***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (2 Viewers)

[RCon]

Every public school should be a gun free zone.

Why?

Because outside of law enforcement, I don't want guns around my kids.

So you don't ever take them to restaurants, stores, town parks, or anywhere else?

If I had my way, those would all be gun free zones as well. But others disagree with me on this, so I don't get my way. My daughters spend several hours every day at school. That is very different from the few hours they spend per week in restaurants, stores, etc. So I'm going to have to insist that schools at the very least remain gun free.

I just don't get the idea that you want to prevent "the good guys" from defending against the bad guys, knowing that the bad guys will ignore the law. I would get the sentiment that you want to be damn sure that the good guys actually are the good guys (i.e. make the concealed carry requirements much more rigorous), but not the "prevent the good guys from helping" sentiment.

There's two sentiments at work here I think. The first is the general idea that it's pretty much impossible to make sure the good guys are the good guys. The second- and I'm just guessing here, my kid is still an infant- may be a "loss of innocence" thing. People probably don't want an armed presence in the classroom for the same reason that they have warnings before they show violent stories on the news, or that video games have warning labels, or that they didn't let kids watch that TV movie about nuclear war. People like to protect their children from the reality that the world is a dangerous place and that they could die at any minute, because kids don't understand concepts like probability. If they find out their teachers are carrying guns because sometimes crazy people decide out of nowhere to start murdering kids while they're in schools, it's probably gonna scare the #### out of them. It's one thing if it happens in some town on the news to some town that doesn't necessarily seem real and you can reassure them that it won't happen to them; it's another if their teacher is packing heat just in case.

I wasn't intending to advertise which teachers are carrying.

 

[ATC1]

LaPierre's "solutions" were strikingly anti-conservative. Armed guards in every school in America? A national database for the mentally ill?

It's really that simple? There is this thing called right to privacy. At the most, I think you will have to have a Dr. give the person a yes or no on the right to purchase a weapon and go no further. The other issue is that you take a paranoid person and he knows he will now be in some database, he is not going to seek help. This goes for mild cases as well. Someone has mild depression it will go untreated because they don't want their guns taken away.

 

[tom22406]

http://www.neontommy.com/news/2012/07/doing-math-gunsDecent article that digs a little deeper into what could be done but I'm sure it will be discounted in a matter of seconds after posting

This was written after the Aurora shootings.

Anybody?

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Do those of you that like guns object to the "concealed" part of concealed carry? Would they prefer that guns be carried openly? I haven't really given that distinction any thought -- is there a particular reason that "concealed" seems to be the more common practice?

As a deterrence factor, I very much want it to be concealed. Whether I have a gun or not, I want the bad guys to believe that there's a possibility that I might.

Wait, maybe I don't even understand how these laws work. Are people allowed to carry their weapons openly?

I assume that's state by state, no?What I'm suggesting is that I absolutely don't want to see laws abolishing concealed carry and mandating that guns need to be carried openly.

Got it, this is confusing. In some states you're apparently allowed to carry openly without even getting a special permit or anything. In some states you're not allowed to carry openly under any circumstances. So the effect of "concealed carry" permits is completely different depending upon which sort of state you live in.

 

[Henry Ford]

Every public school should be a gun free zone.

Why?

Because when some gang banger or other idiot shows up on campus with a gun, he should be locked away without having to pull the trigger first. By the way, this happens a lot more often than school shootings do.

The gang banger legally owns a gun, goes through the proper training and background check to get a CCP and keeps the firearm concealed at all times?

No, the gang banger drives a car with a legal gun onto a campus and the gun is in the car. Being in the car, he is not illegally carrying a concealed weapon in many states. But the existence of the firearm in a gun free zone is a jailable offense.

Most states your car is an extension of your home anyway even in a "Gun Free Zone".

That's a fair point. Not all states, but most.Still, I don't think open or concealed carry should be legal on school grounds for anyone but the most rigorously trained and overseen. So if that can be folded into laws, then I can live without gun free zones - but it would effectively make everything a gun free zone.

 

[RCon]

Every public school should be a gun free zone.

Why?

Because outside of law enforcement, I don't want guns around my kids.

So you don't ever take them to restaurants, stores, town parks, or anywhere else?

If I had my way, those would all be gun free zones as well. But others disagree with me on this, so I don't get my way. My daughters spend several hours every day at school. That is very different from the few hours they spend per week in restaurants, stores, etc. So I'm going to have to insist that schools at the very least remain gun free.

I just don't get the idea that you want to prevent "the good guys" from defending against the bad guys, knowing that the bad guys will ignore the law. I would get the sentiment that you want to be damn sure that the good guys actually are the good guys (i.e. make the concealed carry requirements much more rigorous), but not the "prevent the good guys from helping" sentiment.

To me, the "good guys" are law enforcement. I trust the police to know what to do in these situations. I do not trust private citizens to know what to do. Not around my children.

What you seem to be saying is that there's no amount of training and certification that would allow you to trust a private citizen. That doesn't make sense to me, since there's nothing inherently magical about the police badge itself that makes them more trustworthy. You're placing your trust in the training and certification that goes along with the police badge. In that case, why not trust a private citizen who undergoes similar, or even identical, training and certification?

 

[ATC1]

Every public school should be a gun free zone.

Why?

Because outside of law enforcement, I don't want guns around my kids.

So you don't ever take them to restaurants, stores, town parks, or anywhere else?

If I had my way, those would all be gun free zones as well. But others disagree with me on this, so I don't get my way. My daughters spend several hours every day at school. That is very different from the few hours they spend per week in restaurants, stores, etc. So I'm going to have to insist that schools at the very least remain gun free.

I just don't get the idea that you want to prevent "the good guys" from defending against the bad guys, knowing that the bad guys will ignore the law. I would get the sentiment that you want to be damn sure that the good guys actually are the good guys (i.e. make the concealed carry requirements much more rigorous), but not the "prevent the good guys from helping" sentiment.

To me, the "good guys" are law enforcement. I trust the police to know what to do in these situations. I do not trust private citizens to know what to do. Not around my children.

Labels should not make you a "?good" person or a "bad" person. i would trust my daughter's teacher with her more then I would some cops I know.

 

[simey]

You seem like a guy I would like to sit back and have a few while discussing things without anyone losing their cool. But you can not seem to understand that no one is saying arm all teachers.

Some people are, but I understand that you - and as far as I can tell the other people in this thread - are not. I just think that 1: concealed carry permits are not as tough to get as I would like them to be in all jurisdictions and a lot of morons have them; andPeople with concealed carry permits do stupid things with their guns all the time. In fact, some idiot using his/her concealed weapon - permitted and legal - in a completely inappropriate way is much, much more likely than a school shooting as we all know. There are a bunch of examples every year of some idiot with a concealed weapon permit shooting someone outside of a bar in an altercation, or thinking he/she is Rambo and following some kid down an alleyway because he "looks suspicious" or almost - or actually - shooting the wrong person because he/she shows up at the scene of something and thinks it's time to spring into action without understanding what's going on. That needs to not happen at an elementary school.

I don't think there are a bunch of examples of what you said every year regarding conceal carry permits. Just speaking for my state, concealed carry permits are not just handed out here in North Carolina, and it's also illegal to carry openly or concealed in any establishment that serves alcohol. If you want a permit to carry here you first have to take an all day class with written test, and pass a shooting test at the shooting range. If you pass you are then eligible to apply for a permit. To apply you go to the sheriffs office, and fill out an application. You are fingerprinted during this process, and fill out various forms. One of the forms is sent to your primary doctor, and the dr must send the form back. It ask about your mental state, etc. Your application is sent to the SBI in Raleigh, and they do an extensive background check, which includes contacting state mental facilities to see if you were ever a patient. This process takes 45 days.

 

[moleculo]

Every public school should be a gun free zone.

Why?

Because outside of law enforcement, I don't want guns around my kids.

So you don't ever take them to restaurants, stores, town parks, or anywhere else?

If I had my way, those would all be gun free zones as well. But others disagree with me on this, so I don't get my way. My daughters spend several hours every day at school. That is very different from the few hours they spend per week in restaurants, stores, etc. So I'm going to have to insist that schools at the very least remain gun free.

I just don't get the idea that you want to prevent "the good guys" from defending against the bad guys, knowing that the bad guys will ignore the law. I would get the sentiment that you want to be damn sure that the good guys actually are the good guys (i.e. make the concealed carry requirements much more rigorous), but not the "prevent the good guys from helping" sentiment.

There's two sentiments at work here I think. The first is the general idea that it's pretty much impossible to make sure the good guys are the good guys. The second- and I'm just guessing here, my kid is still an infant- may be a "loss of innocence" thing. People probably don't want an armed presence in the classroom for the same reason that they have warnings before they show violent stories on the news, or that video games have warning labels, or that they didn't let kids watch that TV movie about nuclear war. People like to protect their children from the reality that the world is a dangerous place and that they could die at any minute, because kids don't understand concepts like probability. If they find out their teachers are carrying guns because sometimes crazy people decide out of nowhere to start murdering kids while they're in schools, it's probably gonna scare the #### out of them. It's one thing if it happens in some town on the news to some town that doesn't necessarily seem real and you can reassure them that it won't happen to them; it's another if their teacher is packing heat just in case.

I wasn't intending to advertise which teachers are carrying.

right - ideally, the kids would have no idea if their teacher is carrying or not. That's a big part of the deterrence factor as well.

 

[RCon]

Every public school should be a gun free zone.

Why?

Because when some gang banger or other idiot shows up on campus with a gun, he should be locked away without having to pull the trigger first. By the way, this happens a lot more often than school shootings do.

Do those idiots have concealed carry licenses? If not, then why is the gun free zone relevant? If so, as noted earlier, we should also be making the requirements for concealed carry permits much more rigorous.Edit: yes, what moleculo just said.

Sometimes, yes, they do have concealed carry permits. And it's relevant no matter what because you can carry guns in ways other than concealed. For instance "open".

So how is that different than making the requirements much more rigorous for carrying (concealed or not) in certain places? Make the law such that "an idiot" can't carry (concealed or not), but that someone who is able to help can.

I'm all for that. Watch and see what happens when you suggest making it extraordinarily difficult to get a permit to carry openly and concealed. Guess whether people would rather spend a bunch of time, effort, and money doing that or just have gun free zones. The gun free zones were a compromise.

That is not working IMHO.

I agree. But no one's going to agree to the one that might work better, which is "only people who aren't dip##### get to carry guns outside of their homes, and we're going to run a lot of tests to see if you're a dip####."

I will.

 

[ATC1]

Every public school should be a gun free zone.

Why?

Because when some gang banger or other idiot shows up on campus with a gun, he should be locked away without having to pull the trigger first. By the way, this happens a lot more often than school shootings do.

The gang banger legally owns a gun, goes through the proper training and background check to get a CCP and keeps the firearm concealed at all times?

No, the gang banger drives a car with a legal gun onto a campus and the gun is in the car. Being in the car, he is not illegally carrying a concealed weapon in many states. But the existence of the firearm in a gun free zone is a jailable offense.

Most states your car is an extension of your home anyway even in a "Gun Free Zone".

That's a fair point. Not all states, but most.Still, I don't think open or concealed carry should be legal on school grounds for anyone but the most rigorously trained and overseen. So if that can be folded into laws, then I can live without gun free zones - but it would effectively make everything a gun free zone.

I don't think anyone should be able to open carry unless law enforcement or military IMO.

 

[Henry Ford]

You seem like a guy I would like to sit back and have a few while discussing things without anyone losing their cool. But you can not seem to understand that no one is saying arm all teachers.

Some people are, but I understand that you - and as far as I can tell the other people in this thread - are not. I just think that 1: concealed carry permits are not as tough to get as I would like them to be in all jurisdictions and a lot of morons have them; andPeople with concealed carry permits do stupid things with their guns all the time. In fact, some idiot using his/her concealed weapon - permitted and legal - in a completely inappropriate way is much, much more likely than a school shooting as we all know. There are a bunch of examples every year of some idiot with a concealed weapon permit shooting someone outside of a bar in an altercation, or thinking he/she is Rambo and following some kid down an alleyway because he "looks suspicious" or almost - or actually - shooting the wrong person because he/she shows up at the scene of something and thinks it's time to spring into action without understanding what's going on. That needs to not happen at an elementary school.

I don't think there are a bunch of examples of what you said every year regarding conceal carry permits. Just speaking for my state, concealed carry permits are not just handed out here in North Carolina, and it's also illegal to carry openly or concealed in any establishment that serves alcohol. If you want a permit to carry here you first have to take an all day class with written test, and pass a shooting test at the shooting range. If you pass you are then eligible to apply for a permit. To apply you go to the sheriffs office, and fill out an application. You are fingerprinted during this process, and fill out various forms. One of the forms is sent to your primary doctor, and the dr must send the form back. It ask about your mental state, etc. Your application is sent to the SBI in Raleigh, and they do an extensive background check, which includes contacting state mental facilities to see if you were ever a patient. This process takes 45 days.

This is the third result when I put "North Carolina Concealed Weapon Permit Criminals" into Google:http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/12/27/395461/half-of-north-carolina-concealed-carry-permit-holders-with-felony-convictions-keep-their-permit/?mobile=nc

More than 2,400 permit holders were convicted of felonies or misdemeanors, excluding traffic-related crimes, over the five-year period, The Times found when it compared databases of recent criminal court cases and licensees. While the figure represents a small percentage of those with permits, more than 200 were convicted of felonies, including at least 10 who committed murder or manslaughter. All but two of the killers used a gun. [...]The review also raises concerns about how well government officials police the permit process. In about half of the felony convictions, the authorities failed to revoke or suspend the holder’s permit, including for cases of murder, rape and kidnapping. The apparent oversights are especially worrisome in North Carolina, one of about 20 states where anyone with a valid concealed handgun permit can buy firearms without the federally mandated criminal background check. (Under federal law, felons lose the right to own guns.)

 

[Henry Ford]

I will.

That's fair. I should have said "not enough people"

 

[Henry Ford]

Every public school should be a gun free zone.

Why?

Because when some gang banger or other idiot shows up on campus with a gun, he should be locked away without having to pull the trigger first. By the way, this happens a lot more often than school shootings do.

is it not a felony anyways to brandish an illegal fire-arm? if a gang-banger shows up brandishing a gun, gun-free or not, are there not other laws on the books to deal with that?

Why are you under the impression that these guns are illegal in any other way? And I didn't say brandishing anywhere in my sentence. I said "with a gun."

Having a sign at the door that reads - "gun free zone" doesn't automatically arrest anyone that has a gun hidden on their person. The only way you would know if someone has a gun is if they brandish it.

Maybe we're using different definitions of the word brandish. I'm using the legal one. Does having a gun sitting on your car seat equate to brandishing for you? Or telling someone you have a gun in your car?

yeah, I think so. My thinking is that there are two types of guns - "those we know about" and "those we don't know about". It's impossible for anyone ever to be arrested for guns we don't know about, regardless of where it is. If we know about it, we can deal with it.Why does it have to be all or nothing, anyways? Can't schools be "Gun-Free-Zones-Except-for-Permits"?

I suggested earlier - gun free except for "home zone, carry in a gun free zone extra-special oversight permits." I think that's fair.

 

[timschochet]

Every public school should be a gun free zone.

Why?

Because outside of law enforcement, I don't want guns around my kids.

So you don't ever take them to restaurants, stores, town parks, or anywhere else?

If I had my way, those would all be gun free zones as well. But others disagree with me on this, so I don't get my way. My daughters spend several hours every day at school. That is very different from the few hours they spend per week in restaurants, stores, etc. So I'm going to have to insist that schools at the very least remain gun free.

I just don't get the idea that you want to prevent "the good guys" from defending against the bad guys, knowing that the bad guys will ignore the law. I would get the sentiment that you want to be damn sure that the good guys actually are the good guys (i.e. make the concealed carry requirements much more rigorous), but not the "prevent the good guys from helping" sentiment.

To me, the "good guys" are law enforcement. I trust the police to know what to do in these situations. I do not trust private citizens to know what to do. Not around my children.

What you seem to be saying is that there's no amount of training and certification that would allow you to trust a private citizen. That doesn't make sense to me, since there's nothing inherently magical about the police badge itself that makes them more trustworthy. You're placing your trust in the training and certification that goes along with the police badge. In that case, why not trust a private citizen who undergoes similar, or even identical, training and certification?

Theoretically, you're correct. Training and certification COULD allow for private citizens that I would trust to be around my kids. But I don't trust the pro-gun people to train themselves properly. Who's going to enforce it? Right now the pro-gun lobby fights vigorously against any kind of government-enforced certification. It seems that no matter how much we discuss this, the answer from some of you is more guns, more guns more guns! That's just not acceptable to me.

 

[simey]

You seem like a guy I would like to sit back and have a few while discussing things without anyone losing their cool. But you can not seem to understand that no one is saying arm all teachers.

Some people are, but I understand that you - and as far as I can tell the other people in this thread - are not. I just think that 1: concealed carry permits are not as tough to get as I would like them to be in all jurisdictions and a lot of morons have them; and

People with concealed carry permits do stupid things with their guns all the time. In fact, some idiot using his/her concealed weapon - permitted and legal - in a completely inappropriate way is much, much more likely than a school shooting as we all know. There are a bunch of examples every year of some idiot with a concealed weapon permit shooting someone outside of a bar in an altercation, or thinking he/she is Rambo and following some kid down an alleyway because he "looks suspicious" or almost - or actually - shooting the wrong person because he/she shows up at the scene of something and thinks it's time to spring into action without understanding what's going on. That needs to not happen at an elementary school.

I don't think there are a bunch of examples of what you said every year regarding conceal carry permits. Just speaking for my state, concealed carry permits are not just handed out here in North Carolina, and it's also illegal to carry openly or concealed in any establishment that serves alcohol. If you want a permit to carry here you first have to take an all day class with written test, and pass a shooting test at the shooting range. If you pass you are then eligible to apply for a permit. To apply you go to the sheriffs office, and fill out an application. You are fingerprinted during this process, and fill out various forms. One of the forms is sent to your primary doctor, and the dr must send the form back. It ask about your mental state, etc. Your application is sent to the SBI in Raleigh, and they do an extensive background check, which includes contacting state mental facilities to see if you were ever a patient. This process takes 45 days.

This is the third result when I put "North Carolina Concealed Weapon Permit Criminals" into Google:http://thinkprogress...rmit/?mobile=nc

More than 2,400 permit holders were convicted of felonies or misdemeanors, excluding traffic-related crimes, over the five-year period, The Times found when it compared databases of recent criminal court cases and licensees. While the figure represents a small percentage of those with permits, more than 200 were convicted of felonies, including at least 10 who committed murder or manslaughter. All but two of the killers used a gun. [...]

The review also raises concerns about how well government officials police the permit process. In about half of the felony convictions, the authorities failed to revoke or suspend the holder's permit, including for cases of murder, rape and kidnapping. The apparent oversights are especially worrisome in North Carolina, one of about 20 states where anyone with a valid concealed handgun permit can buy firearms without the federally mandated criminal background check. (Under federal law, felons lose the right to own guns.)

Where are the examples of someone carrying a permit that shoots someone outside a bar in an altercation, or following someone suspicious down an alleyway, or someone shoots the wrong person when they show up at a scene trying to help? You said there was a bunch of examples of these.

 

[Dvorak]

LaPierre's "solutions" were strikingly anti-conservative. Armed guards in every school in America? A national database for the mentally ill?

The NRA is a one-issue organization. They are neither Republican nor conservative. For example: they endorsed Harry Reid in his last election. Harry. Reid.

 

[RCon]

Every public school should be a gun free zone.

Why?

Because outside of law enforcement, I don't want guns around my kids.

So you don't ever take them to restaurants, stores, town parks, or anywhere else?

If I had my way, those would all be gun free zones as well. But others disagree with me on this, so I don't get my way. My daughters spend several hours every day at school. That is very different from the few hours they spend per week in restaurants, stores, etc. So I'm going to have to insist that schools at the very least remain gun free.

I just don't get the idea that you want to prevent "the good guys" from defending against the bad guys, knowing that the bad guys will ignore the law. I would get the sentiment that you want to be damn sure that the good guys actually are the good guys (i.e. make the concealed carry requirements much more rigorous), but not the "prevent the good guys from helping" sentiment.

To me, the "good guys" are law enforcement. I trust the police to know what to do in these situations. I do not trust private citizens to know what to do. Not around my children.

What you seem to be saying is that there's no amount of training and certification that would allow you to trust a private citizen. That doesn't make sense to me, since there's nothing inherently magical about the police badge itself that makes them more trustworthy. You're placing your trust in the training and certification that goes along with the police badge. In that case, why not trust a private citizen who undergoes similar, or even identical, training and certification?

Theoretically, you're correct. Training and certification COULD allow for private citizens that I would trust to be around my kids. But I don't trust the pro-gun people to train themselves properly. Who's going to enforce it? Right now the pro-gun lobby fights vigorously against any kind of government-enforced certification. It seems that no matter how much we discuss this, the answer from some of you is more guns, more guns more guns! That's just not acceptable to me.

I thought the discussion was about things the government could do that would help. Obviously, the NRA wouldn't be writing the curriculum for training and certification. You are saying you trust the government to write that curriculum for law enforcement professionals, so shouldn't you trust it to write that curriculum for private citizens?

 

[TobiasFunke]

Every public school should be a gun free zone.

Why?

Because outside of law enforcement, I don't want guns around my kids.

So you don't ever take them to restaurants, stores, town parks, or anywhere else?

If I had my way, those would all be gun free zones as well. But others disagree with me on this, so I don't get my way. My daughters spend several hours every day at school. That is very different from the few hours they spend per week in restaurants, stores, etc. So I'm going to have to insist that schools at the very least remain gun free.

I just don't get the idea that you want to prevent "the good guys" from defending against the bad guys, knowing that the bad guys will ignore the law. I would get the sentiment that you want to be damn sure that the good guys actually are the good guys (i.e. make the concealed carry requirements much more rigorous), but not the "prevent the good guys from helping" sentiment.

There's two sentiments at work here I think. The first is the general idea that it's pretty much impossible to make sure the good guys are the good guys. The second- and I'm just guessing here, my kid is still an infant- may be a "loss of innocence" thing. People probably don't want an armed presence in the classroom for the same reason that they have warnings before they show violent stories on the news, or that video games have warning labels, or that they didn't let kids watch that TV movie about nuclear war. People like to protect their children from the reality that the world is a dangerous place and that they could die at any minute, because kids don't understand concepts like probability. If they find out their teachers are carrying guns because sometimes crazy people decide out of nowhere to start murdering kids while they're in schools, it's probably gonna scare the #### out of them. It's one thing if it happens in some town on the news to some town that doesn't necessarily seem real and you can reassure them that it won't happen to them; it's another if their teacher is packing heat just in case.

I wasn't intending to advertise which teachers are carrying.

If you don't, some kids are gonna find out. These aren't people that they pass in a courtyard or are sitting at the next booth at a restaurant. Kids literally spend hundreds of hours a year with their teachers. Plus some parents are going to want to know, and you can't blame them for that. And if you don't tell the kid who is carrying but they find out anyway, you're gonna scare the holy hell out of the kids. The idea of thousands of teachers across the country carrying weapons into the classroom every day without any parents or children ever finding out is totally impractical.

 

[tom22406]

And another article to ignore

I will let each of you take out of this what you will(if you even open it!)

Gun rhetoric vs gun facts

 

[timschochet]

Every public school should be a gun free zone.

Why?

Because outside of law enforcement, I don't want guns around my kids.

So you don't ever take them to restaurants, stores, town parks, or anywhere else?

If I had my way, those would all be gun free zones as well. But others disagree with me on this, so I don't get my way. My daughters spend several hours every day at school. That is very different from the few hours they spend per week in restaurants, stores, etc. So I'm going to have to insist that schools at the very least remain gun free.

I just don't get the idea that you want to prevent "the good guys" from defending against the bad guys, knowing that the bad guys will ignore the law. I would get the sentiment that you want to be damn sure that the good guys actually are the good guys (i.e. make the concealed carry requirements much more rigorous), but not the "prevent the good guys from helping" sentiment.

To me, the "good guys" are law enforcement. I trust the police to know what to do in these situations. I do not trust private citizens to know what to do. Not around my children.

What you seem to be saying is that there's no amount of training and certification that would allow you to trust a private citizen. That doesn't make sense to me, since there's nothing inherently magical about the police badge itself that makes them more trustworthy. You're placing your trust in the training and certification that goes along with the police badge. In that case, why not trust a private citizen who undergoes similar, or even identical, training and certification?

Theoretically, you're correct. Training and certification COULD allow for private citizens that I would trust to be around my kids. But I don't trust the pro-gun people to train themselves properly. Who's going to enforce it? Right now the pro-gun lobby fights vigorously against any kind of government-enforced certification. It seems that no matter how much we discuss this, the answer from some of you is more guns, more guns more guns! That's just not acceptable to me.

I thought the discussion was about things the government could do that would help. Obviously, the NRA wouldn't be writing the curriculum for training and certification. You are saying you trust the government to write that curriculum for law enforcement professionals, so shouldn't you trust it to write that curriculum for private citizens?

No matter how many times you rephrase the question, my answer remains that I don't want more guns around my children. I want less guns around my children.

 

[timschochet]

And another article to ignore

I will let each of you take out of this what you will(if you even open it!)

Gun rhetoric vs gun facts

There are some very interesting points in that article. It does appear to be even-handed. Thank you for linking it.

 

[Henry Ford]

Where are the examples of someone carrying a permit that shoots someone outside a bar in an altercation, or following someone suspicious down an alleyway, or someone shoots the wrong person when they show up at a scene trying to help? You said there was a bunch of examples of these.

Here's a start:http://www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/pdf/facts/ccw-crimes-misdeeds.pdfYou didn't see the Trayvon Martin shooting in the "alleyway" example?And I think I said almost or actually shoots the wrong person - it's actually the reason I suggested that the person who said the Giffords event was held in a gun free zone was incorrect. A guy with a CCP showed up and almost shot the kid who had disarmed Loughner, but did jam him against a wall for good measure.

 

[ATC1]

Every public school should be a gun free zone.

Why?

Because outside of law enforcement, I don't want guns around my kids.

So you don't ever take them to restaurants, stores, town parks, or anywhere else?

If I had my way, those would all be gun free zones as well. But others disagree with me on this, so I don't get my way. My daughters spend several hours every day at school. That is very different from the few hours they spend per week in restaurants, stores, etc. So I'm going to have to insist that schools at the very least remain gun free.

I just don't get the idea that you want to prevent "the good guys" from defending against the bad guys, knowing that the bad guys will ignore the law. I would get the sentiment that you want to be damn sure that the good guys actually are the good guys (i.e. make the concealed carry requirements much more rigorous), but not the "prevent the good guys from helping" sentiment.

There's two sentiments at work here I think. The first is the general idea that it's pretty much impossible to make sure the good guys are the good guys. The second- and I'm just guessing here, my kid is still an infant- may be a "loss of innocence" thing. People probably don't want an armed presence in the classroom for the same reason that they have warnings before they show violent stories on the news, or that video games have warning labels, or that they didn't let kids watch that TV movie about nuclear war. People like to protect their children from the reality that the world is a dangerous place and that they could die at any minute, because kids don't understand concepts like probability. If they find out their teachers are carrying guns because sometimes crazy people decide out of nowhere to start murdering kids while they're in schools, it's probably gonna scare the #### out of them. It's one thing if it happens in some town on the news to some town that doesn't necessarily seem real and you can reassure them that it won't happen to them; it's another if their teacher is packing heat just in case.

I wasn't intending to advertise which teachers are carrying.

If you don't, some kids are gonna find out. These aren't people that they pass in a courtyard or are sitting at the next booth at a restaurant. Kids literally spend hundreds of hours a year with their teachers. Plus some parents are going to want to know, and you can't blame them for that. And if you don't tell the kid who is carrying but they find out anyway, you're gonna scare the holy hell out of the kids. The idea of thousands of teachers across the country carrying weapons into the classroom every day without any parents or children ever finding out is totally impractical.

I don't know how I feel about making it mandatory to let parents know. I certainly see your point, but i think it may ensue panic. This may be a requirement if there was some legislature that does away with the zones. However, as far as the kids finding out. The teacher should report it and the kid should know that Mr. Teacher is like a police officer there to protect you. Parents would certainly have to know at that time in which panic will ensue. The sad truth is that I believe if this is the case, I think we will be hearing multiple stories of teachers carrying illegally in schools now. I really hope that is not the case because that would be very dangerous if not informed correctly on safety (Keeping it in your purse ).

 

[boofatty]

I never knew what it was like to be so scared that someone would hurt me that I felt the need to carry a gun. In the last several years with less gun control, I find myself concerned that anyone, anywhere could be holding a tool designed to kill. A gun owner will tell you that their gun could save my life some day. Aside from the extremely rare and highly unlikelyJohn Wayne scenario, I think it's much more likely that a loaded gun could accidentally discharge and hurt someone, because whether you believe it or not, that does happen more often than heroics.

I don't associate with gang bangers, nor do I live in the areas they do. I do live in areas full of scared gun owners. Today I am more concerned about scared gun owners than I am of gang bangers. The nuts that do mass killings are not typically gang bangers. They are more frequently suburbanites like me that have too many guns.

Gang members usually kill gang members, not kindergarten kids.

Fewer guns = fewer deaths by gun. It ain't rocket science.

 

[shader]

If any charter schools out there are struggling to attract attendance, I think I know a marketing ploy that would work great.

Hire security guards with guns and advertise that your school is well protected.

If parents want their kids to be guarded than pay for it.

 

[dozer]

Arming teachers seems to be a decent approach, but how long will it last? The first time a teacher feels threatened by a kid and decides to whip out their piece, or even shoot the kid, will this country just accept that?

I'm a school administrator and I think arming teachers is generally a terrible idea. In fact, it's laughable in most instances. You want me to get Ms. Crabtree, the fourth grade art teacher a couple of days of professional development in proper use of a sidearm? Then she could be trusted to carry around a loaded weapon and be prepared to deal with an active shooter? This is how you want me to spend your tax dollars?

Stick with the federal funding of armed guards idea. Much more plausible.

 

[Sammy3469]

That NRA press conference was downright laughable. Way to be part of the problem, guys.

 

[simey]

Where are the examples of someone carrying a permit that shoots someone outside a bar in an altercation, or following someone suspicious down an alleyway, or someone shoots the wrong person when they show up at a scene trying to help? You said there was a bunch of examples of these.

Here's a start:http://www.bradycamp...es-misdeeds.pdf

You didn't see the Trayvon Martin shooting in the "alleyway" example?

And I think I said almost or actually shoots the wrong person - it's actually the reason I suggested that the person who said the Giffords event was held in a gun free zone was incorrect. A guy with a CCP showed up and almost shot the kid who had disarmed Loughner, but did jam him against a wall for good measure.

I do not think the scenerio in the Trayvon Martin incident is something that is common. I also don't think that a citizen accidentally shooting the wrong person while trying to help is a common event either.

 

[Henry Ford]

Where are the examples of someone carrying a permit that shoots someone outside a bar in an altercation, or following someone suspicious down an alleyway, or someone shoots the wrong person when they show up at a scene trying to help? You said there was a bunch of examples of these.

Here's a start:http://www.bradycamp...es-misdeeds.pdf

You didn't see the Trayvon Martin shooting in the "alleyway" example?

And I think I said almost or actually shoots the wrong person - it's actually the reason I suggested that the person who said the Giffords event was held in a gun free zone was incorrect. A guy with a CCP showed up and almost shot the kid who had disarmed Loughner, but did jam him against a wall for good measure.

I do not think the scenerio in the Trayvon Martin incident is something that is common. I also don't think that a citizen accidentally shooting the wrong person while trying to help is a common event either.

Okay. Do you think that some idiot with a concealed carry permit shooting someone he shouldn't is a common event?

 

[tom22406]

And another article to ignore

I will let each of you take out of this what you will(if you even open it!)

Gun rhetoric vs gun facts

There are some very interesting points in that article. It does appear to be even-handed. Thank you for linking it.

At least one person opened it so that was my goal

 

[ATC1]

I never knew what it was like to be so scared that someone would hurt me that I felt the need to carry a gun. In the last several years with less gun control, I find myself concerned that anyone, anywhere could be holding a tool designed to kill. A gun owner will tell you that their gun could save my life some day. Aside from the extremely rare and highly unlikelyJohn Wayne scenario, I think it's much more likely that a loaded gun could accidentally discharge and hurt someone, because whether you believe it or not, that does happen more often than heroics. I don't associate with gang bangers, nor do I live in the areas they do. I do live in areas full of scared gun owners. Today I am more concerned about scared gun owners than I am of gang bangers. The nuts that do mass killings are not typically gang bangers. They are more frequently suburbanites like me that have too many guns. Gang members usually kill gang members, not kindergarten kids.Fewer guns = fewer deaths by gun. It ain't rocket science.

Accidental discharges occur while a weapon is being holstered or unholstered. It doesn't just go off on someone's hip. If there was no restrictions on where I can carry, I would never have to touch it until I am in my house to put it back in the safe. Theoretically Less weapons does = fewer deaths by those weapons. But you want our police to be armed, correct? If the weapons they carry would be the ones we get rid of, the statement would be reversed.

 

[RCon]

No matter how many times you rephrase the question, my answer remains that I don't want more guns around my children. I want less guns around my children.

I get that, but I don't get the why.

 

[Two Deep]

Making a few assumptions here: Most NRA members are probably republican, NRA is proposing armed Police Officers at every public school, Republicans don't want to increase taxes, How do they propose we accomplish this? Just another example of how out of touch these conservatives are. We want smaller government!....we want smaller government!...Wait a minute the #### hit the fan! We need more government!....we need more government!

 

[Dvorak]

I never knew what it was like to be so scared that someone would hurt me that I felt the need to carry a gun. In the last several years with less gun control, I find myself concerned that anyone, anywhere could be holding a tool designed to kill. A gun owner will tell you that their gun could save my life some day. Aside from the extremely rare and highly unlikelyJohn Wayne scenario, I think it's much more likely that a loaded gun could accidentally discharge and hurt someone, because whether you believe it or not, that does happen more often than heroics.

I'm confused, you start off with "I think" and quickly jump to a statement sounds sounds quite factual. Care to back it up?

I don't associate with gang bangers, nor do I live in the areas they do. I do live in areas full of scared gun owners. Today I am more concerned about scared gun owners than I am of gang bangers. The nuts that do mass killings are not typically gang bangers. They are more frequently suburbanites like me that have too many guns.

Gang members usually kill gang members, not kindergarten kids.

Fewer guns = fewer deaths by gun. It ain't rocket science.

There are 100 guns in a room, 1 in the hands of a bad guy and 99 in the hands of good guys.We pass a law saying no one in that room can have a gun.

99 guns get turned in.

99% success rate or epic fail?

 

[ATC1]

Where are the examples of someone carrying a permit that shoots someone outside a bar in an altercation, or following someone suspicious down an alleyway, or someone shoots the wrong person when they show up at a scene trying to help? You said there was a bunch of examples of these.

Here's a start:http://www.bradycamp...es-misdeeds.pdf

You didn't see the Trayvon Martin shooting in the "alleyway" example?

And I think I said almost or actually shoots the wrong person - it's actually the reason I suggested that the person who said the Giffords event was held in a gun free zone was incorrect. A guy with a CCP showed up and almost shot the kid who had disarmed Loughner, but did jam him against a wall for good measure.

I do not think the scenerio in the Trayvon Martin incident is something that is common. I also don't think that a citizen accidentally shooting the wrong person while trying to help is a common event either.

I don't think a parent with a fear of guns will find solace in your response. The answer IMO is that I think the laws in Arizona (not needing a permit to conceal carry) and Florida (need stricter requirments and to change the Stand Your Ground law) need to be much tighter for gun owners if they want parents to trust CCP holder in "Gun Free Zones".

 

[Henry Ford]

No matter how many times you rephrase the question, my answer remains that I don't want more guns around my children. I want less guns around my children.

I get that, but I don't get the why.

Because the studies which have been run evidence that the existence of a firearm in the home makes it much more likely that someone in the home gets shot. Many people believe that would also hold true with guns in another place that someone spends many hours a day.

 

[badmojo1006]

No matter how many times you rephrase the question, my answer remains that I don't want more guns around my children. I want less guns around my children.

I get that, but I don't get the why.

Seriously? You don't understand why some of us, heck a lot of people, don't want guns around our kids? Because they are guns! Jeebus, are you really that thick?

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

No matter how many times you rephrase the question, my answer remains that I don't want more guns around my children. I want less guns around my children.

I get that, but I don't get the why.

Seriously? You don't understand why some of us, heck a lot of people, don't want guns around our kids? Because they are guns! Jeebus, are you really that thick?

Yeah, guns make me feel icky.

 

[moleculo]

No matter how many times you rephrase the question, my answer remains that I don't want more guns around my children. I want less guns around my children.

I get that, but I don't get the why.

you aren't going to win this one. They are coming from an emotional, irrational vantage point, and rational arguments aren't going to work here. It's like debating with a woman.

 

[tom22406]

And another article to ignore

I will let each of you take out of this what you will(if you even open it!)

Gun rhetoric vs gun facts

There are some very interesting points in that article. It does appear to be even-handed. Thank you for linking it.

So what did you take out of this article if you don't mind me asking?

 

[Henry Ford]

No matter how many times you rephrase the question, my answer remains that I don't want more guns around my children. I want less guns around my children.

I get that, but I don't get the why.

you aren't going to win this one. They are coming from an emotional, irrational vantage point, and rational arguments aren't going to work here. It's like debating with a woman.

The fact that you don't agree doesn't make the position irrational.

 

[adonis]

National Rifle Association executive vice president Wayne LaPierre blamed Hollywood, video games music, the courts and more on Friday for creating a culture of violence in the United States.

“The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,” he said at a Washington press event, adding, “With all the money in the federal budget can’t we afford to put a police officer in every single school?”

These guys seriously believe that?

 

[Borat]

Making a few assumptions here: Most NRA members are probably republican, NRA is proposing armed Police Officers at every public school, Republicans don't want to increase taxes, How do they propose we accomplish this? Just another example of how out of touch these conservatives are. We want smaller government!....we want smaller government!...Wait a minute the #### hit the fan! We need more government!....we need more government!

Get rid of art and music programs. That was easy. Next?ETA: Yes, I am at least halfway kidding here.

 

[Apple Jack]

National Rifle Association executive vice president Wayne LaPierre blamed Hollywood, video games music, the courts and more on Friday for creating a culture of violence in the United States.

“The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,” he said at a Washington press event, adding, “With all the money in the federal budget can’t we afford to put a police officer in every single school?”

These guys seriously believe that?

They have guns to sell, brodonis.

 

[adonis]

Just so much here, had to post.

By Tom Curry, NBC News national affairs writer

National Rifle Association executive vice president Wayne LaPierre blamed Hollywood, video games music, the courts and more on Friday for creating a culture of violence in the United States.

“The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,” he said at a Washington press event, adding, “With all the money in the federal budget can’t we afford to put a police officer in every single school?”

LaPierre made his lengthy statement to the press one week after the shooting that killed 20 children and six adults at a school in Newtown, Conn.

Protesters twice interrupted LaPierre, who will appear this Sunday exclusively on NBC's "Meet the Press," holding signs reading "NRA KILLING OUR KIDS," and screaming that the gun rights group has "blood on its hands."

He said that elected officials had no authority to deny Americans the right and the ability to protect themselves and their families from harm.

And he noted that there are millions of active and retired police officers, military veterans, and private security guards – “an extraordinary corps of patriotic, trained, qualified citizens” – who should devise a protection plan for every school.

“I call on Congress today to act immediately to appropriate whatever is necessary to put armed police officers in every single school in this nation,” he said.

He said that laws that established gun-free school zones have had the effect of telling “every insane killer in America that schools are the safest place to inflict maximum mayhem with minimum risk.”

LaPierre said America has left its schoolchildren “utterly defenseless -- and the monsters and the predators of the world know it and exploit it.”

He criticized Congress for not creating a national database of the mentally ill and called for increased federal prosecution of those who illegally possess guns.

LaPierre did not indicate that the NRA would support any additional restrictions on the sale or possession of guns. He ridiculed the idea that “one more gun ban or one more law imposed on peaceful, lawful people will protect us where 20,000 other laws have failed.”

He assailed the news media which he said had “demonized gun owners.”

And he said “the next Adam Lanza” is “waiting in the wings” and argued that copycat killers are encouraged by “a national media machine that rewards them with wall-to-wall attention and a sense of identity that they crave.”

He also criticized the video game industry for violent Hollywood films such as “American Psycho” and “Natural Born Killers.”

On Wednesday President Barack Obama asked Vice President Joe Biden to lead an effort that includes members of the Cabinet and outside organizations to devise concrete legislative gun restriction proposals by next month, “proposals that I then intend to push without delay,” Obama said.

He said he would “use all the powers of this office to help advance efforts aimed at preventing more tragedies” such as the shootings in Connecticut.

House Speaker John Boehner on Thursday said, “When the vice president's recommendations come forward, we'll certainly take them into consideration.”

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., the author of the 1994 ban on certain types of semiautomatic firearms which expired in 2004, announced this week that she will introduce new legislation early next year.

Semiautomatic firearms, including semiautomatic weapons sometimes called “assault weapons,” fire one round per pull of the trigger.

Her bill would outlaw the sale, transfer, importation and manufacture of more than 100 specifically-named firearms as well as certain semiautomatic rifles, handguns and shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds.

Feinstein would also outlaw large-capacity ammunition magazines capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.

Her measure would also “grandfather” weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment and exempt more than 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting and sporting purposes, according to a statement from her office on Monday.

The number of murders committed with guns has declined sharply in the past 20 years.

The rate of firearms-related murders in 2011 was 3.2 per 100,000 people. In 1993 the rate of firearms-related murders was 6.6 per 100,000 people. The number of firearms-related murder victims dropped from more than 17,000 in 1993 to 9,903 in 2011.

Yet the shootings in Connecticut have raised the possibility that Congress might enact restrictive legislation that would incorporate the 1994 ban as well as measures to increase funding for treatment of mentally ill people.

It is not yet clear what specific legislation, in addition to Feinstein’s bill, will be proposed in Congress and which measures Obama would throw his weight behind.

He did say during the second debate with his Republican opponent Mitt Romney that he wanted to see “if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced. But part of it is also looking at other sources of the violence. Because frankly, in my home town of Chicago, there's an awful lot of violence and they're not using AK-47s. They're using cheap hand guns.”

He added, “What I want is a comprehensive strategy. Part of it is seeing if we can get automatic weapons that kill folks in amazing numbers out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill. But part of it is also going deeper and seeing if we can get into these communities and making sure we catch violent impulses before they occur.”

The outcome of legislative efforts in the Senate may well be determined by Democratic senators from states where there’s strong support for the rights of gun owners.

Sen. Joe Manchin, D- W.W., who was just re-elected in November, has given mixed signals on his readiness to support restrictions on semiautomatic weapons.

Manchin said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” Monday that, “I’m a proud NRA member and always have been. But we need to sit down and move this dialogue to a sensible, reasonable approach…. I don`t know anyone in the sporting or hunting arena that goes out with an assault rifle. I don`t know anybody that needs 30 rounds in a clip to go hunting.”

But two days later in an interview with West Virginia talk radio host Hoppy Kercheval, Manchin seemed to edge away from his statement on Monday. Manchin said he was “not supporting a ban on anything. I'm supporting a conversation on everything."

When Kercheval asked Manchin if he regretted what he’d said on Morning Joe. "I'm saying it more articulate today," Manchin replied.

In addition to Manchin and another centrist Democrat, senator-elect Joe Donnelly of Indiana who has received NRA backing in past elections, there are half dozen Democratic senators up for re-election in 2014 who represent states that are more protective of gun owners’ rights, for example, Sen. Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Sen. Mark Pryor of Arkansas, and Sen. Mark Begich of Alaska.

 

[simey]

Where are the examples of someone carrying a permit that shoots someone outside a bar in an altercation, or following someone suspicious down an alleyway, or someone shoots the wrong person when they show up at a scene trying to help? You said there was a bunch of examples of these.

Here's a start:http://www.bradycamp...es-misdeeds.pdf

You didn't see the Trayvon Martin shooting in the "alleyway" example?

And I think I said almost or actually shoots the wrong person - it's actually the reason I suggested that the person who said the Giffords event was held in a gun free zone was incorrect. A guy with a CCP showed up and almost shot the kid who had disarmed Loughner, but did jam him against a wall for good measure.

I do not think the scenerio in the Trayvon Martin incident is something that is common. I also don't think that a citizen accidentally shooting the wrong person while trying to help is a common event either.

I don't think a parent with a fear of guns will find solace in your response. The answer IMO is that I think the laws in Arizona (not needing a permit to conceal carry) and Florida (need stricter requirments and to change the Stand Your Ground law) need to be much tighter for gun owners if they want parents to trust CCP holder in "Gun Free Zones".

I agree with stricter requirements in Arizona and Florida, but that wasn't what I was answering to.

 

[moleculo]

No matter how many times you rephrase the question, my answer remains that I don't want more guns around my children. I want less guns around my children.

I get that, but I don't get the why.

you aren't going to win this one. They are coming from an emotional, irrational vantage point, and rational arguments aren't going to work here. It's like debating with a woman.

The fact that you don't agree doesn't make the position irrational.

I haven't heard a single argument against limited number of qualified, thoroughly trained, and vetted school officials maintain properly secured and concealed weapons on campus.All we hear is a repeated "I just don't want guns around children" or "guns make me feel icky" or "won't someone think of the children?" or "I don't want my teacher putting a gun to her ear while she is learning cursive."

 

[badmojo1006]

No matter how many times you rephrase the question, my answer remains that I don't want more guns around my children. I want less guns around my children.

I get that, but I don't get the why.

you aren't going to win this one. They are coming from an emotional, irrational vantage point, and rational arguments aren't going to work here. It's like debating with a woman.

Nice. You can not see other peoples sides, very rational sides, so you call names. I can see this debate is going nowhere

 

[Borat]

National Rifle Association executive vice president Wayne LaPierre blamed Hollywood, video games music, the courts and more on Friday for creating a culture of violence in the United States.

“The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,” he said at a Washington press event, adding, “With all the money in the federal budget can’t we afford to put a police officer in every single school?”

These guys seriously believe that?

Maybe you can teach me something here. What else stops a bad guy with a gun? Kind words and an easy smile? Or were you thinking more along the lines of nonlethal force?Speaking of which - what if we gave teachers Tasers instead of guns? Would that be a fair compromise here?