***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (4 Viewers)

[timschochet]

No opinion on body armor. Are there instances where it protected a bad guy from police trying to apprehend him? Are there instances where it protected a good private citizen who might have died if he wasn't wearing any? I guess this is what we need to know before we can decide about this.

 

[Otis]

This thread:

Otis: "I really, really love playing Parcheesi. Such a fun game."

Community: "Otis, dozens of six-year-olds were murdered by people using Parcheesi pieces. It was a horrible tragedy. And it wasn't the only one -- these tragedies are happening with some regularity, and between these massive tragedies, and the smaller scale daily Parcheesi piece killings, we're thinking it would be a good idea to ban Parcheesi."

Otis: "What? You're crazy. I have a right to play Parcheesi. That sounds like weenie liberal stuff and this is America. Besides I really dig Parcheesi and whenever we go visit my parents my dad takes the kids out to the patio after dinner and they play Parcheesi and just have the best time. It's a tradition of sorts."

Community: "We hear you Otis, but, well, the thing is that this has caused too many tragedies, and so the trade-off makes a lot of sense. I mean, yeah, you're putting your own children at risk by having Parcheesi in your house. But you're putting the rest of our children at risk too, because your kids or someone else could take Parcheesi out and hurt others with it. That doesn't seem right, does it? I mean, isn't this an easy one if you're giving it up to spare lives?"

Otis: "Look, Parcheesi pieces don't kill people. Crazy people do it. They're obviously not well. Shouldn't we treat mental illness instead?"

Community: "Sure, we can treat mental illness Otis. And you're right the Parcheesi pieces are not upping and killing people on their own. It requires both parts of the equation. And so one way we can try to control the number of tragedies is to treat mental health. But the other is to just remove Parcheesi from the equation."

Otis: "Ok so for the sake of argument what would you do, come into everyone's homes to check to see if they kept their Parcheesi games? Round them all up??"

Community: "Well, I guess we haven't figured out exactly how we would implement this, but we would hope that law abiding citizens would turn their games in once it becomes illegal."

Otis: "It'll never work. People will still get Parcheesi on the black market."

Community: "Maybe. But we figure if we can limit the number of Parcheesi pieces out there, and therefore limit access to them, we'd probably add a significant barrier and reduce the number of Parcheesi-related deaths. We know we won't eliminate it. But we would limit it. And that's a good thing and worth the trade off. We understand you'll be giving up a hobby you enjoy, but it's in the interest of innocent human life and the reduction of violence, and so we think it's worthwhile."

Otis: "It'll never work. You can't show me a single statistic that says this will work."

Community: "Well, actually we've got these reams of studies <show reams of studies> that prove that banning Parcheesi likely means less deaths from Parcheesi pieces. Also, they banned it in Great Britain, and Parcheesi deaths are really, really infrequent."

Otis: "Well, this is really stupid. If the zombies come I will probably need my Parcheesi. Or packs of wild, rabid dogs. THEN WHAT? I have a god-given right. Besides did I mention I'm a responsible Parcheesi owner, and my kids like to play with their grandparents??"

Community: :facepalm:

 

[Otis]

Why does body armor need to be legal?

It's a defensive items and would be hard to kill someone with it imo

 

[Schlzm]

No opinion on body armor. Are there instances where it protected a bad guy from police trying to apprehend him? Are there instances where it protected a good private citizen who might have died if he wasn't wearing any? I guess this is what we need to know before we can decide about this.

Outside of official persons who need body armour for their job <police, mil> the only ones who seem to purchase it are criminals, paranoid whackadoodles, and high profile high value VIPs. Any body armour that is worth anything costs a lot of money and is pretty much a one and done product. Schlzm

 

[Schlzm]

Otis lives in a really fascinating bubble outside the realm of the rest of the planet. I would love to visit it some time.

Schlzm

 

[The Future Champs]

Otis lives in a really fascinating bubble outside the realm of the rest of the planet. I would love to visit it some time. Schlzm

Otis has been owning you all thread.

 

[moleculo]

This thread:

Otis: "I really, really love playing Parcheesi. Such a fun game."

Community: "Otis, dozens of six-year-olds were murdered by people using Parcheesi pieces. It was a horrible tragedy. And it wasn't the only one -- these tragedies are happening with some regularity, and between these massive tragedies, and the smaller scale daily Parcheesi piece killings, we're thinking it would be a good idea to ban Parcheesi."

Otis: "What? You're crazy. I have a right to play Parcheesi. That sounds like weenie liberal stuff and this is America. Besides I really dig Parcheesi and whenever we go visit my parents my dad takes the kids out to the patio after dinner and they play Parcheesi and just have the best time. It's a tradition of sorts."

Community: "We hear you Otis, but, well, the thing is that this has caused too many tragedies, and so the trade-off makes a lot of sense. I mean, yeah, you're putting your own children at risk by having Parcheesi in your house. But you're putting the rest of our children at risk too, because your kids or someone else could take Parcheesi out and hurt others with it. That doesn't seem right, does it? I mean, isn't this an easy one if you're giving it up to spare lives?"

Otis: "Look, Parcheesi pieces don't kill people. Crazy people do it. They're obviously not well. Shouldn't we treat mental illness instead?"

Community: "Sure, we can treat mental illness Otis. And you're right the Parcheesi pieces are not upping and killing people on their own. It requires both parts of the equation. And so one way we can try to control the number of tragedies is to treat mental health. But the other is to just remove Parcheesi from the equation."

Otis: "Ok so for the sake of argument what would you do, come into everyone's homes to check to see if they kept their Parcheesi games? Round them all up??"

Community: "Well, I guess we haven't figured out exactly how we would implement this, but we would hope that law abiding citizens would turn their games in once it becomes illegal."

Otis: "It'll never work. People will still get Parcheesi on the black market."

Community: "Maybe. But we figure if we can limit the number of Parcheesi pieces out there, and therefore limit access to them, we'd probably add a significant barrier and reduce the number of Parcheesi-related deaths. We know we won't eliminate it. But we would limit it. And that's a good thing and worth the trade off. We understand you'll be giving up a hobby you enjoy, but it's in the interest of innocent human life and the reduction of violence, and so we think it's worthwhile."

Otis: "It'll never work. You can't show me a single statistic that says this will work."

Community: "Well, actually we've got these reams of studies <show reams of studies> that prove that banning Parcheesi likely means less deaths from Parcheesi pieces. Also, they banned it in Great Britain, and Parcheesi deaths are really, really infrequent."

Otis: "Well, this is really stupid. If the zombies come I will probably need my Parcheesi. Or packs of wild, rabid dogs. THEN WHAT? I have a god-given right. Besides did I mention I'm a responsible Parcheesi owner, and my kids like to play with their grandparents??"

Community: :facepalm:

Note to Otis: condescending schtick does not help your cause.

 

[Apple Jack]

Otis lives in a really fascinating bubble outside the realm of the rest of the planet. I would love to visit it some time. Schlzm

Otis lives in civilization. Most of you pro-gun people, not so much.

 

[moleculo]

Otis lives in a really fascinating bubble outside the realm of the rest of the planet. I would love to visit it some time. Schlzm

Otis lives in civilization. Most of you pro-gun people, not so much.

otis lives in a world of unicorns and rainbows where you outlaw something and it magically disappears, deer populations control themselves naturally, crime is non-existent, there are no alternative ways for anyone to commit mass murder. Sounds awesome, this civilization you speak of.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Otis lives in a really fascinating bubble outside the realm of the rest of the planet. I would love to visit it some time. Schlzm

Otis lives in civilization. Most of you pro-gun people, not so much.

otis lives in a world of unicorns and rainbows where you outlaw something and it magically disappears, deer populations control themselves naturally, crime is non-existent, there are no alternative ways for anyone to commit mass murder. Sounds awesome, this civilization you speak of.

The truth of the matter is, Otis lives on Long Island. The same geographical area (I know it is big but bear with me) that a lot of houses lost power during Hurricane Sandy. The same area where there were numerous robberies aided by Parcheesi pieces where they did not just invade empty homes they weren't afraid of going in and robbing houses that had people in them. While there may also be rainbow colored unicorns I have no idea why he would be against defending himself and his family with their own Parcheesi pieces knowing this was going on not far from where he lives.

 

[Schlzm]

Otis lives in a really fascinating bubble outside the realm of the rest of the planet. I would love to visit it some time. Schlzm

Otis has been owning you all thread.

Sure, we can call it that if you want. Schlzm

 

[General Malaise]

You want more guns at school? This is what it would be like.

Think Progress reports that conservative advocates of looser gun restrictions have been arguing for more guns in schools to prevent tragedies like Sandy Hook. Their proposals include allowing teachers to bring guns to class.

How does a 11 yr. old boy with irresponsible parents bringing a gun to school have to do with allowing teachers with the proper permit to carry?

Well then where do we stop? Do we also arm the ticket takers and ushers at movie theaters? Give a permit to the workers at Orange Julius? Give Sally the sweet stewardess of Southwest Flight 69 a pistol under her peanut tray?

You really are uninformed about this. If an individual meets the requirements of the state (some needing to be more strict IMO) to conceal carry responsibly, that individual should be able to carry at anytime. It's an individuals choice if they take the necessary steps to do so responsibly. No one should ever know who has a permit and who doesn't.

Well OF COURSE I am uninformed about this. I don't think I'm the only citizen of this country who is absolutely terrified of guns, nor am I alone in my ignorance regarding who can carry them, how they are carried, where they are allowed, etc. I want to distance myself as far as I possibly can from all firearms and I don't care to know the different state laws regarding them. So when you patronize me for not understanding your jargon associated with permits, are you doing your side of this debate any favors? When I read your statements above, do you know what I take away from it? That your answer to the gun problem is more guns. And I'm sorry, but I just can't get behind that, no matter how uninformed I am on the subject. Thus, when you advocate providing teachers with guns in the classroom, I am naturally curious where that stops because as we've seen over the last year, school rooms are not the only targets of massacres involving guns. Movie theaters, malls and lord knows what else might be looming in our future have also been targets. As uninformed as I am, I'm curious as to where the arming of our citizens stops. Personally speaking, I don't want our teachers armed and I don't want our movie ushers armed and I don't want our mall workers armed. I think that just opens up more problems. Again, I don't think the answer to our gun problem in America is more guns. Speaking frankly as a man who is well uninformed about firearms in America.

 

[Otis]

Personally speaking, I don't want our teachers armed and I don't want our movie ushers armed and I don't want our mall workers armed.

Wuss.

 

[General Malaise]

Otis lives in a really fascinating bubble outside the realm of the rest of the planet. I would love to visit it some time. Schlzm

Otis lives in civilization. Most of you pro-gun people, not so much.

otis lives in a world of unicorns and rainbows where you outlaw something and it magically disappears, deer populations control themselves naturally, crime is non-existent, there are no alternative ways for anyone to commit mass murder. Sounds awesome, this civilization you speak of.

Can't we control teh baby deers without assault rifles?

 

[moleculo]

Otis lives in a really fascinating bubble outside the realm of the rest of the planet. I would love to visit it some time. Schlzm

Otis lives in civilization. Most of you pro-gun people, not so much.

otis lives in a world of unicorns and rainbows where you outlaw something and it magically disappears, deer populations control themselves naturally, crime is non-existent, there are no alternative ways for anyone to commit mass murder. Sounds awesome, this civilization you speak of.

Can't we control teh baby deers without assault rifles?

probably, but can you please define "assault rifle" first?

 

[ATC1]

You want more guns at school? This is what it would be like.

Think Progress reports that conservative advocates of looser gun restrictions have been arguing for more guns in schools to prevent tragedies like Sandy Hook. Their proposals include allowing teachers to bring guns to class.

How does a 11 yr. old boy with irresponsible parents bringing a gun to school have to do with allowing teachers with the proper permit to carry?

Well then where do we stop? Do we also arm the ticket takers and ushers at movie theaters? Give a permit to the workers at Orange Julius? Give Sally the sweet stewardess of Southwest Flight 69 a pistol under her peanut tray?

You really are uninformed about this. If an individual meets the requirements of the state (some needing to be more strict IMO) to conceal carry responsibly, that individual should be able to carry at anytime. It's an individuals choice if they take the necessary steps to do so responsibly. No one should ever know who has a permit and who doesn't.

Well OF COURSE I am uninformed about this. I don't think I'm the only citizen of this country who is absolutely terrified of guns, nor am I alone in my ignorance regarding who can carry them, how they are carried, where they are allowed, etc. I want to distance myself as far as I possibly can from all firearms and I don't care to know the different state laws regarding them. So when you patronize me for not understanding your jargon associated with permits, are you doing your side of this debate any favors? When I read your statements above, do you know what I take away from it? That your answer to the gun problem is more guns. And I'm sorry, but I just can't get behind that, no matter how uninformed I am on the subject. Thus, when you advocate providing teachers with guns in the classroom, I am naturally curious where that stops because as we've seen over the last year, school rooms are not the only targets of massacres involving guns. Movie theaters, malls and lord knows what else might be looming in our future have also been targets. As uninformed as I am, I'm curious as to where the arming of our citizens stops. Personally speaking, I don't want our teachers armed and I don't want our movie ushers armed and I don't want our mall workers armed. I think that just opens up more problems. Again, I don't think the answer to our gun problem in America is more guns. Speaking frankly as a man who is well uninformed about firearms in America.

A few posts later I admit it was a bit harsh. However, if you are not willing to understand what you are fighting against, how can you form a firm opinion or bash gun owners in this thread for trying to explain it? I have said several times that I favor tighter gun control, but at the same time feel less restriction is needed for those responsible.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Why does body armor need to be legal?

Is that what the response should be to anything that has ever been used in a crime?Make that thing illegal.It is an odd item for sure but I hate the idea of just making stuff illegal because people do illegal things with them.

I didn't say it should be illegal. I was wondering why it needed to be legal. You have not been helpful in answering that question.

What's your opinion on amateur ninjas?

 

[General Malaise]

Personally speaking, I don't want our teachers armed and I don't want our movie ushers armed and I don't want our mall workers armed.

Wuss.

Wuss? I'm not the one who needs a gun for protection. :flex:

 

[Sweet Feet]

Otis lives in a really fascinating bubble outside the realm of the rest of the planet. I would love to visit it some time. Schlzm

Otis lives in civilization. Most of you pro-gun people, not so much.

Doesnt Otis live in Oregon?

 

[General Malaise]

Otis lives in a really fascinating bubble outside the realm of the rest of the planet. I would love to visit it some time. Schlzm

Otis lives in civilization. Most of you pro-gun people, not so much.

otis lives in a world of unicorns and rainbows where you outlaw something and it magically disappears, deer populations control themselves naturally, crime is non-existent, there are no alternative ways for anyone to commit mass murder. Sounds awesome, this civilization you speak of.

Can't we control teh baby deers without assault rifles?

probably, but can you please define "assault rifle" first?

Isn't that like a definition of porn? I know it when I see it? Let's go back to musket shot and bolt action something or other. Or bows and arrows. Or go Rambo style and just catch 'em barehanded with a butter knife.

 

[moleculo]

I think the answer is not to "arm the teachers/movie theater folks, etc", but to not dis-arm them. If a teacher is properly trained, why not allow them to carry at their discretion?

I have a friend who is a pilot. Pilots are allowed to carry while they fly, were you aware of that? When you are cruising at 30k feet, the man at the controls of your vehicle may be legally carrying his personal fire-arm, loaded. Of course, to carry as a pilot, they have to have some rather intensive training, beyond a typical CCW permit. The training is all done at a single facility in New Mexico, that pilots have to attend on their own dime, so my buddy doesn't.

i'd imagine if a teacher were so inclined, this is something I would be ok with. Say they had passed whatever psych test and several tactical courses/yearly gun safety, etc, all on their own dime. Would you be cool with that?

 

[Joe T]

Otis lives in a really fascinating bubble outside the realm of the rest of the planet. I would love to visit it some time. Schlzm

Otis lives in civilization. Most of you pro-gun people, not so much.

otis lives in a world of unicorns and rainbows where you outlaw something and it magically disappears, deer populations control themselves naturally, crime is non-existent, there are no alternative ways for anyone to commit mass murder. Sounds awesome, this civilization you speak of.

Can't we control teh baby deers without assault rifles?

How else would you suggest we shoot them out of our helicopters?

 

[Henry Ford]

Not surprising. 2 at a church, 2 at a school. Both of which are gun free zones. Point to where the shootings that occurred outside gun free zones, where a CCP has intervened and was considered a mass shooting.

Well, they're your examples, not mine. But here are a couple that fit your criteria:Shopping mall shooting in Tacoma, Washington

As a rampage unfolded in 2005, a civilian with a concealed-carry permit named Brendan McKown confronted the assailant with his handgun. The shooter pumped several bullets into McKown, wounding six people before eventually surrendering to police after a hostage standoff. A comatose McKown eventually recovered after weeks in the hospital.

Courthouse shooting in Tyler, Texas

In 2005, a civilian named Mark Wilson, who was a firearms instructor, fired his licensed handgun at a man on a rampage [outside] the county courthouse. Wilson was shot dead by the body-armored assailant, who wielded an AK-47.

Unfortunate on the first one. More details:

During the course of the shooting, Brendan (Dan) McKown, a legally armed citizen, intervened. McKown drew his 9mm CZ pistol and verbally commanded Maldonado to put down his gun. Maldonado's response was to fire on McKown, striking him once in the leg and four times in the torso, damaging McKown's spine and leaving him paralyzed. In addition to McKown, five other people were shot but not seriously injured, and a seventh person received a non-gunshot injury. At least one other person in the mall at the time also pulled a gun on Maldonado but did not fire for fear of hitting innocent bystanders.[1]

Maldonado then took four people hostage in a Sam Goody store, including two employees, a customer, and a 12-year-old boy whom he only briefly held captive before releasing. The attack began shortly after noon, and the hostage situation lasted until four p.m. when Maldonado surrendered to a Tacoma police SWAT team without further incident.[2]

Hostages taken during the incident chronicle their story on Biography Channel's I Survived....

Very vague on details if the shooter was opening fire at the time McKown gave the verbal command. If someone has open fired, it is not the time to yell out commands. It may have resulted differently. However, no one died. Did his interaction draw fire to him instead of innocents, maybe. In the 2nd one.

As Wilson approached Arroyo from behind, Arroyo was taking aim at his son who he had already shot in the leg and wounded. Acting to defend the life of Arroyo's son, Wilson fired a round from approximately 50 feet which struck Arroyo in the back causing him to stumble and taking his attention away from his son. A witness who saw Wilson's round strike Arroyo reported seeing "white puffs of powder-like substance" come from Arroyo's clothing. This is believed to be the first time Arroyo was hit or injured during his attack on the courthouse.

Wilson was forced to take cover behind Arroyo's truck in a prone position and exchanged fire with Arroyo. As Arroyo began to approach Wilson's position, he stood up from behind cover and fired again, hitting Arroyo. Unknown to Wilson, Arroyo was wearing a bulletproof vest, rendering Wilson's shots ineffective. Arroyo eventually fired a shot that struck Wilson, who faltered and fell from the view of witnesses, face down behind Arroyo's truck. Arroyo then walked up to Wilson and fired three more shots at him, killing him.

Unlike the movies, sometimes the bad guy wins. However, the attention was drawn away from the boy and he is alive today because of Mark Wilson. Also, why anyone needs millitary body armor is a whole other discussion and one that should be addressed.

Okay. Or his interaction caused the guy to fire indiscriminately and shoot a bunch of bystanders. Which is what the accounts I've read say.As for #2 - when a guy has a sword and a shield and stabs someone to death, is your instinct really to talk about how nobody needs the shield?

 

[timschochet]

I think that, for the moment, we've exhausted the subject of limited high capacity magazines. There may be more to say on this subject, but at present I don't know what it would be.

So let's talk about the other gun control issue which I am strongly in favor of: closing the private sales "gun show" loophole. Specifically, what I would like to see is a national data base of all firearms purchased or transfered in this country, including both public and private sales and transfers. This would be paid for by a small fee imposed on all sales and transfers for the purpose. Law enforcement could then read the serial number on any firearm, check the database, and immediately know who the current owner is.

Now the NRA has long been opposed to this. They have given two reasons: first, that it won't work (this seems to be the standard argument against all gun control measures) and second, that it represents a creeping government authority and that such a database COULD be used to eventually seize everyone's guns and impose a dictatorship. However, polls suggest 74% of the membership of the NRA support this idea. And many of the pro-gun posters here are willing to try it.

Thoughts?

 

[ATC1]

I have said several times that I favor tighter gun control, but at the same time feel less restriction is needed for those responsible.

What additional freedoms do you think responsible people need? How are we currently too restrictive on them?

Mostly what I have been beating to death: Doing away with gun free zones. Just a thought: Free handgun self defense classes for those who choose to arm themselves. Where will the money come from? The taxes the government is about to put on guns or the increase of transfer fees that the dealers will be getting as a result of private sales needing to go through a FFL dealer.

 

[moleculo]

Otis lives in a really fascinating bubble outside the realm of the rest of the planet. I would love to visit it some time. Schlzm

Otis lives in civilization. Most of you pro-gun people, not so much.

otis lives in a world of unicorns and rainbows where you outlaw something and it magically disappears, deer populations control themselves naturally, crime is non-existent, there are no alternative ways for anyone to commit mass murder. Sounds awesome, this civilization you speak of.

Can't we control teh baby deers without assault rifles?

probably, but can you please define "assault rifle" first?

Isn't that like a definition of porn? I know it when I see it? Let's go back to musket shot and bolt action something or other. Or bows and arrows. Or go Rambo style and just catch 'em barehanded with a butter knife.

that's the thing though - you can't really say what is an "assault rifle" by looking at it, and i'm not really sure what makes a rifle an "assault rifle" inherently dangerous. Rate of fire? cartridge capacity? length of barrel? pistol grip? painted black? I honestly don't know either.

 

[Apple Jack]

No guns that load the next round for you. Single-action rifles only. That settles that; let's eat.

 

[Joe T]

I think that, for the moment, we've exhausted the subject of limited high capacity magazines. There may be more to say on this subject, but at present I don't know what it would be.So let's talk about the other gun control issue which I am strongly in favor of: closing the private sales "gun show" loophole. Specifically, what I would like to see is a national data base of all firearms purchased or transfered in this country, including both public and private sales and transfers. This would be paid for by a small fee imposed on all sales and transfers for the purpose. Law enforcement could then read the serial number on any firearm, check the database, and immediately know who the current owner is. Now the NRA has long been opposed to this. They have given two reasons: first, that it won't work (this seems to be the standard argument against all gun control measures) and second, that it represents a creeping government authority and that such a database COULD be used to eventually seize everyone's guns and impose a dictatorship. However, polls suggest 74% of the membership of the NRA support this idea. And many of the pro-gun posters here are willing to try it.Thoughts?

What would you be accomplishing other than creating another huge government bureaucracy to manage the database that will maintain the list of 300 million guns?I tend to think of things in a cost/benefit analysis and your idea here seems to cost a lot with no real benefit that I can see.Please explain the benefits.

 

[tommyboy]

in this thread, people that know virtually nothing about guns other than they are terrified of them, discuss the merits of guns and gun control.

 

[General Malaise]

You want more guns at school? This is what it would be like.

Think Progress reports that conservative advocates of looser gun restrictions have been arguing for more guns in schools to prevent tragedies like Sandy Hook. Their proposals include allowing teachers to bring guns to class.

How does a 11 yr. old boy with irresponsible parents bringing a gun to school have to do with allowing teachers with the proper permit to carry?

Well then where do we stop? Do we also arm the ticket takers and ushers at movie theaters? Give a permit to the workers at Orange Julius? Give Sally the sweet stewardess of Southwest Flight 69 a pistol under her peanut tray?

You really are uninformed about this. If an individual meets the requirements of the state (some needing to be more strict IMO) to conceal carry responsibly, that individual should be able to carry at anytime. It's an individuals choice if they take the necessary steps to do so responsibly. No one should ever know who has a permit and who doesn't.

Well OF COURSE I am uninformed about this. I don't think I'm the only citizen of this country who is absolutely terrified of guns, nor am I alone in my ignorance regarding who can carry them, how they are carried, where they are allowed, etc. I want to distance myself as far as I possibly can from all firearms and I don't care to know the different state laws regarding them. So when you patronize me for not understanding your jargon associated with permits, are you doing your side of this debate any favors? When I read your statements above, do you know what I take away from it? That your answer to the gun problem is more guns. And I'm sorry, but I just can't get behind that, no matter how uninformed I am on the subject. Thus, when you advocate providing teachers with guns in the classroom, I am naturally curious where that stops because as we've seen over the last year, school rooms are not the only targets of massacres involving guns. Movie theaters, malls and lord knows what else might be looming in our future have also been targets. As uninformed as I am, I'm curious as to where the arming of our citizens stops. Personally speaking, I don't want our teachers armed and I don't want our movie ushers armed and I don't want our mall workers armed. I think that just opens up more problems. Again, I don't think the answer to our gun problem in America is more guns. Speaking frankly as a man who is well uninformed about firearms in America.

A few posts later I admit it was a bit harsh. However, if you are not willing to understand what you are fighting against, how can you form a firm opinion or bash gun owners in this thread for trying to explain it? I have said several times that I favor tighter gun control, but at the same time feel less restriction is needed for those responsible.

I just don't think a full understanding of all the different laws in place (both federal and state) is required to be against the sale of certain (if not all) firearms in this country. To me, it sounds like the pro-gun side wants to use the various laws and the vast array of different firearm categories as a shield to their argument that nothing significant should be done in the wake of the tragic events in this country. I mean...look a few posts up. I'm being challenged to describe what an assault rifle is. Well hell, I can't do that and the guy asking me KNOWS I can't do that because I couldn't explain the difference between a 9 millimeter, a glock, a .38 or a shot gun. What I do know is that it has become far too easy for mentally unstable people to get a hold of weapons that kill a lot of people in a short amount of time and whatever type of weaponry that is and whatever laws are currently in place, I'm against because this crap should not happen in America (or anywhere). Does is it really matter if I know more about the different gun designs or different state laws to be outspoken about my feelings? Would it change if I read up on some material and then made some posts? I'll do it if you have some links for me to read. I have been known to change my mind.

 

[General Malaise]

in this thread, people that know virtually nothing about guns other than they are terrified of them, discuss the merits of guns and gun control.

And here we have a guy who is absolutely unabashed about his love of the 2nd amendment condemning those who are exercising their 1st. Bravo, Tommy.

 

[timschochet]

I think that, for the moment, we've exhausted the subject of limited high capacity magazines. There may be more to say on this subject, but at present I don't know what it would be.

So let's talk about the other gun control issue which I am strongly in favor of: closing the private sales "gun show" loophole. Specifically, what I would like to see is a national data base of all firearms purchased or transfered in this country, including both public and private sales and transfers. This would be paid for by a small fee imposed on all sales and transfers for the purpose. Law enforcement could then read the serial number on any firearm, check the database, and immediately know who the current owner is.

Now the NRA has long been opposed to this. They have given two reasons: first, that it won't work (this seems to be the standard argument against all gun control measures) and second, that it represents a creeping government authority and that such a database COULD be used to eventually seize everyone's guns and impose a dictatorship. However, polls suggest 74% of the membership of the NRA support this idea. And many of the pro-gun posters here are willing to try it.

Thoughts?

What would you be accomplishing other than creating another huge government bureaucracy to manage the database that will maintain the list of 300 million guns?I tend to think of things in a cost/benefit analysis and your idea hear seems to cost a lot with no real benefit that I can see.

Please explain the benefits.

I bolded what I believe the benefit would be. Law enforcement almost unanimously asserts that this information would help them fight illegal gun trafficking, and thus reduce gun violence. Furthermore, we all agree that we don't want convicted felons or mentally ill people to obtain guns. Having to submit all sales or transfers to an authority should dampen their ability to do so. Obviously it won't eliminate it. But I believe it will have an impact. While I don't generally believe in bureacracy, this is an important one to have. Firearms are lethal weapons and can cause a lot of damage. It's a responsibility for a private citizen to own one. I see no reason why our government shouldn't have a record of who owns what.

 

[Schlzm]

Otis lives in a really fascinating bubble outside the realm of the rest of the planet. I would love to visit it some time. Schlzm

Otis lives in civilization. Most of you pro-gun people, not so much.

otis lives in a world of unicorns and rainbows where you outlaw something and it magically disappears, deer populations control themselves naturally, crime is non-existent, there are no alternative ways for anyone to commit mass murder. Sounds awesome, this civilization you speak of.

Can't we control teh baby deers without assault rifles?

probably, but can you please define "assault rifle" first?

Isn't that like a definition of porn? I know it when I see it? Let's go back to musket shot and bolt action something or other. Or bows and arrows. Or go Rambo style and just catch 'em barehanded with a butter knife.

You can have my catapult when you pry it from my cold, dead siege battalion. Schlzm

 

[badmojo1006]

I have said several times that I favor tighter gun control, but at the same time feel less restriction is needed for those responsible.

What additional freedoms do you think responsible people need? How are we currently too restrictive on them?

Mostly what I have been beating to death: Doing away with gun free zones. Just a thought: Free handgun self defense classes for those who choose to arm themselves. Where will the money come from? The taxes the government is about to put on guns or the increase of transfer fees that the dealers will be getting as a result of private sales needing to go through a FFL dealer.

A lot of people want to keep the gun free zones, even expand them. I do not want people bringing guns into my kids schools, or my church, or to my local hospital. What about my right to keep guns out of these places?

 

[Buddy Ball 2K3]

in this thread, people that know virtually nothing about guns other than they are terrified of them, discuss the merits of guns and gun control.

And here we have a guy who is absolutely unabashed about his love of the 2nd amendment condemning those who are exercising their 1st. Bravo, Tommy.

condemning or pointing out?

 

[ATC1]

You want more guns at school? This is what it would be like.

Think Progress reports that conservative advocates of looser gun restrictions have been arguing for more guns in schools to prevent tragedies like Sandy Hook. Their proposals include allowing teachers to bring guns to class.

How does a 11 yr. old boy with irresponsible parents bringing a gun to school have to do with allowing teachers with the proper permit to carry?

Well then where do we stop? Do we also arm the ticket takers and ushers at movie theaters? Give a permit to the workers at Orange Julius? Give Sally the sweet stewardess of Southwest Flight 69 a pistol under her peanut tray?

You really are uninformed about this. If an individual meets the requirements of the state (some needing to be more strict IMO) to conceal carry responsibly, that individual should be able to carry at anytime. It's an individuals choice if they take the necessary steps to do so responsibly. No one should ever know who has a permit and who doesn't.

Well OF COURSE I am uninformed about this. I don't think I'm the only citizen of this country who is absolutely terrified of guns, nor am I alone in my ignorance regarding who can carry them, how they are carried, where they are allowed, etc. I want to distance myself as far as I possibly can from all firearms and I don't care to know the different state laws regarding them. So when you patronize me for not understanding your jargon associated with permits, are you doing your side of this debate any favors? When I read your statements above, do you know what I take away from it? That your answer to the gun problem is more guns. And I'm sorry, but I just can't get behind that, no matter how uninformed I am on the subject. Thus, when you advocate providing teachers with guns in the classroom, I am naturally curious where that stops because as we've seen over the last year, school rooms are not the only targets of massacres involving guns. Movie theaters, malls and lord knows what else might be looming in our future have also been targets. As uninformed as I am, I'm curious as to where the arming of our citizens stops. Personally speaking, I don't want our teachers armed and I don't want our movie ushers armed and I don't want our mall workers armed. I think that just opens up more problems. Again, I don't think the answer to our gun problem in America is more guns. Speaking frankly as a man who is well uninformed about firearms in America.

A few posts later I admit it was a bit harsh. However, if you are not willing to understand what you are fighting against, how can you form a firm opinion or bash gun owners in this thread for trying to explain it? I have said several times that I favor tighter gun control, but at the same time feel less restriction is needed for those responsible.

I just don't think a full understanding of all the different laws in place (both federal and state) is required to be against the sale of certain (if not all) firearms in this country. To me, it sounds like the pro-gun side wants to use the various laws and the vast array of different firearm categories as a shield to their argument that nothing significant should be done in the wake of the tragic events in this country. I mean...look a few posts up. I'm being challenged to describe what an assault rifle is. Well hell, I can't do that and the guy asking me KNOWS I can't do that because I couldn't explain the difference between a 9 millimeter, a glock, a .38 or a shot gun. What I do know is that it has become far too easy for mentally unstable people to get a hold of weapons that kill a lot of people in a short amount of time and whatever type of weaponry that is and whatever laws are currently in place, I'm against because this crap should not happen in America (or anywhere). Does is it really matter if I know more about the different gun designs or different state laws to be outspoken about my feelings? Would it change if I read up on some material and then made some posts? I'll do it if you have some links for me to read. I have been known to change my mind.

The problem GM, is that our law makers who will try, or have banned assault rifles before have no idea either. It's not that something doesn't need to change, it's that you need to know what you are changing for there to be a difference.

 

[General Malaise]

I think the answer is not to "arm the teachers/movie theater folks, etc", but to not dis-arm them. If a teacher is properly trained, why not allow them to carry at their discretion?I have a friend who is a pilot. Pilots are allowed to carry while they fly, were you aware of that? When you are cruising at 30k feet, the man at the controls of your vehicle may be legally carrying his personal fire-arm, loaded. Of course, to carry as a pilot, they have to have some rather intensive training, beyond a typical CCW permit. The training is all done at a single facility in New Mexico, that pilots have to attend on their own dime, so my buddy doesn't.i'd imagine if a teacher were so inclined, this is something I would be ok with. Say they had passed whatever psych test and several tactical courses/yearly gun safety, etc, all on their own dime. Would you be cool with that?

My uncle is a pilot and I think I recall him talking about this in the wake of 9/11. I also know there are (were) Federal Marshals aboard flights who were armed. And I really don't have an objection to that.BUT...it is a hell of a lot harder to become a Federal Marshal or a commercial airline pilot (many of whom have military backgrounds - my uncle was Air Force) than it is to become a teacher or a mall worker. In addition, those cockpits are locked with big sturdy doors and I don't think too many Federal Marshals announce their presence on board an airline. So I feel a little bit safer with those circumstances than I do with a teacher in a classroom having a gun on their person. You been to an inner city public high school lately? You think Mrs. Cartwright is going to stop an enraged 17 year old football star from attacking her and taking her gun from her if this student snaps suddenly? Things happen quickly...I would worry about the guns going into the wrong hands far more in a school setting than I would an airplane.But you make good points.

 

[Joe T]

I think that, for the moment, we've exhausted the subject of limited high capacity magazines. There may be more to say on this subject, but at present I don't know what it would be.

So let's talk about the other gun control issue which I am strongly in favor of: closing the private sales "gun show" loophole. Specifically, what I would like to see is a national data base of all firearms purchased or transfered in this country, including both public and private sales and transfers. This would be paid for by a small fee imposed on all sales and transfers for the purpose. Law enforcement could then read the serial number on any firearm, check the database, and immediately know who the current owner is.

Now the NRA has long been opposed to this. They have given two reasons: first, that it won't work (this seems to be the standard argument against all gun control measures) and second, that it represents a creeping government authority and that such a database COULD be used to eventually seize everyone's guns and impose a dictatorship. However, polls suggest 74% of the membership of the NRA support this idea. And many of the pro-gun posters here are willing to try it.

Thoughts?

What would you be accomplishing other than creating another huge government bureaucracy to manage the database that will maintain the list of 300 million guns?I tend to think of things in a cost/benefit analysis and your idea hear seems to cost a lot with no real benefit that I can see.

Please explain the benefits.

I bolded what I believe the benefit would be. Law enforcement almost unanimously asserts that this information would help them fight illegal gun trafficking, and thus reduce gun violence. Furthermore, we all agree that we don't want convicted felons or mentally ill people to obtain guns. Having to submit all sales or transfers to an authority should dampen their ability to do so. Obviously it won't eliminate it. But I believe it will have an impact. While I don't generally believe in bureacracy, this is an important one to have. Firearms are lethal weapons and can cause a lot of damage. It's a responsibility for a private citizen to own one. I see no reason why our government shouldn't have a record of who owns what.

I'm not saying it won't work because I have no idea if it would. The biggest problems with this are:1. It still will not track illegally traded guns which defeats the purpose of an all encompassing database

2. It places an unnecessary burden on the average gun owner when buying / selling / giving / donating his property. And creates more laws to punish either in jail time or monetarily what would be otherwise law abiding citizens.

3. It creates an enormous government bureaucracy to manage the trade of 300 million items that trade on a fairly regular basis

 

[General Malaise]

You want more guns at school? This is what it would be like.

Think Progress reports that conservative advocates of looser gun restrictions have been arguing for more guns in schools to prevent tragedies like Sandy Hook. Their proposals include allowing teachers to bring guns to class.

How does a 11 yr. old boy with irresponsible parents bringing a gun to school have to do with allowing teachers with the proper permit to carry?

Well then where do we stop? Do we also arm the ticket takers and ushers at movie theaters? Give a permit to the workers at Orange Julius? Give Sally the sweet stewardess of Southwest Flight 69 a pistol under her peanut tray?

You really are uninformed about this. If an individual meets the requirements of the state (some needing to be more strict IMO) to conceal carry responsibly, that individual should be able to carry at anytime. It's an individuals choice if they take the necessary steps to do so responsibly. No one should ever know who has a permit and who doesn't.

Well OF COURSE I am uninformed about this. I don't think I'm the only citizen of this country who is absolutely terrified of guns, nor am I alone in my ignorance regarding who can carry them, how they are carried, where they are allowed, etc. I want to distance myself as far as I possibly can from all firearms and I don't care to know the different state laws regarding them. So when you patronize me for not understanding your jargon associated with permits, are you doing your side of this debate any favors? When I read your statements above, do you know what I take away from it? That your answer to the gun problem is more guns. And I'm sorry, but I just can't get behind that, no matter how uninformed I am on the subject. Thus, when you advocate providing teachers with guns in the classroom, I am naturally curious where that stops because as we've seen over the last year, school rooms are not the only targets of massacres involving guns. Movie theaters, malls and lord knows what else might be looming in our future have also been targets. As uninformed as I am, I'm curious as to where the arming of our citizens stops. Personally speaking, I don't want our teachers armed and I don't want our movie ushers armed and I don't want our mall workers armed. I think that just opens up more problems. Again, I don't think the answer to our gun problem in America is more guns. Speaking frankly as a man who is well uninformed about firearms in America.

A few posts later I admit it was a bit harsh. However, if you are not willing to understand what you are fighting against, how can you form a firm opinion or bash gun owners in this thread for trying to explain it? I have said several times that I favor tighter gun control, but at the same time feel less restriction is needed for those responsible.

I just don't think a full understanding of all the different laws in place (both federal and state) is required to be against the sale of certain (if not all) firearms in this country. To me, it sounds like the pro-gun side wants to use the various laws and the vast array of different firearm categories as a shield to their argument that nothing significant should be done in the wake of the tragic events in this country. I mean...look a few posts up. I'm being challenged to describe what an assault rifle is. Well hell, I can't do that and the guy asking me KNOWS I can't do that because I couldn't explain the difference between a 9 millimeter, a glock, a .38 or a shot gun. What I do know is that it has become far too easy for mentally unstable people to get a hold of weapons that kill a lot of people in a short amount of time and whatever type of weaponry that is and whatever laws are currently in place, I'm against because this crap should not happen in America (or anywhere). Does is it really matter if I know more about the different gun designs or different state laws to be outspoken about my feelings? Would it change if I read up on some material and then made some posts? I'll do it if you have some links for me to read. I have been known to change my mind.

The problem GM, is that our law makers who will try, or have banned assault rifles before have no idea either. It's not that something doesn't need to change, it's that you need to know what you are changing for there to be a difference.

Okay, I can certainly get behind that line of logic. I will hope that the lawmakers who are charged with the task of enacting new laws will do their duty to the entire country by arming themselves with as much information as possible before casting a vote. That is absolutely fair. And were I a lawmaker and not just some moronic message board loud mouth, that is a promise I would make my constituents, no matter how emotional this matter is to me.

 

[ATC1]

I have said several times that I favor tighter gun control, but at the same time feel less restriction is needed for those responsible.

What additional freedoms do you think responsible people need? How are we currently too restrictive on them?

Mostly what I have been beating to death: Doing away with gun free zones. Just a thought: Free handgun self defense classes for those who choose to arm themselves. Where will the money come from? The taxes the government is about to put on guns or the increase of transfer fees that the dealers will be getting as a result of private sales needing to go through a FFL dealer.

A lot of people want to keep the gun free zones, even expand them. I do not want people bringing guns into my kids schools, or my church, or to my local hospital. What about my right to keep guns out of these places?

Please read through my posts. I have beaten this to death. The jist: All I wanted was to make people aware that while the goal of the president seems to have increased gun control while at the same time not limit the 2nd amendment to those that are responsible gun owners. There are federal restrictions of gun free zones that seem to only restrict the responsible gun owner. Criminals don't care about these zones. In fact it's where they have targeted in mass shootings. Your kids have been in a restaurant or a store where a citizen was carrying (if you are in a state allowed to) and you would never know it.

 

[moleculo]

I think the answer is not to "arm the teachers/movie theater folks, etc", but to not dis-arm them. If a teacher is properly trained, why not allow them to carry at their discretion?I have a friend who is a pilot. Pilots are allowed to carry while they fly, were you aware of that? When you are cruising at 30k feet, the man at the controls of your vehicle may be legally carrying his personal fire-arm, loaded. Of course, to carry as a pilot, they have to have some rather intensive training, beyond a typical CCW permit. The training is all done at a single facility in New Mexico, that pilots have to attend on their own dime, so my buddy doesn't.i'd imagine if a teacher were so inclined, this is something I would be ok with. Say they had passed whatever psych test and several tactical courses/yearly gun safety, etc, all on their own dime. Would you be cool with that?

My uncle is a pilot and I think I recall him talking about this in the wake of 9/11. I also know there are (were) Federal Marshals aboard flights who were armed. And I really don't have an objection to that.BUT...it is a hell of a lot harder to become a Federal Marshal or a commercial airline pilot (many of whom have military backgrounds - my uncle was Air Force) than it is to become a teacher or a mall worker. In addition, those cockpits are locked with big sturdy doors and I don't think too many Federal Marshals announce their presence on board an airline. So I feel a little bit safer with those circumstances than I do with a teacher in a classroom having a gun on their person. You been to an inner city public high school lately? You think Mrs. Cartwright is going to stop an enraged 17 year old football star from attacking her and taking her gun from her if this student snaps suddenly? Things happen quickly...I would worry about the guns going into the wrong hands far more in a school setting than I would an airplane.But you make good points.

no, I hear ya. I don't want Mrs Cartwright to have a gun either. At the same time, I'm ok with Coach Lybeck, the 6'2", 200 lb, ex-military football coach, having a some back-up as long as he is qualified.

 

[General Malaise]

in this thread, people that know virtually nothing about guns other than they are terrified of them, discuss the merits of guns and gun control.

And here we have a guy who is absolutely unabashed about his love of the 2nd amendment condemning those who are exercising their 1st. Bravo, Tommy.

condemning or pointing out?

That animated head is not hitting a pillow, Buddy Ball 3K2! It's at the very least mild admonishment.

 

[Schlzm]

in this thread, people that know virtually nothing about guns other than they are terrified of them, discuss the merits of guns and gun control.

And here we have a guy who is absolutely unabashed about his love of the 2nd amendment condemning those who are exercising their 1st. Bravo, Tommy.

condemning or pointing out?

I think mocking is what we are seeing here.Schlzm

 

[ATC1]

I think the answer is not to "arm the teachers/movie theater folks, etc", but to not dis-arm them. If a teacher is properly trained, why not allow them to carry at their discretion?I have a friend who is a pilot. Pilots are allowed to carry while they fly, were you aware of that? When you are cruising at 30k feet, the man at the controls of your vehicle may be legally carrying his personal fire-arm, loaded. Of course, to carry as a pilot, they have to have some rather intensive training, beyond a typical CCW permit. The training is all done at a single facility in New Mexico, that pilots have to attend on their own dime, so my buddy doesn't.i'd imagine if a teacher were so inclined, this is something I would be ok with. Say they had passed whatever psych test and several tactical courses/yearly gun safety, etc, all on their own dime. Would you be cool with that?

 

[General Malaise]

I think the answer is not to "arm the teachers/movie theater folks, etc", but to not dis-arm them. If a teacher is properly trained, why not allow them to carry at their discretion?I have a friend who is a pilot. Pilots are allowed to carry while they fly, were you aware of that? When you are cruising at 30k feet, the man at the controls of your vehicle may be legally carrying his personal fire-arm, loaded. Of course, to carry as a pilot, they have to have some rather intensive training, beyond a typical CCW permit. The training is all done at a single facility in New Mexico, that pilots have to attend on their own dime, so my buddy doesn't.i'd imagine if a teacher were so inclined, this is something I would be ok with. Say they had passed whatever psych test and several tactical courses/yearly gun safety, etc, all on their own dime. Would you be cool with that?

My uncle is a pilot and I think I recall him talking about this in the wake of 9/11. I also know there are (were) Federal Marshals aboard flights who were armed. And I really don't have an objection to that.BUT...it is a hell of a lot harder to become a Federal Marshal or a commercial airline pilot (many of whom have military backgrounds - my uncle was Air Force) than it is to become a teacher or a mall worker. In addition, those cockpits are locked with big sturdy doors and I don't think too many Federal Marshals announce their presence on board an airline. So I feel a little bit safer with those circumstances than I do with a teacher in a classroom having a gun on their person. You been to an inner city public high school lately? You think Mrs. Cartwright is going to stop an enraged 17 year old football star from attacking her and taking her gun from her if this student snaps suddenly? Things happen quickly...I would worry about the guns going into the wrong hands far more in a school setting than I would an airplane.But you make good points.

no, I hear ya. I don't want Mrs Cartwright to have a gun either. At the same time, I'm ok with Coach Lybeck, the 6'2", 200 lb, ex-military football coach, having a some back-up as long as he is qualified.

See, I think it would be better to have a clandestine teacher armed at each school, one nobody would ever consider, like the pony-tail sporting civics teacher who drives a Prius and has pet doves in his classroom.

 

[moleculo]

I think the answer is not to "arm the teachers/movie theater folks, etc", but to not dis-arm them. If a teacher is properly trained, why not allow them to carry at their discretion?I have a friend who is a pilot. Pilots are allowed to carry while they fly, were you aware of that? When you are cruising at 30k feet, the man at the controls of your vehicle may be legally carrying his personal fire-arm, loaded. Of course, to carry as a pilot, they have to have some rather intensive training, beyond a typical CCW permit. The training is all done at a single facility in New Mexico, that pilots have to attend on their own dime, so my buddy doesn't.i'd imagine if a teacher were so inclined, this is something I would be ok with. Say they had passed whatever psych test and several tactical courses/yearly gun safety, etc, all on their own dime. Would you be cool with that?

My uncle is a pilot and I think I recall him talking about this in the wake of 9/11. I also know there are (were) Federal Marshals aboard flights who were armed. And I really don't have an objection to that.BUT...it is a hell of a lot harder to become a Federal Marshal or a commercial airline pilot (many of whom have military backgrounds - my uncle was Air Force) than it is to become a teacher or a mall worker. In addition, those cockpits are locked with big sturdy doors and I don't think too many Federal Marshals announce their presence on board an airline. So I feel a little bit safer with those circumstances than I do with a teacher in a classroom having a gun on their person. You been to an inner city public high school lately? You think Mrs. Cartwright is going to stop an enraged 17 year old football star from attacking her and taking her gun from her if this student snaps suddenly? Things happen quickly...I would worry about the guns going into the wrong hands far more in a school setting than I would an airplane.But you make good points.

no, I hear ya. I don't want Mrs Cartwright to have a gun either. At the same time, I'm ok with Coach Lybeck, the 6'2", 200 lb, ex-military football coach, having a some back-up as long as he is qualified.

See, I think it would be better to have a clandestine teacher armed at each school, one nobody would ever consider, like the pony-tail sporting civics teacher who drives a Prius and has pet doves in his classroom.

plot twist: there are actually guns hidden in the bird food. I like it.

 

[ATC1]

I think the answer is not to "arm the teachers/movie theater folks, etc", but to not dis-arm them. If a teacher is properly trained, why not allow them to carry at their discretion?I have a friend who is a pilot. Pilots are allowed to carry while they fly, were you aware of that? When you are cruising at 30k feet, the man at the controls of your vehicle may be legally carrying his personal fire-arm, loaded. Of course, to carry as a pilot, they have to have some rather intensive training, beyond a typical CCW permit. The training is all done at a single facility in New Mexico, that pilots have to attend on their own dime, so my buddy doesn't.i'd imagine if a teacher were so inclined, this is something I would be ok with. Say they had passed whatever psych test and several tactical courses/yearly gun safety, etc, all on their own dime. Would you be cool with that?

My uncle is a pilot and I think I recall him talking about this in the wake of 9/11. I also know there are (were) Federal Marshals aboard flights who were armed. And I really don't have an objection to that.BUT...it is a hell of a lot harder to become a Federal Marshal or a commercial airline pilot (many of whom have military backgrounds - my uncle was Air Force) than it is to become a teacher or a mall worker. In addition, those cockpits are locked with big sturdy doors and I don't think too many Federal Marshals announce their presence on board an airline. So I feel a little bit safer with those circumstances than I do with a teacher in a classroom having a gun on their person. You been to an inner city public high school lately? You think Mrs. Cartwright is going to stop an enraged 17 year old football star from attacking her and taking her gun from her if this student snaps suddenly? Things happen quickly...I would worry about the guns going into the wrong hands far more in a school setting than I would an airplane.But you make good points.

no, I hear ya. I don't want Mrs Cartwright to have a gun either. At the same time, I'm ok with Coach Lybeck, the 6'2", 200 lb, ex-military football coach, having a some back-up as long as he is qualified.

My wife is 5'6" 120 lbs and has a concealed carry permit. She has taken the proper classes to become qualified. She is a lawyer and handles some family law cases. When she goes into the court room she can not be armed and there have been times were she has needed to be escorted out of court. If she is followed into a gun free zone, she she not be able to protect herself?

 

[General Malaise]

I think the answer is not to "arm the teachers/movie theater folks, etc", but to not dis-arm them. If a teacher is properly trained, why not allow them to carry at their discretion?I have a friend who is a pilot. Pilots are allowed to carry while they fly, were you aware of that? When you are cruising at 30k feet, the man at the controls of your vehicle may be legally carrying his personal fire-arm, loaded. Of course, to carry as a pilot, they have to have some rather intensive training, beyond a typical CCW permit. The training is all done at a single facility in New Mexico, that pilots have to attend on their own dime, so my buddy doesn't.i'd imagine if a teacher were so inclined, this is something I would be ok with. Say they had passed whatever psych test and several tactical courses/yearly gun safety, etc, all on their own dime. Would you be cool with that?

My uncle is a pilot and I think I recall him talking about this in the wake of 9/11. I also know there are (were) Federal Marshals aboard flights who were armed. And I really don't have an objection to that.BUT...it is a hell of a lot harder to become a Federal Marshal or a commercial airline pilot (many of whom have military backgrounds - my uncle was Air Force) than it is to become a teacher or a mall worker. In addition, those cockpits are locked with big sturdy doors and I don't think too many Federal Marshals announce their presence on board an airline. So I feel a little bit safer with those circumstances than I do with a teacher in a classroom having a gun on their person. You been to an inner city public high school lately? You think Mrs. Cartwright is going to stop an enraged 17 year old football star from attacking her and taking her gun from her if this student snaps suddenly? Things happen quickly...I would worry about the guns going into the wrong hands far more in a school setting than I would an airplane.But you make good points.

no, I hear ya. I don't want Mrs Cartwright to have a gun either. At the same time, I'm ok with Coach Lybeck, the 6'2", 200 lb, ex-military football coach, having a some back-up as long as he is qualified.

My wife is 5'6" 120 lbs and has a concealed carry permit. She has taken the proper classes to become qualified. She is a lawyer and handles some family law cases. When she goes into the court room she can not be armed and there have been times were she has needed to be escorted out of court. If she is followed into a gun free zone, she she not be able to protect herself?

LOOK AT ME!!!!

 

[ATC1]

I think the answer is not to "arm the teachers/movie theater folks, etc", but to not dis-arm them. If a teacher is properly trained, why not allow them to carry at their discretion?I have a friend who is a pilot. Pilots are allowed to carry while they fly, were you aware of that? When you are cruising at 30k feet, the man at the controls of your vehicle may be legally carrying his personal fire-arm, loaded. Of course, to carry as a pilot, they have to have some rather intensive training, beyond a typical CCW permit. The training is all done at a single facility in New Mexico, that pilots have to attend on their own dime, so my buddy doesn't.i'd imagine if a teacher were so inclined, this is something I would be ok with. Say they had passed whatever psych test and several tactical courses/yearly gun safety, etc, all on their own dime. Would you be cool with that?

My uncle is a pilot and I think I recall him talking about this in the wake of 9/11. I also know there are (were) Federal Marshals aboard flights who were armed. And I really don't have an objection to that.BUT...it is a hell of a lot harder to become a Federal Marshal or a commercial airline pilot (many of whom have military backgrounds - my uncle was Air Force) than it is to become a teacher or a mall worker. In addition, those cockpits are locked with big sturdy doors and I don't think too many Federal Marshals announce their presence on board an airline. So I feel a little bit safer with those circumstances than I do with a teacher in a classroom having a gun on their person. You been to an inner city public high school lately? You think Mrs. Cartwright is going to stop an enraged 17 year old football star from attacking her and taking her gun from her if this student snaps suddenly? Things happen quickly...I would worry about the guns going into the wrong hands far more in a school setting than I would an airplane.But you make good points.

no, I hear ya. I don't want Mrs Cartwright to have a gun either. At the same time, I'm ok with Coach Lybeck, the 6'2", 200 lb, ex-military football coach, having a some back-up as long as he is qualified.

My wife is 5'6" 120 lbs and has a concealed carry permit. She has taken the proper classes to become qualified. She is a lawyer and handles some family law cases. When she goes into the court room she can not be armed and there have been times were she has needed to be escorted out of court. If she is followed into a gun free zone, she she not be able to protect herself?

LOOK AT ME!!!!

Hypothetical: She's really 6' 96lbs.

 

[RCon]

More guns less crime

http://www.crab.rutgers.edu/~goertzel/mythsofmurder.htmhttp://islandia.law.yale.edu/ayers/Ayres_Donohue_article.pdf

http://econpapers.repec.org/paper/wopjopovw/31.htm

http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1017&context=john_donohue

http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1065&context=john_donohue

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=245849

Just b/c they published it, doesn't make it fact. It'd be like citing Keynes and all the books he has written about government spending and act as if it is commonly accepted knowledge throughout the industry. But I suspect many of you who are pro-gun aren't exactly pro-Keynes.

I think a lot of people would be perfectly happy with Keynesian economics if governments followed the principles in both good times and bad. Unfortunately, what tends to happen is that governments follow Keynesian principles in bad times, but then overspend in good times because there's extra money.