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

[IvanKaramazov]

The 2nd amendment is completely and totally obsolete.

I disagree. Several people who have posted in this thread have me convinced that it's important for the constitution to protect the right to own a firearm for self-defense. If that right wasn't enshrined in the bill of rights, it would be in great jeopardy.

 

[TobiasFunke]

The 2nd amendment is completely and totally obsolete.

I disagree. Several people who have posted in this thread have me convinced that it's important for the constitution to protect the right to own a firearm for self-defense. If that right wasn't enshrined in the bill of rights, it would be in great jeopardy.

So only the first clause of the Second Amendment is obselete, then. Which is fine, since the Court ignores it anyway.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

The 2nd amendment is completely and totally obsolete.

I disagree. Several people who have posted in this thread have me convinced that it's important for the constitution to protect the right to own a firearm for self-defense. If that right wasn't enshrined in the bill of rights, it would be in great jeopardy.

So only the first clause of the Second Amendment is obselete, then. Which is fine, since the Court ignores it anyway.

Yeah, that's fine with me.

 

[lod01]

Seems to me that the one common groun in most shootings was they had reports of some mental disability.

By my count, 100% of the shootings also involved guns.It shouldn't be, "we have a mental health issue or we have a gun control issue." It's very possible, and almost certain, that we have both.

100% of car fatalities involve a car. 100% of drunk-driving deaths involve alchohol.You going to ban cars and alcohol?

WTF is the point in that statemet??? Those people are trying to acquire a car and alcohol so as to go kill a massive amount of people.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

A better idea would be preventing anyone from buying guns who are seeing psychologists and psychiatrists for mental health issues. You could also go further and require people to have a secure means of locking up weapons. Perhaps you could prevent people from owning guns who have someone that is mentally unstable living in their homes. All of these shootings have 1 thing in common and its all mental health issues.

There are way too many reasons that people talk to psychiatrists and psychologists that don't affect the ability to responsibly own a gun to put this into effect. To say nothing of the fact that people will go bat-#### crazy when you tell them you're releasing their federally-protected mental health records to the government to be put in a database to decide whether or not they can own a gun.

If someone owns a gun and then suffers from some anxeity, how do you propose we get the guns from them?

"Oh, Mr. Johnson. I hear you're here to talk about your schizophrenia and paranoid delusions of being watched all the time, and that the government is keeping tabs on you in order to neutralize you in some pending power-grab by the federal government. Now, I'm legally obligated to tell you that I have to divulge all of the issues you have directly to the ATF as soon as you leave. Let's get started."

That's why I think a psych eval should be a necessary pre-requrement to getting a gun. Don't rely on, "catching the crazies." Make people affirmatively prove that they're ok.

I for one dont trust them....My psychiatrist sucks.... All of his supposed "ink blots" are just pictures of me killing hookers

 

[lod01]

Now that some of you posters have come up with some fantastic ideas to restrict and/or ban guns for citizens, could you come up with some solutions that will keep the guns out of the hands of...y'know...criminals?

I can. Execute criminals who commit crimes with guns. I mean really execute them. Not 20 years later. I mean after the verdict is in, you die.

 

[Borat]

Seems to me that the one common groun in most shootings was they had reports of some mental disability.

By my count, 100% of the shootings also involved guns.It shouldn't be, "we have a mental health issue or we have a gun control issue." It's very possible, and almost certain, that we have both.

100% of car fatalities involve a car. 100% of drunk-driving deaths involve alchohol.You going to ban cars and alcohol?

WTF is the point in that statemet??? Those people are trying to acquire a car and alcohol so as to go kill a massive amount of people.

Didn't Timothy McVeigh use a van to kill a massive amount of people?

 

[timschochet]

My hope is the 2 sides get together and write a common sense law if a real solution is what they seek and as I have stated many times I am willing to listen/discuss whatever is wanted.My feeling is that a ban on all guns is a dream and will never happen even if it is the correct solution.If the middle ground is small magazines(which again doesn't solve anything IMO)only being allowed so be it.No problem at all with that and would be willing to comply with it.As a gun owner I want to see all other gun owners be responsible in doing whatever it takes to make sure the weapon is safe and taken care of properly.I also would love to make every owner take a class or test(much like a driving test)to prove they can use the weapon in a correct,safe manner.And I also have no problem with an automatic weapons ban at all.

Thank you. I think you and many of the other gun owners posting here are acting very reasonably. I hope that you feel the same way about some of us who don't own any firearms. We're not all like Otis. There's a lot of rhetoric going around here, and we all get caught up in it. And at the end of the day, there's a lot that we're never going to see eye to eye on. Still, I think that reasonable people on all sides can get together in the interest of public safety AND freedom and work to find ways to compromise.

 

[Bonzai]

Seems to me that the one common groun in most shootings was they had reports of some mental disability.

By my count, 100% of the shootings also involved guns.It shouldn't be, "we have a mental health issue or we have a gun control issue." It's very possible, and almost certain, that we have both.

Right. If we admit that we have a mental health problem in this country, we admit that we have a gun control issue as well by default.

 

[ATC1]

Do Armed Civilians Stop Mass Shooters? Actually, No.

Five cases commonly cited as a rationale for arming Americans don't stand up to scrutiny.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/armed-civilians-do-not-stop-mass-shootings

I made it past the but they were or were former cops but then stopped at source he talked to about this case said that it was "not clear at all" whether the kid had intended to do any further shooting after he'd left the building.. You here that gun nuts. In the rare case you do find yourself in one of these situation don't bother. The perp has prob decided to stop on his own.

Yes, that's what that said.

We already been through this. No matter how we dissect it, you will find ways to favor you and I will find ways to favor me. I have the time, so if you want to go through the cases again, we can. Appalachian School of Law shooting in Grundy, Virginia

Gun rights die-hards frequently credit the end of a rampage at the law school in 2002 to armed "students" who intervened. They conveniently ignore that those students also happened to be current and former law enforcement officers, and that the killer, according to police investigators, was out of ammunition by the time they got to him.

They were law enforcement officers, so if a citizen had a gun there may have been less victims.

Middle school dance shooting in Edinboro, Pennsylvania

An ambiguous case from 1998, in which the shooter may well have already been done shooting: After killing a teacher and wounding three others, the 14-year-old perpetrator left the dance venue. The owner of the venue followed him outside with a shotgun, confronting and subduing him in a nearby field until police arrived. The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg, who himself recently argued for more guns as an answer to gun violence, told me this week that one police source he talked to about this case said that it was "not clear at all" whether the kid had intended to do any further shooting after he'd left the building.

Love the bolded part. However, this guy apprehended the shooter without shooting him allowing the police to apprehend him without a man hunt. How is this a bad thing?

High school shooting in Pearl, Mississippi

Another case, from 1997, in which the shooting was apparently already over: After killing two and wounding seven inside Pearl High School, the 16-year-old perpetrator left the building and went outside near the parking lot. The assistant principal—who was also a member of the Army Reserve—ran out to his own vehicle, grabbed a handgun he kept there, and then approached the shooter, subduing him at gunpoint until authorities arrived.

Again, he subdued him when he fled. If the asst. Principle was allowed to carry in the gun free zone, lives could have been saved.

New Life Church shooting in Colorado Springs, Colorado

In 2007 a gunman killed two people and wounded three others before being shot himself; the pro-gun crowd likes to refer to the woman who took him out in the parking lot as a "church member." Never mind that she was a security officer for the church and a former cop, and that the church had put its security team on high alert earlier that day due to another church shooting nearby.

Again, church. A gun free zone. Good thing an officer was there.

Bar shooting in Winnemucca, Nevada

In 2008, a gunman who killed two and wounded two others was taken out by another patron in the bar, who was carrying with a valid permit. But this was no regular Joe with a concealed handgun: The vigilante, who was not charged after authorities determined he'd committed a justifiable homicide, was a US Marine.

A bar. Gun free zone. This person is military so is allowed to carry.

In all these cases the victims were less then 4 which the site considers a mass shooting.

Cases involving citizens becoming involved and get shot.

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 at the county courthouse. Wilson was shot dead by the body-armored assailant, who wielded an AK-47.

Such actions in chaotic situations don't just put the well-intentioned citizen at risk, of course. According to Robert McMenomy, an assistant special agent in charge in the San Francisco division of the FBI, they increase the danger for innocent bystanders. They also make law enforcement officers' jobs more difficult. "In a scenario like that," he told me in a recent conversation, "they wouldn't know who was good or who was bad, and it would divert them from the real threat."

You mean the law enforcement officers who are not there? If the law is at the scene and you are not currently engaged with the shooter, you do not act.

The part that obviously would not be quoted is: (From Wiki, independant source)

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.

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.

Who knows what happens if the citizen does nothing. As it stands, No one was killed.

 

[Dvorak]

The 2nd amendment is completely and totally obsolete.

I disagree. Several people who have posted in this thread have me convinced that it's important for the constitution to protect the right to own a firearm for self-defense. If that right wasn't enshrined in the bill of rights, it would be in great jeopardy.

So only the first clause of the Second Amendment is obselete, then. Which is fine, since the Court ignores it anyway.

Do you believe United States and each state's militias have the right to assault rifles (correct definition=select fire) and 30 round magazines? Or should the federal government be able to infringe upon those rights?

 

[timschochet]

As regards mental health: the only solution is to throw money at it. I'm talking hundreds of billions, if you really want to make an impact. Is this something we can afford to do right now given our fiscal situation? If your answer is no, then there's no point talking about it. All other "solutions" regarding this issue that have been talked about would involve an infringement of individual liberties so vast as it will never be acceptable under our current Bill of Rights.

As regards video games and the violent Hollywood culture: there will be a lot of talk, but unless you are willing to accept greater censorship (I'm not) there is nothing to be done about this either.

That leaves gun control. There are either ways to address this or there aren't, but even with all of the discussion and debate going on here, it's still infinitely more easy to address than the other two.

 

[Apple Jack]

Seems to me that the one common groun in most shootings was they had reports of some mental disability.

By my count, 100% of the shootings also involved guns.It shouldn't be, "we have a mental health issue or we have a gun control issue." It's very possible, and almost certain, that we have both.

100% of car fatalities involve a car. 100% of drunk-driving deaths involve alchohol.You going to ban cars and alcohol?

WTF is the point in that statemet??? Those people are trying to acquire a car and alcohol so as to go kill a massive amount of people.

Didn't Timothy McVeigh use a van to kill a massive amount of people?

Actually, he used a bomb built to kill. Not unlike the way guns are built to kill.

 

[TobiasFunke]

The 2nd amendment is completely and totally obsolete.

I disagree. Several people who have posted in this thread have me convinced that it's important for the constitution to protect the right to own a firearm for self-defense. If that right wasn't enshrined in the bill of rights, it would be in great jeopardy.

So only the first clause of the Second Amendment is obselete, then. Which is fine, since the Court ignores it anyway.

Do you believe United States and each state's militias have the right to assault rifles (correct definition=select fire) and 30 round magazines? Or should the federal government be able to infringe upon those rights?

What the #### are you talking about?

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

Here's where I stand on all of this FWIW. I'm someone who worked for the NRA in the late 90's and while not a hunter myself, enjoy most shooting sports.

Knowing the NRA somewhat from the inside, I know that much of their mindset rests on an extremely slippery slope - any regulation no matter how small is a step towards total confiscation of guns by jackbooted ATF thugs. In reality though we know a reasonable line exists somewhere, even most hardcore gun supporters acknowledge that people don't need unrestricted access to fully automatic weapons. The question is where does that reasonable line sit?

For me anyway, I'm totally comfortable drawing that line before semi-automatic weapons. Much of the NRA position is supported by an assumed defensive value of guns. The idea that most defensive applications go unreported, no one is killed or injured, and the weapon isn't discharged so there's no need to involve authorities. Even if you assume that thesis is correct, the fact that no rounds were fired in nearly all cases means there wouldn't be any added defensive value associated with a semi-automatic weapon vs. a revolver or traditional rifle/shotgun.

I know the next argument is that you can't possibly enforce this, and that criminals or determined people would still get them. I agree that you can't eliminate demand through restricting supply, but you can certainly create barriers and make things more difficult to obtain, just as they have done in other countries like Australia, the U.K., Japan at the extreme, all countries that have a fraction of our homicide rate, and gun homicide rate specifically.

 

[Apple Jack]

Here's where I stand on all of this FWIW. I'm someone who worked for the NRA in the late 90's and while not a hunter myself, enjoy most shooting sports.

Knowing the NRA somewhat from the inside, I know that much of their mindset rests on an extremely slippery slope - any regulation no matter how small is a step towards total confiscation of guns by jackbooted ATF thugs. In reality though we know a reasonable line exists somewhere, even most hardcore gun supporters acknowledge that people don't need unrestricted access to fully automatic weapons. The question is where does that reasonable line sit?

For me anyway, I'm totally comfortable drawing that line before semi-automatic weapons. Much of the NRA position is supported by an assumed defensive value of guns. The idea that most defensive applications go unreported, no one is killed or injured, and the weapon isn't discharged so there's no need to involve authorities. Even if you assume that thesis is correct, the fact that no rounds were fired in nearly all cases means there wouldn't be any added defensive value associated with a semi-automatic weapon vs. a revolver or traditional rifle/shotgun.

I know the next argument is that you can't possibly enforce this, and that criminals or determined people would still get them. I agree that you can't eliminate demand through restricting supply, but you can certainly create barriers and make things more difficult to obtain, just as they have done in other countries like Australia, the U.K., Japan at the extreme, all countries that have a fraction of our homicide rate, and gun homicide rate specifically.

Whatever "arms" were when the Amendment was drafted. A rifle that required reloading after each shot.

 

[ATC1]

It was always at least some of them. I acknowledge that some of them happened in gun free zones. Some of them did not.

I'm saying a vast majority of them have.

 

[Dvorak]

The 2nd amendment is completely and totally obsolete.

I disagree. Several people who have posted in this thread have me convinced that it's important for the constitution to protect the right to own a firearm for self-defense. If that right wasn't enshrined in the bill of rights, it would be in great jeopardy.

So only the first clause of the Second Amendment is obselete, then. Which is fine, since the Court ignores it anyway.

Do you believe United States and each state's militias have the right to assault rifles (correct definition=select fire) and 30 round magazines? Or should the federal government be able to infringe upon those rights?

What the #### are you talking about?

You think the militia clause of the 2nd amendment is obsolete. Do you think Congress should be allowed to pass laws telling the states their militias cannot have any assault rifles or magazines that hold more than 10 rounds?

 

[Apple Jack]

It was always at least some of them. I acknowledge that some of them happened in gun free zones. Some of them did not.

I'm saying a vast majority of them have.

Right, because many places where people congregate are gun-free zones.

 

[butcher boy]

Here's where I stand on all of this FWIW. I'm someone who worked for the NRA in the late 90's and while not a hunter myself, enjoy most shooting sports.

Knowing the NRA somewhat from the inside, I know that much of their mindset rests on an extremely slippery slope - any regulation no matter how small is a step towards total confiscation of guns by jackbooted ATF thugs. In reality though we know a reasonable line exists somewhere, even most hardcore gun supporters acknowledge that people don't need unrestricted access to fully automatic weapons. The question is where does that reasonable line sit?

For me anyway, I'm totally comfortable drawing that line before semi-automatic weapons. Much of the NRA position is supported by an assumed defensive value of guns. The idea that most defensive applications go unreported, no one is killed or injured, and the weapon isn't discharged so there's no need to involve authorities. Even if you assume that thesis is correct, the fact that no rounds were fired in nearly all cases means there wouldn't be any added defensive value associated with a semi-automatic weapon vs. a revolver or traditional rifle/shotgun.

I know the next argument is that you can't possibly enforce this, and that criminals or determined people would still get them. I agree that you can't eliminate demand through restricting supply, but you can certainly create barriers and make things more difficult to obtain, just as they have done in other countries like Australia, the U.K., Japan at the extreme, all countries that have a fraction of our homicide rate, and gun homicide rate specifically.

Whatever "arms" were when the Amendment was drafted. A rifle that required reloading after each shot.

I like this. Turn the 2nd Amendment into a right to collect Revolutionary War memorabilia.

 

[TobiasFunke]

It was always at least some of them. I acknowledge that some of them happened in gun free zones. Some of them did not.

I'm saying a vast majority of them have.

That's because a vast majority of places where large numbers of people gather are "gun free zones" either by law or choice. I think we have a serious problem in this country. Guns, maybe. I don't know the answer to those problems. But our schools are clearly failing us when it comes to teaching the difference between correlation and causation. At least that's a problem we can fix.

 

[Dvorak]

Here's where I stand on all of this FWIW. I'm someone who worked for the NRA in the late 90's and while not a hunter myself, enjoy most shooting sports.

Knowing the NRA somewhat from the inside, I know that much of their mindset rests on an extremely slippery slope - any regulation no matter how small is a step towards total confiscation of guns by jackbooted ATF thugs. In reality though we know a reasonable line exists somewhere, even most hardcore gun supporters acknowledge that people don't need unrestricted access to fully automatic weapons. The question is where does that reasonable line sit?

For me anyway, I'm totally comfortable drawing that line before semi-automatic weapons. Much of the NRA position is supported by an assumed defensive value of guns. The idea that most defensive applications go unreported, no one is killed or injured, and the weapon isn't discharged so there's no need to involve authorities. Even if you assume that thesis is correct, the fact that no rounds were fired in nearly all cases means there wouldn't be any added defensive value associated with a semi-automatic weapon vs. a revolver or traditional rifle/shotgun.

I know the next argument is that you can't possibly enforce this, and that criminals or determined people would still get them. I agree that you can't eliminate demand through restricting supply, but you can certainly create barriers and make things more difficult to obtain, just as they have done in other countries like Australia, the U.K., Japan at the extreme, all countries that have a fraction of our homicide rate, and gun homicide rate specifically.

Whatever "arms" were when the Amendment was drafted. A rifle that required reloading after each shot.

So if we were able to round up every firearm made since 1776 and melt them down for scrap, school massacres would never happen?

 

[Bird]

Here's where I stand on all of this FWIW. I'm someone who worked for the NRA in the late 90's and while not a hunter myself, enjoy most shooting sports.

Knowing the NRA somewhat from the inside, I know that much of their mindset rests on an extremely slippery slope - any regulation no matter how small is a step towards total confiscation of guns by jackbooted ATF thugs. In reality though we know a reasonable line exists somewhere, even most hardcore gun supporters acknowledge that people don't need unrestricted access to fully automatic weapons. The question is where does that reasonable line sit?

For me anyway, I'm totally comfortable drawing that line before semi-automatic weapons. Much of the NRA position is supported by an assumed defensive value of guns. The idea that most defensive applications go unreported, no one is killed or injured, and the weapon isn't discharged so there's no need to involve authorities. Even if you assume that thesis is correct, the fact that no rounds were fired in nearly all cases means there wouldn't be any added defensive value associated with a semi-automatic weapon vs. a revolver or traditional rifle/shotgun.

I know the next argument is that you can't possibly enforce this, and that criminals or determined people would still get them. I agree that you can't eliminate demand through restricting supply, but you can certainly create barriers and make things more difficult to obtain, just as they have done in other countries like Australia, the U.K., Japan at the extreme, all countries that have a fraction of our homicide rate, and gun homicide rate specifically.

Whatever "arms" were when the Amendment was drafted. A rifle that required reloading after each shot.

You don't want the 4th Amendment to apply to your vehicle? They weren't around when that amendment was drafted.

 

[Apple Jack]

Here's where I stand on all of this FWIW. I'm someone who worked for the NRA in the late 90's and while not a hunter myself, enjoy most shooting sports.

Knowing the NRA somewhat from the inside, I know that much of their mindset rests on an extremely slippery slope - any regulation no matter how small is a step towards total confiscation of guns by jackbooted ATF thugs. In reality though we know a reasonable line exists somewhere, even most hardcore gun supporters acknowledge that people don't need unrestricted access to fully automatic weapons. The question is where does that reasonable line sit?

For me anyway, I'm totally comfortable drawing that line before semi-automatic weapons. Much of the NRA position is supported by an assumed defensive value of guns. The idea that most defensive applications go unreported, no one is killed or injured, and the weapon isn't discharged so there's no need to involve authorities. Even if you assume that thesis is correct, the fact that no rounds were fired in nearly all cases means there wouldn't be any added defensive value associated with a semi-automatic weapon vs. a revolver or traditional rifle/shotgun.

I know the next argument is that you can't possibly enforce this, and that criminals or determined people would still get them. I agree that you can't eliminate demand through restricting supply, but you can certainly create barriers and make things more difficult to obtain, just as they have done in other countries like Australia, the U.K., Japan at the extreme, all countries that have a fraction of our homicide rate, and gun homicide rate specifically.

Whatever "arms" were when the Amendment was drafted. A rifle that required reloading after each shot.

I like this. Turn the 2nd Amendment into a right to collect Revolutionary War memorabilia.

But no melting cool statues like Rocky and lady liberty down for musket balls.

 

[butcher boy]

Here's where I stand on all of this FWIW. I'm someone who worked for the NRA in the late 90's and while not a hunter myself, enjoy most shooting sports.

Knowing the NRA somewhat from the inside, I know that much of their mindset rests on an extremely slippery slope - any regulation no matter how small is a step towards total confiscation of guns by jackbooted ATF thugs. In reality though we know a reasonable line exists somewhere, even most hardcore gun supporters acknowledge that people don't need unrestricted access to fully automatic weapons. The question is where does that reasonable line sit?

For me anyway, I'm totally comfortable drawing that line before semi-automatic weapons. Much of the NRA position is supported by an assumed defensive value of guns. The idea that most defensive applications go unreported, no one is killed or injured, and the weapon isn't discharged so there's no need to involve authorities. Even if you assume that thesis is correct, the fact that no rounds were fired in nearly all cases means there wouldn't be any added defensive value associated with a semi-automatic weapon vs. a revolver or traditional rifle/shotgun.

I know the next argument is that you can't possibly enforce this, and that criminals or determined people would still get them. I agree that you can't eliminate demand through restricting supply, but you can certainly create barriers and make things more difficult to obtain, just as they have done in other countries like Australia, the U.K., Japan at the extreme, all countries that have a fraction of our homicide rate, and gun homicide rate specifically.

Whatever "arms" were when the Amendment was drafted. A rifle that required reloading after each shot.

So if we were able to round up every firearm made since 1776 and melt them down for scrap, school massacres would never happen?

They would happen less frequently. Any law which makes it tougher to acquire gun has a chance of preventing a tragedy or lessening the number of lives lost. If it means not having as many dead kindergateners or even it prevents just one tragedy, it's worth it to me.

 

[Borat]

Here's where I stand on all of this FWIW. I'm someone who worked for the NRA in the late 90's and while not a hunter myself, enjoy most shooting sports.

Knowing the NRA somewhat from the inside, I know that much of their mindset rests on an extremely slippery slope - any regulation no matter how small is a step towards total confiscation of guns by jackbooted ATF thugs. In reality though we know a reasonable line exists somewhere, even most hardcore gun supporters acknowledge that people don't need unrestricted access to fully automatic weapons. The question is where does that reasonable line sit?

For me anyway, I'm totally comfortable drawing that line before semi-automatic weapons. Much of the NRA position is supported by an assumed defensive value of guns. The idea that most defensive applications go unreported, no one is killed or injured, and the weapon isn't discharged so there's no need to involve authorities. Even if you assume that thesis is correct, the fact that no rounds were fired in nearly all cases means there wouldn't be any added defensive value associated with a semi-automatic weapon vs. a revolver or traditional rifle/shotgun.

I know the next argument is that you can't possibly enforce this, and that criminals or determined people would still get them. I agree that you can't eliminate demand through restricting supply, but you can certainly create barriers and make things more difficult to obtain, just as they have done in other countries like Australia, the U.K., Japan at the extreme, all countries that have a fraction of our homicide rate, and gun homicide rate specifically.

Whatever "arms" were when the Amendment was drafted. A rifle that required reloading after each shot.

So if we were able to round up every firearm made since 1776 and melt them down for scrap, school massacres would never happen?

They would happen less frequently. Any law which makes it tougher to acquire gun has a chance of preventing a tragedy or lessening the number of lives lost. If it means not having as many dead kindergateners or even it prevents just one tragedy, it's worth it to me.

How do you weigh this against the lives that are saved as a result of law abiding citizens being armed?

 

[TobiasFunke]

The 2nd amendment is completely and totally obsolete.

I disagree. Several people who have posted in this thread have me convinced that it's important for the constitution to protect the right to own a firearm for self-defense. If that right wasn't enshrined in the bill of rights, it would be in great jeopardy.

So only the first clause of the Second Amendment is obselete, then. Which is fine, since the Court ignores it anyway.

Do you believe United States and each state's militias have the right to assault rifles (correct definition=select fire) and 30 round magazines? Or should the federal government be able to infringe upon those rights?

What the #### are you talking about?

You think the militia clause of the 2nd amendment is obsolete. Do you think Congress should be allowed to pass laws telling the states their militias cannot have any assault rifles or magazines that hold more than 10 rounds?

I don't think they should do that, but they should probably be allowed to. Even the Constitution says so ... see the two words right before "militia" in the Second Amendment.But I think you're missing the point of my comment completely. I wasn't saying protection of the right to form a militia is obsolete, I'm saying that the notion that it modifies the right to bear arms is obsolete. I'm also not saying that I want it to be obsolete- there was more than a hint of sarcasm in my post. Just that it's treated that way.

 

[Apple Jack]

Here's where I stand on all of this FWIW. I'm someone who worked for the NRA in the late 90's and while not a hunter myself, enjoy most shooting sports.

Knowing the NRA somewhat from the inside, I know that much of their mindset rests on an extremely slippery slope - any regulation no matter how small is a step towards total confiscation of guns by jackbooted ATF thugs. In reality though we know a reasonable line exists somewhere, even most hardcore gun supporters acknowledge that people don't need unrestricted access to fully automatic weapons. The question is where does that reasonable line sit?

For me anyway, I'm totally comfortable drawing that line before semi-automatic weapons. Much of the NRA position is supported by an assumed defensive value of guns. The idea that most defensive applications go unreported, no one is killed or injured, and the weapon isn't discharged so there's no need to involve authorities. Even if you assume that thesis is correct, the fact that no rounds were fired in nearly all cases means there wouldn't be any added defensive value associated with a semi-automatic weapon vs. a revolver or traditional rifle/shotgun.

I know the next argument is that you can't possibly enforce this, and that criminals or determined people would still get them. I agree that you can't eliminate demand through restricting supply, but you can certainly create barriers and make things more difficult to obtain, just as they have done in other countries like Australia, the U.K., Japan at the extreme, all countries that have a fraction of our homicide rate, and gun homicide rate specifically.

Whatever "arms" were when the Amendment was drafted. A rifle that required reloading after each shot.

So if we were able to round up every firearm made since 1776 and melt them down for scrap, school massacres would never happen?

Um...

 

[Henry Ford]

It was always at least some of them. I acknowledge that some of them happened in gun free zones. Some of them did not.

I'm saying a vast majority of them have.

And do you believe that they happened in those places because they're gun free zones, or that those are gun free zones because they are the kind of places we want to keep guns out of? I've previously acknowledged that I have zero problem with members of the armed forces or the police patrolling gun free zones with sidearms. I think that if that's your vocation or one of your vocations, it's probably very helpful to have you around in a crisis. What I don't need is Larry, his brother Darryl, and his other brother Darryl popping up and yelling yee-haw and firing into the crowd in an attempt to kill the shooter, or confusing the actual police into thinking they are the target when they come in to try to shut things down. I also don't need any of them screaming "gun" and opening fire when some guy pulls out his cell phone in a school. I don't need some idiot turning a potential robbery or hostage situation into a bloodbath because he thinks it's time to use all that great training he got by shooting empty beer bottles in his backyard. I think we all agree on that. The question is how to make sure that the people with guns are responsible, trained, and helpful at the time of a problem, and how to keep the irresponsible, untrained, and/or homicidal from having guns and killing people.

 

[moleculo]

...What I don't need is Larry, his brother Darryl, and his other brother Darryl popping up and yelling yee-haw and firing into the crowd in an attempt to kill the shooter, or confusing the actual police into thinking they are the target when they come in to try to shut things down. I also don't need any of them screaming "gun" and opening fire when some guy pulls out his cell phone in a school. I don't need some idiot turning a potential robbery or hostage situation into a bloodbath because he thinks it's time to use all that great training he got by shooting empty beer bottles in his backyard. I think we all agree on that. The question is how to make sure that the people with guns are responsible, trained, and helpful at the time of a problem, and how to keep the irresponsible, untrained, and/or homicidal from having guns and killing people.

has this happened?

 

[Chaos Commish]

I'd need to quit my day job to keep up with this thread.

The owner of one of my local gun shops has become a good friend. I walk my dog by first time I get a break in the morning and drink his wife's coffee. This morning there was a squad car in the parking lot. I'm in a smallish community in the SoCal desert on the outskirts of town to boot, so we're all pretty familiar with each other. I shoot with the two cops in the department who are "gun people". Most cops are not; they just do the minimum to stay qualified. Well, this cop was finishing the paperwork on gifts, a little revolver for the wife and an AR for his 16 year old. I was glad to meet him! They were discussing this topic but wisely focused on getting bad guys.

The cop offered something like this (trying to get his wording right):

To ensure citizens of their well-regulated right to bear arms, all firearms in the legal care and possession of registered owners can never be confiscated by an overreaching government.

Anyway, I told him I'd run it by you guys for approval.

 

[Mello]

This is ducking the point as well. We can talk about your overly broad statement about liberty later (I can certainly invent plenty of "no direct harm" scenarios where I think you'd value safety over loss of "freedom" if you want). But for now, let's take for granted that these laws requiring mental health profiling exist. If large numbers of people are avoiding treatment for mental health because they don't want to risk losing their ability to buy and keep guns, don't you think that's a societal problem? I don't own guns so I can't necessarily speak from great experience. But I've fired plenty of them, and I know people who own them, and I have a family whose safety I value. Based on that admittedly limited exposure to the gun-owner mentality, I can't imagine anyone thinking its rational or reasonable for someone to value the ability to own a gun over their mental health. So if people are doing that, I think it's a sign of a serious problem. Do you agree? You don't have to have an opinion on whether disclosure laws are right or wrong to answer, that's a different question.

I have to answer that I don't know. I would have to know the exact reason each individual wants to own guns and compare that to the severity of the potential mental illness and make a value judgement on which one is more important. The problem is that the value placed on both is subjective and my determination might be very different from other people. If I had to guess, I would say that those people are placing more value on gun ownership than their reasons warrant though. Also on (I can certainly invent plenty of "no direct harm" scenarios where I think you'd value safety over loss of "freedom" if you want), there's probably no need. There would be some you would find, but probably not as many as you would think. For me, something has to be a very great danger to society for me to think the government should regulate/ban individual actions. It certainly has to be a much greater threat than a few crazy people killing maybe 100 people each year.

 

[Chaos Commish]

California mass killings

If by "most" you mean 12 of 62, then yes. It does have more than its fair share, since it has 12% of the U.S. population and 19% of the mass killings in that map.

So not only does California have the most restrictive rifle magazine laws in the nation, but also the most thorough private party sales loopholes closures, and both for a longer period of time than any state... yet... hmmm.Tim?

 

[kentric]

I can't believe that there are ****ing stupid ### people who are suggesting that the principals and teachers at school be armed to protect our kids. What is wrong with these people????

 

[Apple Jack]

I can't believe that there are ****ing stupid ### people who are suggesting that the principals and teachers at school be armed to protect our kids. What is wrong with these people????

Incorrect breeding practices mostly.I kid.

 

[tom22406]

I can't believe that there are ****ing stupid ### people who are suggesting that the principals and teachers at school be armed to protect our kids. What is wrong with these people????

Even if a complete weapons ban were in place I would want a trained/armed guard of some sorts at every school.We protect our banks,gold,politicians the same way so why not our kids?Keep in mind that a total ban will only take guns away from law-abiding citizens,the criminals will simply laugh at the ban and carry on.

 

[Dvorak]

I can't believe that there are ****ing stupid ### people who are suggesting that the principals and teachers at school be armed to protect our kids. What is wrong with these people????

I'm just listening to suggestions that my local law enforcement professionals have made.

 

[Jobber]

I can't believe that there are ****ing stupid ### people who are suggesting that the principals and teachers at school be armed to protect our kids. What is wrong with these people????

Not to be crass, but I bet every adult at Sandy Hook last Friday was wishing they had a gun with them that day.

 

[butcher boy]

Here's where I stand on all of this FWIW. I'm someone who worked for the NRA in the late 90's and while not a hunter myself, enjoy most shooting sports.

Knowing the NRA somewhat from the inside, I know that much of their mindset rests on an extremely slippery slope - any regulation no matter how small is a step towards total confiscation of guns by jackbooted ATF thugs. In reality though we know a reasonable line exists somewhere, even most hardcore gun supporters acknowledge that people don't need unrestricted access to fully automatic weapons. The question is where does that reasonable line sit?

For me anyway, I'm totally comfortable drawing that line before semi-automatic weapons. Much of the NRA position is supported by an assumed defensive value of guns. The idea that most defensive applications go unreported, no one is killed or injured, and the weapon isn't discharged so there's no need to involve authorities. Even if you assume that thesis is correct, the fact that no rounds were fired in nearly all cases means there wouldn't be any added defensive value associated with a semi-automatic weapon vs. a revolver or traditional rifle/shotgun.

I know the next argument is that you can't possibly enforce this, and that criminals or determined people would still get them. I agree that you can't eliminate demand through restricting supply, but you can certainly create barriers and make things more difficult to obtain, just as they have done in other countries like Australia, the U.K., Japan at the extreme, all countries that have a fraction of our homicide rate, and gun homicide rate specifically.

Whatever "arms" were when the Amendment was drafted. A rifle that required reloading after each shot.

So if we were able to round up every firearm made since 1776 and melt them down for scrap, school massacres would never happen?

They would happen less frequently. Any law which makes it tougher to acquire gun has a chance of preventing a tragedy or lessening the number of lives lost. If it means not having as many dead kindergateners or even it prevents just one tragedy, it's worth it to me.

How do you weigh this against the lives that are saved as a result of law abiding citizens being armed?

Is this measured somehow? And if it is how is THAT weighed against accidental shootings or lunatics getting said weapons from their law abiding parents, etc.Is there a class of kindergartners that are alive today because Mrs. Smith schoolteacher was packing heat? Because if not, I'm not going to buy the theory that putting more guns out there is the solution.

 

[timschochet]

California mass killings

If by "most" you mean 12 of 62, then yes. It does have more than its fair share, since it has 12% of the U.S. population and 19% of the mass killings in that map.

So not only does California have the most restrictive rifle magazine laws in the nation, but also the most thorough private party sales loopholes closures, and both for a longer period of time than any state... yet... hmmm.Tim?

As I pointed out earlier, unless these restrictions are nationwide, they're basically meaningless. Too easy to go to a Vegas gun show, buy a firearm without any record in a private transaction, and then bring it back to California and commit a crime.

 

[Blick]

I can't believe that there are ****ing stupid ### people who are suggesting that the principals and teachers at school be armed to protect our kids. What is wrong with these people????

A stun gun or three in faculty offices throughout the school may not have been a bad idea.

 

[Apple Jack]

I can't believe that there are ****ing stupid ### people who are suggesting that the principals and teachers at school be armed to protect our kids. What is wrong with these people????

I'm just listening to suggestions that my local law enforcement professionals have made.

Local cops tend to be more Barney Fife than Andy Taylor. Not our best and brightest.

 

[Stinger Ray]

I can't believe that there are ****ing stupid ### people who are suggesting that the principals and teachers at school be armed to protect our kids. What is wrong with these people????

I'm just listening to suggestions that my local law enforcement professionals have made.

Local cops tend to be more Barney Fife than Andy Taylor. Not our best and brightest.

 

[Dvorak]

California mass killings

If by "most" you mean 12 of 62, then yes. It does have more than its fair share, since it has 12% of the U.S. population and 19% of the mass killings in that map.

So not only does California have the most restrictive rifle magazine laws in the nation, but also the most thorough private party sales loopholes closures, and both for a longer period of time than any state... yet... hmmm.Tim?

As I pointed out earlier, unless these restrictions are nationwide, they're basically meaningless. Too easy to go to a Vegas gun show, buy a firearm without any record in a private transaction, and then bring it back to California and commit a crime.

Tim, that's already a felony. Legal private sales can only occur between residents of the same state. A Californian driving to Nevada to by a gun from a private seller is interstate commerce, subject to the Gun Control Act of 1968 and very much illegal.

 

[TobiasFunke]

This is ducking the point as well. We can talk about your overly broad statement about liberty later (I can certainly invent plenty of "no direct harm" scenarios where I think you'd value safety over loss of "freedom" if you want). But for now, let's take for granted that these laws requiring mental health profiling exist. If large numbers of people are avoiding treatment for mental health because they don't want to risk losing their ability to buy and keep guns, don't you think that's a societal problem? I don't own guns so I can't necessarily speak from great experience. But I've fired plenty of them, and I know people who own them, and I have a family whose safety I value. Based on that admittedly limited exposure to the gun-owner mentality, I can't imagine anyone thinking its rational or reasonable for someone to value the ability to own a gun over their mental health. So if people are doing that, I think it's a sign of a serious problem. Do you agree? You don't have to have an opinion on whether disclosure laws are right or wrong to answer, that's a different question.

I have to answer that I don't know. I would have to know the exact reason each individual wants to own guns and compare that to the severity of the potential mental illness and make a value judgement on which one is more important. The problem is that the value placed on both is subjective and my determination might be very different from other people. If I had to guess, I would say that those people are placing more value on gun ownership than their reasons warrant though. Also on (I can certainly invent plenty of "no direct harm" scenarios where I think you'd value safety over loss of "freedom" if you want), there's probably no need. There would be some you would find, but probably not as many as you would think. For me, something has to be a very great danger to society for me to think the government should regulate/ban individual actions. It certainly has to be a much greater threat than a few crazy people killing maybe 100 people each year.

Thoughtful and reasonable answers. And for what it's worth, although we might have slight disagreements about where to draw the line (for example I'm fine with restricting the "freedom" of gun ownership based on psychological profile), for the most part I tend to side with you on the value of protecting individual freedom from government intrusion, so long as others aren't directly harmed.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

I can't believe that there are ****ing stupid ### people who are suggesting that the principals and teachers at school be armed to protect our kids. What is wrong with these people????

I'm just listening to suggestions that my local law enforcement professionals have made.

Local cops tend to be more Barney Fife than Andy Taylor. Not our best and brightest.

While we are at it we can train all teachers to be just like Jason Bourne.

 

[Chaos Commish]

For my GB, Otis:

New Mexico woman shot intruder

Sandoval grabbed a knife, put the knife to her chin and told her to take off her clothes. The woman told deputies she then reached under her pillow, grabbed a loaded gun and shot him. She fled from her home and called 911.

Officials say Sandoval died at the scene.

No charges have been filed.

Accused Rapist Shot

No charges will be filed against the Cape Girardeau woman who shot and killed a registered sex offender trying to break back into her home.

Rapist shot in the eye

An Ohio man accused of raping a woman at gunpoint appeared in court wearing a bandage over his right eye — an injury suffered after police say the woman shot him in the face before escaping.

28-year-old woman forced to shoot and kill intruder Lisa Goude called police when she noticed a man lurking outside her house at about 1:15 a.m. Just two minutes into the call, the man broke through the glass of a kitchen window and entered the home.

The 28-year-old intruder refused to leave and attempted to enter Goude’s bedroom.

Goude retrieved a handgun and shot the man once before instructing him to leave her home once again. Despite suffering a gunshot wound, the intruder reportedly came at Goude causing her to fire two more rounds.

After suffering two gunshots to the neck and one to the abdomen, the intruder was pronounced dead at the scene.

That last link has 80 pages archiving similar.

DGUs (defensive gun uses) are worth understanding. A DGU is any use by a civilian of a gun, including verbal warnings and just showing the weapon, along with pulling and firing the weapon in thwarting a crime in progress. Some NRA shill did empirical polling and extrapolated an often cited 2.5 million annual DGUs. It is a bogus number. Again the anti gun CDC did their own independent research and claimed only a half million successful DGUs annually. It's a big number.

We average a little over 200 justifiable homicides annually, not always like those linked above regarding women and rapists, but legal lethal self defense nonetheless. 2300 in the last decade. Mass killings will never match the number of people who legally defend themselves under the reasonable belief their life was endangered.

 

[Apple Jack]

I can't believe that there are ****ing stupid ### people who are suggesting that the principals and teachers at school be armed to protect our kids. What is wrong with these people????

I'm just listening to suggestions that my local law enforcement professionals have made.

Local cops tend to be more Barney Fife than Andy Taylor. Not our best and brightest.

You haven't met many, huh?

 

[Mello]

I can't believe that there are ****ing stupid ### people who are suggesting that the principals and teachers at school be armed to protect our kids. What is wrong with these people????

Even if a complete weapons ban were in place I would want a trained/armed guard of some sorts at every school.We protect our banks,gold,politicians the same way so why not our kids?Keep in mind that a total ban will only take guns away from law-abiding citizens,the criminals will simply laugh at the ban and carry on.

I can expand this exact same logic to the point where we have a camera on every corner and an armed guard on every street. We aren't that far off, but that's not exactly the place I want to live.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

We protect our banks,gold,politicians the same way so why not our kids?

Because the truth is that there are very few individuals disturbed enough to want to do terrible stuff to kids. Whereas there are loads of people that would steal money from a bank if they thought they could get away with it.