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

[sporthenry]

Should have expected it, but that NRA press conference was disappointing. They want to solve the problem by making themselves even more powerful.

Yeah - I understand their philosophy - but nothing of compromise mentioned at all. Let's solve it by just increasing the prevalence of guns, and the NRA central to a massive new gun program. Don't need to to anything to keep guns out of the hands of bad guys.

Guess I was stupid for expecting something better. Hey, I guess it is a step up from arming the teachers. Just not sure how the fiscally responsible side can just justify putting more cops into schools. Sure it sounds great, but we are at a time with budget cuts. We are cutting police patrols, fireman shifts, and even teaching positions, but we somehow can afford this? I know it sounds nice on paper being all about the children, but where does the money come from? Someone early mentioned parents would spend $5/day for the kids. That sounds all well and good but add that up and that is $900/year ($5/day X 180 days of school). People complain about getting nickled and dimed, so what would you call this? Some people can't afford x-mas presents and live pay check to pay check, now we are going to take $900 more out of their paycheck? And I feel like this is another example of not fixing the problem, but just addressing the final outcome. It seems like one common refrain from the right about food stamps is that it isn't fixing the problem of poverty. The whole, give a man a fish, he eats for a day, teach him how to fish, he eats forever type thing. This putting cops in schools doesn't seem to actually fix the problem, just tries to quell the outcomes.

And how is an armed guard that much different? Lets say the kid scopes it out and knows where the cop is? He goes in and shoot him first, then it seems like we are back at square 1. Yes, it might help a bit in some situations, but it seems in other, nothing much would change.

But the NRA and the Republicans aren't smart b/c if they don't concede anything, then they'll get the AWB and other things passed.

I am all ears on this part.Please tell me what the best solution is.

I don't know what the best solution is. But I will say that most Americans don't think arming police officers is the normal response. And even if that is your best answer, you follow it up with other things. I'd start with closing the gun show loophole, having stricter requirements to get a gun and more paperwork following the guns. We've had some pretty good ideas and been rather unanimous about more regulations with getting the guns. I have other ideas, but if you really think that the security guard idea was the only idea and we don't need to do anything else, then I would say you aren't getting it which would apply to the NRA.

The NRA has never and will never speak for me so let's be very clear on that.To expect them to say anything different today was no surprise to me at all.Of course that is not all I want to be done and have stated my case in this thread many times about measures I would like in place for owning a gun.I also want to protect our kids even more than we already are and yes that would include a trained police officer or military person to start a first line of defense.Of course other things at the school can be improved as well such as adding bulletproof glass,re-inforced doors etc.I think this is a very reasonable start for our schools and at the very least needs to be discussed and not tossed aside so easily like some seem to be doing.

And who pays for it? I know it sounds bad to say, but I'll reiterate. Last year, Trenton layed off 105 police officers and were only able to rehire 12 of them after receiving federal funds. Fireman were furloughed and "rolling brownouts" saw certain fire stations closed on certain days. So we are going to put millions back into these programs? I'm not the budget guy but that is not a job I want to try to divert where the funds will go. Additionally, I would expect the NRA to come to the table with some restrictions. All we've heard here is about how legal gun owners don't want mentally ill people to get guns, how they are trained and how they are for more safety precautions. They realize that without this, the public support to ban guns would be even higher. So I would expect the NRA to be conceding certain points. Perhaps they will but as of right now, many moderate Americans are left scratching their heads over what they consider an actual response to the whole gun crises.

Additionally, many have started asking what constitutes a school? A college? Every college building needs armed security? And what about Aurora? Do we move that to cinemas too? I know children are the utmost importance and that is why this struck so many of us but that still doesn't solve much of the whole gun problem that this brought about.

I would say that adding a tax onto the gun sales would help fund this unless of course the real goal is to eliminate all gun sales then I see your point completely.As far as the schools go in labeling them I would say a private school(college on down)would be able to fund this themselves.Public schools could be helped by the tax imposed on gun sales.

Any private business,such as the cinemas,needs to look long and hard at what they feel is best for it's customers.

I have no problem with the idea of a gun tax. But again, without doing much else, I see it as an exercise in futility. We still aren't addressing the root of the problem which are illegal guns and guns getting into the wrong hands. A security guard is a good issue, but what happens when a kid familiar with the school, sneaks up on the security guard, shoots him and we have the exact same situation? Do we add 2 security guards? As far as the private business, they aren't going to make any reforms unless it is mandated. They aren't going to cut into their bottom line without an imminent threat.

 

[TwinTurbo]

The only thing I found really surprising about the NRA thing was the "blame video games" spiel.

I mean, if you're about liberty and individual responsibility, shouldn't you be about liberty and individual responsibility? If you're about broadly reading the Second Amendment to expand personal freedoms, shouldn't you be about broadly reading the First Amendment to expand personal freedoms? Pointing the finger at other people for perpetuating a culture of guns and violence in society and especially with children doesn't seem like a winning strategy. Eventually, someone's gonna hold up a mirror.

Yeah this is the part that surprised me the most. Video games are the biggest red herring in this entire conversation on the underlying issues. I didn't expect the NRA to give up any ground, but trying to shift the focus to video games is a losing strategy. And it wasn't just a casual mention. He called the makers of violent video games "a callous, corrupt and corrupting shadow industry that sells, and sows, violence against its own people." The statement really didn't even make any sense considering this is a global industry, not just a US industry. I can't wait for the video game industry response.

That also was strange for the apparent freedom crew. I was surprised they were willing to so quickly push the blame on them as opposed to just personal responsibility.

Keep in mind the NRA also released its own PS2 game a few years ago called NRA gun club. It had some of the worst reviews I've ever seen for any game. Most reviews wanted to know where the option was to shoot the game itself.

 

[tom22406]

Should have expected it, but that NRA press conference was disappointing. They want to solve the problem by making themselves even more powerful.

Yeah - I understand their philosophy - but nothing of compromise mentioned at all. Let's solve it by just increasing the prevalence of guns, and the NRA central to a massive new gun program. Don't need to to anything to keep guns out of the hands of bad guys.

Guess I was stupid for expecting something better. Hey, I guess it is a step up from arming the teachers. Just not sure how the fiscally responsible side can just justify putting more cops into schools. Sure it sounds great, but we are at a time with budget cuts. We are cutting police patrols, fireman shifts, and even teaching positions, but we somehow can afford this? I know it sounds nice on paper being all about the children, but where does the money come from? Someone early mentioned parents would spend $5/day for the kids. That sounds all well and good but add that up and that is $900/year ($5/day X 180 days of school). People complain about getting nickled and dimed, so what would you call this? Some people can't afford x-mas presents and live pay check to pay check, now we are going to take $900 more out of their paycheck? And I feel like this is another example of not fixing the problem, but just addressing the final outcome. It seems like one common refrain from the right about food stamps is that it isn't fixing the problem of poverty. The whole, give a man a fish, he eats for a day, teach him how to fish, he eats forever type thing. This putting cops in schools doesn't seem to actually fix the problem, just tries to quell the outcomes.

And how is an armed guard that much different? Lets say the kid scopes it out and knows where the cop is? He goes in and shoot him first, then it seems like we are back at square 1. Yes, it might help a bit in some situations, but it seems in other, nothing much would change.

But the NRA and the Republicans aren't smart b/c if they don't concede anything, then they'll get the AWB and other things passed.

I am all ears on this part.Please tell me what the best solution is.

I don't know what the best solution is. But I will say that most Americans don't think arming police officers is the normal response. And even if that is your best answer, you follow it up with other things. I'd start with closing the gun show loophole, having stricter requirements to get a gun and more paperwork following the guns. We've had some pretty good ideas and been rather unanimous about more regulations with getting the guns. I have other ideas, but if you really think that the security guard idea was the only idea and we don't need to do anything else, then I would say you aren't getting it which would apply to the NRA.

The NRA has never and will never speak for me so let's be very clear on that.To expect them to say anything different today was no surprise to me at all.Of course that is not all I want to be done and have stated my case in this thread many times about measures I would like in place for owning a gun.I also want to protect our kids even more than we already are and yes that would include a trained police officer or military person to start a first line of defense.Of course other things at the school can be improved as well such as adding bulletproof glass,re-inforced doors etc.I think this is a very reasonable start for our schools and at the very least needs to be discussed and not tossed aside so easily like some seem to be doing.

And who pays for it? I know it sounds bad to say, but I'll reiterate. Last year, Trenton layed off 105 police officers and were only able to rehire 12 of them after receiving federal funds. Fireman were furloughed and "rolling brownouts" saw certain fire stations closed on certain days. So we are going to put millions back into these programs? I'm not the budget guy but that is not a job I want to try to divert where the funds will go. Additionally, I would expect the NRA to come to the table with some restrictions. All we've heard here is about how legal gun owners don't want mentally ill people to get guns, how they are trained and how they are for more safety precautions. They realize that without this, the public support to ban guns would be even higher. So I would expect the NRA to be conceding certain points. Perhaps they will but as of right now, many moderate Americans are left scratching their heads over what they consider an actual response to the whole gun crises.

Additionally, many have started asking what constitutes a school? A college? Every college building needs armed security? And what about Aurora? Do we move that to cinemas too? I know children are the utmost importance and that is why this struck so many of us but that still doesn't solve much of the whole gun problem that this brought about.

I would say that adding a tax onto the gun sales would help fund this unless of course the real goal is to eliminate all gun sales then I see your point completely.As far as the schools go in labeling them I would say a private school(college on down)would be able to fund this themselves.Public schools could be helped by the tax imposed on gun sales.

Any private business,such as the cinemas,needs to look long and hard at what they feel is best for it's customers.

I have no problem with the idea of a gun tax. But again, without doing much else, I see it as an exercise in futility. We still aren't addressing the root of the problem which are illegal guns and guns getting into the wrong hands. A security guard is a good issue, but what happens when a kid familiar with the school, sneaks up on the security guard, shoots him and we have the exact same situation? Do we add 2 security guards? As far as the private business, they aren't going to make any reforms unless it is mandated. They aren't going to cut into their bottom line without an imminent threat.

I am not saying simply tax the guns and be done with it and problem solved.I am saying that to start to make our schools safer for our kids that would be a nice start.That slippery slope works both ways which is why you get so much pushback from gun owners affraid the end result is a complete ban of all weapons.Let's say we ban all AR-15's,AK-47's and so called Assault Weapons and the next mass killing is done with a handgun?Is that the next step to ban them as well until the final result is a complete ban of all guns?

I agree that measures need to be taken to make our streets,schools and anywhere else safer from violence of any kind.And I think we all agree that we have evil walking our streets with no regard for any law or life and we will never stop violent crimes completely.Doesn't mean we need to do nothing and it doesn't mean we need to ban everything.It does mean we need to make sure whatever bill does pass is the right one.Sadly,the last one was not the case.

 

[Koya]

No one may read this rambling treatise, but my thoughts after lurking a bit in the thread.

I wish it shocked me that no one seems to be looking at a truly objective, fair, implementable and potentially successful solution in a comprehensive sense. The NRA blames everything except current gun laws and the right to carry. Others get aghast at the thought of teachers being armed. It seems you are on one side or the other, when most everyone (except probably the NRA) has SOMEthing to bring into the conversation.

I'll say this - the tragedy in Sandy Hook has me REALLY thinking gun policy for the first time. As a firm believer in the rights of the individual, I think the right to arm yourself is essential, and not within the Constitution for no reason.

However, it's apparent that the right of innocent people to not be killed by folks with guns (or go ahead and say it, killed by guns, because except in very rare instances, a knife will usually wound, and certainly wont mass execute regardless of who is carrying it) far outweighs the right for someone to carry at this point.

To me, its becoming clear that IF we don't find some meaningful solutions to gun violence, then it's not those who want more gun restrictions that should be concerned long term about policy, but gun owners and gun ownership rights' defenders. Because eventually you just say screw it, no more guns. And I think that is potentially dangerous on a whole bunch of levels - which is another discussion as to why.

Basically, we must look at ALL the options out there, extreme and otherwise, and find the right mix of all. We have to treat the effect, the shootings, because they acutely kill people and harm communities, and other solutions will have a lag before effectiveness, so we have to do something now. Is that cops in schools? Arming teachers? Getting certain especially deadly weapons such as assault rifles off the streets now?

However, as many note, without addressing a number of underlying issues, many that we really don't fully understand even (i.e. how much do video games contribute? at all? a lot? why is this usually a middle class or upper middle class white epidemic. not always, but mostly). So, we need to address the CAUSES of these actions, as best we can, understanding sometimes people are evil, or go crazy. But there must be a way to help some, address the issue to a better degree than now, and also perhaps have more advance warning with behavioral signs and evidence before something terrible occurs. Mental Illness and how our nation seems to fail so many individuals and families in addressing it.

It's almost as if we need to list the full range of solutions, and try to, without bias, find what will work - short and then long term.

My thoughts:

Arming Teachers - I don't see the problem. Does not have to be mandatory, or perhaps school security now has to essentially pass enough tests to become armed. While the Israel issue isn't perfectly clear, I have learned first hand that in crowded places, when you see the good guys, and many of them much like you, with arms, you do feel and are safer. Perhaps it's optional, or some group of teachers gets training and certified. Don't see the harm here.

Cops in Schools - As noted just above, what about just school security? Just too costly as noted above, and do we want cops to have to patrol our schools now? But it can't just be dismissed as it addresses the acute fear of something happening short term.

More stringent gun legislation or gun bans - It would seem to me that a reasonable compromise here is to get the most dangerous weapons off the street totally. Those which can achieve mass destruction and have nothing to do with gaming and really are meant as weapons of war in the most extreme of circumstance. But, for practical and philosophical reasons, we are not going the England route. No way we are taking all guns away, so what is the balance and how do we best make sure that (1) the right guns are there and available to provide for gaming and personal security and (2) most importantly, how can we make sure that the only people who have access to guns are responsible with them, are well trained, must demonstrate competency in use and safety precautions to maintain ownership, etc. Need some monitoring here, and while I'd prefer not to have to give my info up to some gov't agency, the reality is we have to because people's liberty and safety is at risk here at this point, so the current system just isnt enough.

Address the root causes of such violence - This is huge here. Because it's not about limiting one person freedom or anothers by allowing guns and having innocents killed or not allowing guns in the first place. Is it mental illness? Violent male culture and video games? What are the roots, because we need to be more honest about them and work through it.

Some other suggestions out there, but I do believe only a real mix and match of ideas from the left, the right, gun owners, gun haters, all of us must have some input into this for a solution to take hold.

For me, I'd love to keep the gov't out of it and allow more personal freedom for guns, or whatever - however history and recent history is demonstrating that the system is completely broken. Thousands and thousands of lives are lost every year to this and we must really find a better way.

For me, the suggestion is allow more private carry of guns (i.e. teachers, certified civilians etc) restrict significantly, access to guns only to someone who can demonstrate they are responsible, trained, etc via certification, with harsh penalties for anything illegal - and we must, absolutely must address how our nation (mis)treats mental illness, those who suffer from it and those who are harmed by those who need medical help, but do not receive it / are supported enough, if at all.

 

[sporthenry]

Should have expected it, but that NRA press conference was disappointing. They want to solve the problem by making themselves even more powerful.

Yeah - I understand their philosophy - but nothing of compromise mentioned at all. Let's solve it by just increasing the prevalence of guns, and the NRA central to a massive new gun program. Don't need to to anything to keep guns out of the hands of bad guys.

Guess I was stupid for expecting something better. Hey, I guess it is a step up from arming the teachers. Just not sure how the fiscally responsible side can just justify putting more cops into schools. Sure it sounds great, but we are at a time with budget cuts. We are cutting police patrols, fireman shifts, and even teaching positions, but we somehow can afford this? I know it sounds nice on paper being all about the children, but where does the money come from? Someone early mentioned parents would spend $5/day for the kids. That sounds all well and good but add that up and that is $900/year ($5/day X 180 days of school). People complain about getting nickled and dimed, so what would you call this? Some people can't afford x-mas presents and live pay check to pay check, now we are going to take $900 more out of their paycheck? And I feel like this is another example of not fixing the problem, but just addressing the final outcome. It seems like one common refrain from the right about food stamps is that it isn't fixing the problem of poverty. The whole, give a man a fish, he eats for a day, teach him how to fish, he eats forever type thing. This putting cops in schools doesn't seem to actually fix the problem, just tries to quell the outcomes.

And how is an armed guard that much different? Lets say the kid scopes it out and knows where the cop is? He goes in and shoot him first, then it seems like we are back at square 1. Yes, it might help a bit in some situations, but it seems in other, nothing much would change.

But the NRA and the Republicans aren't smart b/c if they don't concede anything, then they'll get the AWB and other things passed.

I am all ears on this part.Please tell me what the best solution is.

I don't know what the best solution is. But I will say that most Americans don't think arming police officers is the normal response. And even if that is your best answer, you follow it up with other things. I'd start with closing the gun show loophole, having stricter requirements to get a gun and more paperwork following the guns. We've had some pretty good ideas and been rather unanimous about more regulations with getting the guns. I have other ideas, but if you really think that the security guard idea was the only idea and we don't need to do anything else, then I would say you aren't getting it which would apply to the NRA.

The NRA has never and will never speak for me so let's be very clear on that.To expect them to say anything different today was no surprise to me at all.Of course that is not all I want to be done and have stated my case in this thread many times about measures I would like in place for owning a gun.I also want to protect our kids even more than we already are and yes that would include a trained police officer or military person to start a first line of defense.Of course other things at the school can be improved as well such as adding bulletproof glass,re-inforced doors etc.I think this is a very reasonable start for our schools and at the very least needs to be discussed and not tossed aside so easily like some seem to be doing.

And who pays for it? I know it sounds bad to say, but I'll reiterate. Last year, Trenton layed off 105 police officers and were only able to rehire 12 of them after receiving federal funds. Fireman were furloughed and "rolling brownouts" saw certain fire stations closed on certain days. So we are going to put millions back into these programs? I'm not the budget guy but that is not a job I want to try to divert where the funds will go. Additionally, I would expect the NRA to come to the table with some restrictions. All we've heard here is about how legal gun owners don't want mentally ill people to get guns, how they are trained and how they are for more safety precautions. They realize that without this, the public support to ban guns would be even higher. So I would expect the NRA to be conceding certain points. Perhaps they will but as of right now, many moderate Americans are left scratching their heads over what they consider an actual response to the whole gun crises.

Additionally, many have started asking what constitutes a school? A college? Every college building needs armed security? And what about Aurora? Do we move that to cinemas too? I know children are the utmost importance and that is why this struck so many of us but that still doesn't solve much of the whole gun problem that this brought about.

I would say that adding a tax onto the gun sales would help fund this unless of course the real goal is to eliminate all gun sales then I see your point completely.As far as the schools go in labeling them I would say a private school(college on down)would be able to fund this themselves.Public schools could be helped by the tax imposed on gun sales.

Any private business,such as the cinemas,needs to look long and hard at what they feel is best for it's customers.

I have no problem with the idea of a gun tax. But again, without doing much else, I see it as an exercise in futility. We still aren't addressing the root of the problem which are illegal guns and guns getting into the wrong hands. A security guard is a good issue, but what happens when a kid familiar with the school, sneaks up on the security guard, shoots him and we have the exact same situation? Do we add 2 security guards? As far as the private business, they aren't going to make any reforms unless it is mandated. They aren't going to cut into their bottom line without an imminent threat.

I am not saying simply tax the guns and be done with it and problem solved.I am saying that to start to make our schools safer for our kids that would be a nice start.That slippery slope works both ways which is why you get so much pushback from gun owners affraid the end result is a complete ban of all weapons.Let's say we ban all AR-15's,AK-47's and so called Assault Weapons and the next mass killing is done with a handgun?Is that the next step to ban them as well until the final result is a complete ban of all guns?

I agree that measures need to be taken to make our streets,schools and anywhere else safer from violence of any kind.And I think we all agree that we have evil walking our streets with no regard for any law or life and we will never stop violent crimes completely.Doesn't mean we need to do nothing and it doesn't mean we need to ban everything.It does mean we need to make sure whatever bill does pass is the right one.Sadly,the last one was not the case.

Well my biggest thing is if I was them, I would be the ones creating the regulations so it affects the legal gun owners as little as possible. I guess they think they can continue to push this, no regulation thing, but I think that is a dream. I know they think it is a slippery slope, but like some reasonable people have said, the AWB didn't deter much if any violence. So I'm willing to rethink the AWB,IF, they have something else in mind. Whether it is mandatory safety classes, more comprehensive background checks and mental tests, no private sales, etc. I don't see any of those really restricting legal gun owners much if at all and neither really seems to go down a slippery slope save for the mental health test b/c that will be a slippery slope regardless. But I'd rather err on the side of caution with that. I'm not proposing banning everything, and I'd be willing to forgo the AWB for much tighter restrictions on guns in general and even more tighter ones on these AWBs.

 

[tom22406]

Well that means we are not far apart at all in our thinking and thanks for being civil in your replies

Nothing wrong with throwing ideas around and trust me when I say that I want the same result as you do.

And to Koya,that was a quality post.

 

[Native]

Lots of pissed off people today and rightly so.

Democratic congressman and senator-elect Chris Murphy, whose congressional district includes Newtown, tweeted a sharp reaction from Connecticut after the group's comments: "Walking out of another funeral and was handed the NRA transcript. The most revolting, tone deaf statement I've ever seen."

Michael Blomberg: Instead of offering solutions to a problem they have helped create, they offered a paranoid, dystopian vision of a more dangerous and violent America where everyone is armed and no place is safe," he said. "Enough. As a country, we must rise above special interest politics.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/21/nra-comments-draw-swift-opposition-in-reactions/?hpt=hp_t2

 

[Henry Ford]

Henry, I don't know if you got the North Carolina information fixed because I cannot keep up with this thread, but several pages back you posted the NYTimes lies about it. Here's Reason being reasonable... and honest.

Excluding traffic offenses, the Times counts 2,400 over five years, of which 200 were felonies. More relevant (since critics of nondiscretionary permit laws worry that they contribute to gun violence), "More than 200 permit holders were also convicted of gun- or weapon-related felonies or misdemeanors, including roughly 60 who committed weapon-related assaults." That's a dozen gun assaults a year. How many permit holders are there in North Carolina? According to the story, "more than 240,000." So 0.2 percent of them are convicted of a non-traffic-related offense each year, about 0.017 percent are convicted of a felony, and only 0.005 percent are convicted of a gun assault. The Times concedes that the number of permit holders convicted of crimes "represents a small percentage of those with permits." More like "tiny." By comparison, about 0.35 percent of all Americans are convicted of a felony each year--more than 20 times the rate among North Carolina permit holders. It seems clear these people are far more law-abiding than the general population, a finding consistent with data from other states.

The fact that it's less than the rate of other Americans getting convicted of felonies doesn't change the fact that these people are carrying concealed weapons while they commit theirs. I wasn't arguing that they are more likely to be convicted of crimes than non-permit holders. I was arguing that there are a bunch of yahoos with CCPs and that I don't want any of them to have their weapons while teaching first graders.

 

[Slingblade]

Lots of pissed off people today and rightly so.

Democratic congressman and senator-elect Chris Murphy, whose congressional district includes Newtown, tweeted a sharp reaction from Connecticut after the group's comments: "Walking out of another funeral and was handed the NRA transcript. The most revolting, tone deaf statement I've ever seen."

Michael Blomberg: Instead of offering solutions to a problem they have helped create, they offered a paranoid, dystopian vision of a more dangerous and violent America where everyone is armed and no place is safe," he said. "Enough. As a country, we must rise above special interest politics.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/21/nra-comments-draw-swift-opposition-in-reactions/?hpt=hp_t2

Of course he's just against special interest politics when he doesn't like it.#### Bloomberg.

 

[sporthenry]

Well that means we are not far apart at all in our thinking and thanks for being civil in your replies Nothing wrong with throwing ideas around and trust me when I say that I want the same result as you do.And to Koya,that was a quality post.

Yeah, I think once you get past a lot of the static in here, most people and especially the lurkers are reasonable. But his is just a microcosm of our political system where the most blow-hard are the most committed so you have unreasonable people in here who are either proposing banning guns or doing nothing. Koya had a very well reasoned approach. I think the concern with adding guards in school, apart from the cost, is the danger. I know some people like Henry Ford have said that he doesn't want guns in his kid's classroom and I can understand that. I know a lot of people don't want their kindergarten teacher carrying and I can't really blame them. The one thing I will add is that I've seen plenty of high schools around me where the teachers are often the victim of school violence. There was an epidemic where the teachers weren't safe. I guess guns would quell some of this b/c you could shoot the attacker if need be, but my concern is that kids attack the CCP holder and now they have a down teacher and a gun. I guess you could argue that these kids can easily get guns another way but in schools with metal detectors, you might just add a way for them to get guns.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

The only thing I found really surprising about the NRA thing was the "blame video games" spiel.

I mean, if you're about liberty and individual responsibility, shouldn't you be about liberty and individual responsibility? If you're about broadly reading the Second Amendment to expand personal freedoms, shouldn't you be about broadly reading the First Amendment to expand personal freedoms? Pointing the finger at other people for perpetuating a culture of guns and violence in society and especially with children doesn't seem like a winning strategy. Eventually, someone's gonna hold up a mirror.

Yeah this is the part that surprised me the most. Video games are the biggest red herring in this entire conversation on the underlying issues. I didn't expect the NRA to give up any ground, but trying to shift the focus to video games is a losing strategy. And it wasn't just a casual mention. He called the makers of violent video games “a callous, corrupt and corrupting shadow industry that sells, and sows, violence against its own people.” The statement really didn't even make any sense considering this is a global industry, not just a US industry. I can't wait for the video game industry response.

Agreed. That part was just stupid. No need for anybody in the video game industry to respond at all. This is just an updated version of blaming Blue Oyster Cult and Gary Gygax for teen suicides.

 

[jafo]

 

[Koya]

The only thing I found really surprising about the NRA thing was the "blame video games" spiel.

I mean, if you're about liberty and individual responsibility, shouldn't you be about liberty and individual responsibility? If you're about broadly reading the Second Amendment to expand personal freedoms, shouldn't you be about broadly reading the First Amendment to expand personal freedoms? Pointing the finger at other people for perpetuating a culture of guns and violence in society and especially with children doesn't seem like a winning strategy. Eventually, someone's gonna hold up a mirror.

Yeah this is the part that surprised me the most. Video games are the biggest red herring in this entire conversation on the underlying issues. I didn't expect the NRA to give up any ground, but trying to shift the focus to video games is a losing strategy. And it wasn't just a casual mention. He called the makers of violent video games “a callous, corrupt and corrupting shadow industry that sells, and sows, violence against its own people.” The statement really didn't even make any sense considering this is a global industry, not just a US industry. I can't wait for the video game industry response.

Agreed. That part was just stupid. No need for anybody in the video game industry to respond at all. This is just an updated version of blaming Blue Oyster Cult and Gary Gygax for teen suicides.

Honestly Ivan, I don't think we can totally discount it. And you can't look at just video games in isolation. And honestly, I don't know the results. But it appears to me that at least anecdotal information suggests there may be some correlation between constant violence in games, movies, other forms of entertainment. To just dismiss it totally, imo, is part of the problem with really addressing the gun violence epidemic. I think everything needs to be looked at and nothing dismissed offhand.

Is it "the" answer - certainly not. Could it be part of one? Perhaps. And enough so worth exploring because the alternative of not finding a solution should not be acceptable. No sacred cows anymore.

And no silver bullet... some combination of a lot of these ideas will be necessary to address this short and long term, imo.

ETA: I really think there's a false analogy with the teen suicide. A song that you hear now to now is far different than being constantly not only exposed to, but engaged in a certain activity. Hours and hours, for years and years. They really are not even close in terms of degree of influence imo.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

The only thing I found really surprising about the NRA thing was the "blame video games" spiel.

I mean, if you're about liberty and individual responsibility, shouldn't you be about liberty and individual responsibility? If you're about broadly reading the Second Amendment to expand personal freedoms, shouldn't you be about broadly reading the First Amendment to expand personal freedoms? Pointing the finger at other people for perpetuating a culture of guns and violence in society and especially with children doesn't seem like a winning strategy. Eventually, someone's gonna hold up a mirror.

Yeah this is the part that surprised me the most. Video games are the biggest red herring in this entire conversation on the underlying issues. I didn't expect the NRA to give up any ground, but trying to shift the focus to video games is a losing strategy. And it wasn't just a casual mention. He called the makers of violent video games “a callous, corrupt and corrupting shadow industry that sells, and sows, violence against its own people.” The statement really didn't even make any sense considering this is a global industry, not just a US industry. I can't wait for the video game industry response.

Agreed. That part was just stupid. No need for anybody in the video game industry to respond at all. This is just an updated version of blaming Blue Oyster Cult and Gary Gygax for teen suicides.

Honestly Ivan, I don't think we can totally discount it. And you can't look at just video games in isolation. And honestly, I don't know the results. But it appears to me that at least anecdotal information suggests there may be some correlation between constant violence in games, movies, other forms of entertainment. To just dismiss it totally, imo, is part of the problem with really addressing the gun violence epidemic. I think everything needs to be looked at and nothing dismissed offhand.

Is it "the" answer - certainly not. Could it be part of one? Perhaps. And enough so worth exploring because the alternative of not finding a solution should not be acceptable. No sacred cows anymore.

And no silver bullet... some combination of a lot of these ideas will be necessary to address this short and long term, imo.

Honestly, I'd rather live in a slightly more violent society where mass shootings occur from time to time than live in a society in which the media (including music, film, and gaming) are heavily censored. I don't even consider it a close decision. If the "solution" to real-life violence is censorship, then I'd rather stick with the status quo instead.

 

[Spanky267]

Should have expected it, but that NRA press conference was disappointing. They want to solve the problem by making themselves even more powerful.

Yeah - I understand their philosophy - but nothing of compromise mentioned at all. Let's solve it by just increasing the prevalence of guns, and the NRA central to a massive new gun program. Don't need to to anything to keep guns out of the hands of bad guys.

Guess I was stupid for expecting something better. Hey, I guess it is a step up from arming the teachers. Just not sure how the fiscally responsible side can just justify putting more cops into schools. Sure it sounds great, but we are at a time with budget cuts. We are cutting police patrols, fireman shifts, and even teaching positions, but we somehow can afford this? I know it sounds nice on paper being all about the children, but where does the money come from? Someone early mentioned parents would spend $5/day for the kids. That sounds all well and good but add that up and that is $900/year ($5/day X 180 days of school). People complain about getting nickled and dimed, so what would you call this? Some people can't afford x-mas presents and live pay check to pay check, now we are going to take $900 more out of their paycheck? And I feel like this is another example of not fixing the problem, but just addressing the final outcome. It seems like one common refrain from the right about food stamps is that it isn't fixing the problem of poverty. The whole, give a man a fish, he eats for a day, teach him how to fish, he eats forever type thing. This putting cops in schools doesn't seem to actually fix the problem, just tries to quell the outcomes.

And how is an armed guard that much different? Lets say the kid scopes it out and knows where the cop is? He goes in and shoot him first, then it seems like we are back at square 1. Yes, it might help a bit in some situations, but it seems in other, nothing much would change.

But the NRA and the Republicans aren't smart b/c if they don't concede anything, then they'll get the AWB and other things passed.

I am all ears on this part.Please tell me what the best solution is.

I don't know what the best solution is. But I will say that most Americans don't think arming police officers is the normal response. And even if that is your best answer, you follow it up with other things. I'd start with closing the gun show loophole, having stricter requirements to get a gun and more paperwork following the guns. We've had some pretty good ideas and been rather unanimous about more regulations with getting the guns. I have other ideas, but if you really think that the security guard idea was the only idea and we don't need to do anything else, then I would say you aren't getting it which would apply to the NRA.

ETA: And not only do they not propose any regulations, but they seem to still be against any such regulation.

Can you tell me more about this gun show loophole and how it applies to any of the recent shootings?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

To elaborate on the above post, when somebody asks "What should we do to make sure something like the CT shooting never happens again?" the answer is definitely not "whatever it takes." Sometimes the price of living in a free society is that some psycho is going to take advantage of his freedom to do something evil and hurtful. That's true when we're talking about terrorism, and it's also true of other acts of mass violence.

That's not to say that we shouldn't do anything. Like I've said earlier, I've always been fine with background checks on gun purchases, so I have no problem with things like closing the gun show exemption. But proposals like putting cops in every school don't meet the cost-benefits threshold, and proposals like censorship and outright gun bans infringe too much on personal freedom (and therefore fail to satisfy a slightly different cost-benefit test).

 

[MaxThreshold]

Has anyone come up with a solution of how to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and crazies? Since those are the ones committing the crimes I would think we would focus on that.

All I'm seeing in this thread so far is solutions on how to keep guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens.

 

[Koya]

The only thing I found really surprising about the NRA thing was the "blame video games" spiel.

I mean, if you're about liberty and individual responsibility, shouldn't you be about liberty and individual responsibility? If you're about broadly reading the Second Amendment to expand personal freedoms, shouldn't you be about broadly reading the First Amendment to expand personal freedoms? Pointing the finger at other people for perpetuating a culture of guns and violence in society and especially with children doesn't seem like a winning strategy. Eventually, someone's gonna hold up a mirror.

Yeah this is the part that surprised me the most. Video games are the biggest red herring in this entire conversation on the underlying issues. I didn't expect the NRA to give up any ground, but trying to shift the focus to video games is a losing strategy. And it wasn't just a casual mention. He called the makers of violent video games “a callous, corrupt and corrupting shadow industry that sells, and sows, violence against its own people.” The statement really didn't even make any sense considering this is a global industry, not just a US industry. I can't wait for the video game industry response.

Agreed. That part was just stupid. No need for anybody in the video game industry to respond at all. This is just an updated version of blaming Blue Oyster Cult and Gary Gygax for teen suicides.

Honestly Ivan, I don't think we can totally discount it. And you can't look at just video games in isolation. And honestly, I don't know the results. But it appears to me that at least anecdotal information suggests there may be some correlation between constant violence in games, movies, other forms of entertainment. To just dismiss it totally, imo, is part of the problem with really addressing the gun violence epidemic. I think everything needs to be looked at and nothing dismissed offhand.

Is it "the" answer - certainly not. Could it be part of one? Perhaps. And enough so worth exploring because the alternative of not finding a solution should not be acceptable. No sacred cows anymore.

And no silver bullet... some combination of a lot of these ideas will be necessary to address this short and long term, imo.

Honestly, I'd rather live in a slightly more violent society where mass shootings occur from time to time than live in a society in which the media (including music, film, and gaming) are heavily censored. I don't even consider it a close decision. If the "solution" to real-life violence is censorship, then I'd rather stick with the status quo instead.

I never mentioned censorship, Ivan. I am first trying to understand the causes. Personally, the idea of tightening the rights of gun owners is something that philosophically I am against, but the rights of the many to have a level of safety and protection from misuse of those weapons has to trump that to some degree. It's at least a part of the equation.

In theory, if we realize that the many, many violent impressions on children growing up has a strong negative impact, you wouldn't think we have to address that somehow? There are plenty of civil liberties and rights enjoyed by adults but not children. We may need to explore that to ensure the rights of the many by examining the rights of some.

 

[tom22406]

Anybody know where to find the data that tells us how many school districts already have a security guard already in place in the schools?

I know my school did and have no idea how many more do.

And yes he is armed and has never had anyone wrestle the gun away or had to shoot anyone to my knowledge.

 

[Koya]

Has anyone come up with a solution of how to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and crazies? Since those are the ones committing the crimes I would think we would focus on that.All I'm seeing in this thread so far is solutions on how to keep guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens.

Then you aren't reading all the replies. Some of us are very much for gun rights, but also recognize that we can't have these high powered weapons in the hands of those who wish to do harm. Must be in the hands of responsible and capable people.We also need to address the causes so less people are prone to such violent actions in the first place, if that's possible.

 

[Disc Shark]

Has anyone come up with a solution of how to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and crazies? Since those are the ones committing the crimes I would think we would focus on that.All I'm seeing in this thread so far is solutions on how to keep guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens.

OK. I've heard this from quite a few gun lovers in the past week.How do you propose to "keep guns out of the hands of criminals and crazies" without desecrating my beloved constitutional rights? You may love your guns and your 2nd Amendment, but I love my freedom and my 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th, 10th and 14th Amendments, among others.

 

[tom22406]

I will throw this back out for those that may have no read it yet.

Gun rhetoric vs gun facts

Really a good read and very much down the middle on this.

 

[Ranethe]

The only thing I found really surprising about the NRA thing was the "blame video games" spiel.

I mean, if you're about liberty and individual responsibility, shouldn't you be about liberty and individual responsibility? If you're about broadly reading the Second Amendment to expand personal freedoms, shouldn't you be about broadly reading the First Amendment to expand personal freedoms? Pointing the finger at other people for perpetuating a culture of guns and violence in society and especially with children doesn't seem like a winning strategy. Eventually, someone's gonna hold up a mirror.

Yeah this is the part that surprised me the most. Video games are the biggest red herring in this entire conversation on the underlying issues. I didn't expect the NRA to give up any ground, but trying to shift the focus to video games is a losing strategy. And it wasn't just a casual mention. He called the makers of violent video games “a callous, corrupt and corrupting shadow industry that sells, and sows, violence against its own people.” The statement really didn't even make any sense considering this is a global industry, not just a US industry. I can't wait for the video game industry response.

Agreed. That part was just stupid. No need for anybody in the video game industry to respond at all. This is just an updated version of blaming Blue Oyster Cult and Gary Gygax for teen suicides.

Honestly Ivan, I don't think we can totally discount it. And you can't look at just video games in isolation. And honestly, I don't know the results. But it appears to me that at least anecdotal information suggests there may be some correlation between constant violence in games, movies, other forms of entertainment. To just dismiss it totally, imo, is part of the problem with really addressing the gun violence epidemic. I think everything needs to be looked at and nothing dismissed offhand.

Is it "the" answer - certainly not. Could it be part of one? Perhaps. And enough so worth exploring because the alternative of not finding a solution should not be acceptable. No sacred cows anymore.

And no silver bullet... some combination of a lot of these ideas will be necessary to address this short and long term, imo.

Honestly, I'd rather live in a slightly more violent society where mass shootings occur from time to time than live in a society in which the media (including music, film, and gaming) are heavily censored. I don't even consider it a close decision. If the "solution" to real-life violence is censorship, then I'd rather stick with the status quo instead.

Yeah, me too. And I do dismiss the video game angle, I think it's horse####.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

The world's largest army ... America 's hunters! I had never thought about this....

A blogger added up the deer license sales in just a handful of states and arrived at a striking conclusion:

There were over 600,000 hunters this past season in the state of Wisconsin ...

Allow me to restate that number.

Over the last several months, Wisconsin 's hunters became the eighth largest army in the world.

More men under arms than in Iran ..

More than in France and Germany combined.

These men deployed to the woods of a single American state to hunt with firearms, and no one was killed.

That number pales in comparison to the 750,000 who hunted the woods of Pennsylvania and Michigan 's 700,000 hunters,

All of whom have now returned home.

Toss in a quarter million hunters in West Virginia and it literally establishes the fact that the hunters of those four states alone would comprise the largest army in the world.

The point?

America will forever be safe from foreign invasion with that kind of home-grown firepower.

Hunting -- it's not just a way to fill the freezer. It's a matter of national security.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

Four dead from a shooting in Pennsylvania today.

So this shooting was caused by a legal CCW holder not a criminal that would have a gun regardless of the law?

 

[Ranethe]

Has anyone come up with a solution of how to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and crazies? Since those are the ones committing the crimes I would think we would focus on that.All I'm seeing in this thread so far is solutions on how to keep guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens.

Then you aren't reading all the replies. Some of us are very much for gun rights, but also recognize that we can't have these high powered weapons in the hands of those who wish to do harm. Must be in the hands of responsible and capable people.We also need to address the causes so less people are prone to such violent actions in the first place, if that's possible.

I'm pretty cynical about the whole "address the causes" line of thinking. Not directed at you solely because people have been saying this throughout the whole thread. We won't address any causes. Nobody can identify the causes. And very few have any concern for the mentally ill, it's mostly lip service IMO. States are dumping them out on the streets because people don't want to pay the taxes necessary to care for and treat them. Even if it's less costly in the long term. Hell, we've even had threads here where people have argued there is no such thing as depression, that it's a character flaw or weakness. There is little will to treat mental illness.Our society has always tried to clearly delineate the winners and losers. Competition is almost the essence of America (just read all the people around here who've had fits that their kid doesn't get the opportunity to be a winner because "everyone wins"). It doesn't surprise me that some of the losers end up doing something nuts.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

This is for Tim. What percentage of guns sold at a gun show do you think fall into this "gun show" loophole?

Serious question.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

Another serious question, if we ban all guns, does this mean that the President does not need any Secret Service anymore?

 

[Koya]

Has anyone come up with a solution of how to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and crazies? Since those are the ones committing the crimes I would think we would focus on that.

All I'm seeing in this thread so far is solutions on how to keep guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens.

Then you aren't reading all the replies. Some of us are very much for gun rights, but also recognize that we can't have these high powered weapons in the hands of those who wish to do harm. Must be in the hands of responsible and capable people.We also need to address the causes so less people are prone to such violent actions in the first place, if that's possible.

I'm pretty cynical about the whole "address the causes" line of thinking. Not directed at you solely because people have been saying this throughout the whole thread. We won't address any causes. Nobody can identify the causes. And very few have any concern for the mentally ill, it's mostly lip service IMO. States are dumping them out on the streets because people don't want to pay the taxes necessary to care for and treat them. Even if it's less costly in the long term. Hell, we've even had threads here where people have argued there is no such thing as depression, that it's a character flaw or weakness. There is little will to treat mental illness.Our society has always tried to clearly delineate the winners and losers. Competition is almost the essence of America (just read all the people around here who've had fits that their kid doesn't get the opportunity to be a winner because "everyone wins"). It doesn't surprise me that some of the losers end up doing something nuts.

There appears to be some momentum here to perhaps at least pay more than lip service to the issue. That's my hope, although it's only one small part of the equation, imo. That said, I'd hope this wouldn't result in greater discrimination against those with mental illness.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

One more question.

If there is a room with 100 children and and three unarmed adults. How many of these 103 unarmed people would be killed if a manic walked in with an AR15 with 5 30 round magazines or with 15 10 round magazines?

How much of a difference would there be and would you feel better about it?

 

[timschochet]

This is for Tim. What percentage of guns sold at a gun show do you think fall into this "gun show" loophole?Serious question.

I have no idea. I want all sales recorded, and no sales allowed to convicted felons. This isn't happening right now, thanks in part to the private sales loophole. So let's get rid of it.

 

[timschochet]

Another serious question, if we ban all guns, does this mean that the President does not need any Secret Service anymore?

This is NOT a serious question.

 

[urbanhack]

11 pages a day for 7 days straight.

:robust-thread:

 

[timschochet]

One more question. If there is a room with 100 children and and three unarmed adults. How many of these 103 unarmed people would be killed if a manic walked in with an AR15 with 5 30 round magazines or with 15 10 round magazines?How much of a difference would there be and would you feel better about it?

I think that less people MIGHT be killed if the guy had to reload. I think that even the slightest of possibilities is worth the ban.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

One more question. If there is a room with 100 children and and three unarmed adults. How many of these 103 unarmed people would be killed if a manic walked in with an AR15 with 5 30 round magazines or with 15 10 round magazines?How much of a difference would there be and would you feel better about it?

It would take a few seconds per mag change, so the extra changes involved would add up to an extra 20-30 seconds where people could get away and every second would count in that situation. Really, wouldn't one life saved in that situation be enough?

 

[Mr Two Cents]

This is for Tim. What percentage of guns sold at a gun show do you think fall into this "gun show" loophole?Serious question.

I have no idea. I want all sales recorded, and no sales allowed to convicted felons. This isn't happening right now, thanks in part to the private sales loophole. So let's get rid of it.

Let me help, I have bought 6 guns at gun shows. A background check was completed all 6 times. My drivers license number and serial number of the weapon were both recorded all six times.I would guess that for every 1000 guns sold at a gun show way less than 50 are sold by the "Gun Show" loophole. So take 1000 gun shows times 1000 guns and you have 1,000,000 guns sold, 950,000 legally with required checks and paperwork and 50,000 unrecorded. Does that make you feel better?

 

[Tremendous Upside]

50,000 unrecorded gun purchases seems excessive to me

 

[dfwboiler]

This is for Tim. What percentage of guns sold at a gun show do you think fall into this "gun show" loophole?Serious question.

I have no idea. I want all sales recorded, and no sales allowed to convicted felons. This isn't happening right now, thanks in part to the private sales loophole. So let's get rid of it.

Let me help, I have bought 6 guns at gun shows. A background check was completed all 6 times. My drivers license number and serial number of the weapon were both recorded all six times.I would guess that for every 1000 guns sold at a gun show way less than 50 are sold by the "Gun Show" loophole. So take 1000 gun shows times 1000 guns and you have 1,000,000 guns sold, 950,000 legally with required checks and paperwork and 50,000 unrecorded. Does that make you feel better?

I'm concerned about the private sale of guns as well. The "Gun Show" loophole really isn't a "Gun Show" loophole at all... it's a private sale loophole that let's anybody buy guns. Why we don't make people register guns and their sale is beyond me.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

One more question. If there is a room with 100 children and and three unarmed adults. How many of these 103 unarmed people would be killed if a manic walked in with an AR15 with 5 30 round magazines or with 15 10 round magazines?How much of a difference would there be and would you feel better about it?

It would take a few seconds per mag change, so the extra changes involved would add up to an extra 20-30 seconds where people could get away and every second would count in that situation. Really, wouldn't one life saved in that situation be enough?

I will give you that, saved 1 life out of 103 and took the rights away from over 4 million Americans to do it. Quite a trade off, but maybe reasonable to many.

 

[BassNBrew]

This is for Tim. What percentage of guns sold at a gun show do you think fall into this "gun show" loophole?Serious question.

I have no idea. I want all sales recorded, and no sales allowed to convicted felons. This isn't happening right now, thanks in part to the private sales loophole. So let's get rid of it.

Let me help, I have bought 6 guns at gun shows. A background check was completed all 6 times. My drivers license number and serial number of the weapon were both recorded all six times.I would guess that for every 1000 guns sold at a gun show way less than 50 are sold by the "Gun Show" loophole. So take 1000 gun shows times 1000 guns and you have 1,000,000 guns sold, 950,000 legally with required checks and paperwork and 50,000 unrecorded. Does that make you feel better?

I'm concerned about the private sale of guns as well. The "Gun Show" loophole really isn't a "Gun Show" loophole at all... it's a private sale loophole that let's anybody buy guns. Why we don't make people register guns and their sale is beyond me.

Good point. I have done these in the past...purchasing. I'm willing to give up that.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

This is for Tim. What percentage of guns sold at a gun show do you think fall into this "gun show" loophole?Serious question.

I have no idea. I want all sales recorded, and no sales allowed to convicted felons. This isn't happening right now, thanks in part to the private sales loophole. So let's get rid of it.

Let me help, I have bought 6 guns at gun shows. A background check was completed all 6 times. My drivers license number and serial number of the weapon were both recorded all six times.I would guess that for every 1000 guns sold at a gun show way less than 50 are sold by the "Gun Show" loophole. So take 1000 gun shows times 1000 guns and you have 1,000,000 guns sold, 950,000 legally with required checks and paperwork and 50,000 unrecorded. Does that make you feel better?

I'm concerned about the private sale of guns as well. The "Gun Show" loophole really isn't a "Gun Show" loophole at all... it's a private sale loophole that let's anybody buy guns. Why we don't make people register guns and their sale is beyond me.

Hey you get it, but how we going to enforce that?My main point is that this "Gun Show Loophole" is a red herring that will accomplish nothing but is thrown around by the media like it s a big deal.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

One more question. If there is a room with 100 children and and three unarmed adults. How many of these 103 unarmed people would be killed if a manic walked in with an AR15 with 5 30 round magazines or with 15 10 round magazines?How much of a difference would there be and would you feel better about it?

It would take a few seconds per mag change, so the extra changes involved would add up to an extra 20-30 seconds where people could get away and every second would count in that situation. Really, wouldn't one life saved in that situation be enough?

I will give you that, saved 1 life out of 103 and took the rights away from over 4 million Americans to do it. Quite a trade off, but maybe reasonable to many.

I don't really view access to 30 round magazines as a right. As I've said earlier, most everyone seems to recognize that there is a line of reason when it comes to protected "arms". We generally don't hear the case being made for easier access to machine guns or more advanced military weaponry in line with advances made since the 2nd Amendment was put in place. So the question is really more about where the line is drawn. Where is there case to be made for some practical and reasonable value from guns, both from an enjoyment and self defense standpoint, balanced against the potential to do harm.

 

[parasaurolophus]

The world's largest army ... America 's hunters! I had never thought about this....A blogger added up the deer license sales in just a handful of states and arrived at a striking conclusion:There were over 600,000 hunters this past season in the state of Wisconsin ...Allow me to restate that number.Over the last several months, Wisconsin 's hunters became the eighth largest army in the world.More men under arms than in Iran ..More than in France and Germany combined.These men deployed to the woods of a single American state to hunt with firearms, and no one was killed.That number pales in comparison to the 750,000 who hunted the woods of Pennsylvania and Michigan 's 700,000 hunters,All of whom have now returned home.Toss in a quarter million hunters in West Virginia and it literally establishes the fact that the hunters of those four states alone would comprise the largest army in the world.The point?America will forever be safe from foreign invasion with that kind of home-grown firepower.Hunting -- it's not just a way to fill the freezer. It's a matter of national security.

This is kind of fascinating actually.

 

[timschochet]

This is for Tim. What percentage of guns sold at a gun show do you think fall into this "gun show" loophole?

Serious question.

I have no idea. I want all sales recorded, and no sales allowed to convicted felons. This isn't happening right now, thanks in part to the private sales loophole. So let's get rid of it.

Let me help, I have bought 6 guns at gun shows. A background check was completed all 6 times. My drivers license number and serial number of the weapon were both recorded all six times.I would guess that for every 1000 guns sold at a gun show way less than 50 are sold by the "Gun Show" loophole. So take 1000 gun shows times 1000 guns and you have 1,000,000 guns sold, 950,000 legally with required checks and paperwork and 50,000 unrecorded.

Does that make you feel better?

Not really, no.

 

[JHuber77]

One more question. If there is a room with 100 children and and three unarmed adults. How many of these 103 unarmed people would be killed if a manic walked in with an AR15 with 5 30 round magazines or with 15 10 round magazines?How much of a difference would there be and would you feel better about it?

It would take a few seconds per mag change, so the extra changes involved would add up to an extra 20-30 seconds where people could get away and every second would count in that situation. Really, wouldn't one life saved in that situation be enough?

It wouldnt matter at all, as quite a few people can change an AR magazine in less than a second. Once the handle is charged an AR magazine change is very simple. Just one button and a slap against the bolt catch and your loaded again.

 

[Mark Davis]

I used to carry a 9MM because I carried a lot of cash on me and was around some pretty rough characters while doing it. I think that 9MM would have shot them dead just as easy as an assault rifle. The difference is I wouldn't be able to shoot 20 or 30 people without anyone getting away. I figured a few shots was enough for my purposes.

I have no problem with people having guns and carrying them. There were times I was glad either I or a friend had one. I just don't really see the need for an assault rifle. It's not really a self defense weapon. If someone bursts in your house it's a lot easier to grab a pistol than something that bulky.

 

[Slingblade]

I used to carry a 9MM because I carried a lot of cash on me and was around some pretty rough characters while doing it. I think that 9MM would have shot them dead just as easy as an assault rifle. The difference is I wouldn't be able to shoot 20 or 30 people without anyone getting away. I figured a few shots was enough for my purposes.

I have no problem with people having guns and carrying them. There were times I was glad either I or a friend had one. I just don't really see the need for an assault rifle. It's not really a self defense weapon. If someone bursts in your house it's a lot easier to grab a pistol than something that bulky.

So what? You don't see a need for it? Congrats?

 

[Mark Davis]

I used to carry a 9MM because I carried a lot of cash on me and was around some pretty rough characters while doing it. I think that 9MM would have shot them dead just as easy as an assault rifle. The difference is I wouldn't be able to shoot 20 or 30 people without anyone getting away. I figured a few shots was enough for my purposes.

I have no problem with people having guns and carrying them. There were times I was glad either I or a friend had one. I just don't really see the need for an assault rifle. It's not really a self defense weapon. If someone bursts in your house it's a lot easier to grab a pistol than something that bulky.

So what? You don't see a need for it? Congrats?

OK, what "need" do you have for it? Or are you just wanting to drop pants and see who has the biggest given your tone?

 

[Slingblade]

I used to carry a 9MM because I carried a lot of cash on me and was around some pretty rough characters while doing it. I think that 9MM would have shot them dead just as easy as an assault rifle. The difference is I wouldn't be able to shoot 20 or 30 people without anyone getting away. I figured a few shots was enough for my purposes.

I have no problem with people having guns and carrying them. There were times I was glad either I or a friend had one. I just don't really see the need for an assault rifle. It's not really a self defense weapon. If someone bursts in your house it's a lot easier to grab a pistol than something that bulky.

So what? You don't see a need for it? Congrats?

OK, what "need" do you have for it? Or are you just wanting to drop pants and see who has the biggest given your tone?

First of all, 2nd amendment right. I don't have to show a need.

Second of all, multiple intruders, clearing my house, disaster situation, ec...

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

One more question. If there is a room with 100 children and and three unarmed adults. How many of these 103 unarmed people would be killed if a manic walked in with an AR15 with 5 30 round magazines or with 15 10 round magazines?How much of a difference would there be and would you feel better about it?

It would take a few seconds per mag change, so the extra changes involved would add up to an extra 20-30 seconds where people could get away and every second would count in that situation. Really, wouldn't one life saved in that situation be enough?

It wouldnt matter at all, as quite a few people can change an AR magazine in less than a second. Once the handle is charged an AR magazine change is very simple. Just one button and a slap against the bolt catch and your loaded again.

I think the number of people alive who could swap in a second or less, while moving and shooting at moving targets in an environment like that is probably pretty small. But let's assume you are right and they average one second per change. That's still an extra second happening 10 times, and a single second can easily be the difference between life and death for someone trying to escape a situation like that.