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

[timschochet]

Actually, this isn't that difficult to find the truth if you want it. All you need do is read up on the American occupation of Germany, in which the first thing the G.I.s did is make every family get all of their firearms and deliver them to the town or city square, where they were stacked in large piles and confiscated. If Hitler had seized all the guns years before like the NRA claims, where the heck did these large piles of weapons come from????

And if Stalin grabbed all the guns when he took power, then how did the citizens of Leningrad and Stalingrad defend their cities with rifles? What rifles?

And if Saddam Hussein took everyone's guns away, then why did our troops again in that war confiscate as many weapons as they could find? What weapons? Why wasn't the population defenseless??

These claims are so absurd that in order to believe them, you have to be completely ignorant of history. Yet apparently many gun rights supporters are.

Tim, Hitler didn't need to impose gun controls because gun laws were already in effect. Ironically, the original laws were passed in part to disarm the Nazis. The existing law required a permit to have a gun, so it was easy for Hitler to ensure his opponents couldn't get permits and therefore had no access to firearms. There were lots of guns but only Nazi supporters had legal access to them. After his rise to power, Hitler did add restrictions aimed at Jews. For the rest of the population he relied on laws already in place to keep guns out of the hands of his opponents. I'm guessing the same was probably true for Stalin and Hussein. They didn't need to seize all of the guns, only prevent their enemies from having any access to the supply. You don't need a defenseless population if that population supports you. You only need to disarm the rebels.

The bolded is exactly true. And it only goes to prove my point. There has never been a society which seized guns and then established a dictatorship as a result. Never. And if we ever do have a dictatorship in this country your guns will not protect you. It's a stupid, paranoid, and completely ridiculous argument, and I don't know why I'm even wasting my time refuting it.

 

[ATC1]

]Fact: The first time some kid filches a gun from a teacher or a principal and uses it in school, every damn single one of you are going to be chiming in a 50-page outrage thread on how did we allow this to happen.

Link to where I'm suggesting all teachers be armed? Captain straw man at it again. Ignore the facts and throw out stupid crap like this. Typical for you. Here I can play stupid analogies too. Gun stolen from police car. Guess we better not arm the police either... just in case. Wheeee!

Discussing, "Give teachers guns" or something along those lines seems to have been how the people here have spent the majority of their day. But ok. Say you didn't suggest it (I'm not going back to check). You now say that armed people on the scene results in the lowest casualties. Who do you picture these armed people on the scene being?

I could start with a pretty simple solution:Mandate every publicly funded school have at least 5-10% of staff undergo state funded certification that includes extensive background checks and specific training (that must be renewed every x years). These individuals carry in some manner (open or concealed... open to debate). I think an on campus security officer with tactical training would be wise as well... but generally speaking it's quicker to have several trained individuals staggered throughout the campus.

I'm not saying it's a perfect solution, but it beats trying to make all guns illegal and relying on long-### police response times to stop these things.

Ok. So now can I say, "The first time some kid filches a gun from a teacher or a principal and uses it in school, every damn single one of you are going to be chiming in a 50-page outrage thread on how did we allow this to happen."? Or are you going to laugh again.

There are plenty of schools that already have armed security guards. You don't really hear about instances where students get their guns. Why do you think they would be so likely to get them away from properly trained faculty or are you just making stuff up again?ETA looks like 34% of all public schools report having security staff that carries a firearm.

http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/ssocs/tables/all_2008_tab_33.asp?referrer=css

 

[Slingblade]

It amazes me..the ignorance of people that know nothing about guns or gun culture.

Please - explain gun culture and how it's part of the discussion.

Considering the rights that are going to be tried to be taken away, I'd say it is very much a part of the discussion.

 

[Joe T]

Actually, this isn't that difficult to find the truth if you want it. All you need do is read up on the American occupation of Germany, in which the first thing the G.I.s did is make every family get all of their firearms and deliver them to the town or city square, where they were stacked in large piles and confiscated. If Hitler had seized all the guns years before like the NRA claims, where the heck did these large piles of weapons come from???? And if Stalin grabbed all the guns when he took power, then how did the citizens of Leningrad and Stalingrad defend their cities with rifles? What rifles? And if Saddam Hussein took everyone's guns away, then why did our troops again in that war confiscate as many weapons as they could find? What weapons? Why wasn't the population defenseless?? These claims are so absurd that in order to believe them, you have to be completely ignorant of history. Yet apparently many gun rights supporters are.

Tim, Hitler didn't need to impose gun controls because gun laws were already in effect. Ironically, the original laws were passed in part to disarm the Nazis. The existing law required a permit to have a gun, so it was easy for Hitler to ensure his opponents couldn't get permits and therefore had no access to firearms. There were lots of guns but only Nazi supporters had legal access to them. After his rise to power, Hitler did add restrictions aimed at Jews. For the rest of the population he relied on laws already in place to keep guns out of the hands of his opponents. I'm guessing the same was probably true for Stalin and Hussein. They didn't need to seize all of the guns, only prevent their enemies from having any access to the supply. You don't need a defenseless population if that population supports you. You only need to disarm the rebels.

.

 

[Glass Joe]

It amazes me..the ignorance of people that know nothing about guns or gun culture.

Please - explain gun culture and how it's part of the discussion.

Considering the rights that are going to be tried to be taken away, I'd say it is very much a part of the discussion.

Explain gun culture please.

 

[timschochet]

Actually, this isn't that difficult to find the truth if you want it. All you need do is read up on the American occupation of Germany, in which the first thing the G.I.s did is make every family get all of their firearms and deliver them to the town or city square, where they were stacked in large piles and confiscated. If Hitler had seized all the guns years before like the NRA claims, where the heck did these large piles of weapons come from???? And if Stalin grabbed all the guns when he took power, then how did the citizens of Leningrad and Stalingrad defend their cities with rifles? What rifles? And if Saddam Hussein took everyone's guns away, then why did our troops again in that war confiscate as many weapons as they could find? What weapons? Why wasn't the population defenseless?? These claims are so absurd that in order to believe them, you have to be completely ignorant of history. Yet apparently many gun rights supporters are.

Tim, Hitler didn't need to impose gun controls because gun laws were already in effect. Ironically, the original laws were passed in part to disarm the Nazis. The existing law required a permit to have a gun, so it was easy for Hitler to ensure his opponents couldn't get permits and therefore had no access to firearms. There were lots of guns but only Nazi supporters had legal access to them. After his rise to power, Hitler did add restrictions aimed at Jews. For the rest of the population he relied on laws already in place to keep guns out of the hands of his opponents. I'm guessing the same was probably true for Stalin and Hussein. They didn't need to seize all of the guns, only prevent their enemies from having any access to the supply. You don't need a defenseless population if that population supports you. You only need to disarm the rebels.

.

Interesting you think this is a good posting, since it makes all of your other posts on this subject even more ridiculous than they already are.

 

[timschochet]

Let's be clear: 30 rounds in a single clip is high capacity. It needs to be banned. Now.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

]Fact: The first time some kid filches a gun from a teacher or a principal and uses it in school, every damn single one of you are going to be chiming in a 50-page outrage thread on how did we allow this to happen.

Link to where I'm suggesting all teachers be armed? Captain straw man at it again. Ignore the facts and throw out stupid crap like this. Typical for you. Here I can play stupid analogies too. Gun stolen from police car. Guess we better not arm the police either... just in case. Wheeee!

Discussing, "Give teachers guns" or something along those lines seems to have been how the people here have spent the majority of their day. But ok. Say you didn't suggest it (I'm not going back to check). You now say that armed people on the scene results in the lowest casualties. Who do you picture these armed people on the scene being?

I could start with a pretty simple solution:Mandate every publicly funded school have at least 5-10% of staff undergo state funded certification that includes extensive background checks and specific training (that must be renewed every x years). These individuals carry in some manner (open or concealed... open to debate). I think an on campus security officer with tactical training would be wise as well... but generally speaking it's quicker to have several trained individuals staggered throughout the campus.

I'm not saying it's a perfect solution, but it beats trying to make all guns illegal and relying on long-### police response times to stop these things.

Ok. So now can I say, "The first time some kid filches a gun from a teacher or a principal and uses it in school, every damn single one of you are going to be chiming in a 50-page outrage thread on how did we allow this to happen."? Or are you going to laugh again.

There are plenty of schools that already have armed security guards. You don't really hear about instances where students get their guns. Why do you think they would be so likely to get them away from properly trained faculty or are you just making stuff up again?ETA looks like 34% of all public schools report having security staff that carries a firearm.

http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/ssocs/tables/all_2008_tab_33.asp?referrer=css

 

[Neovivo]

Let's be clear: 30 rounds in a single clip is high capacity. It needs to be banned. Now.

would 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, ... 15, 14, 13 be ok? Where is the line drawn? I think that if the US is going to have real gun reform, representatives need to focus on something that is winnable. Which at this point I don't know anything the gun people would give up.

 

[timschochet]

Let's be clear: 30 rounds in a single clip is high capacity. It needs to be banned. Now.

would 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, ... 15, 14, 13 be ok? Where is the line drawn? I think that if the US is going to have real gun reform, representatives need to focus on something that is winnable. Which at this point I don't know anything the gun people would give up.

10

 

[Slingblade]

Let's be clear: 30 rounds in a single clip is high capacity. It needs to be banned. Now.

It's a magazine, not a clip. And no it is not high cap.Luckily I have a #### ton of mags for my AR in case they do get banned.The republican house needs to grow a backbone and say no to these upcoming bans.

 

[Sweet Feet]

Let's be clear: 30 rounds in a single clip is high capacity. It needs to be banned. Now.

would 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, ... 15, 14, 13 be ok? Where is the line drawn? I think that if the US is going to have real gun reform, representatives need to focus on something that is winnable. Which at this point I don't know anything the gun people would give up.

10

why 10?

 

[Joe T]

Actually, this isn't that difficult to find the truth if you want it. All you need do is read up on the American occupation of Germany, in which the first thing the G.I.s did is make every family get all of their firearms and deliver them to the town or city square, where they were stacked in large piles and confiscated. If Hitler had seized all the guns years before like the NRA claims, where the heck did these large piles of weapons come from???? And if Stalin grabbed all the guns when he took power, then how did the citizens of Leningrad and Stalingrad defend their cities with rifles? What rifles? And if Saddam Hussein took everyone's guns away, then why did our troops again in that war confiscate as many weapons as they could find? What weapons? Why wasn't the population defenseless?? These claims are so absurd that in order to believe them, you have to be completely ignorant of history. Yet apparently many gun rights supporters are.

Tim, Hitler didn't need to impose gun controls because gun laws were already in effect. Ironically, the original laws were passed in part to disarm the Nazis. The existing law required a permit to have a gun, so it was easy for Hitler to ensure his opponents couldn't get permits and therefore had no access to firearms. There were lots of guns but only Nazi supporters had legal access to them. After his rise to power, Hitler did add restrictions aimed at Jews. For the rest of the population he relied on laws already in place to keep guns out of the hands of his opponents. I'm guessing the same was probably true for Stalin and Hussein. They didn't need to seize all of the guns, only prevent their enemies from having any access to the supply. You don't need a defenseless population if that population supports you. You only need to disarm the rebels.

.

Interesting you think this is a good posting, since it makes all of your other posts on this subject even more ridiculous than they already are.

My posts were exact qoutes of the law. The above is just a restatement of those. Your ignorance in this thread is unusually high even for you.

 

[jonessed]

Let's be clear: 30 rounds in a single clip is high capacity. It needs to be banned. Now.

would 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, ... 15, 14, 13 be ok? Where is the line drawn? I think that if the US is going to have real gun reform, representatives need to focus on something that is winnable. Which at this point I don't know anything the gun people would give up.

10

Good luck with that.

 

[Slingblade]

It amazes me..the ignorance of people that know nothing about guns or gun culture.

Please - explain gun culture and how it's part of the discussion.

Considering the rights that are going to be tried to be taken away, I'd say it is very much a part of the discussion.

Explain gun culture please.

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

 

[Neovivo]

Let's be clear: 30 rounds in a single clip is high capacity. It needs to be banned. Now.

It's a magazine, not a clip. And no it is not high cap.Luckily I have a #### ton of mags for my AR in case they do get banned.

The republican house needs to grow a backbone and say no to these upcoming bans.

Seriously. What ever would you do if you needed to take 30 shots?

May have to lay down a shower of lead to move the family from one area to another during the apocalypse.

 

[Slingblade]

Let's be clear: 30 rounds in a single clip is high capacity. It needs to be banned. Now.

It's a magazine, not a clip. And no it is not high cap.Luckily I have a #### ton of mags for my AR in case they do get banned.

The republican house needs to grow a backbone and say no to these upcoming bans.

Seriously. What ever would you do if you needed to take 30 shots?

Rapid fire mag dumps on the range. Why not?

 

[Henry Ford]

Ok, so for those of you gun fans agreeing to some sort of gun ban...would you agree to NO grandfathering? Would we force illegal guns to be surrendered, or would everyone get to keep their now illegal gun?

The only way this will happen if anything is passed is grandfathering. Forcing guns to be surrendered would never happen in a million years.

I agree, but then what's the point? This whole thing will be an exercise in "doing something" only in name so politicians can say they did something. Nothing meaningful will happen. Nothing that will actually make a difference. No chance.

Exactly. You would think 500 gun deaths in Chicago in one year would cause changes, but it takes kids dying before people want to pass through legislation that will do nothing solely so they can feel better.

Guns are already illegal in Chicago. Worked awesome.

Are you actually claiming that guns are illegal in Chicago?

 

[jafo]

I picked up 10 new 30 round mags today myself. Always good to have some extras and they will make great gifts this Christmas.

 

[timschochet]

Let's be clear: 30 rounds in a single clip is high capacity. It needs to be banned. Now.

It's a magazine, not a clip. And no it is not high cap.Luckily I have a #### ton of mags for my AR in case they do get banned.The republican house needs to grow a backbone and say no to these upcoming bans.

1. Clip, mag, whatever. I know the correct terminology; I've used it throughout most of this thread. But I really don't give a #### anymore. All you guys want to believe that you know so much more than the rest of us about guns, that's fine. Keep your superiority. We'll just change the laws. 2. Yes it is a high cap. Who needs to fire 30 rounds? 3. Luckily for the rest of us, if there is a ban, and you show up with your 30 round mag/clip, you'll be arrested. Or forced to pay a fine, whatever. Keep them if you want, it's up to you if you want to break the law.4. If the House Republicans do what you suggest they will be even more unpopular than they are now. Which is a hard thing to achieve.I've tried to be moderate about this, to support what I still believe is a centrist position. But some of you guys are really starting to piss me off. You oppose even the most mild changes to the law. You are so obstinate, so paranoid, so fanatical that no point is served in further discourse. We're simply going to have to force you to do it.

 

[Neovivo]

Let's be clear: 30 rounds in a single clip is high capacity. It needs to be banned. Now.

It's a magazine, not a clip. And no it is not high cap.Luckily I have a #### ton of mags for my AR in case they do get banned.The republican house needs to grow a backbone and say no to these upcoming bans.

1. Clip, mag, whatever. I know the correct terminology; I've used it throughout most of this thread. But I really don't give a #### anymore. All you guys want to believe that you know so much more than the rest of us about guns, that's fine. Keep your superiority. We'll just change the laws. 2. Yes it is a high cap. Who needs to fire 30 rounds? 3. Luckily for the rest of us, if there is a ban, and you show up with your 30 round mag/clip, you'll be arrested. Or forced to pay a fine, whatever. Keep them if you want, it's up to you if you want to break the law.4. If the House Republicans do what you suggest they will be even more unpopular than they are now. Which is a hard thing to achieve.I've tried to be moderate about this, to support what I still believe is a centrist position. But some of you guys are really starting to piss me off. You oppose even the most mild changes to the law. You are so obstinate, so paranoid, so fanatical that no point is served in further discourse. We're simply going to have to force you to do it.

Yup

 

[Slingblade]

Let's be clear: 30 rounds in a single clip is high capacity. It needs to be banned. Now.

It's a magazine, not a clip. And no it is not high cap.Luckily I have a #### ton of mags for my AR in case they do get banned.The republican house needs to grow a backbone and say no to these upcoming bans.

1. Clip, mag, whatever. I know the correct terminology; I've used it throughout most of this thread. But I really don't give a #### anymore. All you guys want to believe that you know so much more than the rest of us about guns, that's fine. Keep your superiority. We'll just change the laws. 2. Yes it is a high cap. Who needs to fire 30 rounds? 3. Luckily for the rest of us, if there is a ban, and you show up with your 30 round mag/clip, you'll be arrested. Or forced to pay a fine, whatever. Keep them if you want, it's up to you if you want to break the law.4. If the House Republicans do what you suggest they will be even more unpopular than they are now. Which is a hard thing to achieve.I've tried to be moderate about this, to support what I still believe is a centrist position. But some of you guys are really starting to piss me off. You oppose even the most mild changes to the law. You are so obstinate, so paranoid, so fanatical that no point is served in further discourse. We're simply going to have to force you to do it.

Old mags will be grandfathered in. This legislation will not do a damn thing.From my cold dead ####### hands.

 

[jafo]

Sounds an awful lot like a dictatorship Tim.

 

[sporthenry]

So apart from arming teachers, employing more armed guards (in a time of budget cuts), getting rid of gun free zones, are there any serious propositions from the gun rights activists? Because I, along with reasonable people don't really seem to think any of those solutions would be any better. In fact, they seem rather counter-intuitive to the problem at hand.

 

[17seconds]

tim

 

[timschochet]

Sounds an awful lot like a dictatorship Tim.

Yup. The dictatorship of banning high capacity gun magazines. And demanding that all gun sales and transferred be recorded, including private ones. That's a pretty weak dictatorship, don't you think?

 

[Slingblade]

It amazes me..the ignorance of people that know nothing about guns or gun culture.

Please - explain gun culture and how it's part of the discussion.

Considering the rights that are going to be tried to be taken away, I'd say it is very much a part of the discussion.

Explain gun culture please.

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Gun_culture

My link

Nice pic? I guess?

 

[jonessed]

Let's be clear: 30 rounds in a single clip is high capacity. It needs to be banned. Now.

It's a magazine, not a clip. And no it is not high cap.Luckily I have a #### ton of mags for my AR in case they do get banned.The republican house needs to grow a backbone and say no to these upcoming bans.

1. Clip, mag, whatever. I know the correct terminology; I've used it throughout most of this thread. But I really don't give a #### anymore. All you guys want to believe that you know so much more than the rest of us about guns, that's fine. Keep your superiority. We'll just change the laws. 2. Yes it is a high cap. Who needs to fire 30 rounds? 3. Luckily for the rest of us, if there is a ban, and you show up with your 30 round mag/clip, you'll be arrested. Or forced to pay a fine, whatever. Keep them if you want, it's up to you if you want to break the law.4. If the House Republicans do what you suggest they will be even more unpopular than they are now. Which is a hard thing to achieve.I've tried to be moderate about this, to support what I still believe is a centrist position. But some of you guys are really starting to piss me off. You oppose even the most mild changes to the law. You are so obstinate, so paranoid, so fanatical that no point is served in further discourse. We're simply going to have to force you to do it.

 

[Slingblade]

Sounds an awful lot like a dictatorship Tim.

Yup. The dictatorship of banning high capacity gun magazines. And demanding that all gun sales and transferred be recorded, including private ones. That's a pretty weak dictatorship, don't you think?

How have those drug laws worked out? Great, right?

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

So apart from arming teachers, employing more armed guards (in a time of budget cuts), getting rid of gun free zones, are there any serious propositions from the gun rights activists? Because I, along with reasonable people don't really seem to think any of those solutions would be any better. In fact, they seem rather counter-intuitive to the problem at hand.

Duh, it's obvious to anyone paying attention that the solution to the problem of gun violence is to add more guns.

 

[timschochet]

Let's be clear: 30 rounds in a single clip is high capacity. It needs to be banned. Now.

It's a magazine, not a clip. And no it is not high cap.Luckily I have a #### ton of mags for my AR in case they do get banned.The republican house needs to grow a backbone and say no to these upcoming bans.

1. Clip, mag, whatever. I know the correct terminology; I've used it throughout most of this thread. But I really don't give a #### anymore. All you guys want to believe that you know so much more than the rest of us about guns, that's fine. Keep your superiority. We'll just change the laws. 2. Yes it is a high cap. Who needs to fire 30 rounds? 3. Luckily for the rest of us, if there is a ban, and you show up with your 30 round mag/clip, you'll be arrested. Or forced to pay a fine, whatever. Keep them if you want, it's up to you if you want to break the law.4. If the House Republicans do what you suggest they will be even more unpopular than they are now. Which is a hard thing to achieve.I've tried to be moderate about this, to support what I still believe is a centrist position. But some of you guys are really starting to piss me off. You oppose even the most mild changes to the law. You are so obstinate, so paranoid, so fanatical that no point is served in further discourse. We're simply going to have to force you to do it.

Old mags will be grandfathered in. This legislation will not do a damn thing.From my cold dead ####### hands.

OK. If you want to be shot dead while hanging on to your 30 round mag, that's your choice. It's a free country.

 

[Sweet Feet]

tim

 

[Slingblade]

Let's be clear: 30 rounds in a single clip is high capacity. It needs to be banned. Now.

It's a magazine, not a clip. And no it is not high cap.Luckily I have a #### ton of mags for my AR in case they do get banned.The republican house needs to grow a backbone and say no to these upcoming bans.

1. Clip, mag, whatever. I know the correct terminology; I've used it throughout most of this thread. But I really don't give a #### anymore. All you guys want to believe that you know so much more than the rest of us about guns, that's fine. Keep your superiority. We'll just change the laws. 2. Yes it is a high cap. Who needs to fire 30 rounds? 3. Luckily for the rest of us, if there is a ban, and you show up with your 30 round mag/clip, you'll be arrested. Or forced to pay a fine, whatever. Keep them if you want, it's up to you if you want to break the law.4. If the House Republicans do what you suggest they will be even more unpopular than they are now. Which is a hard thing to achieve.I've tried to be moderate about this, to support what I still believe is a centrist position. But some of you guys are really starting to piss me off. You oppose even the most mild changes to the law. You are so obstinate, so paranoid, so fanatical that no point is served in further discourse. We're simply going to have to force you to do it.

Old mags will be grandfathered in. This legislation will not do a damn thing.From my cold dead ####### hands.

OK. If you want to be shot dead while hanging on to your 30 round mag, that's your choice. It's a free country.

What part of grandfathered in did you miss? They will still be legal.

 

[Bonezerelli]

Teachers stand up to gunmen.

But politicians won't stand up to the NRA.

(Irony)

 

[Bonezerelli]

Sounds an awful lot like a dictatorship Tim.

Yup. The dictatorship of banning high capacity gun magazines. And demanding that all gun sales and transferred be recorded, including private ones. That's a pretty weak dictatorship, don't you think?

How have those drug laws worked out? Great, right?

Explain to me why there are many, many many more gun deaths per capita in the US than any other country in the world? Yemen is a distant 2nd and they don't even have a government.Could it be perhaps the "gun culture" and the abundant prevalence of guns??I'll let you speak.

 

[Slingblade]

Sounds an awful lot like a dictatorship Tim.

Yup. The dictatorship of banning high capacity gun magazines. And demanding that all gun sales and transferred be recorded, including private ones. That's a pretty weak dictatorship, don't you think?

How have those drug laws worked out? Great, right?

Explain to me why there are many, many many more gun deaths per capita in the US than any other country in the world? Yemen is a distant 2nd and they don't even have a government.Could it be perhaps the "gun culture" and the abundant prevalence of guns??I'll let you speak.

The numbers are not that bad if you exclude suicides by guns.But yes, we have a lot of guns so that's how murders are done. It's ingrained in the culture more than it has in any culture that has existed, you can't force it out with laws.

 

[Bonezerelli]

Sounds an awful lot like a dictatorship Tim.

Yup. The dictatorship of banning high capacity gun magazines. And demanding that all gun sales and transferred be recorded, including private ones. That's a pretty weak dictatorship, don't you think?

How have those drug laws worked out? Great, right?

Explain to me why there are many, many many more gun deaths per capita in the US than any other country in the world? Yemen is a distant 2nd and they don't even have a government.Could it be perhaps the "gun culture" and the abundant prevalence of guns??I'll let you speak.

The numbers are not that bad if you exclude suicides by guns.But yes, we have a lot of guns so that's how murders are done. It's ingrained in the culture more than it has in any culture that has existed, you can't force it out with laws.

I disagree. Change can occur, if people are willing.A similar tragedy occured in Scotland in 1996 (16 children shot) and at the time gun crime was rising to rival that of the U.S.. In the aftermath, massive gun laws came into effect. Fast forward 16 years and people are hailing it as a success.Good change never came about easy. I just fear those who put rights ahead of safety.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

6th-grader brings gun to school to protect against ‘Connecticut-style’ attack

And the NRA gets exactly what it wanted.

Now we will have less deaths and "loss of freedom", because the students are armed.

 

[Slingblade]

Sounds an awful lot like a dictatorship Tim.

Yup. The dictatorship of banning high capacity gun magazines. And demanding that all gun sales and transferred be recorded, including private ones. That's a pretty weak dictatorship, don't you think?

How have those drug laws worked out? Great, right?

Explain to me why there are many, many many more gun deaths per capita in the US than any other country in the world? Yemen is a distant 2nd and they don't even have a government.Could it be perhaps the "gun culture" and the abundant prevalence of guns??I'll let you speak.

The numbers are not that bad if you exclude suicides by guns.But yes, we have a lot of guns so that's how murders are done. It's ingrained in the culture more than it has in any culture that has existed, you can't force it out with laws.

I disagree. Change can occur, if people are willing.A similar tragedy occured in Scotland in 1996 (16 children shot) and at the time gun crime was rising to rival that of the U.S.. In the aftermath, massive gun laws came into effect. Fast forward 16 years and people are hailing it as a success.Good change never came about easy. I just fear those who put rights ahead of safety.

I would agree with Mr. Franklin about rights and safety.

 

[17seconds]

The numbers are not that bad if you exclude suicides by guns.

 

[Glass Joe]

Seriously Tim? You didn't really think they'd give up ground did you?

 

[Slingblade]

The numbers are not that bad if you exclude suicides by guns.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rateThey are the majority of gun deaths.

 

[Glass Joe]

The numbers are not that bad if you exclude suicides by guns.

http://en.wikipedia....ated_death_rateThey are the majority of gun deaths.

Even taking out suicides, our rate per 100K is crazy.

 

[timschochet]

Seriously Tim? You didn't really think they'd give up ground did you?

I'm hoping Slingblade is not representative. Latest polls suggest 74% of NRA membership support closing the loophole and limiting high capacity mags. Several pro-gun posters here, including icon and Jonessed are willing to give this a try, even though they tend to disagree with me about how effective it would be. We don't need the Slingblades.

 

[17seconds]

The numbers are not that bad if you exclude suicides by guns.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rateThey are the majority of gun deaths.

Why would you exclude suicides by guns when discussing gun violence statistics? It's the same issue.It's the hastiest method of killing - whether it is a murder or a suicide.

 

[tri-man 47]

I've shied away from this debate (with my own bias for "more gun control"), but I did see some interesting information when peeking in earlier today, and then I read a very informative Opinion piece in today's WSJ by researcher and author David Kopel. Sorry if this rehashes stuff from the prior pages.

Kopel notes the U.S. homicide rate, including the gun homicide rate, has fallen over the past 30 years. While mass shootings have not changed significantly, "random" mass shootings have definitely increased. Kopel tries to answer: Why? He states it is not because gun control laws are more lax. He highlights the "uselessness of bans on so-called assault weapons, since those bans concentrate on guns' cosmetics ...rather than their functions." Kopel explains that semi-automatic weapons are so named because they eject the empty shell and load the next round, not because they fire more than one bullet (alluded to or explained earlier today here). He stresses that "firearms are the most heavily regulated consumer product in the United States."

So what explains the increase in random mass shootings? Kopel notes (1) the media exposure and the copy cat effect; (2) deinstitutionalization of the violently mentally ill; and (3) the attacks taking places in "gun-free zones." He describes many shooters as "predominantly weaklings and cowards who crumble easily as soon as an armed person shows up," and cites examples (I believe I saw Pearl, MS raised in this thread; Kopel also notes how the Oregon mall shooter stopped killing and took his own life when a licensed citizen drew a gun and aimed it at him).

Again, I found this very informative. We've seen a lot of bashing of the media coverage, and that's with good reason. I agree with Kopel that we need to do more for mental illness - the number of state hospital beds per capita is at 1850 levels. Many have argued for conceal-and-carry laws, and while that creates a new set of risks, it has helped to prevent some situations from occurring.

 

[shader]

Let's be clear: 30 rounds in a single clip is high capacity. It needs to be banned. Now.

It's a magazine, not a clip. And no it is not high cap.Luckily I have a #### ton of mags for my AR in case they do get banned.The republican house needs to grow a backbone and say no to these upcoming bans.

I'm so happy for you. I hope you can nerd it up in shooting ranges for years to come.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Seriously Tim? You didn't really think they'd give up ground did you?

I'm hoping Slingblade is not representative. Latest polls suggest 74% of NRA membership support closing the loophole and limiting high capacity mags. Several pro-gun posters here, including icon and Jonessed are willing to give this a try, even though they tend to disagree with me about how effective it would be. We don't need the Slingblades.

Count me in the ineffective camp. Aside from carrying multiple legal mags, we're talking about someone looking to do harm of a making a rectangular piece of metal a few inches longer, this isn't rocket science. It will do absolutely nothing but piss off pro-gun people. I don't own a gun and can see how ludicrous it is.

 

[timschochet]

If you exclude all those long runs, Adrian Peterson's ypc is actually pretty pedestrian.

 

[Slingblade]

Seriously Tim? You didn't really think they'd give up ground did you?

I'm hoping Slingblade is not representative. Latest polls suggest 74% of NRA membership support closing the loophole and limiting high capacity mags. Several pro-gun posters here, including icon and Jonessed are willing to give this a try, even though they tend to disagree with me about how effective it would be. We don't need the Slingblades.

I have no problem eliminating the gun show loophole.Banning mags over 10 rounds I have a big problem with. It won't even put a dent in gun deaths. I guarantee it.