformed to fire just about any round made today.
> 
> I still believe, that in the configuration shown above (although again, this is just a stock media photo vs what he actually used).... is not something any valid "hunter" would pick to go hunting with...if given the option.



Brian, yes & no. In the picture the AR has a 30 round mag. You are only allowed a 5 round mag to hunt deer, boar and other small game in most states. 223 is a bit too small a caliber for a big pig, imo. However, you can use a 30 round mag when hunting pest animals such as coyottes, horses, skunks and other non game animals in many areas.

Bill


----------



## ace2000 (Dec 17, 2012)

TUGBrian said:


> eh...mainstream media has so many reports these days...hard to differentiate between fact and fiction.
> 
> at one point, it was two pistols...then a mention of a rifle but found in the car...then a mention of the rifle but he only used pistols...etc etc.
> 
> I will comment that this particular rifle, equipped with a 30 round magazine of .223 ammo is not something anyone would legitimately hunt with.


 
This time it was quoted from the official Sheriff's report.  I think it's safe to say it was that rifle.


----------



## CarolF (Dec 17, 2012)

Beaglemom3 said:


> Take the 1st amendment, you do have" freedom of speech", yet you cannot yell "fire" in a theatre (or other venues), use obscenities in certain media and cannot say "hijack" or similar words at the airport or on an aircraft or make slanderous & libelous statments without challenge.





Ken555 said:


> Are you sure about that? This sentiment is mentioned often, yet I don't think it's real any longer. There are quite a number of 'free' countries in the world these days. Just look to Canada, or almost anywhere in Europe. Certainly America is a leader among the free societies, but I'm not convinced its the 'most' free.



Just watched your Presidents speech and was again surprised by a reference to freedom.  
_"Are we prepared to say that such violence visited on our children year after year is somehow the price of our freedom?_

This concept of "freedom" is mentioned often but I have never considered the US as particularly "free" in comparison to all the other free countries.  I am interested in why a lot of Americans believe the US is "the most free"?  Is it because of the guns laws?

BTW this thread has reminded me that I should remember to be grateful for my freedom.  I, like many people in developed countries, take it for granted.

FYI, in terms of "freedom", the US is ranked at number 12 - democracy ranking (the lower the number the better).

http://www.worldaudit.org/democracy.htm


----------



## Tia (Dec 17, 2012)

Reminded me of a friend's relative who has a 15yo brilliant minded child  that the family has been struggling with scary behaviors in the home,  court/juvenile detention/ probation/counselors/knives locked up/guns removed from house . It is causing lots of marital problems to boot. They have financial resources but no answers yet



muranojo said:


> Years ago, a wise mentor advised me to look to the root cause when faced with a problem.  That advice has served me well in many ways.  Guns are not the root cause in these shootings.
> 
> Here's an article about a local mother who knows she has a son with a problem and can't seem to find help.


----------



## Conan (Dec 17, 2012)

muranojo said:


> Guns are not the root cause in these shootings.



I"m sure alcoholism is the root cause of many fatal accidents.  
Does that mean drunk drivers shouldn't be pulled over, their driving privileges taken away, etc. before there's an accident?


----------



## siesta (Dec 17, 2012)

Let's focus on the facts on hand:

A mass shooting occured in the 4th strictest state on gun control (according to Brady Campaign) and happened in a Gun Free Zone. 

The killer tried to legally buy guns the Monday before the shooting but because of regulations already in place was not permitted to. (the laws worked)

He then STOLE guns he couldnt legally obtain, killed the owner(his mother), then ignored the law once again and went to a Gun Free Zone to massacre 26 additional people with stolen guns, 6 of whom were adults following the law by not being armed. By the way it is reported he had an altercation at this school days/weeks prior to this shooting.

He was finally stopped when people WITH guns showed up and he decided to kill himself instead of fight people who stand a chance, or surrender.

Please tell me, what gun law would have stopped this?

If your answer is to require gun owners to lock their guns, keep ammo seperately, or keep them in a safe.... Im here to inform you we did have these laws,and the US Supreme Court ruled them unconstitutional because one cannot rightfully defend himself if forced to keep his gun unaccessible. 

Now, just because gun owners cant be forced to lock up their guns, doesnt mean they cant be held criminally liable for allowing unauthorized access due to negligence. And it doesnt mean I think people shouldnt voluntarily do it for many reasons. Especially when you have welcomed guests or kids in your home and your firearm  is accessible(or in this instance someone mentally unstable)Also, people can be and are held accountable in certain instances when their legal guns fall into the wrong hands due to negligence.

This mother, knowing her unstable son was under her roof, had a moral and legal obligation to prevent this maniac from accessing her firearms. And if she were alive, she may be held liable.

As a responsible gun owner, and the fact that I often have many welcome guests and family in my home, incuding young children, I take it upon myself to make sure my guns are inaccessible and locked away when people are over. If i ever felt the need, I would keep my gun on my person and not lying around for someone to access it. Millions of firearm owners are just as responsible as me, and to demonize 10s of millions of gun owners for the irresposibility of one is plain ridiculous.

Let's focus on the root of the problem in an overwhelming number of these mass shootings :mental illness, it seems every shooter had visible warning signs that others noticed.


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Dec 17, 2012)

The root of the problem isn't the mental illness its that a gun was legally allowed to be kept in a home that also housed someone who legally couldn't own a gun

Simple law change: If you or someone who will be living with you or visiting for an extended period of time, can't legally own a gun because of mental illness, felony convictions, age, or other, no gun shall be legally allowed to be kept in that home.

GPS tracking on guns would be a good start too

Simple, this keeps guns in the hands of the responsible, while keeping them out of the hands of those that shouldn't have them


----------



## ace2000 (Dec 17, 2012)

siesta said:


> Let's focus on the root of the problem in an overwhelming number of these mass shootings :mental illness, it seems every shooter had visible warning signs that others noticed.


 
In some ways I agree with you, and I definitely leaned more your direction a week ago.  

However, after seeing the picture of the gun that was used during that killing spree, I have to say that there is absolutely no way that type of gun should be legal and available for purchase at a mainstream store like Wal-Mart.

Something drastic needs to take place with our current gun laws.  Hopefully this will be the impetus.


----------



## siesta (Dec 17, 2012)

Ridewithme38 said:


> The root of the problem isn't the mental illness its that a gun was legally allowed to be kept in a home that also housed someone who legally couldn't own a gun
> 
> Simple law change: If you or someone who will be living with you or visiting for an extended period of time, can't legally own a gun because of mental illness, felony convictions, age, or other, no gun shall be legally allowed to be kept in that home.


 so someone with underage kids doesnt have a right to protect themselves or their family? Most ridiculous thing ive heard all day

And gps tracking? What about the 300 million guns in circulation in the US, are you going to wave your magic wand and retro fit every legally and illegally owned gun? You are living in a dream world.


----------



## ace2000 (Dec 17, 2012)

siesta said:


> Let's focus on the root of the problem in an overwhelming number of these mass shootings :mental illness, it seems every shooter had visible warning signs that others noticed.


 
What were the "visible warning signs" you're speaking of?  What do you feel should happen to anyone who displays one of those signs?  Should we lock them away?  Force them to take medication?    

By bringing up the mental illness argument and not making any suggestions on improving that issue, you're really saying nothing at all.


----------



## Ken555 (Dec 17, 2012)

siesta said:


> Let's focus on the root of the problem in an overwhelming number of these mass shootings :mental illness, it seems every shooter had visible warning signs that others noticed.



We definitely need to increase the care we provide those who have mental illness. But, why not also further restrict gun ownership? If not all crimes are conducted by those who are mentally ill, then your plan won't help mitigate the rest. I don't see why we can't do both, or even more.

Didn't Obama say last night that we have an obligation to do more? I'm sure all of us agree with this, but I also think it shouldn't be restricted to just one facet that links many crimes, such as mental illness.


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Dec 17, 2012)

siesta said:


> so someone with underage kids doesnt have a right to protect themselves or their family? Most ridiculous thing ive heard all day



Guns for home defense is the most rediculous argument against gun control....If you are that much of a coward, it's not safe for you to own a gun in the first place....If you think a citizen with a gun has ever HELPED protect a family you are kidding yourself, the majority of the time all it does is contribute to more MURDER...99.9% of break ins are thefts by cowards or children, these are people that would never DREAM of firing a weapon at someone....BUT if you pull a gun on a coward they are going to pull one back and you'll end up both dead....Gun's just take a manageable situation and make it into a situation where the coroner has to show up, Just because you both we cowards...lets not get into how it will effect the children involved for the rest of their lives, having daddy pee himself because someone came in the window then watching him fire off 100 shots into the dark...Thats got to scar a kid


----------



## siesta (Dec 17, 2012)

Ridewithme38 said:


> If you think a citizen with a gun has ever HELPED protect a family you are kidding yourself


 again, the most ridiculous thing ive heard in a long time. Not even going to address this with a valid response.


----------



## SueDonJ (Dec 17, 2012)

siesta said:


> Let's focus on the facts on hand:
> 
> A mass shooting occured in the 4th strictest state on gun control (according to Brady Campaign) and happened in a Gun Free Zone.
> 
> ...



But you're saying the same thing that the NRA leaders say, that any calls for any type of gun control can only mean that every gun owner will be "demonized."  That simply isn't true for many of us who are calling for compromise knowing that an outright ban will probably never be implemented.  Every would-be gun owner may be inconvenienced by further gun control measures, sure, but so what?  We're all inconvenienced in some way by every restriction placed on our various civil rights.  Is the price we're paying now for the gun owners' convenience really worth it?  Are we really not willing to even try to make changes in order to protect our children and fellow citizens?

On the one hand, you ask what law could have stopped this, and then on the other hand you acknowledge that this shooter's mother had "a moral and legal obligation" to not allow her son to get access to her guns, that she possibly would be facing penalties if she had not been a victim of his carnage.  Penalties after the act are not the same as measures that might prevent the act.  The answer to your specific question is, enact a law that says if there are unstable people in a home then no other resident of that home can be permitted to own.

I'm not arguing against anyone in this thread who says that the gun violence issue encompasses much more than just the weapons themselves.  But I don't see any sense in working towards reasonable compromises in all facets of the discussion excepting gun ownership and proliferation.  It plays an equal part to all the others.


----------



## SueDonJ (Dec 17, 2012)

siesta said:


> so someone with underage kids doesnt have a right to protect themselves or their family? Most ridiculous thing ive heard all day
> 
> And gps tracking? What about the 300 million guns in circulation in the US, are you going to wave your magic wand and retro fit every legally and illegally owned gun? You are living in a dream world.



There are many instances of grandfathering existing items when laws are amended.  There's no reason why we can't implement changes today that will be in effect for every gun sold/transferred/registered from this point forward.


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Dec 17, 2012)

siesta said:


> again, the most ridiculous thing ive heard in a long time. Not even going to address this with a valid response.



That's fine, we can agree to disagree, i know i won't be firing random shots through my house and my kids bedrooms and murdering their Boyfriend, possibly injuring my kids, when they try to sneak in or out at night....

But have fun with that and the emotional toll that will have on your kids...all because you were scared of your own shadow


----------



## SueDonJ (Dec 17, 2012)

Ridewithme38 said:


> That's fine, we can agree to disagree, i know i won't be firing random shots through my house and my kids bedrooms and murdering their Boyfriend, possibly injuring my kids, when they try to sneak in or out at night....
> 
> But have fun with that and the emotional toll that will have on your kids...all because you were scared of your own shadow



I've gotta be honest here and say that even though you and I appear to be on the same side, asking for cooperation from gun owners to at least think about what we can all do to fix what's broken, your approach is the one that feeds into the fears of gun owners that we want to completely strip away their Second Amendment rights.  It DOES demonize them when we practically accuse them all of being so irresponsible that they'll be firing random shots through their homes and being so afraid of their own shadow that their paranoia will result in irresponsible gun ownership.

I'm convinced that the majority of gun owners are not irresponsible and/or too paranoid to own weapons.  I'm also convinced that the highest hurdle we face in asking them for compromise is that they're being led to believe that we won't settle for anything less than a total gun ban.  The NRA leaders undeniably foster that fear, but so do we when we refuse to acknowledge that we could also approach the issue differently.


----------



## hypnotiq (Dec 17, 2012)

SueDonJ said:


> I've gotta be honest here and say that even though you and I appear to be on the same side, asking for cooperation from gun owners to at least think about what we can all do to fix what's broken, your approach is the one that feeds into the fears of gun owners that we want to completely strip away their Second Amendment rights.  It DOES demonize them when we practically accuse them all of being so irresponsible that they'll be firing random shots through their homes and being so afraid of their own shadow that their paranoia will result in irresponsible gun ownership.
> 
> I'm convinced that the majority of gun owners are not irresponsible and/or too paranoid to own weapons.  I'm also convinced that the highest hurdle we face in asking them for compromise is that they're being led to believe that we won't settle for anything less than a total gun ban.  The NRA leaders undeniably foster that fear, but so do we when we refuse to acknowledge that we could also approach the issue differently.



Well said.


----------



## siesta (Dec 17, 2012)

SuedonJ I dont understand where you get your facts from. You are trying to make the correllation that if we have less guns then we have less crime, so we should work to curb proliferation?

Well according to the FBI, gun ownership has risen dramatically, and violent crime has fallen to 35 year lows. There are more people today that can legally carry a firearm on the street then ever before with concealed carry laws, yet violent crime has plummetted, quite the opposite effect the anti gunners predicted (they said it would be wild west all over again)The proof is in the pudding: arming law abiding citizens does NOT increase violent crime.

If your theory were correct, the city of Chicago and D.C. Who had COMPLETE gun bans for 30+ years would be the shining example of your gun free utopia, the fact is they were and are both gun murder capitals of the country for years. Go figure. Then look at cities with high rates of legal gun ownership, and concealed carry laws, crime rates plummetting...go figure!

Here is some more recent data to prove your more guns equals more crime is just flat out wrong and unsubstantiated:

"Coinciding with a surge in gun purchases that began shortly before the 2008 elections, violent crime decreased six percent between 2008 and 2009, including an eight percent decrease in murder and a nine percent decrease in robbery. 

Since 1991, when violent crime peaked, it has decreased 43 percent to a 35-year low. Murder has fallen 49 percent to a 45-year low. At the same time, the number of guns that Americans own has risen by about 90 million. Predictions by gun control supporters, that increasing the number of guns, particularly handguns and so-called “assault weapons,” would cause crime to increase, have been proven profoundly lacking in clairvoyance"

One cannot definitely say crime is decreasing just because legal gun ownership, but you CAN definitely say that legal gun ownership has NOT increased violent crime. In fact it would seem quite the opposite.


----------



## hypnotiq (Dec 17, 2012)

Another thing that needs to be addressed is the media.  They are partly responsible for these things IMO.

Take last night speech for example. I was watching the game when they interrupted with Obama's speech.

Two things immediately catch my attention.

1) They started with a live shot w/ a reporter in from of the school with several police cars in the background, lights flashing.

Completely and utterly unneccessary.  There is no need to do this other than to promote what I like to call "shock journalism"

2) "Tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementry School" was affixed to the bottom right corner throughout.

Once again, using the tragedy work is meant to evoke an emotional (negative IMO) response.  A more appropriate thing would have been "Remembering the Innoncence of Sandy Hook Elementry" or something similar. 

I also think that the continual and non-stop media attention that these events gets does nothing but contribute to the problem. It lets the next person who goes off the deep end know that "Hey, if I top what happened at Sandy Hook, Ill have the President on TV talking about what I did."


----------



## Tia (Dec 17, 2012)

That is info I had not heard before.  IF that is correct maybe that could of triggered an alert in the system that required some kind of investigation? Just tossing it out there . 



siesta said:


> ....The killer tried to legally buy guns the Monday before the shooting but because of regulations already in place was not permitted to. (the laws worked)
> ....


----------



## geoand (Dec 17, 2012)

siesta said:


> SuedonJ I dont understand where you get your facts from. You are trying to make the correllation that if we have less guns then we have less crime, so we should work to curb proliferation?
> 
> Well according to the FBI, gun ownership has risen dramatically, and violent crime has fallen to 35 year lows. There are more people today that can legally carry a firearm on the street then ever before with concealed carry laws, yet violent crime has plummetted, quite the opposite effect the anti gunners predicted (they said it would be wild west all over again)The proof is in the pudding: arming law abiding citizens does NOT increase violent crime.
> 
> ...


This is something that most who want to ban guns don't like to see or read.


----------



## geoand (Dec 17, 2012)

Tia said:


> That is info I had not heard before.  IF that is correct maybe that could of triggered an alert in the system that required some kind of investigation? Just tossing it out there .



Your idea is a step in the right direction.  I will take the liberty to modify it to read "should have triggered an alert so that he is placed under surveillance and that he is interviewed along with those who know him - friends, family, etc."

Personally, this is the first idea that I have seen that could have a positive impact without infringing upon anyone's rights.


----------



## siesta (Dec 17, 2012)

geoand said:


> This is something that most who want to ban guns don't like to see or read.


 yes and ill break it down nice and simple to drive this point home:

In 1991 our violent crime rate peaked. Back then we had an estimated 200 million guns in the US, now we have nearly 300 million, an increase of nearly 50% 

Violent crime has dropped 43% and murder dropped 49% to all time lows.

How can more guns equate to more violence, the fact is it doesnt.


----------



## SueDonJ (Dec 17, 2012)

siesta said:


> SuedonJ I dont understand where you get your facts from. You are trying to make the correllation that if we have less guns then we have less crime, so we should work to curb proliferation? ...





geoand said:


> This is something that most who want to ban guns don't like to see or read.



I feel like I'm being unfairly misunderstood here in order to bolster arguments against things that I'm not saying.  It's like some of you are arguing with the voices in your heads that are telling you some perverted version of the things I'm saying, instead of the actual words I'm saying!

Yes, ideally my utopia would be a total gun-free America.  But I've said umpteen times in this thread that I'm certain we'll never have a total gun ban, basically the same as saying that my utopia will never be a reality.  Instead I'm looking for compromise that proves that we are all willing to do whatever is necessary to keep guns out of the wrong hands, or at least as much as is possible to try to reach that goal.  The way I see it, the only responsible gun owners are the ones who would also be in favor of that goal.


----------



## ace2000 (Dec 17, 2012)

siesta said:


> yes and ill break it down nice and simple to drive this point home:
> 
> In 1991 our violent crime rate peaked. Back then we had an estimated 200 million guns in the US, now we have nearly 300 million, an increase of nearly 50%
> 
> Violent crime has dropped 43% and murder dropped 49% to all time lows.


 
Interesting data (and it does appear to be true)... thanks for sharing that.


----------



## siesta (Dec 17, 2012)

Tia said:


> That is info I had not heard before.  IF that is correct maybe that could of triggered an alert in the system that required some kind of investigation? Just tossing it out there .


 now this is actually productive talk. 

People that are legally denied firearms should be visited by authorities, they should inform the person why they were denied, and if they were wrongfully denied that should be corrected so the person can make their purchase.

If they were rightfully denied, i.e. convicted felon, mental patient in past 5 years, convicted of domestic abuse, narcotics addict etc (you can see all the requirements on ATF form 4473) they should be informed why they were denied and instructed that further attempts to gain a weapon will be met with the full extent of the law. And until they go through the appropriate channels and get their name legally cleared, they will not be permittted to apply for a gun again without facing prosecution. 

If there is probable cause to monitor the person after that then so be it, as long as it follows the law of the land.


----------



## SueDonJ (Dec 17, 2012)

geoand said:


> Your idea is a step in the right direction.  I will take the liberty to modify it to read "should have triggered an alert so that he is placed under surveillance and that he is interviewed along with those who know him - friends, family, etc."
> 
> Personally, this is the first idea that I have seen that could have a positive impact without infringing upon anyone's rights.



See, that is another good solution to work toward!  But neither our legal or mental health systems allow now for the type of intervention you're talking about.


----------



## Conan (Dec 17, 2012)

[Deleted by me]

This discussion has seriously degenerated, and I regret being part of it.


----------



## SueDonJ (Dec 17, 2012)

hypnotiq said:


> Another thing that needs to be addressed is the media.  They are partly responsible for these things IMO.
> 
> Take last night speech for example. I was watching the game when they interrupted with Obama's speech.
> 
> ...



I'm conflicted about the media and not just as it acts during gun-related stories.  The sensationalism is obscene but I understand the single focus when something as horrendous as a mass shooting happens.  People want to know what's happening and our 24-hour news channels are designed that way specifically so that we can get the story no matter what time we tune in.  It's the rush to be first that is most obscene and with this story in particular, there were so many incorrect "facts" reported throughout the day Friday that we can all say the media failed miserably.  That's certainly another facet of this overall discussion.

About putting a shooter's face and name out there for public consumption?  For one thing I think it's important for us to put a face and name to our deviants because it helps us to realize that these criminals are in our midst, that we all should be aware of our surroundings.  The fact is, none of us are so secure that we can say truthfully anymore, "... but you'd never expect it to happen here."  The other thing about limiting the media's ability to report, though, is that the First Amendment is as important as any of the others.  If the reports foster copy-cats, so be it.  The way to prevent copy-cats is to focus on the means by which they may act, not their desire for infamy.

The one thing the press did Friday which I find absolutely abhorrent and which I think should be completely eradicated is, asking permission from the parents and then sticking microphones in the faces of the children who were witnesses.  My god, that was reprehensible.  In that moment, in that situation, no parent could be expected to be thinking completely rationally.  The fact that the press didn't hesitate one bit to infringe on those children's well-being is despicable.


----------



## siesta (Dec 17, 2012)

Conan said:


> Remember the Marlboro Man?
> 
> Here's how Bushmaster does it:


 i see the point your trying to make but its not exclusive to guns.

We have all heard how automobiles kill significantly more people then guns, and you'll hear people say they are accidents not designed to kill like guns. Consider this:

"According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, more Americans aged five to 34 are killed in motor vehicle crashes than from any other single cause"

And for everyone else its second only to tobacco, which is the leading cause of death in this country.

Now the number 1 common factor in automobile related deaths is what... High rates of speed. Everyones car goes over 100mph, most even going 130+, but the highest speed limits in this country are 65 and 75 mph.


If we limited the speed of cars that would surely save more lives then guns take annually.

And conan, why arent you posting pictures of corvettes and other fast cars which advertise their speed and appeal to the "macho men" surely if saving lives is your goal, this is an even more effective way strictly by the numbers.

Surely the car advertisements showing vehicles top speeds of over 200mph are just as reckless, if not more??


----------



## easyrider (Dec 17, 2012)

While gun violence kills an estimated 10,400 people in the USA , drunk drivers kill an estimated 13,000. There are over 27,000 perscription drug overdoses every year. There are over 1.3 million abortions per year. This is from the C.D.C. 

In the group of people killed by guns only a small portion are kids.

In the group of people killed by drunk driver a good portion are kids or young adults.

In the group with accidental over dose most are kids.

In the group of abortion all are kids.

Dogs kill about 30 kids a year. Should people that have children be allowed to have a dog ?

Bill


----------



## Conan (Dec 17, 2012)

[Deleted by me]

This discussion has seriously degenerated, and I regret being part of it.


----------



## Conan (Dec 17, 2012)

[Deleted by me]

This discussion has seriously degenerated, and I regret being part of it.


----------



## SueDonJ (Dec 17, 2012)

siesta said:


> i see the point your trying to make but its not exclusive to guns.
> 
> We have all heard how automobiles kill significantly more people then guns, and you'll hear people say they are accidents not designed to kill like guns. Consider this:
> 
> ...





easyrider said:


> While gun violence kills an estimated 10,400 people in the USA , drunk drivers kill an estimated 13,000. There are over 27,000 perscription drug overdoses every year. There are over 1.3 million abortions per year. This is from the C.D.C.
> 
> In the group of people killed by guns only a small portion are kids.
> 
> ...



Why bring relativity to the party?  If you want to start a discussion about drunk driving I'm sure lots of us would talk about it with you.  Drug abuse?  Sure, that's another societal problem we can talk about.  Fast cars? Okay.  Whatever.

But why bring those topics here?  Why try to rationalize the sacrifice of innocent victims of gun violence by saying that more deaths are caused by other means?  Are we supposed to be okay with a certain number of victims of gun violence?  I don't understand this tactic at all.  We're talking about our culture of gun violence here and IMO the goal should be to lessen the number of innocent victims, not compare it to other means so as to make it somehow acceptable.


----------



## SueDonJ (Dec 17, 2012)

Conan said:


> You'd think this was a joke, but it's a real product (not that it would have helped these 20). ...



It's all just so sad.


----------



## easyrider (Dec 17, 2012)

SueDonJ said:


> Why bring relativity to the party?  If you want to start a discussion about drunk driving I'm sure lots of us would talk about it with you.  Drug abuse?  Sure, that's another societal problem we can talk about.  Fast cars? Okay.  Whatever.
> 
> But why bring those topics here?  Why try to rationalize the sacrifice of innocent victims of gun violence by saying that more deaths are caused by other means?  Are we supposed to be okay with a certain number of victims of gun violence?  I don't understand this tactic at all.  We're talking about our culture of gun violence here and IMO the goal should be to lessen the number of innocent victims, not compare it to other means so as to make it somehow acceptable.



Wouldn't these other groups qualify as innocent victims ? They are larger groups of victims and their deaths are easier to prevent. If it was a bus with 50 kids killed because of negligence would you feel different than if they were shot ? 
Yes and No, because those that want gun regulation are using this tradegy to further their agendas. 

Bill


----------



## Beaglemom3 (Dec 17, 2012)

Comparing gun deaths to automobile deaths is a poor argument at best and actually, nonsensical.

Automobiles have a primary function, however, guns have just about one or two, both injurious.

From the Yuma Sun,  "Cars, on the other hand were not developed to harm humans. Therefore, they can be used for their original purpose without endangering anybody."



Read more: http://www.yumasun.com/articles/military-80564-served-order.html#ixzz2FKquXnbz


----------



## geoand (Dec 17, 2012)

SueDonJ said:


> I feel like I'm being unfairly misunderstood here in order to bolster arguments against things that I'm not saying.  It's like some of you are arguing with the voices in your heads that are telling you some perverted version of the things I'm saying, instead of the actual words I'm saying!
> 
> Yes, ideally my utopia would be a total gun-free America.  But I've said umpteen times in this thread that I'm certain we'll never have a total gun ban, basically the same as saying that my utopia will never be a reality.  Instead I'm looking for compromise that proves that we are all willing to do whatever is necessary to keep guns out of the wrong hands, or at least as much as is possible to try to reach that goal.  The way I see it, the only responsible gun owners are the ones who would also be in favor of that goal.



Never meant to point a finger at you.  I should have worded it better.  I know many want to see a better way of controlling guns.  I am one of those.  Yes, I know there are lawful uses for guns and lawful gun owners.  I just want to find a way to keep guns out of the hands of people who should never have them.


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Dec 17, 2012)

I don't get why we can't just ban all guns...If there are no more new guns coming into america and we confiscate any we see, even with a mythical 3 million guns in owners hands, within 30 years, there won't be a working gun left...

IMO, even with reloaders available, just banning bullets would work equally well, if it costs hundreds of dollars per bullet on the black market, scum will be much less likely to waste them by using them on people, or 'hunting' or shooting at the range


----------



## easyrider (Dec 17, 2012)

Beaglemom3 said:


> Comparing gun deaths to automobile deaths is a poor argument at best and actually, nonsensical.
> 
> Automobiles have a primary function, however, guns have just about one or two, both injurious.



This is your opinion and I know others feel the same

What makes this more tragic than other types of killings is the media attention and the people using this recent tragedy as an opportunity to furter their agenda. 

Bill


----------



## TUGBrian (Dec 17, 2012)

geoand said:


> Your idea is a step in the right direction.  I will take the liberty to modify it to read "should have triggered an alert so that he is placed under surveillance and that he is interviewed along with those who know him - friends, family, etc."
> 
> Personally, this is the first idea that I have seen that could have a positive impact without infringing upon anyone's rights.



I agree, i think its a fabulous idea.


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Dec 17, 2012)

easyrider said:


> What makes this more tragic than other types of killings is the media attention and the people using this recent tragedy as an opportunity to furter their agenda.
> 
> Bill



The 'Agenda' to protect our children and our lives....Not to bad an agenda to have


----------



## geoand (Dec 17, 2012)

siesta said:


> now this is actually productive talk.
> 
> People that are legally denied firearms should be visited by authorities, they should inform the person why they were denied, and if they were wrongfully denied that should be corrected so the person can make their purchase.
> 
> ...



I think it should include watching the person for a period of time - at least a month.  There is nothing wrong IMO to being watched.  We need to trust our leo's judgement on when further surveillance is needed.  I have a hunch that most folks who are denied know they will be denied.  It won't solve the problem, but it is a method that to me is not intrusive and may perhaps prevent a violent crime. 

Heck, folks that apply for government jobs have a background check done on them.


----------



## SueDonJ (Dec 17, 2012)

easyrider said:


> This is your opinion and I know others feel the same
> 
> What makes this more tragic than other types of killings is the media attention and the people using this recent tragedy as an opportunity to furter their agenda.
> 
> Bill



"Further their agenda."  This is pure rhetoric, meant to incite but actually having no meaning at all.  I've asked twice in this thread and you haven't answered it yet - if the "agenda" is a reasonable conversation about methods of curbing gun violence, why is an act of gun violence the wrong catalyst for that conversation?  If episodes of gun violence happen every day and we are not supposed to bring up the conversation in the aftermath of such episodes, when will we be able to ask?


----------



## zinger1457 (Dec 17, 2012)

siesta said:


> Well according to the FBI, gun ownership has risen dramatically, and violent crime has fallen to 35 year lows. There are more people today that can legally carry a firearm on the street then ever before with concealed carry laws, yet violent crime has plummetted, quite the opposite effect the anti gunners predicted (they said it would be wild west all over again)The proof is in the pudding: arming law abiding citizens does NOT increase violent crime.



The FBI statistics (http://www.fbi.gov/) show that the average number of homicides by firearms rose between 2000-2007 and has dropped slightly every year since.  The number of homicides by firearms in 2000 (8661) is almost the same as 2011 (8583).  The average number of homicides by firearms between 2000-2011 was 9384 per year, so the 2011 numbers are hardly a plummet.  Of these homicides by firearms the number of justified homicides (by firearms) by civilians has remained consistently around 200 per year, about 2% of the total.


----------



## SueDonJ (Dec 17, 2012)

easyrider said:


> Wouldn't these other groups qualify as innocent victims ? They are larger groups of victims and their deaths are easier to prevent. If it was a bus with 50 kids killed because of negligence would you feel different than if they were shot ?
> Yes and No, because those that want gun regulation are using this tradegy to further their agendas.
> 
> Bill



Conversations about drunk driving occur after drunk driving episodes happen.  Conversations about public transportation accidents happen after the accidents.  Conversations about cribs that babies die in happen after those babies die. Conversations about terrorist actions take place after terrorist acts.  And on and on and on and on ...

What, would you have us talk about mass shootings after airplane crashes?

How did we ever get to this place where an agenda for the betterment of society is a bad thing?  Like I said before, it's all so sad.


----------



## hypnotiq (Dec 17, 2012)

SueDonJ said:


> I'm conflicted about the media and not just as it acts during gun-related stories.  The sensationalism is obscene but I understand the single focus when something as horrendous as a mass shooting happens.  People want to know what's happening and our 24-hour news channels are designed that way specifically so that we can get the story no matter what time we tune in.  It's the rush to be first that is most obscene and with this story in particular, there were so many incorrect "facts" reported throughout the day Friday that we can all say the media failed miserably.  That's certainly another facet of this overall discussion.
> 
> About putting a shooter's face and name out there for public consumption?  For one thing I think it's important for us to put a face and name to our deviants because it helps us to realize that these criminals are in our midst, that we all should be aware of our surroundings.  The fact is, none of us are so secure that we can say truthfully anymore, "... but you'd never expect it to happen here."  The other thing about limiting the media's ability to report, though, is that the First Amendment is as important as any of the others.  If the reports foster copy-cats, so be it.  The way to prevent copy-cats is to focus on the means by which they may act, not their desire for infamy.
> 
> The one thing the press did Friday which I find absolutely abhorrent and which I think should be completely eradicated is, asking permission from the parents and then sticking microphones in the faces of the children who were witnesses.  My god, that was reprehensible.  In that moment, in that situation, no parent could be expected to be thinking completely rationally.  The fact that the press didn't hesitate one bit to infringe on those children's well-being is despicable.



I agree its a double edge sword and there is no easy answer. I also find the interviewing of the children involved deplorable.

However, the two observations I made are just a start. Can anyone legitimately defend either of those, especially the first?

I'm father of a 3yo daughter and this hits very close to home for me, since she will be in school in a couple of years.

I'm also a gun owner, a hunter, and believe in the right to protect my own family.

I'll participate in a conversation about gun control that doesn't involve 100% ban (we've been over the reasons why).  However, I want other investments into mental health as well.  I'd also like to see guidelines on media and what they are and are not allowed to do (like interviewing those children). 

For example, I think alerts being triggered based on certain purchases/behavior are great.


----------



## PStreet1 (Dec 17, 2012)

I think horrible things like this bring out "Magical Thinking" in many of us:  we see the horror and react with what seems to us to be a simple solution, and really believe that will solve the problem.  Unfortunately, those simple solutions rarely, if ever, solve the problem they were intended to solve, and they often create unintended consequences.

This article by Jim Geraghty is the most rational look at the situation I have seen:

Grappling With It All  by Jim Geraghty in Morning Jolt, Dec. 17, 2012

So, when something awful happens — and the mass murder of kindergarteners is about as awful as it gets — you're going to want to stay off Twitter, and probably the Internet entirely. 

We know the coming days will see a lot of cries for gun control, even though many of those proposals would not have prevented this most abominable of massacres. The guns were purchased legally by the gunman's mother, and the shooter took/stole his mother's legally purchased firearms. He was turned down when he tried to purchase a rifle several days before the shooting. This won't change the arguments of the advocates very much, though. After the Virginia Tech shooting, Mayor Bloomberg and various other gun-control advocates kept saying that the proper response was to "close the gun-show loophole" — even though the shooter did not get his weapons at a gun show.

The one thing the gun-control people claim is that they're not gun grabbers, and they don't want to literally ban every gun in the US.

But . . . banning every gun in the US is the only possible gun-control measure that could plausibly achieve the results they seek. If there are any guns in the country, at all, presumably criminals will ignore laws against possessing them (as they currently ignore such laws) and also ignore laws against, well, shooting people with guns (several statutes cover this, pretty exhaustively, and yet they still ignore it).

So all gun control laws are aimed, essentially, at the one class of persons who have already demonstrated their intent to ignore gun laws. The laws are aimed at the very people who don't obey them, but it is taken as an article of faith that if you just disarm the people who aren't breaking the law, for some reason the criminally-minded will follow their lead.

Well, that's absurd, obviously. The only way that a criminal who is determined to get a gun and use it for a criminal purpose will not have a gun is if there are literally no guns to be had-- no guns to be stolen, no guns to be bought off Craigslist, no guns, period.

Still, we find ourselves with horrific news-dominating murder sprees about every six months or so, and the sense that this is "just the world we live in" or "the price of a free society" are ringing rather hollow.

The one gun-control proposal I'm starting to think about is the argument about extended clips. The standard version of the Glock, the most popular handgun in America, has 17 rounds in its magazine. I believe in a near-universal right to carry arms for self-defense, but does anyone feel their ability to defend themselves — the guy working the midnight shift in a convenience store, the coed walking home alone, the senior citizen in a bad neighborhood — depends upon the ability to fire more than 17 rounds without pausing to reload?

Under the Assault Weapons Ban that expired in 2004, magazines were limited to 10 rounds. Almost all of the most notorious mass killers in recent years — Fort Hood, Virginia Tech, Columbine, Tucson, the Long Island Rail Road — used guns with 15-round clips or more. (The Colorado movie theater shooter had a 100-round magazine that jammed.)

Of course, an extended-clip ban wouldn't end mass shootings. But it would mean that every maniac on a killing spree would have to pause to reload at some earlier point than some past shooters have, perhaps giving other victims a better chance to overpower him or escape.

But in the end, we're still left with the bigger problem: young men who want to kill as many people as possible.

We have quite the well-established profile by now, don't we? Young men alienated from their peers and society at large. They don't have many friends; they don't have girlfriends; they feel denied some sort of recognition or appreciation they deserve. They respond to this with an emotion so far beyond the garden-variety frustration, depression, or anger that it's hard to comprehend. Oftentimes they leave some sort of note or e-mail detailing their grievances against the world. They decide that they're going to become famous and well-known in death in the way they never could achieve in life — and then a world that never seemed to care about their troubles or how they felt will spend a lot of time thinking about them. 

I'm pretty convinced that the media coverage fuels these impulses in these young men, disturbed and full of rage and desperately craving some recognition of them, their potential, their pain. 

John Tabin spotlighted this assessment from a forensic psychiatrist: 

If you don't want to propagate more mass murders . . .

Don't start the story with sirens blaring.

Don't have photographs of the killer.

Don't make this 24/7 coverage.

Do everything you can not to make the body count the lead story.

Not to make the killer some kind of anti-hero.

Do localize this story to the affected community and as boring as possible in every other market. 

And of course, each one seems to spur copycats. 

A northern Indiana man who allegedly threatened to "kill as many people as he could" at an elementary school near his home was arrested by officers who later found 47 guns and ammunition hidden throughout his home.

Von. I. Meyer, 60, of Cedar Lake, was arrested Saturday after prosecutors filed formal charges of felony intimidation, domestic battery and resisting law enforcement against him. He was being held Sunday without bond at the Lake County Jail, pending an initial hearing on the charges, police said in a statement.

Cedar Lake Police officers were called to Meyer's home early Friday after he allegedly threatened to set his wife on fire once she fell asleep, the statement said.

Meyer also threatened to enter nearby Jane Ball Elementary School "and kill as many people as he could before police could stop him," the statement said. Meyer's home is less than 1,000 feet from the school and linked to it by trails and paths through a wooded area, police said.

Again and again:

A Bartlesville High School student is in custody on charges he plotted to bomb and shoot students at the campus auditorium on the same day that 28 people were shot and killed at an elementary school in Connecticut.

Police arrested 18-year-old Sammie Eaglebear Chavez at about 4:30 a.m. Friday after learning of the alleged plot Thursday.

An arrest affidavit says Chavez tried to convince other students to help him lure students into the auditorium, chain the doors shut and start shooting. The Tulsa World reports that authorities say Chavez threatened to kill students who didn't help.

The Bartlesville Examiner-Enterprise reports Chavez planned to detonate bombs at the doors as police arrived.

It feels like we're in a sickening game of "can you top this" by evil people. "You shoot up a politicians' event, I'll shoot up a movie theater." "You shoot up a movie theater, I'll shoot up a kindergarten." Each twisted soul is upping the ante for the next to really shock and horrify us — a senior-citizens' center? A nursery school? A neonatal intensive care unit?

The usual argument on this point is "we need to ramp up our mental-health efforts," but that's easier said than done. And what we're really talking about is involuntary detainment and observation of people if they are deemed threatening by "odd behavior." If you think seeing therapy and mental-health treatment is stigmatized now, wait until the government can easily access your mental-health records without your consent to determine if you're a threat to society.

You'll hear an argument about arming teachers, a solution that has its own problems, among them that the security at any given school will depend upon A) teachers willing to carry weapons in their classrooms and B) their ability to control a firearm at all times. The first time a teacher forgets and leaves their gun where a student can touch it, that whole policy will become the newest scapegoat.

I'm not sure that school security is really the right focus, because most schools, with their press-the-buzzer-to-enter, check in at the front office, closed-circuit television cameras, and so on, are not built to stop a determined murderer with multiple guns. Few facilities in our country are. And to be honest, I'm not quite sure I want to rearrange every school in America to be a fortress, designed to stop a determined murderer with multiple guns; the result would be the mass "TSA-ization" of American life.

Finally, over on Slate I saw this comment :

As Slate's David Plotz wrote in an email this morning, "If you stigmatize the ownership and use of guns for most recreational uses—and in particular the ownership of handguns and non hunting weapons—there will be less presence of them in the culture, less use of them, gradually fewer and fewer of them in society, less tolerance for people talking about them and playing with them, and as that happens, guns will become less present, less accessible, less embedded in American society and that gun crime will fall accordingly . . . It is not a single legislative change or even an overnight cultural change. It is a gradual process."

We already have plenty of places in America where gun ownership is stigmatized: any reasonably liberal community or workplace, university campuses, schools, the Slate offices, and so on. Of course, because the culture of those locations so strongly stigmatizes gun ownership, the malicious among us know that they will never encounter armed opposition when they arrive to perpetuate their mayhem. (You notice nobody ever tries to rob NRA Headquarters.) The anti-gun perspective that so many of our friends on the Left showcase as an example of their enlightenment and nobility also, in fact, sends a signal to the evil of the world that they will make comparably easy targets.

ADDENDUM: Sorry, nothing was funny today. Maybe tomorrow will be different.

from National Review.


----------



## ace2000 (Dec 17, 2012)

zinger1457 said:


> The FBI statistics (http://www.fbi.gov/) show that the average number of homicides by firearms rose between 2000-2007 and has dropped slightly every year since. The number of homicides by firearms in 2000 (8661) is almost the same as 2011 (8583). The average number of homicides by firearms between 2000-2011 was 9384 per year, so the 2011 numbers are hardly a plummet. Of these homicides by firearms the number of justified homicides (by firearms) by civilians has remained consistently around 200 per year, about 2% of the total.


 
Your link takes you to the main fbi page and doesn't support your statistics.  Do you have a link to the actual data you've provided?

Everything I've seen, including the stats that were provided earlier indicate the peak was during the '90s.  

http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/welcome.htm


----------



## Conan (Dec 17, 2012)

[Deleted by me]

This discussion has seriously degenerated, and I regret being part of it.


----------



## kenie (Dec 17, 2012)

In Canada we "had" a National Firearms Registry because of a mass shooting at a university in Montreal in 1989. 14 women were killed. Our current government recently abolished it and destroyed the records... It didn't work.

Handguns are different and have been registered since the 30's and still are. Certain rifles are restricted or prohibited. I have a restricted firearms licence which allows me to purchase and possess handguns and long guns.
I had to take a 2 part course taught by a licenced instructor, in my case he was a retired RCMP officer. I believe they are taught to evaluate the students to some extent. 
If I wish to purchase ammo, powder, etc, I need to show my ID card at the store.
If I own a handgun, I must belong to a licenced range and can only transport it in a secure, locked case in my trunk, and only from my residence to the range. In my house all guns must be stored securely. I have a safe and trigger locks. Guns and ammo stored seperately. Guns also have magazine size restrictions.
One of the main rallying calls against our Registry was that it punished the law-abiding gun owners and did nothing to fight illegal use of guns. 
I don't see the need for certain types of guns such as the Bushmaster and don't see a problem having education, licencing and background checks be a part of buying and owning weapons.


----------



## zinger1457 (Dec 17, 2012)

ace2000 said:


> Your link takes you to the main fbi page and doesn't support your statistics.  Do you have a link to the actual data you've provided?
> 
> Everything I've seen, including the stats that were provided earlier indicate the peak was during the '90s.
> 
> http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/welcome.htm



You need to go through the FBI web page crime statistics section and there are crime statistics listed by year, some tables group data in 5 year increments.  It takes some researching, it's not all in one nice table.  

This is some of the data I used: 

Homicide data by weapons from 2001-2005 (http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_07.html)

Homicide data by weapons from 2007-2011 (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc...s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8)


----------



## Tia (Dec 17, 2012)

Any idea of who we/me/you could submit this suggestion to for consideration for partial solution?

Just back home and seems Dr Phil today is on the subject ' scared of your son' ,  he is going to give tips re what you need to do as a parent if you need to watch for. On guest a man his 25 yo son is in jail for a shooting. Maybe check his website for more if interested. Apparently the subject continues tomorrow. 



siesta said:


> now this is actually productive talk.
> 
> People that are legally denied firearms should be visited by authorities, they should inform the person why they were denied, and if they were wrongfully denied that should be corrected so the person can make their purchase.
> 
> ...


----------



## eal (Dec 17, 2012)

muranojo said:


> Years ago, a wise mentor advised me to look to the root cause when faced with a problem.  That advice has served me well in many ways.  Guns are not the root cause in these shootings.
> 
> Here's an article about a local mother who knows she has a son with a problem and can't seem to find help.



Here is an interesting article about the psychology of shootings in schools:
http://m.theglobeandmail.com/commen...rget-of-choice/article6441362/?service=mobile


----------



## Beefnot (Dec 17, 2012)

Tia said:


> Any idea of who we/me/you could submit this suggestion to for consideration for partial solution?



Your local congressperson.


----------



## TUGBrian (Dec 17, 2012)

submit it to both the brady campaign and the nra.

id be curious to see the responses from both.


----------



## Beefnot (Dec 17, 2012)

SueDonJ said:


> Conversations about drunk driving occur after drunk driving episodes happen.  Conversations about public transportation accidents happen after the accidents.  Conversations about cribs that babies die in happen after those babies die. Conversations about terrorist actions take place after terrorist acts.  And on and on and on and on ...
> 
> What, would you have us talk about mass shootings after airplane crashes?
> 
> How did we ever get to this place where an agenda for the betterment of society is a bad thing?  Like I said before, it's all so sad.



SueDonJ, you and a few others in this thread have stepped outside ideology and provided level-headed approaches to acknowledging the existing of a problem, extending beyond mere controvertable facts (the lies, damn lies, and statistics) to artfully assessing the underlying rationale for the whats and whys of necessary change, and vigorously heading off some of the shadowboxing, straw men arguments made by some in this thread.  This has been an enlightening thread for me.


----------



## easyrider (Dec 17, 2012)

Ridewithme38 said:


> The 'Agenda' to protect our children and our lives....Not to bad an agenda to have





SueDonJ said:


> "Further their agenda."  This is pure rhetoric, meant to incite but actually having no meaning at all.  I've asked twice in this thread and you haven't answered it yet - if the "agenda" is a reasonable conversation about methods of curbing gun violence, why is an act of gun violence the wrong catalyst for that conversation?  If episodes of gun violence happen every day and we are not supposed to bring up the conversation in the aftermath of such episodes, when will we be able to ask?



YES, there are many who are on TV spouting off about gun regulations and bans. There are many who love an opportunity to get in front of a camera and use the killings for ratings or improve their public image. 

A reasonable conversation of curbing gun violence doesn't include bans on weapons that most of you have never even seen in real life. I would say that most people that are for greater gun control have never even fired a gun. I can also say that most people have no idea what gun is dangerous and what gun should be regulated.

One thing is for certain, if a person decided to kill you or your child with a gun  you might suddenly be in favor of shooting them rather than to tell them the reason why your not going to shoot them is because you don't believe in guns or violence. 

How about stabbings. This is the most common type of violent teen death and the most common fatal assault. Three million one hundred thousand people in the USA are stabbed each year. You are more likely to be assaulted with a knife than a gun. 

So when the media focuses on one event and people get emotional and decide its time to do something without really knowing what they are talking about it becomes a knee jerk reaction that doesn't solve anything, imo.

Gun bans create more gun violence. Its been tried. It doesn't work.

Bill


----------



## pianodinosaur (Dec 17, 2012)

When I was a resident at The University of Chicago, we had people with gunshot wounds and stab wounds come into the ER on a daily basis.   The dope dealers have no difficulty getting guns.  Most of their arsenal is aquired illegally.  We do not need more laws to enforce gun control when we cannot even enforce the ones we have already.

I will remind you again that far more people are systematically butched by governments than by the occasional lunatic.  The main reason for the second amendment is to that we can protect ourselves from the government should the government become oppressive.  One of Hitler's first acts was to disarm the population.  Then he went after the mentally ill.  Then he went after the Jews, the gypsies, and the homosexuals. (National Socialist Workers Party.  A Good Nazi was a Good National Socialist. ) Similar events have taken place in Russia under the purges, in China with the cultural revolution, Cambodia with the killing fields, and to all infidels that live within Islamic states.  This is a matter of historical record that is not meant to be political or religious.  This is something that happens whenever there exists a totalitarian police state.  The only proven way to prevent a totalitarian police state is to have an armed population.

The USA has abandoned its founding principles.  Unfortunately, our public schools are no longer able to teach about good vs evil and right vs wrong.  Parents no longer have the freedom to discipline their children as they see fit.  G-d is not allowed to be mentioned in the public schools.  People who argue for the sanctity and protection of human life are publically vilified.  People who argue that individuals should be held personally accountable for their own actions are publically vilified.  Then people cry about how violent our society has become.  We have reaped the whirlwind.  A further discussion of good and evil would venture into religion and the role it has played in the history of our nation.


----------



## Tia (Dec 17, 2012)

Will have to try to email with suggestion the NRA later as their website is down, says the connection was reset. Maye too busy.


----------



## SueDonJ (Dec 17, 2012)

easyrider said:


> YES, there are many who are on TV spouting off about gun regulations and bans. There are many who love an opportunity to get in front of a camera and use the killings for ratings or improve their public image.
> 
> A reasonable conversation of curbing gun violence doesn't include bans on weapons that most of you have never even seen in real life. I would say that most people that are for greater gun control have never even fired a gun. I can also say that *most people have no idea what gun is dangerous and what gun should be regulated*.
> 
> ...



And .... this is the moment when the conversation becomes an exercise in futility.  It's too bad because I have enjoyed the discussion with, and have learned a few things from, the people who took part in it in a reasonable and respectful fashion.

Um, Bill?  About what I bolded up there?  In the wrong hands, ALL guns are dangerous and that's why ALL guns need to be regulated.  IMO, the responsible gun owners don't question either of those two ideas.


----------



## Elan (Dec 17, 2012)

It would be nice if folks here could distinguish between killing and mass killing like took place on Friday. I think we all realize we're not going to eradicate all gun related homicide. But that doesn't mean we can't make meaningful progress toward reducing the likelihood/magnitude of further mass slaughters. Had the shooter entered that school armed with only the Glock  and Sig, there would have been far fewer casualties. There's absolutely no reason for guns such as the Bushmaster to be available to the public.


----------



## CarolF (Dec 17, 2012)

For those who believe there is at a statistical decline in homicides, this article should be of interest:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324712504578131360684277812.html



> The reported number of people treated for gunshot attacks from 2001 to 2011 has grown by nearly half. ...
> 
> "The potential for a victim to survive a wound is greater than it was 15 years ago."
> 
> In other words, more people in the U.S. are getting shot, but doctors have gotten better at patching them up. Improved medical care doesn't account for the entire decline in homicides but experts say it is a major factor.


----------



## easyrider (Dec 17, 2012)

SueDonJ said:


> And .... this is the moment when the conversation becomes an exercise in futility.  It's too bad because I have enjoyed the discussion with, and have learned a few things from, the people who took part in it in a reasonable and respectful fashion.
> 
> Um, Bill?  About what I bolded up there?  In the wrong hands, ALL guns are dangerous and that's why ALL guns need to be regulated.  IMO, the responsible gun owners don't question either of those two ideas.





Susan, if you have read my other posts that is exactly what I have been saying. The main purpose of a gun is to kill. Guns were invented to kill. It doesn't matter if its an AR-15 or Glock 9 either weapon is capable of mass murder. Many of these guns are all ready in the wrong hands. 

I have been nothing but respectful. The fact that its difficult to protect yourself from some one with a gun unless you have a gun is the real issue.

So tell me the solution. I feel the real solution starts with education and parenting. That will never happen. 

So what is your great idea. I have read all your posts and do not see any thing that would work. Im sorry my explanation is deemed unworthy of your consideration but my opinion is as valid as yours. So when some one who owns guns and has used guns to deter crime like me has an opinion on guns and crime verus some one that doesn't even own a gun, I would conclude the person that has the experience has the better grasp of whats going on.

My guess is that security will get beefed up at many public places like schools. What else can we do ?

In Isreal teachers are required to carry a hand gun. Is that how we should protect school kids in the USA ? 

Im not trying to do anything buy present real facts. In the real world there is a need for protection. Until that changes owning guns is the best way to accomplish that protection.

 And really nothing posted has disturbed me one bit and I do apoligize if my posts have been distrubing in any way. 

Bill


----------



## easyrider (Dec 17, 2012)

CarolF said:


> For those who believe there is at a statistical decline in homicides, this article should be of interest:
> 
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324712504578131360684277812.html




While the doctors have made great progress in patching a gun shot patient in reality the guns of choice for most common criminals have become cheap low caliber .380. Back in the day when people were shot with revolvers most died on the scene. 

Gangs are using more high caliber hand guns and other tactical weapons but these guys aren't common criminals for the most part. 

Bill


----------



## pianodinosaur (Dec 17, 2012)

SueDonJ said:


> And .... this is the moment when the conversation becomes an exercise in futility.  It's too bad because I have enjoyed the discussion with, and have learned a few things from, the people who took part in it in a reasonable and respectful fashion.
> 
> Um, Bill?  About what I bolded up there?  In the wrong hands, ALL guns are dangerous and that's why ALL guns need to be regulated.  IMO, the responsible gun owners don't question either of those two ideas.



Knives and forks are also dangerous.  They have been banned in many prison systems because they are used to commit murder.  The prisoners still find a way to make shanks so that they may continue to kill each other more efficiently.  William Shakespeare's "Titus Andronicus" ends with the title character killing his adversary by shoving a spoon down his throat. 

Evil people commit acts of Evil.  Gag Me With a Spoon!!

Failure to oppose evil is also evil.  Further discussion of this point would get into the realm of religion.


----------



## Beefnot (Dec 17, 2012)

easyrider said:


> I would say that most people that are for greater gun control have never even fired a gun.



Maybe you're right, I dunno.  I will say that I've fired a gun before, and I am for tighter gun control.  So are 3/4 of NRA members.

Even if one were to accept the premise--which I don't by the way--that the frequency of gun violence would not be meaningfully reduced with tighter restrictions on who is permitted to own a gun, the types of guns and ammunition available, the maximum size of the magazines, etc., a very compelling _logical_ case can be made that the magnitude of deaths that occur during such mass killing sprees could be significantly reduced.  I say logical case, because it is impossible to prove a negative, which the no-gun-restrictions crowd will always look to have a field day with.


----------



## Beefnot (Dec 17, 2012)

pianodinosaur said:


> Knives and forks are also dangerous.  They have been banned in many prison systems because they are used to commit murder.  The prisoners still find a way to make shanks so that they may continue to kill each other more efficiently.



And so you're suggesting that the solution is that because prisoners will find a way anyway, restrictions of any kind on knives and forks in prisons are silly?  

Or, would it make more sense to continually refine the restrictions to make it consistently more and more difficult to make shanks, even knowing that we will never guard against it 100%?


----------



## pianodinosaur (Dec 17, 2012)

Beefnot said:


> And so you're suggesting that the solution is that because prisoners will find a way anyway, restrictions of any kind on knives and forks in prisons are silly?
> 
> Or, would it make more sense to continually refine the restrictions to make it consistently more and more difficult to make shanks, even knowing that we will never guard against it 100%?



You miss the point.  Banning knives, forks, and spoons in general society would be silly just because evil people will find a way to commit acts of evil.  The kitchen utensil is an inanimate object that is incapable of good or evil or acting on it's own in any manner.  The same thing is true of a gun.  A gun may be used for good.  That is why teachers in Israel are so armed.

The real issue is Evil.  If you look at my earlier posts you may discover that we have raised a generation that does not understand this concept.  That is our problem.


----------



## Clemson Fan (Dec 17, 2012)

Hi folks.  I haven't read this thread nor have I been to TUG since posting on this thread a few days back.  Having 2 young boys with another one on the way, I find it extremely difficult just hearing about ANY story where children are harmed.  There's nothing in this world I find more disturbing!  

Anyway, I've always been kind of a closet pro gun control person that looked at the arguments of the NRA as kind of ridiculous and not really based in facts, but more scare tactics with cute little slogans or talk of a "slippery slope" against 2nd amendment rights.  Well, this tragedy has spurred me to come out of the closet and I've donated and have joined the Brady Campaign.  On an average day in the US, 71 adults and 8 children are killed by guns!  When you compare this to other industrialized nations, this statistic is just absolutely disgusting!  You can find the other facts about gun violence in the US here at this link:

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/

After joining the Brady Campaign, I received the following message.  BTW, there's no set membership fee and I think any sized donation can get you membership.


The Brady Campaign is busy working to pass sensible gun laws and policies at the local, state, and federal levels and we educate Americans about the dangers of guns. Our vision is to create an America free from gun violence, where all are safe at home, at school, at work, and in our communities.

In contrast, the National Rifle Association (NRA) wants guns in every nook and cranny of American life — even when it tramples on the rights and liberty of your family and community. Their vision for America is dangerous and costs lives every day. On a typical day, 79 Americans will die from guns, including eight children. We must stop the scourge of gun violence that is destroying our communities.

The NRA wants to force employers to allow employees to bring guns onto workplace property and they plan to push their “Guns in the Workplace” laws to all 50 states including your state. For more information about “Guns in the Workplace” legislation and to read the Brady Center’s groundbreaking report Forced Entry: The National Rifle Association’s Campaign To Force Businesses To Accept Guns At Work, go to: www.bradycenter.org

The NRA also wants to export Florida’s deadly “Shoot First” law, which allows anyone to shoot to kill anytime they feel threatened, to every state in the nation! To date, the NRA has introduced this shameful legislation in eight more states, in addition to Florida where this law took effect October 1, 2005. For more information and to take action, go to: www.shootfirstlaw.org

Again, thank you for your membership and standing strong for sensible gun laws. It means so much to have you with us!

Sincerely,

Sarah Brady, Chair
Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence


----------



## am1 (Dec 17, 2012)

Whats going to happen when people are able to print guns at home on their computer?  

The US does not need a war on illegal guns entering the country.  

Banning things just makes them more in demand.  Guns on their own do not cause problems.  Illegal drugs on their own do cause problems.


----------



## Beefnot (Dec 17, 2012)

am1 said:


> Whats going to happen when people are able to print guns at home on their computer?
> 
> The US does not need a war on illegal guns entering the country.
> 
> Banning things just make them more in demand.  Guns on their own do not cause problems.  Illegal drugs do.



I thought the gunman had a mental problem, not a drug problem


----------



## Beefnot (Dec 17, 2012)

pianodinosaur said:


> You miss the point.  Banning knives, forks, and spoons in general society would be silly just because evil people will find a way to commit acts of evil.  The kitchen utensil is an inanimate object that is incapable of good or evil or acting on it's own in any manner.  The same thing is true of a gun.  A gun may be used for good.  That is why teachers in Israel are so armed.
> 
> The real issue is Evil.  If you look at my earlier posts you may discover that we have raised a generation that does not understand this concept.  That is our problem.



No, I got the point. Any instrument can be used for good or evil, but that doesn't really mean anything. I am all for trying to constrain the evil nature I believe is innately within humankind. I am also for restricting those for whom these efforts prove futile from access to instruments that will enable them to as efficiently unleash their evils.


----------



## pianodinosaur (Dec 18, 2012)

Beefnot said:


> No, I got the point. Any instrument can be used for good or evil, but that doesn't really mean anything. I am all for trying to constrain the evil nature I believe is innately within humankind. I am also for restricting those for whom these efforts prove futile from access to instruments that will enable them to as efficiently unleash their evils.



We agree.  I personally believe that it is more important to teach children about the nature and consequences of sin than it is to teach self esteem.  This would be a step in the right direct IMHO.  This is very difficult to accomplish while the ten commandments have been banned from school.  Our public schools are now teaching children to feel good about doing bad.  Teaching children to worship themselves is the ultimate form of idolatry.  We have demeaned the very foundations of our civilization.  Our republic was specifically designed for a moral citizenry.  It cannot survive without that common sense of morality.  Not all cultures are equally valid.


----------



## easyrider (Dec 18, 2012)

Two more people saving lives with a gun.

http://www.abc4.com/content/about_4...-lake-city-smiths/NDNrL1gxeE2rsRhrWCM9dQ.cspx

http://radio.woai.com/cc-common/mainheadlines3.html?feed=119078&article=10644119

Here is a thought. Make every citizen, right out of high school join the military or another organization that helps our country for at least 6 months. This way every one could get some basic training and advanced indiviual training as well as some dicsaplin and structure. 


Bill


----------



## MuranoJo (Dec 18, 2012)

Conan said:


> I"m sure alcoholism is the root cause of many fatal accidents.
> Does that mean drunk drivers shouldn't be pulled over, their driving privileges taken away, etc. before there's an accident?



Of course drunk drivers should be pulled over, have their driving privileges taken away, etc. before there's an accident.  However, this happens all the time and yet we continue to have drunk drivers.  In the same vein, even if someone is restricted or denied access to guns, they can and will get access if they want it.

I'm just saying guns are not the root cause, just as alcohol and cars are not the root cause of drunk driving.  Laws, restrictions, and penalties may help defray abuse, but they don't address the root cause and they'll never stop the type of horror that happened last Friday.  

As others have discussed, somehow mental health has to be addressed, as does more pro-active engagement by those who are aware something is 'not right' with an individual.  How many times after each of these events have we seen someone interviewed who has admitted they were aware there were problems?


----------



## Carolinian (Dec 18, 2012)

This Irish journalist, based in Brussels, sets out the real issues here:

http://synonblog.dailymail.co.uk/2012/12/connecticut-killings-its-the-shooter-not-the-guns.html


----------



## Carolinian (Dec 18, 2012)

Switzerland is a very safe country with no mass killings.  Every able bodied male of military age there is required by law to keep a military rifle at home.  It is also a very democratic country.  On the other hand, one of the first things Hitler did when he came to power was take away citizens gun rights.  Do we want to be like the Swiss or like Hitler?

One thing that the media hype in this tragedy seems to downplay is that the shooter had mental health problems and was addicted to violent video games.  If anything ought to be banned, it is violent video games.  And perhaps the trend of putting mentally ill people out in the community instead of in assylums ought to be reversed.  Most of the mass killing shooters in recent times have been on mind altering mental health drugs.  It will be interesting to see what the toxicology shows on this one, and what other recreational drugs might have been involved.





easyrider said:


> Two more people saving lives with a gun.
> 
> http://www.abc4.com/content/about_4...-lake-city-smiths/NDNrL1gxeE2rsRhrWCM9dQ.cspx
> 
> ...


----------



## Carolinian (Dec 18, 2012)

Ridewithme38 said:


> I don't get why we can't just ban all guns...If there are no more new guns coming into america and we confiscate any we see, even with a mythical 3 million guns in owners hands, within 30 years, there won't be a working gun left...
> 
> IMO, even with reloaders available, just banning bullets would work equally well, if it costs hundreds of dollars per bullet on the black market, scum will be much less likely to waste them by using them on people, or 'hunting' or shooting at the range



There is a very good reason.  It is called FREEDOM and our Constitutional liberties.  Are you opposed to freedom?

One of the first things Hitler did when he came to power was to take away gun rights.  So have the Communists everywhere they come to power.

It all boils down to freedom versus totalitarianism.

And it still does not stop mass violence at schools.  Communist China has recently had to put armed guards in schools after a rash of mass stabbings of school children by nutjobs.  If they can't get guns, they will get use knives, Molotov cocktails, or whatever is handy.

What is really needed in not gun control, but nut control.  Put them back in the mental institutions instead of trying to put them out on the streets.


----------



## Beefnot (Dec 18, 2012)

Carolinian said:


> There is a very good reason.  It is called FREEDOM and our Constitutional liberties.  Are you opposed to freedom?
> 
> One of the first things Hitler did when he came to power was to take away gun rights.  So have the Communists everywhere they come to power.
> 
> ...



Let us not conflate devotion to freedom with Constitutional rights. The Constitution was always intended by our forefathers to be a living, breathing document.  It should change with the times. It was never intended to be immutable as, say, the Bible or the Koran have become.  If societal norms and values change, then Amendments should be ratified.

I only make this point to suggest that the Constitution is not what gives moral legitimacy to any ideal. The Constitution should be a moral reflection of our society's ideals.  A society could simultaneously celebrate freedom but place limits on its expression.


----------



## Carolinian (Dec 18, 2012)

Beefnot said:


> Let us not conflate devotion to freedom with Constitutional rights. The Constitution was always intended by our forefathers to be a living, breathing document.  It should change with the times. It was never intended to be immutable as, say, the Bible or the Koran have become.  If societal norms and values change, then Amendments should be ratified.
> 
> I only make this point to suggest that the Constitution is not what gives moral legitimacy to any ideal. The Constitution should be a moral reflection of our society's ideals.  A society could simultaneously celebrate freedom but place limits on its expression.



Yes, the Constitution is always open to amendment.  The left is welcome to try that if it wants, but I don't think they will get very far with an attack on the Bill of Rights, one of the most sacred parts of the Constitution.  No, what they will try to do is pass an un-Constituional statute or perhaps even an Executive Order.

Your last sentence is pure Orwellian.  It also reminds me of some of the ''rights'' enumerated in the old Soviet constitution.


----------



## Carolinian (Dec 18, 2012)

*Columbine victim's father's Congressional testimony*

COLUMBINE STUDENT'S FATHER 12 YEARS LATER !! 

Guess our national leaders didn't expect this. On Thursday, Darrell Scott, the father of Rachel Scott, a victim of the Columbine High School shootings in Littleton, Colorado, was invited to address the House Judiciary Committee's subcommittee. What he said to our national leaders during this special session of Congress was painfully truthful. 

They were not prepared for what he was to say, nor was it received well. It needs to be heard by every parent, every teacher, every politician, every sociologist, every psychologist, and every so-called expert! These courageous words spoken by Darrell Scott are powerful, penetrating, and deeply personal. There is no doubt that God sent this man as a voice crying in the wilderness.. The following is a portion of the transcript: 

"Since the dawn of creation there has been both good & evil in the hearts of men and women. We all contain the seeds of kindness or the seeds of violence. The death of my wonderful daughter, Rachel Joy Scott, and the deaths of that heroic teacher, and the other eleven children who died must not be in vain. Their blood cries out for answers. 

"The first recorded act of violence was when Cain slew his brother Abel out in the field. The villain was not the club he used.. Neither was it the NCA, the National Club Association. The true killer was Cain, and the reason for the murder could only be found in Cain's heart. 

"In the days that followed the Columbine tragedy, I was amazed at how quickly fingers began to be pointed at groups such as the NRA. I am not a member of the NRA. I am not a hunter. I do not even own a gun. I am not here to represent or defend the NRA - because I don't believe that they are responsible for my daughter's death. Therefore I do not believe that they need to be defended. If I believed they had anything to do with Rachel's murder I would be their strongest opponent 

I am here today to declare that Columbine was not just a tragedy -- it was a spiritual event that should be forcing us to look at where the real blame lies! Much of the blame lies here in this room. Much of the blame lies behind the pointing fingers of the accusers themselves. I wrote a poem just four nights ago that expresses my feelings best. 

Your laws ignore our deepest needs, 
Your words are empty air. 
You've stripped away our heritage, 
You've outlawed simple prayer. 
Now gunshots fill our classrooms, 
And precious children die. 
You seek for answers everywhere, 
And ask the question "Why?" 
You regulate restrictive laws, 
Through legislative creed. 
And yet you fail to understand, 
That God is what we need! 

"Men and women are three-part beings. We all consist of body, mind, and spirit. When we refuse to acknowledge a third part of our make-up, we create a void that allows evil, prejudice, and hatred to rush in and wreak havoc. Spiritual presences were present within our educational systems for most of our nation's history. Many of our major colleges began as theological seminaries. This is a historical fact. What has happened to us as a nation? We have refused to honor God, and in so doing, we open the doors to hatred and violence. And when something as terrible as Columbine's tragedy occurs -- politicians immediately look for a scapegoat such as the NRA. They immediately seek to pass more restrictive laws that contribute to erode away our personal and private liberties. We do not need more restrictive laws. Eric and Dylan would not have been stopped by metal detectors. No amount of gun laws can stop someone who spends months planning this type of massacre. The real villain lies within our own hearts. 

"As my son Craig lay under that table in the school library and saw his two friends murdered before his very eyes, he did not hesitate to pray in school. I defy any law or politician to deny him that right! I challenge every young person in America , and around the world, to realize that on April 20, 1999, at Columbine High School prayer was brought back to our schools. Do not let the many prayers offered by those students be in vain. Dare to move into the new millennium with a sacred disregard for legislation that violates your God-given right to communicate with Him. To those of you who would point your finger at the NRA -- I give to you a sincere challenge.. Dare to examine your own heart before casting the first stone! 
My daughter's death will not be in vain! The young people of this country will not allow that to happen!" 
- Darrell Scott


----------



## Ken555 (Dec 18, 2012)

easyrider said:


> In Isreal teachers are required to carry a hand gun. Is that how we should protect school kids in the USA ?



There are some fundamental differences between the USA and Israel. For instance, it's an incomplete understanding of the reality in Israel if you think the rationale for arming civilians is due to mentally ill individuals going on a rampage. Also, all civilians in Israel are members of the army, received extensive training and served for a period of years. We don't have that in America, but if we did I think there would be a much greater understanding of weapons. I'm also unclear if all Israeli teachers carry guns every day. 

If you haven't been to Israel, you might not be aware of how pervasive guns really are there. You'll see them on the street in plain view every day, since the military is everywhere. I haven't been there in a long time, but assuming its the same... If you're in the military on leave, you have to carry your weapon with you, so chances are on Saturday night out at an event or restaurant, you'll see more than a few weapons (and I'm not talking about small guns). 

I'd prefer Israeli security over the TSA any day of the week when I fly (and I'm flying again today ) but when it comes to guns, Israel lives in a very different reality than we do in America. It's not complete to mention one aspect of their life, required by external events we don't have here, without a full understanding of the situation to put it in context.


----------



## Carolinian (Dec 18, 2012)

That also reminds me of South Africa, where many civilians routinely carry guns.  I remember going through the gate at Gold Reef City, a theme park built around gold mining south of Jo'burg, and seeing a sign requiring visitors to check their guns.  All the South Africans ahead of me were handing over their pistols.  I almost felt like apologizing for being a foreign tourist and not having one to hand over.

In reality, though, arming some of those who may come face to face with a terrorist or a deranged person is not a bad idea.  I am a big supporter of arming airline pilots, after proper training, of course.

And just think in this situation of the principal and guidance councillor who went down the hall unarmed to defend the children and were murdered.  What if they had been trained in firearms and had pistols locked away safely in their office ready for such a calamity?  Instead of being murder victims themselves, they likely would have been the ones to stop the bloody rampage by shooting the perpetrator.  Heck, they were not even given bows and arrows or pepper mace!  Many schools already have full time police officers assigned.  Maybe it is time to upgrade their training and weaponry to SWAT standards.   As long as schools are soft targets, they will attract nutjobs.




Ken555 said:


> There are some fundamental differences between the USA and Israel. For instance, it's an incomplete understanding of the reality in Israel if you think the rationale for arming civilians is due to mentally ill individuals going on a rampage. Also, all civilians in Israel are members of the army, received extensive training and served for a period of years. We don't have that in America, but if we did I think there would be a much greater understanding of weapons. I'm also unclear if all Israeli teachers carry guns every day.
> 
> If you haven't been to Israel, you might not be aware of how pervasive guns really are there. You'll see them on the street in plain view every day, since the military is everywhere. I haven't been there in a long time, but assuming its the same... If you're in the military on leave, you have to carry your weapon with you, so chances are on Saturday night out at an event or restaurant, you'll see more than a few weapons (and I'm not talking about small guns).
> 
> I'd prefer Israeli security over the TSA any day of the week when I fly (and I'm flying again today ) but when it comes to guns, Israel lives in a very different reality than we do in America. It's not complete to mention one aspect of their life, required by external events we don't have here, without a full understanding of the situation to put it in context.


----------



## myoakley (Dec 18, 2012)

pianodinosaur said:


> When I was a resident at The University of Chicago, we had people with gunshot wounds and stab wounds come into the ER on a daily basis.   The dope dealers have no difficulty getting guns.  Most of their arsenal is aquired illegally.  We do not need more laws to enforce gun control when we cannot even enforce the ones we have already.
> 
> I will remind you again that far more people are systematically butched by governments than by the occasional lunatic.  The main reason for the second amendment is to that we can protect ourselves from the government should the government become oppressive.  One of Hitler's first acts was to disarm the population.  Then he went after the mentally ill.  Then he went after the Jews, the gypsies, and the homosexuals. (National Socialist Workers Party.  A Good Nazi was a Good National Socialist. ) Similar events have taken place in Russia under the purges, in China with the cultural revolution, Cambodia with the killing fields, and to all infidels that live within Islamic states.  This is a matter of historical record that is not meant to be political or religious.  This is something that happens whenever there exists a totalitarian police state.  The only proven way to prevent a totalitarian police state is to have an armed population.
> 
> The USA has abandoned its founding principles.  Unfortunately, our public schools are no longer able to teach about good vs evil and right vs wrong.  Parents no longer have the freedom to discipline their children as they see fit.  G-d is not allowed to be mentioned in the public schools.  People who argue for the sanctity and protection of human life are publically vilified.  People who argue that individuals should be held personally accountable for their own actions are publically vilified.  Then people cry about how violent our society has become.  We have reaped the whirlwind.  A further discussion of good and evil would venture into religion and the role it has played in the history of our nation.



Thank you, Pianodinosaur, for cutting through to the heart of the matter.  All the discussion about guns is just more noise amid the chaos.  The second amendment is not the problem.  Our problem is CULTURAL.  We have become a society obsessed with violence;  witness the movies and video games where murder and mayhem are the big attractions.  Why?  Maybe we should consider the advice of our founding fathers:  "Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people.  It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." (John Adams)

And, "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports...And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion...Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail to the exclusion of religious principle."  (George Washington) 

Do we  really believe that we are wiser than they?  And to those who ask, "Where was God last Fri. at the Sandy Hook School?",  He was banished 2 generations ago.


----------



## Beefnot (Dec 18, 2012)

Carolinian said:


> Your last sentence is pure Orwellian.  It also reminds me of some of the ''rights'' enumerated in the old Soviet constitution.



In the original Constitution, black people were not considered complete persons and women could not vote.  Is that what you long for a return to? Our society's moral ideals are what should always be perfecting our Constitution.

Oh, and your Columbine quote was already pasted earlier in the thread.


----------



## Tia (Dec 18, 2012)

myoakley said:


> Our problem is CULTURAL.



Society often overlooks that it 'takes a village' agree. Think it also has to do with angry young men who the culture as a whole fails to direct in a positive way.

Think the arguments re forks,knives etc are out of place compared to the weapon used. Time needed to create the volume of damage are not accounted for with those. Who wins in a gun vs fork disagreement, I think it's the gun.


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Dec 18, 2012)

myoakley said:


> to those who ask, "Where was God last Fri. at the Sandy Hook School?",  He was banished 2 generations ago.



According to your book, be it fiction or non-fiction i will leave out of this post...'god' is everywhere...To think that he could be kept out of a school because we want facts in school so we don't end up a nation like Iraq is very against what the writers of that book wrote

Keeping 'god' out of our government has been the single thing that has kept more of these incidents from happening, i used Iraq as an example before because they teach in their school according to 'god', i and many other NYers see the effects of teaching 'god' in school everyday when we walk by the void left in Manhattan


----------



## SueDonJ (Dec 18, 2012)

easyrider said:


> Susan, if you have read my other posts that is exactly what I have been saying. The main purpose of a gun is to kill. Guns were invented to kill. It doesn't matter if its an AR-15 or Glock 9 either weapon is capable of mass murder. Many of these guns are all ready in the wrong hands.
> 
> I have been nothing but respectful. The fact that its difficult to protect yourself from some one with a gun unless you have a gun is the real issue.
> 
> ...



Bill, I'm sorry if I read a tone in your last post that you didn't mean to imply.  But it doesn't help the overall discussion for any of us to insinuate that the others are simply too ignorant to take part in it.  That's the insinuation I got from it, anyway.

You have no idea what guns I've seen or fired, you have no idea if or how closely I've been affected by gun violence, you have no idea if I have ever had to defend myself or my children in a hostile situation, and you have no idea if my calls for more reasonable permitting of guns is based on a pacifist ideology or a religious ideology or something completely different.

Yet you had no problem insinuating that if I only knew as much as you know, or would change my thinking about all of this to match what you are thinking, then no matter what my beliefs are about any of this I would eventually end up agreeing with yours.

That's so presumptuous.  All of us, each and every one of us, will approach the gun violence issue (same as any other issue) with our own perspective.  No one can be said to be absolutely correct or absolutely incorrect.  Our societal structure demands that we compromise in all things, and I'm tired of being told that there can be no compromise when it comes to gun violence.  We all should be tired of it.  I can't imagine that any of us can reasonably think that the price the families of those 20 children paid is worth it.


----------



## Carolinian (Dec 18, 2012)

Beefnot said:


> In the original Constitution, black people were not considered complete persons and women could not vote.  Is that what you long for a return to? Our society's moral ideals are what should always be perfecting our Constitution.



Those were limitations on freedom that, thankfully, were later expanded to give a larger measure of freedom.

That is the opposite situation from the line of yours I questioned.  You spoke of essentially setting up a facade of freedom which in fact was limited.

I am a Jeffersonian, and in favor of expanding personal liberty, not taking it away.


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Dec 18, 2012)

Carolinian said:


> Those were limitations on freedom that, thankfully, were later expanded to give a larger measure of freedom.
> 
> That is the opposite situation from the line of yours I questioned.  You spoke of essentially setting up a facade of freedom which in fact was limited.
> 
> I am a Jeffersonian, and in favor of expanding personal liberty, not taking it away.



Define personal liberty, i feel mine is expanded if i don't have to worry about some NRA Member shooting at me for cutting him off in traffic or looking at him cross eyed




Edited my post above to respect the post below mine


----------



## SueDonJ (Dec 18, 2012)

_Moderator Note:_

I think Brian has given much leeway in this thread and I'm grateful that he allowed us to stray as far into topics that are normally off-limits on TUG.  But there are certain few hot-button phrases recently introduced that are being used for no other reason but to insult, and I'm sure nobody is surprised to learn that for the first time since it began certain posts in the thread have been reported.  Please, continue to try to approach this discussion without veering off into the polarizing topics of politics and religion, otherwise it's inevitable that the thread will have to be closed.  Thanks.


----------



## Carolinian (Dec 18, 2012)

Tia said:


> Society often overlooks that it 'takes a village' agree. Think it also has to do with angry young men who the culture as a whole fails to direct in a positive way.
> 
> Think the arguments re forks,knives etc are out of place compared to the weapon used. Time needed to create the volume of damage are not accounted for with those. Who wins in a gun vs fork disagreement, I think it's the gun.



As to that ''it takes a village'' book, anyone who read it figured out that the author was the village idiot.

When Communist China has been recently going through a series of mass stabbings of students at its schools by deranged loonybirds, one can certainly NOT discount knives at all.  When guns are not availible, as in totalitarian regimes, then crazies simply find another means to commit atrocities.

On the cultural end, I think _[deleted]_ is downplaying a very important part of this, which was the violent video games that the perpetrator was addicted to.  I think those should be banned, and treated like child porn for anyone caught with one.  When you regularly shoot people in the fantasy world of these games, it desensitizes the player to doing it in real life.


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Dec 18, 2012)

Carolinian said:


> On the cultural end, I think [deleted] is downplaying a very important part of this, which was the violent video games that the perpetrator was addicted to.  I think those should be banned, and treated like child porn for anyone caught with one.  When you regularly shoot people in the fantasy world of these games, it desensitizes the player to doing it in real life.



Haha! I've been playing violent video games all my life, at 32, my generation was raised in front of them, everyone 30 and younger was addicted to violent video games at one point, yet we don't see an entire generation of people going out mass murdering, its just a few random nuts....Banning them because of a few 'loonybirds' is akin to your generation banning 'catcher in the rye' because a few killers owned it

You wouldn't have stood for that then and to talk about being Jeffersonian in one post, then talking about the very actions he stood against like banning books/video games is silly


----------



## Beefnot (Dec 18, 2012)

Carolinian said:


> Those were limitations on freedom that, thankfully, were later expanded to give a larger measure of freedom.
> 
> That is the opposite situation from the line of yours I questioned.  You spoke of essentially setting up a facade of freedom which in fact was limited.
> 
> I am a Jeffersonian, and in favor of expanding personal liberty, not taking it away.



Though I am not advocating it, the Constitutional technically could be amended to remove the Second Amendment, while retaining our other freedoms.  

No freedom is absolute.  We are not free to own rocket launchers.  We are not free to yell "fire" in a crowded theater.  We are not free to carry certain items onto airplanes.  We are not free to consume certain controlled substances. The right to consume alcohol as a legal adult over the age of 18 is not permitted.  There are plenty of other examples.  Reasonable people who worship the idea of freedom can also be supportive of limits to that freedom in the interest of the greater society.


----------



## Carolinian (Dec 18, 2012)

Ridewithme38 said:


> Define personal liberty, i feel mine is expanded if i don't have to worry about some NRA Member shooting at me for cutting him off in traffic or looking at him cross eyed
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I could mention the clinical term for someone who worries about such things, but it would not be in keeping with the tone of this thread.  You cannot cite one instance in the real world where an NRA member has done either of those things, so why worry about it?

The freedom to own guns allows you to defend your family against criminals, violent gangs and others who might pose a real threat, depending on where you live.  When it is a crime to own a gun, then only the criminals will have guns.

Look at the riots that happened recently in the UK.  The hooligans were running people down with cars, which involved at least one death, and were setting fire to occupied building, nearly causing a number of deaths, as well as using deadly force by throwing Molotov cocktails.  The British are disarmed and could not defend themselves very well.  Even though baseball is not a popular game in the UK, baseball bats sold out. Still, a baseball bat is of limited use against Molotov cocktails or to stop someone setting your occupied building on fire.  After that experience, my British friends here have come over to the American way of thinking on the right to keep and bear arms.  In contrast, it is doubtful any such riots would ever occur in Switzerland, because every able bodied male of military age is required to keep a military rifle and ammunition in his home, and any rioters would know their victims had the means to fight back.  Not long ago, the Swiss had a referendum on whether to keep that requirement, and the voters backed keeping it.


----------



## SueDonJ (Dec 18, 2012)

Carolinian said:


> I could mention the clinical term for someone who worries about such things, but it would not be in keeping with the tone of this thread.  You cannot cite one instance in the real world where an NRA member has done either of those things, so why worry about it?
> 
> The freedom to own guns allows you to defend your family against criminals, violent gangs and others who might pose a real threat, depending on where you live.  When it is a crime to own a gun, then only the criminals will have guns.
> 
> Look at the riots that happened recently in the UK.  The hooligans were running people down with cars, which involved at least one death, and were setting fire to occupied building, nearly causing a number of deaths, as well as using deadly force by throwing Molotov cocktails.  The British are disarmed and could not defend themselves very well.  Even though baseball is not a popular game in the UK, baseball bats sold out. Still, a baseball bat is of limited use against Molotov cocktails or to stop someone setting your occupied building on fire.  After that experience, my British friends here have come over to the American way of thinking on the right to keep and bear arms.  In contrast, it is doubtful any such riots would ever occur in Switzerland, because every able bodied male of military age is required to keep a military rifle and ammunition in his home, and any rioters would know their victims had the means to fight back.  Not long ago, the Swiss had a referendum on whether to keep that requirement, and the voters backed keeping it.



We talked about Switzerland earlier in the thread if you'd like to go back and look for it.  The whole picture is that Switzerland arms those certain citizens while also requiring them to serve a specified term as a militia member in defense of the homeland, and Switzerland gives those citizens weapons training as well as psychological evaluations and training.  Switzerland's gun-owning populace is armed with a healthy respect for weapons that's obviously lacking in far too many US gun owners.  It's disingenuous to bring up Switzerland as a perfect example of why more guns is the answer for us unless you're also suggesting that we put the same service and training demands on our gun-owning citizens.  If that is what you're suggesting, I'd be in favor of those gun control measures.


----------



## ace2000 (Dec 18, 2012)

Carolinian said:


> The freedom to own guns allows you to defend your family against criminals, violent gangs and others who might pose a real threat, depending on where you live. When it is a crime to own a gun, then only the criminals will have guns.


 
Sure, I'll go along with that to a degree.  But, do we really need these (which was the weapon of choice by the shooter)?  After seeing a picture of this thing, I am now a believer in gun control.


----------



## Carolinian (Dec 18, 2012)

This column from the _Irish Daily Mail_ of Dublin sets out the international statistics and the US does not look so bad in them:

http://synonblog.dailymail.co.uk/2012/12/connecticut-killings-its-the-shooter-not-the-guns.html

It also addresses Switzerland.



SueDonJ said:


> We talked about Switzerland earlier in the thread if you'd like to go back and look for it.  The whole picture is that Switzerland arms those certain citizens while also requiring them to serve a specified term as a militia member in defense of the homeland, and Switzerland gives those citizens weapons training as well as psychological evaluations and training.  Switzerland's gun-owning populace is armed with a healthy respect for weapons that's obviously lacking in far too many US gun owners.  It's disingenuous to bring up Switzerland as a perfect example of why more guns is the answer for us unless you're also suggesting that we put the same service and training demands on our gun-owning citizens.  If that is what you're suggesting, I'd be in favor of those gun control measures.


----------



## Carolinian (Dec 18, 2012)

ace2000 said:


> Sure, I'll go along with that to a degree.  But, do we really need these (which was the weapon of choice by the shooter)?  After seeing a picture of this thing, I am now a believer in gun control.



Well, I suspect that it would deter a criminal a bit more than a single shot .22 would!


----------



## SueDonJ (Dec 18, 2012)

Carolinian said:


> This column from the _Irish Daily Mail_ of Dublin sets out the international statistics and the US does not look so bad in them:
> 
> http://synonblog.dailymail.co.uk/2012/12/connecticut-killings-its-the-shooter-not-the-guns.html
> 
> It also addresses Switzerland.



Ah, okay, we're not _so bad_, others are much worse, we don't have to worry about it unless we're The Worst.  Honestly, you're satisfied with that?

I'm not.  It doesn't matter to me how we compare relative to other civilized and non-civilized nations.  The number of innocent victims we're willing to sacrifice in defense of the Second Amendment is unacceptable.  It's inhumane.  We must be better than this.  And the reason isn't because we want to gain better standing in the statistical compilations.

{eta} I know it's coming - somebody is going to say that the sad fact of fighting for freedoms is that sacrifices must be made.  Well, anybody who wants to sacrifice themselves should feel free to do so.  Those 20 children did not ask to fight your fight.


----------



## Carolinian (Dec 18, 2012)

Here is another good article, from the _Wall Street Journal_:

''Guns, Mental Illness, and Newtown''

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...8185271857424036.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

This is a particularly telling paragraph from the article:

_''The problem is that by the time the police arrive, lots of people are already dead. So when armed citizens are on the scene, many lives are saved. The media rarely mention the mass murders that were thwarted by armed citizens at the Shoney's Restaurant in Anniston, Ala. (1991), the high school in Pearl, Miss. (1997), the middle-school dance in Edinboro, Penn. (1998), and the New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colo. (2007), among others.''_

If that heroic principal in Newtown and been provided with firearms training and a gun to keep safely locked away in her office for such emergencies, she would not have had to confront the killer unarmed, and that could have saved many lives, including her own.


----------



## ace2000 (Dec 18, 2012)

Carolinian said:


> Well, I suspect that it would deter a criminal a bit more than a single shot .22 would!


 
Unfortunately, it wasn't used on criminals this time.


----------



## siesta (Dec 18, 2012)

Read an interesting statistic today:

EVERY single "mass shooting" since 1950 that has involved 3 or more fatalities, has been in a "gun free zone", with one exception, the shooting of Rep. Giffords in Tucson, AZ.

That is pretty astounding, IMO, these so called "gun free zones" are nothing more than mass murderer enabling zones. For the past 70 years this law obviously has done nothing to protect law abiding people. As if a mass murderer is going to change his mind because he saw a no guns allowed sign.

Gun free zones ensure law abiding citizens become helpless victims, while would-be mass shooters have defensless targets.

IMO, If a place is to be designated a gun free zone, then it is the obligation of the facility to have an armed professional protecting the defenseless citizens.... If they are unable to provide this then law abiding citizens who are already issued carry permits by their state police should be permitted to carry them for their protection and the protection of others. They are already trusted to carry them on our streets, our bowling alleys, and our restaraunts, etc.

I heard about defenseless school staff lunging at the shooter and sacrificing themselves to try to stop this madman, and about a teacher who hid her students in a closet and waited for the gunmen helplessly to tell him her kids were in the gym and then only to feel his wrath. Why should she not be permitted to have a firearm to protect herself and blast this shooter away when he walks through her classroom door? If you dont want our teachers armed what about at the very least letting the principle and administrators have ability to protect our schools. You are already trusting your kids lives and minds to her whether you realize it or not.


----------



## Carolinian (Dec 18, 2012)

Good point.  The principal was given nothing to defend her students with, not even a bow and arrow or pepper mace.

In the recent mall shooting, the gunman murdered two people but then a civilian with a concealed carry permit came up and drew a pistol on him, so the gunman shot himself and ended the rampage.

Gun control ideas can kill more people than they save, and ''gun free zones'' like this school are a prime example.




siesta said:


> Read an interesting statistic today:
> 
> EVERY single "mass shooting" since 1950 that has involved 3 or more fatalities, has been in a "gun free zone", with one exception, the shooting of Rep. Giffords in Tucson, AZ.
> 
> ...


----------



## Passepartout (Dec 18, 2012)

Susan, thank you for your thoughts in post #388. I have never seen any thread that has been allowed to wander into so many banned and/or contentious issues. My personal feeling is that we have pretty well plowed all this field for everything it can produce.

I say enough is enough. Move on. Close the thread. Nothing we can say here will convince anyone on any side of the issues at hand that they oughtta change their mind. Just not gonna happen.

I will continue to read more, but don't expect that I can add anything constructive to the discussion.

Jim


----------



## Carolinian (Dec 18, 2012)

ace2000 said:


> Unfortunately, it wasn't used on criminals this time.



Too bad the principal was not supplied with one of those, as if so there would likely have been a different outcome.  Even a Glock might have done the trick.


----------



## SueDonJ (Dec 18, 2012)

siesta said:


> Read an interesting statistic today:
> 
> EVERY single "mass shooting" since 1950 that has involved 3 or more fatalities, has been in a "gun free zone", with one exception, the shooting of Rep. Giffords in Tucson, AZ.
> 
> ...



I'm not in favor of our educators being armed and charged with protecting our children by gunfire, because I think that our educators are charged enough already with the task of nurturing our children.  There's a dichotomy between nurturing and armed defense that I can't reconcile.  Others may be able to, but I'm not.

BUT I am in favor of trained and armed police or civilian protectors being onsite at every one of our schools.  Not any old citizen who's licensed to carry and looking for something to do, though, and not a standard police officer who maybe hasn't had specialized training and education in the psyche of children.  So it will take money, a lot of it, to make sure such a program would be implemented correctly.  We'd have to commit to it, to ensure that our taxpayer dollars wouldn't be pulled from it when we become complacent about all the days that go by without school shootings.


----------



## Beaglemom3 (Dec 18, 2012)

Not sure where we stop on this. It can happen anywhere, any time in any venue. Schools and children make it all that more heinous.

   I wonder how many teachers, theatre ushers-managers, mall cops, college campus police, hospital floor nurses, libararians, concert hall managers, bus drivers, etc. want to carry a firearm to work or be issued one at work ?

  Maybe going back to source and stopping it there would be more productive.


----------



## siesta (Dec 18, 2012)

SueDonJ said:


> BUT I am in favor of trained and armed police or civilian protectors being onsite at every one of our schools..


 suedonj, unfortunately more of your fairytale feel good ideas. You do realize most city and schhol budgets are already strapped for cash. Many schools in low income areas can barely afford proper supplies. I have volunteered in public schools on the south side of chicago who cant afford to fix broken windows and board them up, and barely have funds for students.

Many schools in well to do areas can afford to pay a full time armed person $40k a year to protect the school, but what about the places that cant?

Im not saying allow every staffmember, janitor, etc to carry a gun in school. But at least let tthe top administrators who are already charged with overseeing safety in school to protect our kids, like principles, etc.

These top folks should train for these events just like fire drills.

Your "solution" to fund underpriveledged schools with a national tax to supply guards is surprisingly illogical. Why spend more money when an armed administrator is the solution?


----------



## easyrider (Dec 18, 2012)

SueDonJ said:


> _Moderator Note:_
> 
> I think Brian has given much leeway in this thread and I'm grateful that he allowed us to stray as far into topics that are normally off-limits on TUG.  But there are certain few hot-button phrases recently introduced that are being used for no other reason but to insult, and I'm sure nobody is surprised to learn that for the first time since it began certain posts in the thread have been reported.  Please, continue to try to approach this discussion without veering off into the polarizing topics of politics and religion, otherwise it's inevitable that the thread will have to be closed.  Thanks.




It is really difficult to discuss gun regulations, mass school shootings and mental health with out bringing in the social aspects that include politics, religion or ideas that others disagree with. 

I have read every post and find it very interesting. I am begining to understand the fear many have of guns and why they would like bans or more regulations. I would think that those who favor these regulations may have an understanding of why those that oppose more regulation or bans feel if they read the opposing views.

I would also point out that this is a very tame discussion of a very hot topic and those that choose to read it should do so knowing that others have brought up valid points they will never agree with. If you dont want to participate try not to force others not to. Other forums discussing this topic that include the politics and other ideas are pretty much split like we are at tug. 

Bill


----------



## TUGBrian (Dec 18, 2012)

tis the last time im pruning threads by deleting posts....next stop...bantown.


----------



## geoand (Dec 18, 2012)

Arming the teachers and principals at schools may not be something that the teachers and principals want.  If they are forced to do so, it could lead to a loss of very good teachers and or administrators.


----------



## TUGBrian (Dec 18, 2012)

school district in texas already allows teachers with concealed carry permits to carry at school

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/texas-school-guardian-plan-allows-teachers-guns-174238129.html


----------



## geoand (Dec 18, 2012)

siesta said:


> suedonj, unfortunately more of your fairytale feel good ideas.
> 
> Your "solution" to fund underpriveledged schools with a national tax to supply guards is surprisingly illogical. Why spend more money when an armed administrator is the solution?



Can't we have a discussion without using terms such as "more fairytale feel good ideas?"  The message could have been "I don''t agree with what you are proposing and here are the reasons why." 

The second paragraph could have been worded "Your solution to fund underprivileged schools with a national tax to supply guards would certainly be quite expensive for the individual tax payer.

I have already stated that arming of the staff would pose problems because I think the majority of staff would refuse.


----------



## Beaglemom3 (Dec 18, 2012)

Sandy Hook Dad (of a survivor) has a request for the NRA:



http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/sandy-hook-survivor-dad-nra-help-u-safe-180257437--politics.html





-


----------



## Carolinian (Dec 18, 2012)

Here is another interesting article looking at the practicalities of lots of suggestions:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...le-we-can-do-to-prevent-another-massacre.html

For those whose tunnel vision is focused on guns, not only is the recent spate of mass stabbings in Chinese schools somthing to consider, but so is the fact that the biggest mass killing at a school in the US was perpetrated in 1928 . . . with a car bomb.

And even with this killer, can anyone say with a straight face that the mere presence of a gun or guns does anything to create a mindset of mass murder more than constantly playing violent video games which glorify shooting and killing representations of people?  Why is there not more talk of clamping down on these violent video games?  The mentally ill cannot now buy guns.  At the very least should they not be banned from violent video games?


----------



## Carolinian (Dec 18, 2012)

TUGBrian said:


> school district in texas already allows teachers with concealed carry permits to carry at school
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/texas-school-guardian-plan-allows-teachers-guns-174238129.html



Great concept, Brian.  I am emailing a link to a friend of mine who is on our local school board back in North Carolina.


----------



## siesta (Dec 18, 2012)

Beaglemom3 said:


> Sandy Hook Dad (of a survivor) has a request for the NRA:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 not surprisingly that is a press conference sponsored by the Brady Campaign, formerly known as Handgun Control, Inc., the number 1 anti gun group in the country, and who strongly advocated a complete handgun ban for all civilians, saying they were unnecessary and greatly contributed to crime. Now because the majority of America thinks thats unreasonable and the US Supreme Court thinks thats unconstitutional they have shifted to "assault weapons" that contribute to 1 to 7 percent of violent crimes, and even less murders.

"In 2009, there were 13,636 murders. Guns were used to murder 9,146 people. Hands and feet were used to murder 801 people. Blunt objects were used to murder 611 people. Rifles were used to murder 348 people, and that is all rifles, of which assault rifles are only a small fraction."

So the solution to our problems is to ban a weapon that results in a 100 to 200 deaths a year?


----------



## Beaglemom3 (Dec 18, 2012)

Reading all these posts has helped me to realize that this really is a multi-faceted problem with some of the following components, IMHO:

  In no particular order....

  1. Easy access, in some states, to semi-automatic assault type weapons.

  2. Untreated, undertreated, overtreated, misdiagnosed or underdiagnosed mental illnesses, personality disorders (DSM-IVs) etc. who have access to #1.

  3. In a very small part, videos games for those who are included in #2. 
     Those who may not be able to separate fact from fiction.

  4. Media over-hype: Attracting those who wish to be "noticed" and/or "remembered" (#2 Group).

  5. Lacking formative structure /weak formative structure/environment.


----------



## Tia (Dec 18, 2012)

It  takes parents, relatives, teachers, coaches, friend parents, day care providers, counselors etc. to help kids make it successfully......better?

Really didn't know there was a book, have not read it.






Carolinian said:


> As to that ''it takes a village'' book, anyone who read it figured out that the author was the village idiot.
> .


----------



## Beefnot (Dec 18, 2012)

siesta said:


> not surprisingly that is a press conference sponsored by the Brady Campaign, formerly known as Handgun Control, Inc., the number 1 anti gun group in the country, and who strongly advocated a complete handgun ban for all civilians, saying they were unnecessary and greatly contributed to crime. Now because the majority of America thinks thats unreasonable and the US Supreme Court thinks thats unconstitutional they have shifted to "assault weapons" that contribute to 1 to 7 percent of violent crimes, and even less murders.
> 
> "In 2009, there were 13,636 murders. Guns were used to murder 9,146 people. Hands and feet were used to murder 801 people. Blunt objects were used to murder 611 people. Rifles were used to murder 348 people, and that is all rifles, of which assault rifles are only a small fraction."
> 
> So the solution to our problems is to ban a weapon that results in a 100 to 200 deaths a year?



If banning assault weapons with high capacity magazines and selective fire could produce 1 to 7 percent fewer incidents and/or fewer deaths, then perhaps it's not a bad thing.  The gun enthusiasts could still use their other rifles to hunt and everyone remains happy, no?


----------



## Beaglemom3 (Dec 18, 2012)

Tia said:


> It  takes parents, relatives, teachers, coaches, friend parents, day care providers, counselors etc. to help kids make it successfully......better?
> 
> Really didn't know there was a book, have not read it.



  Tia, here's some info:

 Wellesley College graduate, Yale Law School graduate, the former First Lady of the United States, Former Senator from New York, the current Secretary of State and the Mother of a daughter, Hillary Rodham Clinton, is the author.


----------



## Carolinian (Dec 18, 2012)

Beefnot said:


> If banning assault weapons with high capacity magazines and selective fire could produce 1 to 7 percent fewer incidents and/or fewer deaths, then perhaps it's not a bad thing.  The gun enthusiasts could still use their other rifles to hunt and everyone remains happy, no?



Banning something responsible for 200 deaths a year in a country the size of the US?  Isn't that overkill?  Swatting a gnat with a sledgehammer?


----------



## Beaglemom3 (Dec 18, 2012)

Beefnot said:


> If banning assault weapons with high capacity magazines and selective fire could produce 1 to 7 percent fewer incidents and/or fewer deaths, then perhaps it's not a bad thing.  The gun enthusiasts could still use their other rifles to hunt and everyone remains happy, no?



  Sounds reasonable and a good start.


----------



## siesta (Dec 18, 2012)

Beefnot said:


> If banning assault weapons with high capacity magazines and selective fire could produce 1 to 7 percent fewer incidents and/or fewer deaths, then perhaps it's not a bad thing.  The gun enthusiasts could still use their other rifles to hunt and everyone remains happy, no?


assault weapons and high capacity magazines WERE banned in this country from 1994-2004, so we dont have to guess if it works or not, it was determined to have no measureable effect on crime. The fact is, those weapons were used so far and few between in crime that a sweeping ban had no relative effect.

Here is an excerpt to an article from just a month before the ban expired:


The federal assault-weapons ban, scheduled to expire in September, is not responsible for the nation’s steady decline in gun-related violence and its renewal likely will achieve little, according to an independent study commissioned by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ).
“We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence,” said the unreleased NIJ report, written by Christopher Koper, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania.
“It is thus premature to make definitive assessments of the ban’s impact on gun violence. Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement,” said the report, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Times.
The report also noted that assault weapons were “rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban.”


Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/aug/16/20040816-114754-1427r/#ixzz2FRCusTRX

---------------

Beefnot, also more importantly... When the ban was allowed to expire, violence and murder rates by guns continued to drop, proving even further thhose weapons did not increase crime rates


----------



## Beefnot (Dec 18, 2012)

Carolinian said:


> Banning something responsible for 200 deaths a year in a country the size of the US?  Isn't that overkill?  Swatting a gnat with a sledgehammer?



Depends on one's perspective I suppose.  Personally, I find it to be responsible, not overkill, though I would envision it to be accompanied by additional measures.  Things like a national database, automatic declination referrals to law enforcement, mandatory gun training, psychological evaluations, restrictions on ownership if felons or unstable individuals live on the premises, et al.  I don't have the "right" answer for what I would envision, but that's the purpose of a national debate.


----------



## Carolinian (Dec 18, 2012)

Beaglemom3 said:


> Sounds reasonable and a good start.



The last part of the phrase is what creates the problem for defenders of the 2nd Amendment.  It is the camel's nose under the tent for a group of people that would probably ban everything down to BB guns if they could.  It is a slippery slope if a line is not drawn in the sand and defended.  That is also true of 1st Amendment rights as well.

I have long been a critic of the NRA and the way it makes endorsements (too much insider baseball and pandering to incumbents), but I suspect some of the more strategically efficient 2nd Amendment groups like GOA must be saying ''I told you so'' over several weak-sister wishy-washy type Senators that NRA had endorsed having gone south on them.


----------



## Beaglemom3 (Dec 18, 2012)

A good read from the Harvard School of Public Health. Also, an easy and informative read. I know that we're all posting this link or that link, but I just got this in my email and found it enlightening as it touches on different aspects.

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2012/12/looking-for-lessons-in-newtown/





-


----------



## Beefnot (Dec 18, 2012)

siesta said:


> assault weapons and high capacity magazines WERE banned in this country from 1994-2004, so we dont have to guess if it works or not, it was determined to have no measureable effect on crime. The fact is, those weapons were used so far and few between in crime that a sweeping ban had no relative effect.



I don't have any alternative set of facts or reasoning to dispute what you cite, so I won't.  I'll accept it at face value.  However, I would like to believe that the magnitude of deaths that occurred during indisdriminant acts of evil were less than they otherwise could have been.  Of course, it is difficult to prove a negative.  As long as gun owners could hunt and shoot watermelons or whatever it is they like to do with other legal firearms, then I do not understand why they are so vociferously in favor of being able to own assault weapons.


----------



## Beefnot (Dec 18, 2012)

Carolinian said:


> The last part of the phrase is what creates the problem for defenders of the 2nd Amendment.  It is the camel's nose under the tent for a group of people that would probably ban everything down to BB guns if they could.  It is a slippery slope if a line is not drawn in the sand and defended.  That is also true of 1st Amendment rights as well.



The slippery slope argument is probable the single greatest logical flaw exhibited by those on various sides of contentious issues.  If you give an inch, you are therefore giving a mile.  I reject that premise.  We should look at things as a continuum, not a steep cliff.  One can draw a line in the sand at any point along that continuum.


----------



## Beaglemom3 (Dec 18, 2012)

David Hemenway, Harvard School of Public Health and author of "Private Guns, Public Health",  makes a good point re: the knife v. gun comparison:

_*It’s so incredible that on the same day we had this horrific shooting in an elementary school, a guy in China [wielding a knife] tried to kill lots of elementary school students. And nobody died. Why? Because they have fewer mental health problems? No. It’s the access to guns. Guns make interactions much more lethal.*_


----------



## SueDonJ (Dec 18, 2012)

siesta said:


> suedonj, unfortunately more of your fairytale feel good ideas. You do realize most city and schhol budgets are already strapped for cash. Many schools in low income areas can barely afford proper supplies. I have volunteered in public schools on the south side of chicago who cant afford to fix broken windows and board them up, and barely have funds for students.
> 
> Many schools in well to do areas can afford to pay a full time armed person $40k a year to protect the school, but what about the places that cant?
> 
> ...



While I hope next time you can find a way to respond to me that isn't as condescending, I have to agree with you that some of the ideas I come up with just don't fit with our reality.  But that's why I throw them out there, so that somebody else's ideas can bring me back to the real world.  

The other thing about my latest idea that doesn't work, is where does the line get drawn?  Others have already said it - we arm our schools, our theaters, our shopping malls ... before you know it, we're in a quasi-police state.  That doesn't work for me.


----------



## Beefnot (Dec 18, 2012)

ON CNN:

BREAKING NEWS -- *NRA, in its first statement after the Newtown shootings, says it is prepared "to help make sure this never happens again" *

I can't access nra.com from work so I don't know what the rest of the statement, if there is more, looks like.


----------



## SueDonJ (Dec 18, 2012)

Beefnot said:


> The slippery slope argument is probable the single greatest logical flaw exhibited by those on various sides of contentious issues.  If you give an inch, you are therefore giving a mile.  I reject that premise.  We should look at things as a continuum, not a steep cliff.  One can draw a line in the sand at any point along that continuum.



I agree.  If "beware the slippery slope" was a valid reason to not place restrictions on any of our rights, our day-to-day life would be much different than it is now.  We have freedom of speech but we can't yell "Fire" in a crowded place.  We have the right to vote, but we must first register.  We have freedom to practice our religion, but we cannot force it upon any others.  And on and on ...

Restrictions to our rights are what enable us to enjoy those rights.  The Second Amendment isn't any more protected from restrictions than the others.


----------



## Elan (Dec 18, 2012)

Beefnot said:


> ON CNN:
> 
> BREAKING NEWS -- *NRA, in its first statement after the Newtown shootings, says it is prepared "to help make sure this never happens again" *
> 
> I can't access nra.com from work so I don't know what the rest of the statement, if there is more, looks like.



Statement:

"The National Rifle Association of America is made up of four million moms and dads, sons and daughters – and we were shocked, saddened and heartbroken by the news of the horrific and senseless murders in Newtown.

"Out of respect for the families, and as a matter of common decency, we have given time for mourning, prayer and a full investigation of the facts before commenting.

"The NRA is prepared to offer meaningful contributions to help make sure this never happens again.

"The NRA is planning to hold a major news conference in the Washington, DC area on Friday, December 21.

"Details will be released to the media at the appropriate time."


----------



## SueDonJ (Dec 18, 2012)

Elan said:


> Statement:
> 
> "The National Rifle Association of America is made up of four million moms and dads, sons and daughters – and we were shocked, saddened and heartbroken by the news of the horrific and senseless murders in Newtown.
> 
> ...



This is hopeful.  It's good.


----------



## Elan (Dec 18, 2012)

SueDonJ said:


> I agree.  If "beware the slippery slope" was a valid reason to not place restrictions on any of our rights, our day-to-day life would be much different than it is now.  We have freedom of speech but we can't yell "Fire" in a crowded place.  We have the right to vote, but we must first register.  We have freedom to practice our religion, but we cannot force it upon any others.  And on and on ...
> 
> Restrictions to our rights are what enable us to enjoy those rights.  The Second Amendment isn't any more protected from restrictions than the others.



  It's a cop out that's always used by gun control opponents.  They've blinded themselves to the fact that the logic behind such a statement doesn't apply elsewhere in our society.


----------



## cotraveller (Dec 18, 2012)

Ridewithme38 said:


> Haha! I've been playing violent video games all my life, at 32, my generation was raised in front of them, everyone 30 and younger was addicted to violent video games at one point, yet we don't see an entire generation of people going out mass murdering, its just a few random nuts....Banning them because of a few 'loonybirds' is akin to your generation banning 'catcher in the rye' because a few killers owned it



On a similar note, I have been around guns much longer than you have been around video games.  I grew up in the country and was hunting rabbits and squirrels, by myself, with a semiautomatic rifle, before I was a teenager.  I have yet to shoot anyone with a gun or anything else.  Banning guns because of a few 'loonybirds' is simply a case of others wanting to control your life and your freedom.


----------



## Beefnot (Dec 18, 2012)

Elan said:


> It's a cop out that's always used by gun control opponents.  They've blinded themselves to the fact that the logic behind such a statement doesn't apply elsewhere in our society.



Believe you me, it's way more than just gun control.  It happens on the left and right of major issues.



cotraveller said:


> Banning guns because of a few 'loonybirds' is simply a case of others wanting to control your life and your freedom.



Reductionist arguments that people who want to ban guns simply want to control our lives and freedom (as if not for any other more noble purpose, whether misguided or otherwise) are hyperbolic statements that results in instant loss of credibility with the other side. It's just not productive to the debate.


----------



## vckempson (Dec 18, 2012)

I presume this type of assault rifle is what many here are advocating to be banned.  While I'm a pro gun person, my preference would be to ban these weapons, if it would save lives.  What hasn't been discussed, however, is how you go about defining these weapons in a meaningful way to outlaw them.  In my home state of NJ, we already have an assault rifle ban that is identical to the federal ban in place from '94 to '04.  What might surprise many of you is that the above rifle is fully compliant (read legal) under current NJ law and the prior federal ban. Ct also has the same assault rifle ban, and the gun used was apparently fully legal in CT, in spite of that assault rifle ban.

So, if you think that a ban will keep these guns off the streets, they didn't and they won't.  Even though we all know an assault rifle when we see it, defining it in a manner that outlaws it and not other non-assault rifles is no easy task.  Functionally, many hunting rifles share similar attributes, though they are clearly not assault rifles.  

Currently most if not all states with laws on the books define an assault rifle as a semi automatic rifle with a detachable magazine and 2 or more of the following evil features.

Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally).

The above picture has a fixed stock and a muzzle brake instead of a flash suppressor.  Therefore, it is legal under all past and current assault rifle bans (with the exception of CA.)  It is, none-the-less just as tactically efficient and dangerous as any other assault rifle.

Then we move to another rifle.  It's the M1A, a civilian version of the M14 battle rifle.  






This rifle has no evil features of any kind.  It's fully compliant in every state, including CA and likely so under any assault rifle ban that could be passed.  It's arguably more dangerous than any typical assault rifle since it's a 308 caliber, not the smaller 556/223 caliber.  The problem is that it's functionally equivalent to any semi-auto hunting rifle.  Nothing really distinguishes it in any easy way, to define it separately from those hunting rifles.  For the sake of full disclosure, I own this gun.

As you can see, putting a meaningful ban in place is no easy task, even if we all wanted it.


----------



## Conan (Dec 18, 2012)

[Deleted by me]

This discussion has seriously degenerated, and I regret being part of it.


----------



## pianodinosaur (Dec 18, 2012)

Beaglemom3 said:


> David Hemenway, Harvard School of Public Health and author of "Private Guns, Public Health",  makes a good point re: the knife v. gun comparison:
> 
> _*It’s so incredible that on the same day we had this horrific shooting in an elementary school, a guy in China [wielding a knife] tried to kill lots of elementary school students. And nobody died. Why? Because they have fewer mental health problems? No. It’s the access to guns. Guns make interactions much more lethal.*_



What about the tens of millions of innocent people butchered in China under Mao who were unable to defend themselves from a tyrannical government?  I find our well armed society far more preferable.


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Dec 18, 2012)

pianodinosaur said:


> What about the tens of millions of innocent people butchered in China under Mao who were unable to defend themselves from a tyrannical government?  I find our well armed society far more preferable.



Do you really believe a farmer with a duck hunting rifle or even a Gym teacher with an assault rifle can defend themselves against the full force of the US Military...........They have Bombs and Tanks and fighter planes and Training....Sure 1/10th of the military would refuse to fight their own people...But when marshal law is called and the it 'looks' like the people are raising up and the military is given misinformation(The us government invented the misinformation campaign) we won't stand a chance...this is why the 2nd ammendment should just be repealed...it doesn't apply to modern times

Just like the People under Mao


----------



## vckempson (Dec 18, 2012)

Ridewithme38 said:


> Do you really believe a farmer with a duck hunting rifle or even a Gym teacher with an assault rifle can defend themselves against the full force of the US Military
> Just like the People under Mao



I don't know.  Why don't you ask the North Vietnamese or the insurgents in Afghanistan?  They did pretty good against the full might and force of the US military.

But in answer to your question, yes.  When you can't tell friend from foe, any type of gun or weapon will do.  You need look no further than IED's to see the answer there.  In any type of urban warfare, the big mighty military weapons go right out the window.


----------



## pianodinosaur (Dec 18, 2012)

Ridewithme38 said:


> Do you really believe a farmer with a duck hunting rifle or even a Gym teacher with an assault rifle can defend themselves against the full force of the US Military...........They have Bombs and Tanks and fighter planes and Training....Sure 1/10th of the military would refuse to fight their own people...But when marshal law is called and the it 'looks' like the people are raising up and the military is given misinformation(The us government invented the misinformation campaign) we won't stand a chance...this is why the 2nd ammendment should just be repealed...it doesn't apply to modern times
> 
> Just like the People under Mao



Absolutely.  The combined firepower of the civilian American people is far greater than that of the military.  The US military would be so heavily out numbered and out gunned, that it would be no contest.  We have more guns in our community than most military divisions.  We also have far more ammunition.  The average infantry soldier has one gun.  My average neighbor has about 10 guns.  Most of my neighbors, including myself, are veterans.


----------



## Beaglemom3 (Dec 18, 2012)

Unfortunately, the Gov't has more than just fire power in its arsenal.

  Chemical, biological and cyberwarfare come to mind. But this is all conjecture and worst case scenario(s). Veering off topic here, parallel, but off topic.


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Dec 18, 2012)

pianodinosaur said:


> Absolutely.  The combined firepower of the civilian American people is far greater than that of the military.  The US military would be so heavily out numbered and out gunned, that it would be no contest.  We have more guns in our community than most military divisions.  We also have far more ammunition.  The average infantry soldier has one gun.  My average neighbor has about 10 guns.  Most of my neighbors, including myself, are veterans.



Let me just say, i don't believe this will ever happen, the government doesn't ever need to go to war with us, we have already been pacified in other ways...
But thats the issue, we are not your average defiant citizens, 40% of the population would absolutely buy into what ever the government was saying and  go into 'refuge' camps to keep them 'safe from the enemy' and fed, another 20-30% would be labeled 'terrorists' and be 'captured' and never seen from again....You would have no neighbors left, the lines of communication would be cut, food supplies and anything needed to survive would be guarded and sent only to the military bases and 'refuge' camps

We've done things like this all over the world already, it would be even easier to do it on our own land....It would literally be you, your wife and MAYBE your children against the full force of the US Military, unless you are prepared already, there wouldn't be time to fortify a place, or setup a group...and they would take down the 'terrorists' one stick built, glass surrounded, house at a time...Now granted, there maybe some militia's that are prepared ahead of time....But they will be targeted first and really, not the kind of people you'd want to be associated with

Trust me on this...IF it ever happens an you DO still have neighbors they won't trust you, because of the disinformation campaigns....It will just be you against the world

Waco comes to mind...but really none of you will holdup that well

This of course is worst case scenario....But worst case scenario was the whole point of the 2nd ammendment anyway....that's why i say we should just dump it....it serves no purpose in modern times


----------



## Beefnot (Dec 18, 2012)

pianodinosaur said:


> Absolutely.  The combined firepower of the civilian American people is far greater than that of the military.  The US military would be so heavily out numbered and out gunned, that it would be no contest.



Surely you cannot be serious.  Well, I suppose you may be onto something if the U.S. ever were to wage a conventional ground assault on its people.  But if it ever sought to pacify using its arsenal of combat vehicles and weapons of mass destruction, like we did toward the end of WWII, then good night.  

Unless the right of the people to bear arms means that they can bear the same arms that our government bears, then the 2nd amendment as written is more an archaic symbol of a different era in our nation's history than it is a true deterrent to government tyranny or enabler of the citizenry's self defense against its government.


----------



## easyrider (Dec 18, 2012)

Ridewithme38 said:


> Let me just say, i don't believe this will ever happen, the government doesn't ever need to go to war with us, we have already been pacified in other ways...
> But thats the issue, we are not your average defiant citizens, 40% of the population would absolutely buy into what ever the government was saying and  go into 'refuge' camps to keep them 'safe from the enemy' and fed, another 20-30% would be labeled 'terrorists' and be 'captured' and never seen from again....You would have no neighbors left, the lines of communication would be cut, food supplies and anything needed to survive would be guarded and sent only to the military bases and 'refuge' camps
> 
> We've done things like this all over the world already, it would be even easier to do it on our own land....It would literally be you, your wife and MAYBE your children against the full force of the US Military, unless you are prepared already, there wouldn't be time to fortify a place, or setup a group...and they would take down the 'terrorists' one stick built, glass surrounded, house at a time...Now granted, there maybe some militia's that are prepared ahead of time....But they will be targeted first and really, not the kind of people you'd want to be associated with
> ...



The above insurection against our own government idea really isn't a senario that would be played out , imo. Especially with vets. We took a pledge to protect the USA and I don't think any of us would shoot an American soldier. 

What could happen is a natural disaster and fighting between armed gangs and armed citizens. This actually could happen if the situation was very chaotic, but I don't think it ever will. 

The odds are some petty criminal will do violence on you before any foreign or domestic army, lol.

Ride, to protect your family from certain death would you be willing to shoot in self defense ?

Bill


----------



## cotraveller (Dec 18, 2012)

Beefnot said:


> Reductionist arguments that people who want to ban guns simply want to control our lives and freedom (as if not for any other more noble purpose, whether misguided or otherwise) are hyperbolic statements that results in instant loss of credibility with the other side. It's just not productive to the debate.





Beefnot said:


> Though I am not advocating it, the Constitutional technically could be amended to remove the Second Amendment, while retaining our other freedoms.



I would say that comments suggesting that the 2nd amendment be  abolished are not productive and destroy credibility. Prefacing such comments by saying you do not support them does not make those comments productive or credible.  If you do not support the idea why bring it up?  Is the intent to put the idea out there for others to pick up while removing yourself from the stigma of having suggested it?

You can possibly control access to guns or knives or dynamite or whatever. You can possibly control access to violent video games (which was the original topic I addressed).  Such controls will have little effect on what they are supposedly designed to accomplish.  You cannot reliably identify, much less control, the 'loonybirds' who will always find ways to create mayhem. Your controls will mainly control the capability of people to defend themselves against those 'loonybirds'.


----------



## TUGBrian (Dec 18, 2012)

I agree, the whole military taking over point is pretty silly overall.

I do however recall some very serious conditions post katrina in new orleans...and you can see from there how few police and military personnel were available to help the common citizen.

I will make one final request to keep this civil and without the growing "snottyness" im picking up in many of these posts.

If you cant talk about an issue like an adult without getting angry at the person who disagrees with you...dont post here.


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Dec 18, 2012)

easyrider said:


> Ride, to protect your family from certain death would you be willing to shoot in self defense ?
> 
> Bill



This is one of those questions not based on reality....well first off, the definition of 'certain' kinda implies that it wouldn't matter if i had a gun or not....But even so, Most criminals are cowards, they're either the homeless trying to get money/things to survive or kids breaking in to get beer money, neither one is a risk of 'certain death'.....they break into houses when no one is home and run if they hear any noise(no need for a gun), a stickup kid on the street is going to back down if you stand up to them(no need for a gun)...Car jacking, drive off(no need for a gun)...it's one in a trillion that you will be in a certain death situation with a criminal....

BUT for the 'not going to happen' situation, If i have a gun and the criminal has a gun he pulls it, i pull mine, we are both dead...If just i have a gun, he runs(i don't need a gun to scare off the traditional Coward criminal), if just he has a gun, my 6'3 235lbs body and memories of my(haha)high school football days, i'm charging at the MF and he's running off scared after a couple hits, i may end up killing him, but most people don't need a gun for that...In the one situation where i pulled a gun, all it did was end up with TWO people dead instead of NONE, it took a very easy to handle situation and put blood on everyone's hands

IF YOU WANT TO KNOW WHAT I REALLY FEEL ABOUT GUNS?  They are useless for protection, it makes a bad situation worse, no one needs one anymore for hunting, supermarkets are everywhere....THE ONLY USE FOR A GUN IS AS A TOY, really they are just fun toys....to play with, go target shooting, hunting for fun(not survival) or overall having fun...Everyone says that guns aren't toys, but really, 99.9999% of the time(police & military are that .00001%) that is exactly what they are used as, Toys

We don't need an amendment to protect toys


----------



## Beefnot (Dec 18, 2012)

cotraveller said:


> I would say that comments suggesting that the 2nd amendment be  abolished are not productive and destroy credibility. Prefacing such comments by saying you do not support them does not make those comments productive or credible.  If you do not support the idea why bring it up?  Is the intent to put the idea out there for others to pick up while removing yourself from the stigma of having suggested it?



The context of the comment was rebutting Carolinian's presumption that seeking to curb gun rights is an inherent affront to freedom.  I was not evaluating the merits of ridewithme38's statement, but pointing out to Carolinian that a reasonable person could reconcile the desire to ban guns with the celebration of freedom.

The mere suggestion of a constitutional amendment to ban guns, or a counterpoint to encourage the ownership of more weaponry for that matter, need not inherently be unproductive or destroy credibility.  I can give a very fact-based, thoroughly reasoned argument for or against a given position.  However if my argument is reduced to "you just hate freedom" or "you just love murder" then the debate is over before it has even started.



TUGBrian said:


> I do however recall some very serious conditions post katrina in new orleans...and you can see from there how few police and military personnel were available to help the common citizen.



Touche. There were quite a few despicable hooligans who fully deserved caps popped in their youknowwhats.


----------



## vckempson (Dec 18, 2012)

Ridewithme38 said:


> IF YOU WANT TO KNOW WHAT I REALLY FEEL ABOUT GUNS?  They are useless for protection, it makes a bad situation worse, no one needs one anymore for hunting, supermarkets are everywhere....THE ONLY USE FOR A GUN IS AS A TOY, really they are just fun toys....to play with, go target shooting, hunting for fun(not survival) or overall having fun...Everyone says that guns aren't toys, but really, 99.9999% of the time(police & military are that .00001%) that is exactly what they are used as, Toys
> 
> We don't need an amendment to protect toys



Why don't you tell us what you really think, Ride.  

Sadly, you are probably more right than wrong.  However, I think your view is sheltered and one sided based on living in suburban Long Island.  Much of the US lives a far distance from any law enforcement.  We're not talking response times in minutes but an hour or more  They depend on their own self determinination to protect themselves, their families and their property from those that would do them harm.  The level of gun ownership in those situations is likely north of 90% and they aren't kept as toys but as necessities.


----------



## easyrider (Dec 18, 2012)

Ridewithme38 said:


> BUT for the 'not going to happen' situation, If i have a gun and the criminal has a gun he pulls it, i pull mine, we are both dead...If just i have a gun, he runs(i don't need a gun to scare off the traditional Coward criminal), if just he has a gun, my 6'3 235lbs body and memories of my(haha)high school football days, i'm charging at the MF and he's running off scared after a couple hits, i may end up killing him, but most people don't need a gun for that...In the one situation where i pulled a gun, all it did was end up with TWO people dead instead of NONE, it took a very easy to handle situation and put blood on everyone's hands
> 
> IF YOU WANT TO KNOW WHAT I REALLY FEEL ABOUT GUNS?  They are useless for protection, it makes a bad situation worse, no one needs one anymore for hunting, supermarkets are everywhere....THE ONLY USE FOR A GUN IS AS A TOY, really they are just fun toys....to play with, go target shooting, hunting for fun(not survival) or overall having fun...Everyone says that guns aren't toys, but really, 99.9999% of the time(police & military are that .00001%) that is exactly what they are used as, Toys
> 
> We don't need an amendment to protect toys



Ride, this is where training comes in. Out in public the usual senario is the bad guy has the drop on you and you comply and the bad guy goes away. Each situation is different depending on where you meet the bad guy and what the bad guy is armed with. Most often it will be a knife or small caliber handgun. This type of crime has a smaller percentage of people being killed.

When the bad guy breaks into your house its a different story. You will usually have time to protect yourself if your prepared. In home invasions often time the bad guy is there to harm you or someone else living in that home. Having a hand gun and a little training is a better way of eliminating this threat than trying to muscle it through no matter how tough you are. Robbery is the least of your problems with these types of bad guys. Rape and torture resulting in death for the bad guys entertainment has happened often enough with out any thing being stolen. This kind of crap can happen any where in any neighborhood. 

Sure the odds are that it will never be a problem for most but when it is a problem your choice is to comply and maybe die or if your prepared you can save your self and family. 

Bill


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Dec 18, 2012)

easyrider said:


> *In home invasions often time the bad guy is there to harm you or someone else living in that home.* Having a hand gun and a little training is a better way of eliminating this threat than trying to muscle it through no matter how tough you are. Robbery is the least of your problems with these types of bad guys. Rape and torture resulting in death for the bad guys entertainment has happened often enough with out any thing being stolen. This kind of crap can happen any where in any neighborhood.
> 
> Bill



This is where we differ, i don't believe that a home invasion equals rape and murder/torture.... 99.999% its just some druggy/homeless/Kid that wants to rip some things off of an empty house so they can pawn it for drugs/food/drugs, if they see someone home they'll run off...I'm not going to say it never happens, but from what i've read in the very very few cases this has happened, it's usually someone you know...an unarmed, ex husband, ex boyfriend, friend of a friend, etc. that you invite in or pushed in through a door you were holding closed(because you unlocked it to talk to them) With those situations, there is no way you are going to have a chance to go into the closet, unlock the safe load the gun and fire.....So a gun doesn't help in those cases...

IMO, beyond the cases i sited above (exboyfriend, exhusband, friend of friend) you are taking horror movie plots and convincing yourself that they are real life....it's just not realistic and almost silly to plan for...Otherwise, i should start avoiding sleeping, Freddie Kruger might get me!

I think we differ also in our view of America and the people of America....People are generally good and WANT to do the 'right' thing, if you talk to most people in jail you will see their crimes were more of necessity then of 'evil'...this isn't true for everyone, some people are just misguided and don't understand 'right' from 'wrong' but generally people are good and want to do good...This is why my general belief is that America is a pretty damn safe place


----------



## pianodinosaur (Dec 19, 2012)

TUGBrian said:


> I agree, the whole military taking over point is pretty silly overall.
> 
> I do however recall some very serious conditions post katrina in new orleans...and you can see from there how few police and military personnel were available to help the common citizen.
> 
> ...



As long as our military takes an oath to defend the constitution, which happens to include the second amendment, I would agree that it is very unlikely that our government would wage war on it's own population.  I just want to keep it that way.  The problem is that all too often tyrants have the military swear an oath of loyalty to them.  Then the military may have no problem killing their own people.  This happened under Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and is currently taking place all over the Middle East today.  The second amendment is hardly obsolete.  I am certain there are many people of goodwill who would agree that the second amendment is what keeps this country free.


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Dec 19, 2012)

pianodinosaur said:


> As long as our military takes an oath to defend the constitution, which happens to include the second amendment, I would agree that it is very unlikely that our government would wage war on it's own population.  I just want to keep it that way.  The problem is that all too often tyrants have the military swear an oath of loyalty to them.  Then the military may have no problem killing their own people.  This happened under Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and is currently taking place all over the Middle East today.  The second amendment is hardly obsolete.  I am certain there are many people of goodwill who would agree that the second amendment is what keeps this country free.



The freedom of assembly and the freedom of speech are what has always kept this nation free, now with the internet, that freedom is getting strong and stronger everyday....Without the First amendment the 2nd means nothing...Because unless you can speak freely/ print/publish dissent, you can never build up the immense crowd needed to act upon that dissent...If you can't assemble, it IS just you against the world

I would fight against major changes to our freedom of speech and THAT i would give my life to defend!


----------



## siesta (Dec 19, 2012)

Ridewithme38 said:


> I would fight against major changes to our freedom of speech and THAT i would give my life to defend!


 well you better get ready for a fight... bc guns arent the only thing they are coming for. There is a big movement now to push for less violence in music, movies, television.  Everyone who over the years pushing for 1st amendment restrictions are in full swing as well.

Reminds me of book burnings. "the content is dangerous to our minds, protect society!"

To all the parents concerned about the violent movies, music, games, fast food, soda pop.... If your concerned take away their playstation, put parental controls on tv and internet, and dont buy them mcdonalds! Last time i checked kids didnt rent R rated movies and take themselves to the fast food drive-thru.

Rant over.


----------



## easyrider (Dec 19, 2012)

Ridewithme38 said:


> This is where we differ, i don't believe that a home invasion equals rape and murder/torture.... 99.999% its just some druggy/homeless/Kid that wants to rip some things off of an empty house so they can pawn it for drugs/food/drugs, if they see someone home they'll run off...I'm not going to say it never happens, but from what i've read in the very very few cases this has happened, it's usually someone you know...an unarmed, ex husband, ex boyfriend, friend of a friend, etc. that you invite in or pushed in through a door you were holding closed(because you unlocked it to talk to them) With those situations, there is no way you are going to have a chance to go into the closet, unlock the safe load the gun and fire.....So a gun doesn't help in those cases...
> 
> IMO, beyond the cases i sited above (exboyfriend, exhusband, friend of friend) you are taking horror movie plots and convincing yourself that they are real life....it's just not realistic and almost silly to plan for...Otherwise, i should start avoiding sleeping, Freddie Kruger might get me!
> 
> I think we differ also in our view of America and the people of America....People are generally good and WANT to do the 'right' thing, if you talk to most people in jail you will see their crimes were more of necessity then of 'evil'...this isn't true for everyone, some people are just misguided and don't understand 'right' from 'wrong' but generally people are good and want to do good...This is why my general belief is that America is a pretty damn safe place



There is a huge difference between home invasion and burglary. The number of bad guys caught and released from prison is about 1% of the population. The number of bad guys not caught has to be at least twice that. 

AND this doesnt even include all the drug addicts or other lunatics.

I do have to agree with you on people in general. Most are good.

Bill  
___________________________________________________

""""Home invasion is the act of illegally entering a private and occupied dwelling with violent intent for the purpose of committing a crime against the occupants such as robbery, assault, rape, murder, or kidnapping.[1] Home invasion is generally an unauthorized and forceful entry into a dwelling.

Few statistics are available on the crime of home invasion as such, because it is not defined as a crime in its own right in most jurisdictions. Statistics about home invasion found on the Internet are often false or misleading.[16] Persons arrested for what the police or media may refer to as "home invasion" are actually charged with crimes such as robbery, kidnapping, homicide, rape, or assault.

  According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), 2,266,800 adults were incarcerated in U.S. federal and state prisons, and county jails at year-end 2010 – about 0.7% of adults in the U.S. resident population.[7] Additionally, 4,933,667 adults at year-end 2009 were on probation or on parole.[4] In total, 7,225,800 adults were under correctional supervision (probation, parole, jail, or prison) in 2009 – about 3.1% of adults in the U.S. resident population.[3][4][11]
In addition, there were 70,792 juveniles in juvenile detention in 2010 """


----------



## pianodinosaur (Dec 19, 2012)

Ridewithme38 said:


> The freedom of assembly and the freedom of speech are what has always kept this nation free, now with the internet, that freedom is getting strong and stronger everyday....Without the First amendment the 2nd means nothing...Because unless you can speak freely/ print/publish dissent, you can never build up the immense crowd needed to act upon that dissent...If you can't assemble, it IS just you against the world
> 
> I would fight against major changes to our freedom of speech and THAT i would give my life to defend!



I would argue that without the second amendment, the first amendment cannot be protected.  If you are willing to fight to preserve the first amendment, how are you prepared to do so?  I am also willing to fight to preserve the first amendment.  That is precisely why we need the second amendment.


----------



## Carolinian (Dec 19, 2012)

pianodinosaur said:


> As long as our military takes an oath to defend the constitution, which happens to include the second amendment, I would agree that it is very unlikely that our government would wage war on it's own population.  I just want to keep it that way.  The problem is that all too often tyrants have the military swear an oath of loyalty to them.  Then the military may have no problem killing their own people.  This happened under Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and is currently taking place all over the Middle East today.  The second amendment is hardly obsolete.  I am certain there are many people of goodwill who would agree that the second amendment is what keeps this country free.



Those tyrants you mention also took away citizens gun rights early in their regimes.  Any politician who wants to disarm the population has to be looked at as a potential tyrant.


----------



## geoand (Dec 19, 2012)

pianodinosaur said:


> Absolutely.  The combined firepower of the civilian American people is far greater than that of the military.  The US military would be so heavily out numbered and out gunned, that it would be no contest.  We have more guns in our community than most military divisions.  We also have far more ammunition.  The average infantry soldier has one gun.  My average neighbor has about 10 guns.  Most of my neighbors, including myself, are veterans.


I disagree completely.  Two big flaws in this is that the small arms in the civilian population is nothing compared to the weaponry available to the military.  The second flaw is that one side has a command structure and the other side doesn't.


----------



## Carolinian (Dec 19, 2012)

Two things happen with criminals in a gun control society.

The first is that criminals still have avenues to get guns, although they become more expensive and harder to get.  The citizen does not.  So the criminal is always going to have the advantage.

The second is that for petty crimes and spur of the moment crimes, criminals turn to other weapons, particularly knives.  If you have been reading the British press over the last few years, as I have for decades, you would be reading stories about a serious rash of knife violence over the past few years.  The Communist Chinese have been dealing recently with a rash of mass stabbings of students in their schools.  If getting a gun becomes more difficult, those inclined to violence or crime will simply turn to a different weapon.

If I am having to defend myself, I would rather it be gun to gun where I can put some distance between myself and a criminal than knife to knife.




easyrider said:


> Ride, this is where training comes in. Out in public the usual senario is the bad guy has the drop on you and you comply and the bad guy goes away. Each situation is different depending on where you meet the bad guy and what the bad guy is armed with. Most often it will be a knife or small caliber handgun. This type of crime has a smaller percentage of people being killed.
> 
> When the bad guy breaks into your house its a different story. You will usually have time to protect yourself if your prepared. In home invasions often time the bad guy is there to harm you or someone else living in that home. Having a hand gun and a little training is a better way of eliminating this threat than trying to muscle it through no matter how tough you are. Robbery is the least of your problems with these types of bad guys. Rape and torture resulting in death for the bad guys entertainment has happened often enough with out any thing being stolen. This kind of crap can happen any where in any neighborhood.
> 
> ...


----------



## Carolinian (Dec 19, 2012)

geoand said:


> I disagree completely.  Two big flaws in this is that the small arms in the civilian population is nothing compared to the weaponry available to the military.  The second flaw is that one side has a command structure and the other side doesn't.



Funny, that is probably how George III had it figured, too.  Or Assad in Syria, or Gaddhafi.


----------



## Carolinian (Dec 19, 2012)

Beaglemom3 said:


> David Hemenway, Harvard School of Public Health and author of "Private Guns, Public Health",  makes a good point re: the knife v. gun comparison:
> 
> _*It’s so incredible that on the same day we had this horrific shooting in an elementary school, a guy in China [wielding a knife] tried to kill lots of elementary school students. And nobody died. Why? Because they have fewer mental health problems? No. It’s the access to guns. Guns make interactions much more lethal.*_



Well, no, it is largely the skill of the bad guy in using his weapon of choice.  Someone skillful with a knife can do more damage than someone clumsy with a gun.

And it is sad that institutions like a school of public health can get so overtly politicized as this dude obviously is.


----------



## Beefnot (Dec 19, 2012)

Carolinian said:


> If getting a gun becomes more difficult, those inclined to violence or crime will simply turn to a different weapon.



No dispute from me there. But they can inflict a lot less carnage in a short amount of time than they can with assault rifles with high capacity clips.


----------



## siesta (Dec 19, 2012)

Carolinian said:


> Two things happen with criminals in a gun control society.
> 
> The first is that criminals still have avenues to get guns, although they become more expensive and harder to get.


 yes, this was true when we banned alcohol during prohibition, and currently the war on drugs. Our laws have managed to create billion dollar underground industries making criminals rich, all the while alcohol was, and drugs are, still available everywhere for people willing to break the law. Im pretty sure we'd accomplish similair results with a "gun control society" too.

And before anyone says "we cant make guns like drugs", first yes people can, second there are already millions of guns on black market,  and third all the drugs in this country werent made here they were smuggled in.

If you doubt me, check this out, happened in China where guns are banned completely.

"In early 2007, a man in northeast China killed five family members and neighbors in a rampage with a *homemade pistol*."

"Possessing a single gun can yield a three-year prison sentence, while perpetrators of gun crimes are often executed."

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/LF24Ad02.html

Look, a country with a complete gun ban punishable by death still has mass shootings!


----------



## Carolinian (Dec 19, 2012)

vckempson said:


> I don't know.  Why don't you ask the North Vietnamese or the insurgents in Afghanistan?  They did pretty good against the full might and force of the US military.
> 
> But in answer to your question, yes.  When you can't tell friend from foe, any type of gun or weapon will do.  You need look no further than IED's to see the answer there.  In any type of urban warfare, the big mighty military weapons go right out the window.



. . . and in Afghanistan, they defeated the Soviet military.

There have even been cases of ad hoc citizen forces with a hodge podge of weapons defeating modern military forces in battlefield confrontations.

One was on the southern front in the war between India and Hyderabad in 1948.  Hyderabad, the largest of India's princely states, exercised its option to resume independence when the British colonial era ended, and maintained that independence under rule by its Nizam for a year until India invaded.  The Nizam put all of his regular military forces on the northeastern and northwestern fronts where the Indians had deployed armour.  The southern front was defended entirely by razakars, citizen volunteers who brought whatever weapons they had, in some cases only swords and muzzle-loading muskets.  All the Hyderabad government was able to provide to the razakars was a limited number of pre-WWI military rifles.  They faced a full division of modern Indian infantry.  Yet when the war ended, on the southern front, the Hyderabad razakars were several miles inside Indian territory pursuing the retreating Indian infantry. (On one of the other fronts, the Hyderabad military did well, using favorable defensive terrain, well placed artillery, and Indian overconfidence to halt an Indian armored advance and inflict serious losses on them, but the third front offered no geographical advantages and the Indian tanks were able to push through to capture the Hyderabad capital and win the war)

Another happened at the start of the civil war in Yemen in 1962.  The military overthrew the King and declared a republic, but the king escaped to interior and rallied the tribes to his support.  The army with all of its modern weapons and training was routed in its first major battle by ad hoc forces of the King, which were armed with a mixed bag of light weapons, essentially whatever his supporters had handy, and again including some armed with swords, cavalry lances, and single shot muskets.  The turning point in the battle came with a cavalry charge with lances by the royalist horsemen against modern infantry untrained in how to deal with cavalry (in the 19th century, they would have known how to form squares to break up a cavalry charge) (after the initial batlle, Saudi and British military supplies poured in for the royalists, evening out the levels of armament during the remaining 8 years of the civil war).

The point is, that motivated citizens with light weapons can sometimes handle modern military even in battlefield situations, but even more so in guerilla situations.


----------



## geoand (Dec 19, 2012)

Carolinian said:


> Funny, that is probably how George III had it figured, too.  Or Assad in Syria, or Gaddhafi.


Conjecture on your part.  Examples you provide have no bearing upon the scenario.  The other side in your examples have been supplied with tactical weapons and info.  What side do you think would be providing support - Britain, Russia, China, ???

Facts are that our military is the best and has the best trained troops.  Has the best equipment. Has the best command structure.

Facts are that most American gun owners do not have the training, skills, etc to effectively battle against American military.  As I have stated long before you came into this discussion, I believe that our military will never rise against US population.  The more likely scenario is that some local hotheads think that the only way to get there way is to go on the attack themselves.  This would be handled by leo agencies and quite effectively.

All this talk about all the gun owners in America having the ability to combat our armed forces is really just bluster and has no basis in reality.


----------



## geoand (Dec 19, 2012)

vckempson said:


> I don't know.  Why don't you ask the North Vietnamese or the insurgents in Afghanistan?  They did pretty good against the full might and force of the US military.



I think you forget the history with the conflict in Viet Nam.  We never sent our military there to win that war.  It was a political thing.  The N Vietnamese were well trained and had decades of combat experience.

I have already expressed my thoughts on the situation with Afghanistan.  Our military has the decency not to shoot at non combatants even if the insurgents are using them as shields.  Even here there is a lot of politics that hamper what our military can do.  Even here, the insurgents are well trained with decades of combat experience.

The full might and force were never used in Vietnam or in Afghanistan.

I will repeat myself.  It won't be the military rising against the American people.  If conflict does occur, it will be the other way around and it will be subdued by leo agencies.


----------



## Carolinian (Dec 19, 2012)

As long as the US remains a democracy, your analysis is probably correct.  But if we have a Hugo Chavez style tyranny creeping in and a rebellion against it, then the military might split, as the Libyan and Syrian militaries have.  That would be an entirely different situation.




geoand said:


> Conjecture on your part.  Examples you provide have no bearing upon the scenario.  The other side in your examples have been supplied with tactical weapons and info.  What side do you think would be providing support - Britain, Russia, China, ???
> 
> Facts are that our military is the best and has the best trained troops.  Has the best equipment. Has the best command structure.
> 
> ...


----------



## geoand (Dec 19, 2012)

Carolinian said:


> As long as the US remains a democracy, your analysis is probably correct.  But if we have a Hugo Chavez style tyranny creeping in and a rebellion against it, then the military might split, as the Libyan and Syrian militaries have.  That would be an entirely different situation.



I have full faith in our form of government.  The American people would never allow anything such as Hugo Chavez.

What I believe is that you and I or anyone else and I can have a full on face to face disagreement about how things are and what should be done, but you and I know that Hugo ain't happening and no matter what our differences we will take the necessary action to make sure that it doesn't.


----------



## siesta (Dec 19, 2012)

geoand said:


> I have full faith in our form of government.


Im glad you do, but read what happened just today, regarding the NDAA for fiscal year 2013.


WASHINGTON -- Congress stripped a provision Tuesday from a defense bill that aimed to shield Americans from the possibility of being imprisoned indefinitely without trial by the military. The provision was replaced with a passage that appears to give citizens little protection from indefinite detention.

Here is what the NDAA for fiscal year looked like for 2012:

"On December 31, 2011, President Obama signed the 2012 NDAA, codifying indefinite military detention without charge or trial into law for the first time in American history. The NDAA’s dangerous detention provisions would authorize the president — and all future presidents — to order the military to pick up and indefinitely imprison people captured anywhere in the world, far from any battlefield. The ACLU will fight worldwide detention authority wherever we can, be it in court, in Congress, or internationally."

http://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/ndaa


----------



## geoand (Dec 19, 2012)

siesta said:


> Im glad you do, but read what happened just today, regarding the NDAA for fiscal year 2013.
> 
> 
> WASHINGTON -- Congress stripped a provision Tuesday from a defense bill that aimed to shield Americans from the possibility of being imprisoned indefinitely without trial by the military. The provision was replaced with a passage that appears to give citizens little protection from indefinite detention.
> ...


I think you should quote the entire bill for a better understanding of intent of the provision etc.

In addition, Congress is only one branch of the government.  I will wait to see how it all settles out.

Doesn't shake my faith in our form of government in the least.


----------



## Carolinian (Dec 19, 2012)

geoand said:


> I have full faith in our form of government.  The American people would never allow anything such as Hugo Chavez.
> 
> What I believe is that you and I or anyone else and I can have a full on face to face disagreement about how things are and what should be done, but you and I know that Hugo ain't happening and no matter what our differences we will take the necessary action to make sure that it doesn't.



If you talked to Germans in 1925, eight years before Hitler happened, no one would have believed it could happen there, but it did.  And you have to remember that one of the first things that Hitler did was take away citizens gun rights.


----------



## dougp26364 (Dec 19, 2012)

A couple of things I'll add, then I'll likely not post on this hot topic.

1. It's been largely left out of the media that the reason the Mall gunman of recent days only killed two people before killing himself is that he was confronted by a young man with a conceal/carry permit who had drawn down on him. He didn't fire because he was aware of people behind the shooter and he was accountable for where his bullets might travel. The shooter elected to shoot himself when confronted.

2. You think maybe something as simple as a good trigger lock would would have prevented this shooting? The shooters mother was NOT a responsible gun owner. The child had issues and she took him to the shooting range, then failed to secure her guns. She paid with her life for that mistake and others paid with the lives of their children and loved ones. 

3. Perhaps making a gun safety class mandatory before one can purchase a weapon might be in order. If it were a national program one could take the course, have their certificate registered in a national registration bank and the gun shops would be required to verify that buyer had completed the safety course. No it won't stop stupidity but it might make new owners aware of steps that need to be taken to secure their firearms.

4. Mandatory trigger locks with every weapon sold. That way they can't say they forgot to buy one or couldn't afford one or the store didn't have one. It would come with the gun. Of course, seat belts come with the car. It won't force everyone to use one but it might be a step in the right direction.

Making guns illegal isn't likely to work. Prohibition didn't work. Cocaine, Heroine, Meth and all forms of other narcotics are routinely bought on the streets. I doubt a consititional ammendment will work on gun control. Education and tweeking a few laws/regulations should be a starting point.


----------



## CarolF (Dec 19, 2012)

All countries with greater freedom than the US, have gun regulations which are categorised as restricted, except for Belgium which is considered permissive.  

If all those countries have greater freedom and much less crime, why not discuss what others are doing right??  I don't see the point in comparing the US to developing countries.   

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/c..._policy/10,31,50,69,136,178,177,65,128,125,18

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/c...omicides/10,18,50,65,71,128,177,178,31,125,69


----------



## am1 (Dec 19, 2012)

geoand said:


> Facts are that our military is the best and has the best trained troops.  Has the best equipment. Has the best command structure.



Where can I read those facts????


----------



## ace2000 (Dec 19, 2012)

am1 said:


> Where can I read those facts????


 
You can read it right here...

http://tugbbs.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1399014&postcount=467


----------



## BobDE (Dec 19, 2012)

Ridewithme38 said:


> This is where we differ, i don't believe that a home invasion equals rape and murder/torture.... 99.999% its just some druggy/homeless/Kid that wants to rip some things off of an empty house so they can pawn it for drugs/food/drugs,



Sadly, I am pretty sure that no one can predict what a person on drugs will do, not even themselves. Home invasion has become a common household term where I live. Even my mild mannered FIL had me help him get a shotgun. I also took him out to shoot it until he felt comfortable enough to handle it. He then put extra door locks on all of his doors.

It is sad that our world has gone from never locking anything, to double locking and double checking everything. I think that all drugs should be banned to correct this.

Oh, wait a minute.......


----------



## BobDE (Dec 19, 2012)

am1 said:


> Where can I read those facts????



Sad that ever since Al Gore invented the internet, people actually think that it is a fact because they read it on the internet.


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Dec 19, 2012)

BobDE said:


> It is sad that our world has gone from never locking anything, to double locking and double checking everything. I think that all drugs should be banned to correct this.
> 
> Oh, wait a minute.......



We still don't lock the doors at my house....never needed to, even with all of us out monday-friday from 7am-7pm, we've never had any problems....Negative thoughts bring about negative effects i guess....

Drugs, a whole different story IMO, Only in America do we blame the device instead of the person using it....I've had a few experiences in my life and one was a long stretch(few years) of daily/hourly drug use....I didn't suddenly start ripping peoples faces off anymore then the duck hunter all of a sudden starts shooting up crowds....IMO, if we have a constitutional amendment to allow guns, we should ALSO have a constitutional amendment to allow all citizens to experiment with drugs as they see fit


----------



## SueDonJ (Dec 19, 2012)

Okay, folks, I think this has run its course.  It'd be okay to let it run out of its own steam except that we're now introducing items in an effort to politicize the topic as opposed to trying to discuss it sans politics.

Brian, thank you.  I really do appreciate your leeway here.  At a time when it seems we all needed to talk about it, I'm very grateful that we were allowed this safe haven.  We'd be hard pressed to find as civil a forum anywhere else on the web.  Brian, you need to confirm this but I think the leeway stemmed from the magnitude of the particular incident and not from any permanent loosening of TUG's normal restrictions on debate of contentious topics.  In other words, it's back to normal from here on out.  Right?  Right.  Good.

One last thing - the topic in the other thread is the press coverage and not this incident.  Please do not continue this discussion in that thread.


----------

