***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (3 Viewers)

[[icon]]

How about metal, lockable doors so at the very least wackos can't get into classrooms?

I think this is a great idea. Relatively inexpensive solution that enables schools to "Lock down" in the event of something like Connecticut in the future. This would severely limit casualties going forward.

Not sure the fire Marshall would approve.

Good point. Backing off my support of that one.

 

[ATC1]

How about metal, lockable doors so at the very least wackos can't get into classrooms?

I think this is a great idea. Relatively inexpensive solution that enables schools to "Lock down" in the event of something like Connecticut in the future. This would severely limit casualties going forward.

Dumbest idea ever.

I'll have to agree the VTech shooter locked himself in the building. Lowers the response time.

All the more reason to prevent a guy from entering a classroom.Or did you geniuses think I only meant the front door?

It's not a dumb idea. I just think after so long of needing to let people in the building through a specific protocol, people will let their guard down, prop doors open, abandon protocol. I think it will be harder to prevent him from getting inside then to control him getting the guns.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

On point two, I don't believe that states can enact laws that violate the second amendment.

Someone (Ramsey?) mentioned tha the 2nd Amendment has never been incorporated to apply to the states. If that's true, they can. Or at least they can now. I'd be a little bit surprised by that since Chicago and D.C. have both had gun restrictions struck down on 2nd Amendment grounds, but it's possible.Broadly speaking, the US Constitution only restricts what the federal government can do. Unless there's some other operator such as 14th Amendment incorporation, it doesn't apply to states.

McDonald vs Chicago

Yes Soonerman is right. I had missed that SCOTUS heard McDonald (I remembered it at the Circuit). Looks to be kind of wacky from a originalist perspective, at least for Scalia, who joined Alito's opinon relying on substantive due process (a doctrine Scalia has elsewhere referred to as "oxymoronic"). Once again, Thomas gets the Consistent Originalist award for making a case under the Privileges and Immunities Clause.But sorry. My bad.

 

[BassNBrew]

How about metal, lockable doors so at the very least wackos can't get into classrooms?

I think this is a great idea. Relatively inexpensive solution that enables schools to "Lock down" in the event of something like Connecticut in the future. This would severely limit casualties going forward.

Not sure the fire Marshall would approve.

Good point. Backing off my support of that one.

Plenty of places have doors where you can exit but can't enter. Usually they're marked fire exits.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

How about metal, lockable doors so at the very least wackos can't get into classrooms?

I think this is a great idea. Relatively inexpensive solution that enables schools to "Lock down" in the event of something like Connecticut in the future. This would severely limit casualties going forward.

Dumbest idea ever.

You really are a jerk, you know that?

I respect a lot of your ideas. This isn't one of them. If it was just shtick, then :whoosh:

How about you start with explaining why it's stupid? Rather than lobbing insults you could simply explain why you think it wouldn't work. What if the principal or any of the other people who were shot in the office had access to a button that sealed off the classrooms?

 

[Andy Dufresne]

It's not a dumb idea. I just think after so long of needing to let people in the building through a specific protocol, people will let their guard down, prop doors open, abandon protocol. I think it will be harder to prevent him from getting inside then to control him getting the guns.

Like I said, what if the office had the ability to seal off the classrooms?Keep the front door open but maintain control of the rest of the building. All the principal would have needed to do was push a button before she confronted him - and she might not have had to confront him at all.This is what I mean by having SOME answer before we get to the complete one.And I don't know how you can think it would be easier to take the guns away that it would be to install new doors.

 

[[icon]]

How about you start with explaining why it's stupid? Rather than lobbing insults you could simply explain why you think it wouldn't work. What if the principal or any of the other people who were shot in the office had access to a button that sealed off the classrooms?

It's an expensive and cumbersome change that won't help much. So you put metal doors on the classroms. Ok. Now the next shoot-up is on the playground at recess. So now you put a big metal enclosure around all playgrounds. The next shoot-up is at a busstop or a train station. So you put them in metal. You can go on and on and on and you're not solving anything. But what you are doing is asking for a large-scale refit of a whole lot of public buildings. And even if there was a metal door and the shooter walks in, shuts the door, and then starts shooting, one classroom of fatalities is still too much.

So your solution then, outside of "ban all guns" because that wouldn't work if it were even possible.

 

[ericttspikes]

Crazy people blow up planes; we spend billions starting agencies, take away civil liberties, enact laws and goofy regulations like forbidding large toothpaste tubes on airplanes.

Crazy people mow down innocent people with assault rifles. The price of freedom?

 

[ATC1]

It's not a dumb idea. I just think after so long of needing to let people in the building through a specific protocol, people will let their guard down, prop doors open, abandon protocol. I think it will be harder to prevent him from getting inside then to control him getting the guns.

Like I said, what if the office had the ability to seal off the classrooms?Keep the front door open but maintain control of the rest of the building. All the principal would have needed to do was push a button before she confronted him - and she might not have had to confront him at all.This is what I mean by having SOME answer before we get to the complete one.And I don't know how you can think it would be easier to take the guns away that it would be to install new doors.

Then you are getting out of the simple and inexpensive realm. I doubt anyone would have been able to get close enough to use pepper spray, but I wonder if a more nonlethal weapon like a taser could be carried by teachers as a start. Is it concealable? Could it be effective in this situation?

 

[Andy Dufresne]

How about you start with explaining why it's stupid? Rather than lobbing insults you could simply explain why you think it wouldn't work. What if the principal or any of the other people who were shot in the office had access to a button that sealed off the classrooms?

It's an expensive and cumbersome change that won't help much. So you put metal doors on the classroms. Ok. Now the next shoot-up is on the playground at recess. So now you put a big metal enclosure around all playgrounds. The next shoot-up is at a busstop or a train station. So you put them in metal. You can go on and on and on and you're not solving anything. But what you are doing is asking for a large-scale refit of a whole lot of public buildings. And even if there was a metal door and the shooter walks in, shuts the door, and then starts shooting, one classroom of fatalities is still too much.

I can play that game too. So you take away the guns. So now a guy takes his car and drives over 15 kids on the playground. This is what I'm talking about with the problem your argument has. You seem to want to say that unless you can keep everyone safe all the time then it's not worth talking about keeping most people safe most of the time.It's also what I mean about taking piecemeal steps before we come up with a comprehensive plan.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Then you are getting out of the simple and inexpensive realm. I doubt anyone would have been able to get close enough to use pepper spray, but I wonder if a more nonlethal weapon like a taser could be carried by teachers as a start. Is it concealable? Could it be effective in this situation?

That's another idea I'd thought of. I thought it would have been covered by now in here (maybe it has).That's what I meant by a door jamb taser. Have a way to incapacitate anyone that comes in the front door and/or the classroom door...or even in the hallway.

 

[Mr. Chumley]

I'm curious. What do you guys believe is the effect of more gun laws on the second amendment? No effect, a slight erosion, complete nullification? What would you like to see done with the second amendment?

If I were to rewrite the Second Amendment, I would go one of a couple ways.1: Give the power of gun regulation to the states. Let them decide what standards they want.2: Write the Second Amendment such that it gives the right to use a firearm in the defense of your home and was to be read much less favorably in other contexts.Outside of that, it gets tricky.

I don't think that will work. What’s going to stop a home owner from leaving his house going to the mall and shooting people? What if someone breaks into my home while I'm at work and steals my guns? Then commits a crime with them? Guns would still be available to those willing to break the law to obtain them.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

I'm curious. What do you guys believe is the effect of more gun laws on the second amendment? No effect, a slight erosion, complete nullification? What would you like to see done with the second amendment?

I don't really know what you're asking, but here goes. As a predictive matter, more gun laws that stop short of outright bans of firearms will delineate the limits of the Second Amendment right. I don't have a prediction of where the line would be drawn, but assuming the current composition of the court, I can envision either a strict scrutiny test for all regulations related to firearms, or possibly strict scrutiny for regulations touching upon the homestead and something like intermediate scrutiny for other forms of regulations (or something analytically similar to a First Amendment framework).What I'd like to see done with the Second Amendment will never happen, but here goes. I believe that the purpose of the Second Amendment has been rendered irrelevant by history. I think it's an individual right, but one designed to achieve balance of power between the states and the federal government. As a consequence, I believe that incorporation against the states is inconsistent with original intent, and that the original intent (to have a State to be able to rely on it's citizens to resist federal overreaching) is a purpose that no sane person would support today. In order to achieve that purpose, militias would need the ability to be armed comparably to the Federal Government. Which is an absurd proposition today.So I'd like to see a right of self defense that is developed independently of the Second Amendment. As a bonus, it would require the Court to take the Ninth Amendment seriously, because I don't think the Ningth Amendment is an "ink blot." I think that, at the very least, it incorporates established common law rights as they existed at the founding, which would include the Castle Doctrine. And I'd like to see that right defined somewhat narrowly, in such a way that registration, magazine restrictions, etc. are found constitutional.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

You seem to want to say that unless you can keep everyone safe all the time then it's not worth talking about keeping most people safe most of the time.

Not at all. I always come at things from an incremental gain approach. I just don't think that your approach has any incremental gain. At best, it just has a change of venue.

Yes, some. Because you said that we shouldn't bother keeping people safe in a classroom because they could be killed on the playground. That's no argument at all.

 

[[icon]]

So your solution then, outside of "ban all guns" because that wouldn't work if it were even possible.

Ban semi-automatics. Restrict magazines to 6 rounds. Give states the right to ban handguns. Make every legal firearm sale traceable. ]

You genuinely think this is possible? You must have skipped over the part I posted above where the vast vast majority of guns used in violent crimes were procured illegally.

According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from -

• a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%

• a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%

• family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%

 

[Glass Joe]

Could someone get me up to speed here? Despite the typical "I want to stop all gun violence and bring peace to earth" crap, what exactly is being proposed in here in the way of actual Gun control? Are most folks proposing an assault rifle ban, or a ban on guns as a whole? Or is it the usual FFA "Mass murders are unacceptable but I don't have a actual stance on how to fix it" thing?

Lots of things have been proposed - but meaningful changes to gun laws will not happen. This thread has become pointless arguing because the guns rights crowd will not allow anything that removes access to guns or takes them off the streets.

 

[smotherhook]

Could someone get me up to speed here? Despite the typical "I want to stop all gun violence and bring peace to earth" crap, what exactly is being proposed in here in the way of actual Gun control?

Are most folks proposing an assault rifle ban, or a ban on guns as a whole? Or is it the usual FFA "Mass murders are unacceptable but I don't have a actual stance on how to fix it" thing?

Huge 2d Amendment rights person here, and owned a gun almost my whole adult life. But I think magazine capacity restrictions and an assault weapon ban on the federal level with serious enforcement and penalties is a good start. I also think closing the gunshow loophole and seriously cracking down on the semi to full auto modifications is important. And I would be fine on the state level with licensing/registration/training, etc. We need to do something and those are some very east places to start. No one is taking my 357 and no one needs a semi or automatic assault type weapon for home defense.

bull####

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Mass murderer stopped with 1 bullet:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/man-attempts-to-open-fire-on-crowd-at-movie-theater-armed-off-duty-sheriffs-deputy-drops-him-with-one-bullet/

 

[[icon]]

This thread has become pointless arguing because the guns rights crowd will not allow anything that removes access to guns or takes them off the streets.

This is because we're not foolish enough to believe that gun control laws will remove access to guns or take them off the streets.

 

[ATC1]

Then you are getting out of the simple and inexpensive realm. I doubt anyone would have been able to get close enough to use pepper spray, but I wonder if a more nonlethal weapon like a taser could be carried by teachers as a start. Is it concealable? Could it be effective in this situation?

That's another idea I'd thought of. I thought it would have been covered by now in here (maybe it has).That's what I meant by a door jamb taser. Have a way to incapacitate anyone that comes in the front door and/or the classroom door...or even in the hallway.

Sorry, don't know what a door jab taser is or how it would be used effectively. I guess it's a lock down, but it is hard to predict, no?

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

The locking door things doesn't seem all that unreasonable. I don't know anything about what the cost would be or if there are drawbacks we haven't considered (fires, mischievous students, etc.)

 

[Buddy Ball 2K3]

This thread has become pointless arguing because the guns rights crowd will not allow anything that removes access to guns or takes them off the streets.

This is because we're not foolish enough to believe that gun control laws will remove access to guns or take them off the streets.

/thread

 

[ATC1]

I'm curious. What do you guys believe is the effect of more gun laws on the second amendment? No effect, a slight erosion, complete nullification? What would you like to see done with the second amendment?

If I were to rewrite the Second Amendment, I would go one of a couple ways.1: Give the power of gun regulation to the states. Let them decide what standards they want.2: Write the Second Amendment such that it gives the right to use a firearm in the defense of your home and was to be read much less favorably in other contexts.Outside of that, it gets tricky.

I don't think that will work. What’s going to stop a home owner from leaving his house going to the mall and shooting people? What if someone breaks into my home while I'm at work and steals my guns? Then commits a crime with them? Guns would still be available to those willing to break the law to obtain them.

The government can not enforce the use of safes, but can have heavy fines on those who have guns stolen? This will make sure people lock them up.

 

[Notorious T.R.E.]

Then you are getting out of the simple and inexpensive realm. I doubt anyone would have been able to get close enough to use pepper spray, but I wonder if a more nonlethal weapon like a taser could be carried by teachers as a start. Is it concealable? Could it be effective in this situation?

That's another idea I'd thought of. I thought it would have been covered by now in here (maybe it has).That's what I meant by a door jamb taser. Have a way to incapacitate anyone that comes in the front door and/or the classroom door...or even in the hallway.

Like a pool of sharks with lasers?

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Sorry, don't know what a door jab taser is or how it would be used effectively. I guess it's a lock down, but it is hard to predict, no?

It's a taser. Built into the door jamb. Hell, even a net that you could launch over someone might work.I'm just saying we should find ways to keep people out of rooms either by not allowing access or incapacitating the bad guy.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Then you are getting out of the simple and inexpensive realm. I doubt anyone would have been able to get close enough to use pepper spray, but I wonder if a more nonlethal weapon like a taser could be carried by teachers as a start. Is it concealable? Could it be effective in this situation?

That's another idea I'd thought of. I thought it would have been covered by now in here (maybe it has).That's what I meant by a door jamb taser. Have a way to incapacitate anyone that comes in the front door and/or the classroom door...or even in the hallway.

Like a pool of sharks with lasers?

See? Now we've got the creative juices flowing...

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

If 20 people die on the playground instead of in the classroom, that's no incremental gain.If a shooter only has a 6-round magazine and has to stop at 3 fatalities instead of 23, that's an incremental gain.

Seems like it would be far more difficult to kill people on the playground because they could flee in all directions.

 

[Apple Jack]

This thread has become pointless arguing because the guns rights crowd will not allow anything that removes access to guns or takes them off the streets.

This is because we're not foolish enough to believe that gun control laws will remove access to guns or take them off the streets.

/thread

Right because making it illegal to make, sell, and buy them wouldn't have an impact on the number of guns going forward. Do you even put any thought into what you say and agree with or is it just a default position of gun restriction bad and I don't care how rational the argument is?

 

[BigJohn]

What about 'man-traps' that are being used in banks all over? Set of 2 doors. Both require buzzing in from the office. Person gets through door #1? Check. Then requires being buzzed in a second, more secure door. Shooter blows his way through #1? Door #2 would be much more reinforced in order to ensure he doesn't get any further. Also, they open freely from within, to appease any fire codes.

 

[ATC1]

You seem to want to say that unless you can keep everyone safe all the time then it's not worth talking about keeping most people safe most of the time.

Not at all. I always come at things from an incremental gain approach. I just don't think that your approach has any incremental gain. At best, it just has a change of venue.

Yes, some. Because you said that we shouldn't bother keeping people safe in a classroom because they could be killed on the playground. That's no argument at all.

If 20 people die on the playground instead of in the classroom, that's no incremental gain.If a shooter only has a 6-round magazine and has to stop at 3 fatalities instead of 23, that's an incremental gain.

If you limit the capacity of a magazine, then we should restrict the sales of extra magazines. With practice, anyone can switch a magazine without needing to stop. All you have to so is reload with one left in the chamber.

 

[TobiasFunke]

This thread has become pointless arguing because the guns rights crowd will not allow anything that removes access to guns or takes them off the streets.

This is because we're not foolish enough to believe that gun control laws will remove access to guns or take them off the streets.

It's not foolish to think gun control laws would reduce access and supply. Of course they would. Even the most ill-advised government prohibition of a vice for public policy reasons, i.e. Prohibition, reduced access to and use of alcohol. It's a simple fact. I challenge you to find any enactment of a prohibitive law that didn't reduce the supply and availability of the prohibited thing.The debate isn't over whether such laws would limit access or supply. They do. The debate is over how significant the reduction will be, and whether that reduction is worth the significant tradeoffs like loss of liberty, dangers of creating/enhancing the illegal market, increased demand on resources for enforcement, etc.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

You seem to want to say that unless you can keep everyone safe all the time then it's not worth talking about keeping most people safe most of the time.

Not at all. I always come at things from an incremental gain approach. I just don't think that your approach has any incremental gain. At best, it just has a change of venue.

Yes, some. Because you said that we shouldn't bother keeping people safe in a classroom because they could be killed on the playground. That's no argument at all.

If 20 people die on the playground instead of in the classroom, that's no incremental gain.If a shooter only has a 6-round magazine and has to stop at 3 fatalities instead of 23, that's an incremental gain.

Why would he stop there? You do know it takes about 5 seconds to change a clip, right? And if someone practices it, there is no doubt they could do it in about 2 seconds. You haven't stopped anything. All you've done is make the killer prepare a little more. Nevermind that there are millions of large clips out there. If you stop selling them now, maybe in 50-100 years you'll see some kind of gain. Of course, that is if no new clips are brought into the country illegally or manufactured illegally.

 

[BigJohn]

This thread has become pointless arguing because the guns rights crowd will not allow anything that removes access to guns or takes them off the streets.

This is because we're not foolish enough to believe that gun control laws will remove access to guns or take them off the streets.

/thread

Right because making it illegal to make, sell, and buy them wouldn't have an impact on the number of guns going forward. Do you even put any thought into what you say and agree with or is it just a default position of gun restriction bad and I don't care how rational the argument is?

Ownership numbers are where you would see the only effect. Criminal possesion of firearms would not be affected at all. You're fooling yourself if you think it would.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

You seem to want to say that unless you can keep everyone safe all the time then it's not worth talking about keeping most people safe most of the time.

Not at all. I always come at things from an incremental gain approach. I just don't think that your approach has any incremental gain. At best, it just has a change of venue.

Yes, some. Because you said that we shouldn't bother keeping people safe in a classroom because they could be killed on the playground. That's no argument at all.

If 20 people die on the playground instead of in the classroom, that's no incremental gain.If a shooter only has a 6-round magazine and has to stop at 3 fatalities instead of 23, that's an incremental gain.

I know what you're trying to say. I'm just saying that until we (society) can come to an agreement (that may or may not ever come) that your plan is the right one, let's take other steps to protect people, ones that we can all generally agree don't infringe on constitutional rights, in the meantime.And as callous as this sounds, 20 people on a playground is a lot more difficult than 20 in a confined space like a classroom. So again we can take steps to protect people in most places until the day we can keep them safe in all.

 

[Apple Jack]

Could someone get me up to speed here? Despite the typical "I want to stop all gun violence and bring peace to earth" crap, what exactly is being proposed in here in the way of actual Gun control?

Are most folks proposing an assault rifle ban, or a ban on guns as a whole? Or is it the usual FFA "Mass murders are unacceptable but I don't have a actual stance on how to fix it" thing?

Huge 2d Amendment rights person here, and owned a gun almost my whole adult life. But I think magazine capacity restrictions and an assault weapon ban on the federal level with serious enforcement and penalties is a good start. I also think closing the gunshow loophole and seriously cracking down on the semi to full auto modifications is important. And I would be fine on the state level with licensing/registration/training, etc. We need to do something and those are some very east places to start. No one is taking my 357 and no one needs a semi or automatic assault type weapon for home defense.

bull####

Easy there Bronson. Why do you need an assault type weapon to defend your home from the boogeyman?

 

[ATC1]

What about 'man-traps' that are being used in banks all over? Set of 2 doors. Both require buzzing in from the office. Person gets through door #1? Check. Then requires being buzzed in a second, more secure door. Shooter blows his way through #1? Door #2 would be much more reinforced in order to ensure he doesn't get any further. Also, they open freely from within, to appease any fire codes.

So, you going to inactivate them before the tardy bell rings, or at the end of the day for pickup?

 

[WetDream]

What about 'man-traps' that are being used in banks all over?

Oooh, I like this one.ETA: Anybody know if I can get this installed for my home?

 

[Apple Jack]

This thread has become pointless arguing because the guns rights crowd will not allow anything that removes access to guns or takes them off the streets.

This is because we're not foolish enough to believe that gun control laws will remove access to guns or take them off the streets.

/thread

Right because making it illegal to make, sell, and buy them wouldn't have an impact on the number of guns going forward. Do you even put any thought into what you say and agree with or is it just a default position of gun restriction bad and I don't care how rational the argument is?

Ownership numbers are where you would see the only effect. Criminal possesion of firearms would not be affected at all. You're fooling yourself if you think it would.

Criminal possession of firearms isn't the only target here. The guns used in CT were legally owned.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

I'm curious. What do you guys believe is the effect of more gun laws on the second amendment? No effect, a slight erosion, complete nullification? What would you like to see done with the second amendment?

If I were to rewrite the Second Amendment, I would go one of a couple ways.1: Give the power of gun regulation to the states. Let them decide what standards they want.2: Write the Second Amendment such that it gives the right to use a firearm in the defense of your home and was to be read much less favorably in other contexts.Outside of that, it gets tricky.

I don't think that will work. What’s going to stop a home owner from leaving his house going to the mall and shooting people? What if someone breaks into my home while I'm at work and steals my guns? Then commits a crime with them? Guns would still be available to those willing to break the law to obtain them.

And people still commit murder despite murder being illegal. You can't let the perfect get in the way of the possible. If anyone tells you that any form of regulation or law can definitevly stop any one incident like what happened on Friday, you should feel free to laugh in his or her face. That's not how it works. A reasonable goal is to reduce or minimize gun violence, not to eradicate it completely.

 

[ATC1]

This thread has become pointless arguing because the guns rights crowd will not allow anything that removes access to guns or takes them off the streets.

This is because we're not foolish enough to believe that gun control laws will remove access to guns or take them off the streets.

/thread

Right because making it illegal to make, sell, and buy them wouldn't have an impact on the number of guns going forward. Do you even put any thought into what you say and agree with or is it just a default position of gun restriction bad and I don't care how rational the argument is?

Ownership numbers are where you would see the only effect. Criminal possesion of firearms would not be affected at all. You're fooling yourself if you think it would.

Criminal possession of firearms isn't the only target here. The guns used in CT were legally, but irresponsibly owned.

Fixed.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

This thread has become pointless arguing because the guns rights crowd will not allow anything that removes access to guns or takes them off the streets.

This is because we're not foolish enough to believe that gun control laws will remove access to guns or take them off the streets.

/thread

Right because making it illegal to make, sell, and buy them wouldn't have an impact on the number of guns going forward. Do you even put any thought into what you say and agree with or is it just a default position of gun restriction bad and I don't care how rational the argument is?

Ownership numbers are where you would see the only effect. Criminal possesion of firearms would not be affected at all. You're fooling yourself if you think it would.

Criminal possession of firearms isn't the only target here. The guns used in CT were legally owned.

The guns used were stolen.

 

[Apple Jack]

This thread has become pointless arguing because the guns rights crowd will not allow anything that removes access to guns or takes them off the streets.

This is because we're not foolish enough to believe that gun control laws will remove access to guns or take them off the streets.

/thread

Right because making it illegal to make, sell, and buy them wouldn't have an impact on the number of guns going forward. Do you even put any thought into what you say and agree with or is it just a default position of gun restriction bad and I don't care how rational the argument is?

Ownership numbers are where you would see the only effect. Criminal possesion of firearms would not be affected at all. You're fooling yourself if you think it would.

Criminal possession of firearms isn't the only target here. The guns used in CT were legally, but irresponsibly owned.

Fixed.

Pretty sure you're making the other team's argument here.

 

[Mr. Chumley]

I'm curious. What do you guys believe is the effect of more gun laws on the second amendment? No effect, a slight erosion, complete nullification? What would you like to see done with the second amendment?

If I were to rewrite the Second Amendment, I would go one of a couple ways.1: Give the power of gun regulation to the states. Let them decide what standards they want.2: Write the Second Amendment such that it gives the right to use a firearm in the defense of your home and was to be read much less favorably in other contexts.Outside of that, it gets tricky.

I don't think that will work. What’s going to stop a home owner from leaving his house going to the mall and shooting people? What if someone breaks into my home while I'm at work and steals my guns? Then commits a crime with them? Guns would still be available to those willing to break the law to obtain them.

The government can not enforce the use of safes, but can have heavy fines on those who have guns stolen? This will make sure people lock them up.

This blames the victim. If my car is stolen out of my garage would I be fined if the thief ran over someone trying to get away? I’m all for gun safes but they don’t exactly lend themselves to quick reaction in home defense. Beside you can always debate if a handgun is the best home defense weapon. Next we’ll be told that shotguns are better so no one needs a hand gun.

 

[ATC1]

This thread has become pointless arguing because the guns rights crowd will not allow anything that removes access to guns or takes them off the streets.

This is because we're not foolish enough to believe that gun control laws will remove access to guns or take them off the streets.

/thread

Right because making it illegal to make, sell, and buy them wouldn't have an impact on the number of guns going forward. Do you even put any thought into what you say and agree with or is it just a default position of gun restriction bad and I don't care how rational the argument is?

Ownership numbers are where you would see the only effect. Criminal possesion of firearms would not be affected at all. You're fooling yourself if you think it would.

Criminal possession of firearms isn't the only target here. The guns used in CT were legally, but irresponsibly owned.

Fixed.

Pretty sure you're making the other team's argument here.

There is one side, there is the other. Then there is the middle. Things can get done in the middle, why don't you join us?One point I have made in this thread is making harsh penalties for having a gun stolen to make it increase the use of safes in households.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

The locking door things doesn't seem all that unreasonable. I don't know anything about what the cost would be or if there are drawbacks we haven't considered (fires, mischievous students, etc.)

It certainly doesn't seem beyond the realm of possibility for an individual locality to try. It's expensive. It would presumably divert resources from other educational objectives. There are downsides. But it seems like something that a state or school district could be welcome to try. Yay, federalism!

 

[Mello]

This thread has become pointless arguing because the guns rights crowd will not allow anything that removes access to guns or takes them off the streets.

This is because we're not foolish enough to believe that gun control laws will remove access to guns or take them off the streets.

/thread

Right because making it illegal to make, sell, and buy them wouldn't have an impact on the number of guns going forward. Do you even put any thought into what you say and agree with or is it just a default position of gun restriction bad and I don't care how rational the argument is?

Ownership numbers are where you would see the only effect. Criminal possesion of firearms would not be affected at all. You're fooling yourself if you think it would.

For typical criminals, I agree. For the types that do this kind of massacre, I do think it would have some positive affect. That said, I think totally banning guns is an entirely disproportionate response. I'd rather have the freedom to make, sell and buy guns and accept the occasional shooting. None of the measures short of banning that I have read would help much.

 

[Mello]

The locking door things doesn't seem all that unreasonable. I don't know anything about what the cost would be or if there are drawbacks we haven't considered (fires, mischievous students, etc.)

It certainly doesn't seem beyond the realm of possibility for an individual locality to try. It's expensive. It would presumably divert resources from other educational objectives. There are downsides. But it seems like something that a state or school district could be welcome to try. Yay, federalism!

Is diverting those resources to possibly help stop something that is very, very rare in the overall scheme of things really the best choice?

 

[Apple Jack]

This thread has become pointless arguing because the guns rights crowd will not allow anything that removes access to guns or takes them off the streets.

This is because we're not foolish enough to believe that gun control laws will remove access to guns or take them off the streets.

/thread

Right because making it illegal to make, sell, and buy them wouldn't have an impact on the number of guns going forward. Do you even put any thought into what you say and agree with or is it just a default position of gun restriction bad and I don't care how rational the argument is?

Ownership numbers are where you would see the only effect. Criminal possesion of firearms would not be affected at all. You're fooling yourself if you think it would.

For typical criminals, I agree. For the types that do this kind of massacre, I do think it would have some positive affect. That said, I think totally banning guns is an entirely disproportionate response. I'd rather have the freedom to make, sell and buy guns and accept the occasional shooting. None of the measures short of banning that I have read would help much.

Run that by me again?

 

[5 digit know nothing]

This thread has become pointless arguing because the guns rights crowd will not allow anything that removes access to guns or takes them off the streets.

This is because we're not foolish enough to believe that gun control laws will remove access to guns or take them off the streets.

/thread

Right because making it illegal to make, sell, and buy them wouldn't have an impact on the number of guns going forward. Do you even put any thought into what you say and agree with or is it just a default position of gun restriction bad and I don't care how rational the argument is?

Ownership numbers are where you would see the only effect. Criminal possesion of firearms would not be affected at all. You're fooling yourself if you think it would.

Criminal possession of firearms isn't the only target here. The guns used in CT were legally owned.

By the 20 year old shooter?

 

[parasaurolophus]

This thread has become pointless arguing because the guns rights crowd will not allow anything that removes access to guns or takes them off the streets.

This is because we're not foolish enough to believe that gun control laws will remove access to guns or take them off the streets.

/thread

Right because making it illegal to make, sell, and buy them wouldn't have an impact on the number of guns going forward. Do you even put any thought into what you say and agree with or is it just a default position of gun restriction bad and I don't care how rational the argument is?

Ownership numbers are where you would see the only effect. Criminal possesion of firearms would not be affected at all. You're fooling yourself if you think it would.

Criminal possession of firearms isn't the only target here. The guns used in CT were legally owned.

I think a strong argument can be made that these guns were obtained illegally since the rightful owner is dead.