***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (1 Viewer)

[tom22406]

Obama finally can legitimately take credit for jobs his government has created, as gun and ammo sales are now through the ####### roof!

Do you live in a city or in the country? Is where you live crime plagued?

I live about 30 miles from Houston and live in one of the safest neighbors I know of in the area. How is this relevant?

My question is - why do you feel like you have an imminent need to protect yourself if you live in a safe neighborhood? I don't have guns and don't feel like I'm just about to be attacked. I'm just trying to understand what left you so on edge...

Bump. Do you guns rights people live in bad neighborhoods? Why are you so convinced you're in danger?

Maybe I'm thinking about this all wrong but shouldn't you be asking them if they live in nice neighborhoods? I'd guess that it's not their neighbors who are a threat. It's more likely someone outside of the neighborhood who is a concern.

I can see a need for protection when you're likely to be in danger. Why prepare for something which statistically is very unlikely? I just don't see where most of this board, IMO, encounters such dangers. I am left with trying to understand the real motivations.

Sounds like the classic it will never happen to me argument and more than likely you are correct but you never really know for sure do you?Some want the added protection of a firearm,others don't.It all comes down to a personal choice and should be weighed rather heavily on both sides in either case.

You said it - in all likelihood, nothing will happen. My question then - when does justified concern become paranoia?

I know you want to believe all gun owners are paranoid killers waiting for that chance to score the kill but that simply is not the case at all.You can either respect my choice or not.I gave you my reasons but clearly it's not good enough for you and that's fine with me.You make your choice,I'll make mine.

 

[timschochet]

I bet if you were able to get stats for guns sold in 2012 or even the last few years you would find a helluva lot more than 15% were semiautomatic. I would place more weight on recent gun sales as being more representative of active guns "in circulation" instead of segmenting all guns ever bought in the history of the US where a large percentage of those belong to multi-gun owners in their collection.

This doesn't seem unreasonable to me, and it makes me more sure than ever that there is no good reason to resume the AWB. My problem is this: I can't distinguish between these guns in terms of their effectiveness. It appears to me therefore that all attempts to ban "assault weapons" is based more on their looks than on what they can do. I don't love these weapons, but frankly I can't see the point of banning them. However, I remain convinced that the measures I AM for, (banning high capacity magazines and closing the loophole) not only make sense but will help save lives. And if a bill came out that banned Assault Weapons along with the other two items, I would be for it, reluctantly. Closing the private sales loophole is the first priority.

Are there any stats showing loophole purchases and guns used in crimes?

It's a commonly held statistic that 40% all gun sales are private sales and not recorded. (Don't ask me to link this; I have heard it several times on TV and elsewhere.) That's a pretty big number. It's not unreasonable to assume that a significant portion of these guns are used for crimes. Even 1% would be significant, according to law enforcement. Whatever the number, we need to remove the loophole and slow it down. I have yet to hear a good reason not to.

Timmy, this just makes no sense. Use logic, you're saying 40% of all sales at gun shows are private? LOL. Gun shows consist of licensed FFL holders and are primarily put on for them. Private sales are folks who are selling their private collections. So in order to have a stat of 40% it would seem reasonable that 20to30% of tables selling guns at gun shows would be private. I've been to many shows and can tell you that maybe one or two tables are private depending on the show. No way is that stat correct. Further. according to the ATF, 93% of criminals obtain their guns – wait for it – illegally! Yes that’s right, criminals don’t obey the law. Who’d-a thunk it? Also according to the National Institute of Justice, the research arm of the U.S. Department of Justice. According to an NIJ study released in December 1997 (“Homicide in Eight U.S. Cities,” a report that covers much more than homicide), only 2 percent of criminal guns come from gun shows. Regarding your 1% as being too high, closing the gun show loophole would not help with face to face sales. How would you handle a dad passing a firearm down to his kid or if I had one I wanted to sell.What is your purpose with all these laws? If its to save kids lives it would be more beneficial to restrict cars to 55mph max speed then try to restrict a right given to us by our founders. So what is your purpose

First off private sales don't all occur at gun shows, so the 40% figure may be accurate. Second, and here's the important part: if a felon buys a gun. that is considered an illegal sale by law enforcement. Yet there's no way for the seller to know that he is engaged in an illegal sale, because the law does not require a background check. So your statistic of 93% illegal sales includes many in which the seller believes he is being legal. If we enforce existing laws by forcing sellers to do a background check, simple logic suggests it will cut down the number of illegal sales significantly. because then there will have to be 2 parties willing to break the law rather than 1. Pretty simple.

 

[Henry Ford]

I know it's week 17 and all but maybe you guys could take a little time off from the round and round and watch some football? There are some interesting playoff scenarios going on this week......

Sorry, didn't mean to clutter up your game threads talking about unrelated stuff like a total dbag.

 

[Dvorak]

I see the police as our protection. BTW, do you think we need guards everywhere kids would go?

You must not follow Supreme Court decisions. They have ruled repeatedly over the years that police have no duty to protect individuals from harm.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Obama finally can legitimately take credit for jobs his government has created, as gun and ammo sales are now through the ####### roof!

Do you live in a city or in the country? Is where you live crime plagued?

I live about 30 miles from Houston and live in one of the safest neighbors I know of in the area. How is this relevant?

My question is - why do you feel like you have an imminent need to protect yourself if you live in a safe neighborhood? I don't have guns and don't feel like I'm just about to be attacked. I'm just trying to understand what left you so on edge...

Bump. Do you guns rights people live in bad neighborhoods? Why are you so convinced you're in danger?

Maybe I'm thinking about this all wrong but shouldn't you be asking them if they live in nice neighborhoods? I'd guess that it's not their neighbors who are a threat. It's more likely someone outside of the neighborhood who is a concern.

It's this kind of thinking that got Trayvon Martin murdered.

I guess it's time distort the truth even further in this thread.Ultimately did Zimmerman need protection from someone that did not live in his neighborhood?

 

[Glass Joe]

I see the police as our protection. BTW, do you think we need guards everywhere kids would go?

You must not follow Supreme Court decisions. They have ruled repeatedly over the years that police have no duty to protect individuals from harm.

What is your point?

 

[Glass Joe]

Obama finally can legitimately take credit for jobs his government has created, as gun and ammo sales are now through the ####### roof!

Do you live in a city or in the country? Is where you live crime plagued?

I live about 30 miles from Houston and live in one of the safest neighbors I know of in the area. How is this relevant?

My question is - why do you feel like you have an imminent need to protect yourself if you live in a safe neighborhood? I don't have guns and don't feel like I'm just about to be attacked. I'm just trying to understand what left you so on edge...

Bump. Do you guns rights people live in bad neighborhoods? Why are you so convinced you're in danger?

Maybe I'm thinking about this all wrong but shouldn't you be asking them if they live in nice neighborhoods? I'd guess that it's not their neighbors who are a threat. It's more likely someone outside of the neighborhood who is a concern.

It's this kind of thinking that got Trayvon Martin murdered.

I guess it's time distort the truth even further in this thread.Ultimately did Zimmerman need protection from someone that did not live in his neighborhood?

Once he created a confrontation, sure. Of course his judgement seemed to be lacking too.

 

[Dvorak]

I bet if you were able to get stats for guns sold in 2012 or even the last few years you would find a helluva lot more than 15% were semiautomatic. I would place more weight on recent gun sales as being more representative of active guns "in circulation" instead of segmenting all guns ever bought in the history of the US where a large percentage of those belong to multi-gun owners in their collection.

This doesn't seem unreasonable to me, and it makes me more sure than ever that there is no good reason to resume the AWB. My problem is this: I can't distinguish between these guns in terms of their effectiveness. It appears to me therefore that all attempts to ban "assault weapons" is based more on their looks than on what they can do. I don't love these weapons, but frankly I can't see the point of banning them. However, I remain convinced that the measures I AM for, (banning high capacity magazines and closing the loophole) not only make sense but will help save lives. And if a bill came out that banned Assault Weapons along with the other two items, I would be for it, reluctantly. Closing the private sales loophole is the first priority.

Are there any stats showing loophole purchases and guns used in crimes?

It's a commonly held statistic that 40% all gun sales are private sales and not recorded. (Don't ask me to link this; I have heard it several times on TV and elsewhere.) That's a pretty big number. It's not unreasonable to assume that a significant portion of these guns are used for crimes. Even 1% would be significant, according to law enforcement. Whatever the number, we need to remove the loophole and slow it down. I have yet to hear a good reason not to.

Timmy, this just makes no sense. Use logic, you're saying 40% of all sales at gun shows are private? LOL. Gun shows consist of licensed FFL holders and are primarily put on for them. Private sales are folks who are selling their private collections. So in order to have a stat of 40% it would seem reasonable that 20to30% of tables selling guns at gun shows would be private. I've been to many shows and can tell you that maybe one or two tables are private depending on the show. No way is that stat correct. Further. according to the ATF, 93% of criminals obtain their guns – wait for it – illegally! Yes that’s right, criminals don’t obey the law. Who’d-a thunk it? Also according to the National Institute of Justice, the research arm of the U.S. Department of Justice. According to an NIJ study released in December 1997 (“Homicide in Eight U.S. Cities,” a report that covers much more than homicide), only 2 percent of criminal guns come from gun shows.

Regarding your 1% as being too high, closing the gun show loophole would not help with face to face sales. How would you handle a dad passing a firearm down to his kid or if I had one I wanted to sell.

What is your purpose with all these laws? If its to save kids lives it would be more beneficial to restrict cars to 55mph max speed then try to restrict a right given to us by our founders. So what is your purpose

First off private sales don't all occur at gun shows, so the 40% figure may be accurate. Second, and here's the important part: if a felon buys a gun. that is considered an illegal sale by law enforcement. Yet there's no way for the seller to know that he is engaged in an illegal sale, because the law does not require a background check. So your statistic of 93% illegal sales includes many in which the seller believes he is being legal. If we enforce existing laws by forcing sellers to do a background check, simple logic suggests it will cut down the number of illegal sales significantly. because then there will have to be 2 parties willing to break the law rather than 1. Pretty simple.

Tim, here's a link for your 40% number-NIJ Study

It's from a 1997 study. It's probably a bit outdated at this point.

 

[Dvorak]

I see the police as our protection. BTW, do you think we need guards everywhere kids would go?

You must not follow Supreme Court decisions. They have ruled repeatedly over the years that police have no duty to protect individuals from harm.

What is your point?

Your belief that police will protect you from harm is an illusion.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I see the police as our protection. BTW, do you think we need guards everywhere kids would go?

You must not follow Supreme Court decisions. They have ruled repeatedly over the years that police have no duty to protect individuals from harm.

What is your point?

Your belief that police will protect you from harm is an illusion.

Police frequently do protect people from harm, whether or not they have a duty to do so.

 

[Cookiemonster]

I am only for allowing teachers who already want or have their own CCW to carry at schools. It would cost us nothing in tax dollars, and for the fact that someone may be armed and you don't know who, would serve as a nearly sufficient deterrent to attacks on school campuses. You can't legislate out crazy and full-prevention is unrealistic. I think it would be cost prohibitive to provide a cop or armed security at every school in America. We are looking to decrease government spending right now, not see where we can spend more.

Right, I get that. My point is I trust the secret service with protection. I don't trust Mrs. Crabtree with her CCW. Sorry.

And how many people do you know with a CCW?

One. And I am sure he's safe. But I don't want him in my kids school.

What are you afraid he'd do at your kid's school?

I don't trust that he's got the proper judgement as to when deadly force is necessary. At my kids age, boys get rambunctious and angry - there's nothing to say they couldn't try to mess with him, and I don't want to think of a kid trying to take his gun away from him. I don't feel like exposing my kids to deadly weapons is appropriate. Lets say he felt the need to use his gun. I can't imagine what would happen if he shot and missed. And again- who's to say he used proper judgement in pulling the gun?All in all, I see nothing gained.

So, you're afraid that your friend who has passed a background check wouldn't be able to restrain himself from shooting a couple teenage boys that were teasing him? How would these kids take his gun away? You understand what the concealed part of concealed carry means, right? I don't feel like exposing my kids to a lot of the crap they learn from other kids at school. The fact is, you and your kid will likely pass within arms reach of someone with a gun on a weekly or daily basis depending on your social habits. That's as exposed as they would be to allowing CCW on campus. "Let's say he felt the need to use his gun." It would probably be because someone else was already shooting at your kid or their classmate, at which point, I would want your friend firing back. CCW citizens are likely close to and in quite a few cases just as educated as police on the use of escalating and deadly force (we don't have state-funded attorneys), and probably practice as much or more than the police (being a cop doesn't make you a gun enthusiast).Teachers with a CCW concern you, but you trust them to educate your children and they probably spend as much time with your kids each day as you do. You already trust them to protect your kids. If you kid got beat up in class, you would want to know why the teacher didn't stop it.Police are protection? When seconds count, the police are minutes away.

 

[Dvorak]

I see the police as our protection. BTW, do you think we need guards everywhere kids would go?

You must not follow Supreme Court decisions. They have ruled repeatedly over the years that police have no duty to protect individuals from harm.

What is your point?

Your belief that police will protect you from harm is an illusion.

Police frequently do protect people from harm, whether or not they have a duty to do so.

True, but the responsibility ultimately belongs to the individual.

 

[Hoosier16]

Obama finally can legitimately take credit for jobs his government has created, as gun and ammo sales are now through the ####### roof!

Do you live in a city or in the country? Is where you live crime plagued?

I live about 30 miles from Houston and live in one of the safest neighbors I know of in the area. How is this relevant?

My question is - why do you feel like you have an imminent need to protect yourself if you live in a safe neighborhood? I don't have guns and don't feel like I'm just about to be attacked. I'm just trying to understand what left you so on edge...

Bump. Do you guns rights people live in bad neighborhoods? Why are you so convinced you're in danger?

Maybe I'm thinking about this all wrong but shouldn't you be asking them if they live in nice neighborhoods? I'd guess that it's not their neighbors who are a threat. It's more likely someone outside of the neighborhood who is a concern.

It's this kind of thinking that got Trayvon Martin murdered.

Maybe we should ban thinking.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

Two questions for Tim.

1. What EXACTLY do you think the Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote the 2nd Amendment?

2. Why do you think that they made the 2nd Amendment so difficult to change?

 

[Apple Jack]

Obama finally can legitimately take credit for jobs his government has created, as gun and ammo sales are now through the ####### roof!

Do you live in a city or in the country? Is where you live crime plagued?

I live about 30 miles from Houston and live in one of the safest neighbors I know of in the area. How is this relevant?

My question is - why do you feel like you have an imminent need to protect yourself if you live in a safe neighborhood? I don't have guns and don't feel like I'm just about to be attacked. I'm just trying to understand what left you so on edge...

Bump. Do you guns rights people live in bad neighborhoods? Why are you so convinced you're in danger?

Maybe I'm thinking about this all wrong but shouldn't you be asking them if they live in nice neighborhoods? I'd guess that it's not their neighbors who are a threat. It's more likely someone outside of the neighborhood who is a concern.

It's this kind of thinking that got Trayvon Martin murdered.

I guess it's time distort the truth even further in this thread.Ultimately did Zimmerman need protection from someone that did not live in his neighborhood?

Wgaf if he lived in the neighborhood? Was he breaking any laws? What a whacked angle to take on that mess. What he was doing was none of that moron's business.

 

[Otis]

Doorbell just rang. Grabbing some steak knives before I head out to greet stranger in a UPS uniform. Wish me luck BRB I hope.

sign on Otis' neighbor's lawn

You guys are so bad at this.

No offense to Tim, but when he's coming down on you, you know you're really in bad shape.

 

[Otis]

Why are the anti-gun-nuts (see what I did there?) paying so much attention to 1 data point?

Which one? I see lots of people talking about lots of things in here. Is there some particular thing you want to talk about? Maybe you could find another definition of a common term and post it to explain it to all of us.

Top 5 posters in this thread:298 Otis 292 timschochet 239 ATC1 187 Henry Ford 154 Apple Jack Thread started on 12/14/12, 98 pages longSandy Hook Elementary School shooting took place on 12/14/12I see 4 people sharing the same POV repeatedly focusing on 1 event 2 weeks later.What common term did I post are you talking about, "Pyrrhic victory"?

I can't help it I have to lay the smackdown in here sometimes.

 

[Otis]

All semiautomatic weapons should be banned and confiscated (bought back at cost + 10% from the reasonable gun owners).

Why?

Because he believes criminals will honestly return their firearms alongside law abiding citizens.

Mrs. Lanza wasn't a criminal.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Doorbell just rang. Grabbing some steak knives before I head out to greet stranger in a UPS uniform. Wish me luck BRB I hope.

A UPS guy at your house on a sunday would be weird.

 

[Glass Joe]

I am only for allowing teachers who already want or have their own CCW to carry at schools. It would cost us nothing in tax dollars, and for the fact that someone may be armed and you don't know who, would serve as a nearly sufficient deterrent to attacks on school campuses. You can't legislate out crazy and full-prevention is unrealistic. I think it would be cost prohibitive to provide a cop or armed security at every school in America. We are looking to decrease government spending right now, not see where we can spend more.

Right, I get that. My point is I trust the secret service with protection. I don't trust Mrs. Crabtree with her CCW. Sorry.

And how many people do you know with a CCW?

One. And I am sure he's safe. But I don't want him in my kids school.

What are you afraid he'd do at your kid's school?

I don't trust that he's got the proper judgement as to when deadly force is necessary. At my kids age, boys get rambunctious and angry - there's nothing to say they couldn't try to mess with him, and I don't want to think of a kid trying to take his gun away from him.

I don't feel like exposing my kids to deadly weapons is appropriate.

Lets say he felt the need to use his gun. I can't imagine what would happen if he shot and missed. And again- who's to say he used proper judgement in pulling the gun?

All in all, I see nothing gained.

So, you're afraid that your friend who has passed a background check wouldn't be able to restrain himself from shooting a couple teenage boys that were teasing him? How would these kids take his gun away? You understand what the concealed part of concealed carry means, right? I don't feel like exposing my kids to a lot of the crap they learn from other kids at school. The fact is, you and your kid will likely pass within arms reach of someone with a gun on a weekly or daily basis depending on your social habits. That's as exposed as they would be to allowing CCW on campus. "Let's say he felt the need to use his gun." It would probably be because someone else was already shooting at your kid or their classmate, at which point, I would want your friend firing back. CCW citizens are likely close to and in quite a few cases just as educated as police on the use of escalating and deadly force (we don't have state-funded attorneys), and probably practice as much or more than the police (being a cop doesn't make you a gun enthusiast).Teachers with a CCW concern you, but you trust them to educate your children and they probably spend as much time with your kids each day as you do. You already trust them to protect your kids. If you kid got beat up in class, you would want to know why the teacher didn't stop it.

Police are protection? When seconds count, the police are minutes away.

I said nothing about teasing. You outlined a scenario that would concern me - what happens when a kid - say it's my kid - is getting beaten up in class? You want the teacher to pull a gun??? Holy hell, no! And what happens when she (in your scenario) shoots at the bully, but hits my kid? Sure, there are gun enthusiasts, but that doesn't mean I believe their judgement on when to use deadly force - and I've heard a thousand times - don't pull your gun if you don't intend to use it...Anyways - I don't trust my teacher's judgement in anything outside of being a good teacher. How the hell are we supposed to judge what teacher has the appropriate judgement when a confrontation pops up? Who's to say it's going to be used when someone is shooting at a student?

All kinds of bad judgement here. You really can't have kids.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Obama finally can legitimately take credit for jobs his government has created, as gun and ammo sales are now through the ####### roof!

Do you live in a city or in the country? Is where you live crime plagued?

I live about 30 miles from Houston and live in one of the safest neighbors I know of in the area. How is this relevant?

My question is - why do you feel like you have an imminent need to protect yourself if you live in a safe neighborhood? I don't have guns and don't feel like I'm just about to be attacked. I'm just trying to understand what left you so on edge...

Bump. Do you guns rights people live in bad neighborhoods? Why are you so convinced you're in danger?

Maybe I'm thinking about this all wrong but shouldn't you be asking them if they live in nice neighborhoods? I'd guess that it's not their neighbors who are a threat. It's more likely someone outside of the neighborhood who is a concern.

It's this kind of thinking that got Trayvon Martin murdered.

I guess it's time distort the truth even further in this thread.Ultimately did Zimmerman need protection from someone that did not live in his neighborhood?

Once he created a confrontation, sure. Of course his judgement seemed to be lacking too.

So murderer until proven innocent in your eyes?

 

[Cookiemonster]

I am only for allowing teachers who already want or have their own CCW to carry at schools. It would cost us nothing in tax dollars, and for the fact that someone may be armed and you don't know who, would serve as a nearly sufficient deterrent to attacks on school campuses. You can't legislate out crazy and full-prevention is unrealistic. I think it would be cost prohibitive to provide a cop or armed security at every school in America. We are looking to decrease government spending right now, not see where we can spend more.

Right, I get that. My point is I trust the secret service with protection. I don't trust Mrs. Crabtree with her CCW. Sorry.

And how many people do you know with a CCW?

One. And I am sure he's safe. But I don't want him in my kids school.

What are you afraid he'd do at your kid's school?

I don't trust that he's got the proper judgement as to when deadly force is necessary. At my kids age, boys get rambunctious and angry - there's nothing to say they couldn't try to mess with him, and I don't want to think of a kid trying to take his gun away from him.

I don't feel like exposing my kids to deadly weapons is appropriate.

Lets say he felt the need to use his gun. I can't imagine what would happen if he shot and missed. And again- who's to say he used proper judgement in pulling the gun?

All in all, I see nothing gained.

So, you're afraid that your friend who has passed a background check wouldn't be able to restrain himself from shooting a couple teenage boys that were teasing him? How would these kids take his gun away? You understand what the concealed part of concealed carry means, right? I don't feel like exposing my kids to a lot of the crap they learn from other kids at school. The fact is, you and your kid will likely pass within arms reach of someone with a gun on a weekly or daily basis depending on your social habits. That's as exposed as they would be to allowing CCW on campus. "Let's say he felt the need to use his gun." It would probably be because someone else was already shooting at your kid or their classmate, at which point, I would want your friend firing back. CCW citizens are likely close to and in quite a few cases just as educated as police on the use of escalating and deadly force (we don't have state-funded attorneys), and probably practice as much or more than the police (being a cop doesn't make you a gun enthusiast).Teachers with a CCW concern you, but you trust them to educate your children and they probably spend as much time with your kids each day as you do. You already trust them to protect your kids. If you kid got beat up in class, you would want to know why the teacher didn't stop it.

Police are protection? When seconds count, the police are minutes away.

I said nothing about teasing. You outlined a scenario that would concern me - what happens when a kid - say it's my kid - is getting beaten up in class? You want the teacher to pull a gun??? Holy hell, no! And what happens when she (in your scenario) shoots at the bully, but hits my kid? Sure, there are gun enthusiasts, but that doesn't mean I believe their judgement on when to use deadly force - and I've heard a thousand times - don't pull your gun if you don't intend to use it...Anyways - I don't trust my teacher's judgement in anything outside of being a good teacher. How the hell are we supposed to judge what teacher has the appropriate judgement when a confrontation pops up? Who's to say it's going to be used when someone is shooting at a student?

All kinds of bad judgement here. You really can't have kids.

Did I say anything about the teacher pulling a gun if your kid gets beat up? I was calling your attention to the fact that they are already part of your kid's security at school. I suppose you have trust issues with everybody if you expect everyone to be so dense. A teacher won't hit your kid with a bullet by missing the bully because they wouldn't be shooting at a bully. Deadly force is only used to prevent the unjustified use of deadly force or grave bodily harm. I can see your point though. Using you as an example proves that some people shouldn't have guns! You also sound like you're implying that all teachers have guns, and not just the ones who are interested in, educated about and approved to carry concealed. "Who's to say it's going to be used when someone is shooting at a student?" Yet you seem to think a teacher would shoot at a bully? You are a shining example of the person who is so uneducated about the use of guns that they are easily led down the path of terror by the ignorant main stream media.

 

[Glass Joe]

I am only for allowing teachers who already want or have their own CCW to carry at schools. It would cost us nothing in tax dollars, and for the fact that someone may be armed and you don't know who, would serve as a nearly sufficient deterrent to attacks on school campuses. You can't legislate out crazy and full-prevention is unrealistic. I think it would be cost prohibitive to provide a cop or armed security at every school in America. We are looking to decrease government spending right now, not see where we can spend more.

Right, I get that. My point is I trust the secret service with protection. I don't trust Mrs. Crabtree with her CCW. Sorry.

And how many people do you know with a CCW?

One. And I am sure he's safe. But I don't want him in my kids school.

What are you afraid he'd do at your kid's school?

I don't trust that he's got the proper judgement as to when deadly force is necessary. At my kids age, boys get rambunctious and angry - there's nothing to say they couldn't try to mess with him, and I don't want to think of a kid trying to take his gun away from him.

I don't feel like exposing my kids to deadly weapons is appropriate.

Lets say he felt the need to use his gun. I can't imagine what would happen if he shot and missed. And again- who's to say he used proper judgement in pulling the gun?

All in all, I see nothing gained.

So, you're afraid that your friend who has passed a background check wouldn't be able to restrain himself from shooting a couple teenage boys that were teasing him? How would these kids take his gun away? You understand what the concealed part of concealed carry means, right? I don't feel like exposing my kids to a lot of the crap they learn from other kids at school. The fact is, you and your kid will likely pass within arms reach of someone with a gun on a weekly or daily basis depending on your social habits. That's as exposed as they would be to allowing CCW on campus. "Let's say he felt the need to use his gun." It would probably be because someone else was already shooting at your kid or their classmate, at which point, I would want your friend firing back. CCW citizens are likely close to and in quite a few cases just as educated as police on the use of escalating and deadly force (we don't have state-funded attorneys), and probably practice as much or more than the police (being a cop doesn't make you a gun enthusiast).Teachers with a CCW concern you, but you trust them to educate your children and they probably spend as much time with your kids each day as you do. You already trust them to protect your kids. If you kid got beat up in class, you would want to know why the teacher didn't stop it.

Police are protection? When seconds count, the police are minutes away.

I said nothing about teasing. You outlined a scenario that would concern me - what happens when a kid - say it's my kid - is getting beaten up in class? You want the teacher to pull a gun??? Holy hell, no! And what happens when she (in your scenario) shoots at the bully, but hits my kid? Sure, there are gun enthusiasts, but that doesn't mean I believe their judgement on when to use deadly force - and I've heard a thousand times - don't pull your gun if you don't intend to use it...Anyways - I don't trust my teacher's judgement in anything outside of being a good teacher. How the hell are we supposed to judge what teacher has the appropriate judgement when a confrontation pops up? Who's to say it's going to be used when someone is shooting at a student?

All kinds of bad judgement here. You really can't have kids.

Did I say anything about the teacher pulling a gun if your kid gets beat up? I was calling your attention to the fact that they are already part of your kid's security at school. I suppose you have trust issues with everybody if you expect everyone to be so dense. A teacher won't hit your kid with a bullet by missing the bully because they wouldn't be shooting at a bully. Deadly force is only used to prevent the unjustified use of deadly force or grave bodily harm. I can see your point though. Using you as an example proves that some people shouldn't have guns! You also sound like you're implying that all teachers have guns, and not just the ones who are interested in, educated about and approved to carry concealed. "Who's to say it's going to be used when someone is shooting at a student?" Yet you seem to think a teacher would shoot at a bully? You are a shining example of the person who is so uneducated about the use of guns that they are easily led down the path of terror by the ignorant main stream media.

Is your point that everyone with a CCW has good judgement?

 

[Glass Joe]

So murderer until proven innocent in your eyes?

I didn't call him a murderer. I only said I think his judgement is sorely lacking.

 

[Apple Jack]

Doorbell just rang. Grabbing some steak knives before I head out to greet stranger in a UPS uniform. Wish me luck BRB I hope.

A UPS guy at your house on a sunday would be weird.

No doubt! Best to send the fam into the bunker, run around back to the tank barn and fire up the assault vehicle!

 

[Cookiemonster]

Is your point that everyone with a CCW has good judgement?

Better than yours if your judgement says that I suggest shooting a kid who is winning a school yard fight.

 

[Glass Joe]

Is your point that everyone with a CCW has good judgement?

Better than yours if your judgement says that I suggest shooting a kid who is winning a school yard fight.

Teachers with a CCW concern you, but you trust them to educate your children and they probably spend as much time with your kids each day as you do. You already trust them to protect your kids. If you kid got beat up in class, you would want to know why the teacher didn't stop it.

You have a really ####ty way of wording things if you didn't mean what I thought you did.Anyways...I DON'T have a CCW. Nor would I EVER bring a gun around someone else's kids. How f'ing presumptuous to think they'd want me to take that chance!

 

[Cookiemonster]

Teachers with a CCW concern you, but you trust them to educate your children and they probably spend as much time with your kids each day as you do. You already trust them to protect your kids. If you kid got beat up in class, you would want to know why the teacher didn't stop it.

You have a really ####ty way of wording things if you didn't mean what I thought you did.Anyways...I DON'T have a CCW. Nor would I EVER bring a gun around someone else's kids. How f'ing presumptuous to think they'd want me to take that chance!

You're either being obtuse or I just need to stop answering you. Right now, with no guns, you wouldn't expect a teacher to step in to stop a fight? By your previous posts, we should just watch while we call the cops since they are our protection anyways, right?To take what chance? That your gun would fire all by itself in the holster? That you wouldn't try to shoot a bully or have your unknown, concealed gun taken out of your waistband by a kid? I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you seem to have saucer eyes at the mention of a gun. My county sheriff and the state of California seem to trust me to carry a gun around kids. What has you so scared and paranoid?

 

[Glass Joe]

Teachers with a CCW concern you, but you trust them to educate your children and they probably spend as much time with your kids each day as you do. You already trust them to protect your kids. If you kid got beat up in class, you would want to know why the teacher didn't stop it.

You have a really ####ty way of wording things if you didn't mean what I thought you did.Anyways...I DON'T have a CCW. Nor would I EVER bring a gun around someone else's kids. How f'ing presumptuous to think they'd want me to take that chance!

You're either being obtuse or I just need to stop answering you. Right now, with no guns, you wouldn't expect a teacher to step in to stop a fight? By your previous posts, we should just watch while we call the cops since they are our protection anyways, right?To take what chance? That your gun would fire all by itself in the holster? That you wouldn't try to shoot a bully or have your unknown, concealed gun taken out of your waistband by a kid? I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you seem to have saucer eyes at the mention of a gun. My county sheriff and the state of California seem to trust me to carry a gun around kids. What has you so scared and paranoid?

LOL. Saucer eyes. Paranoid. And I'm the one who doesn't feel the need to arm themselves in the absence of specific concerns. In fact - I don't get why virtually anyone needs to arm themselves. I don't trust you around my kids, and I don't feel like I'm paranoid to say I don't want anyone with a gun around them.Feel free to put me on ignore. I'd rather you not be angry and head out in to the world with your CCW.

 

[Cookiemonster]

I don't want anyone with a gun around them.

No problem. Just make sure to tell the cops that before you call them.

 

[timschochet]

Two questions for Tim.1. What EXACTLY do you think the Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote the 2nd Amendment?2. Why do you think that they made the 2nd Amendment so difficult to change?

I have no idea, and I really don't care. As I have tried to point out since the beginning of this thread, I am in favor of two gun control measures: limiting high capacity magazines, and ending the private sales loophole. Neither one of these proposals has anything whatsoever to do with the 2nd Amendment. That's all I need to know about the 2nd Amendment within the context of this discussion.

 

[Cookiemonster]

Be back in a bit. Taking my boy and my gun for a walk.

 

[Hoosier16]

Why prepare for something which statistically is very unlikely?

At my kids age, boys get rambunctious and angry - there's nothing to say they couldn't try to mess with him, and I don't want to think of a kid trying to take his gun away from him.

You outlined a scenario that would concern me - what happens when a kid - say it's my kid - is getting beaten up in class? You want the teacher to pull a gun??? Holy hell, no! And what happens when she (in your scenario) shoots at the bully, but hits my kid?

For someone unconcerned about the statistically insignificant, those are two, very bizarre statements.

 

[moleculo]

Two questions for Tim.1. What EXACTLY do you think the Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote the 2nd Amendment?2. Why do you think that they made the 2nd Amendment so difficult to change?

I have no idea, and I really don't care. As I have tried to point out since the beginning of this thread, I am in favor of two gun control measures: limiting high capacity magazines, and ending the private sales loophole. Neither one of these proposals has anything whatsoever to do with the 2nd Amendment. That's all I need to know about the 2nd Amendment within the context of this discussion.

neither one has anything to do with Sandy hook either, yet here we are...

 

[timschochet]

Two questions for Tim.1. What EXACTLY do you think the Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote the 2nd Amendment?2. Why do you think that they made the 2nd Amendment so difficult to change?

I have no idea, and I really don't care. As I have tried to point out since the beginning of this thread, I am in favor of two gun control measures: limiting high capacity magazines, and ending the private sales loophole. Neither one of these proposals has anything whatsoever to do with the 2nd Amendment. That's all I need to know about the 2nd Amendment within the context of this discussion.

neither one has anything to do with Sandy hook either, yet here we are...

That's absolutely true, and I made that very point in my very first post in this thread. But it was explained to me that the purpose of this thread was to discuss gun control measures in general, and not simply in reference to Sandy Hook. I don't believe that either of my proposals would have made any difference in regard to Sandy Hook.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

Mat RodinaOwner: Stanislav Mishin at stas.mishin71@gmail.com Thursday, December 27, 2012Americans Never Give Up Your Guns These days, there are few few things to admire about the socialist, bankrupt and culturally degenerating USA, but at least so far, one thing remains: the right to bare arms and use deadly force to defend one's self and possessions. This will probably come as a total shock to most of my Western readers, but at one point, Russia was one of the most heavily armed societies on earth. This was, of course, when we were free under the Tsar. Weapons, from swords and spears to pistols, rifles and shotguns were everywhere, common items. People carried them concealed, they carried them holstered. Fighting knives were a prominent part of many traditional attires and those little tubes criss crossing on the costumes of Cossacks and various Caucasian peoples? Well those are bullet holders for rifles. Various armies, such as the Poles, during the Смута (Times of Troubles), or Napoleon, or the Germans even as the Tsarist state collapsed under the weight of WW1 and Wall Street monies, found that holding Russian lands was much much harder than taking them and taking was no easy walk in the park but a blood bath all its own. In holding, one faced an extremely well armed and aggressive population Hell bent on exterminating or driving out the aggressor. This well armed population was what allowed the various White factions to rise up, no matter how disorganized politically and militarily they were in 1918 and wage a savage civil war against the Reds. It should be noted that many of these armies were armed peasants, villagers, farmers and merchants, protecting their own. Ten thousand Reds took Moscow and were opposed only by some few hundreds of officer cadets and their instructors. Even then the battle was fierce and losses high. However, in the city alone, at that time, lived over 30,000 military officers (both active and retired), all with their own issued weapons and ammunition, plus tens of thousands of other citizens who were armed. The Soviets promised to leave them all alone if they did not intervene. They did not and for that were asked afterwards to come register themselves and their weapons: where they were promptly shot. Of course being savages, murderers and liars does not mean being stupid and the Reds learned from their Civil War experience. One of the first things they did was to disarm the population. From that point, mass repression, mass arrests, mass deportations, mass murder, mass starvation were all a safe game for the powers that were. The worst they had to fear was a pitchfork in the guts or a knife in the back or the occasional hunting rifle. Not much for soldiers. To this day, with the Soviet Union now dead 21 years, with a whole generation born and raised to adulthood without the Soviet Union, we are still denied our basic and traditional rights to self defense. Why? We are told that everyone would just start shooting each other and crime would be everywhere....but criminals are still armed and still murdering and to often, especially in the far regions, those criminals wear the uniforms of the police. While President Putin pushes through reforms, the local authorities, especially in our vast hinterland, do not feel they need to act like they work for the people. They do as they please, a tyrannical class who knows they have absolutely nothing to fear from a relatively unarmed population. This in turn breeds not respect but absolute contempt and often enough, criminal abuse. For those of us fighting for our traditional rights, the US 2nd Amendment is a rare light in an ever darkening room. Governments will use the excuse of trying to protect the people from maniacs and crime, but are in reality, it is the bureaucrats protecting their power and position. In all cases where guns are banned, gun crime continues and often increases. No it is about power and a total power over the people. There is a lot of desire to bad mouth the Tsar, particularly by the Communists, who claim he was a tyrant, and yet under him we were armed and under the progressives disarmed. Do not be fooled by a belief that progressives, leftists hate guns. Oh, no, they do not. What they hate is guns in the hands of those who are not marching in lock step of their ideology. They hate guns in the hands of those who think for themselves and do not obey without question. They hate guns in those whom they have slated for a barrel to the back of the ear.

 

[timschochet]

That was when we were free under the Tsar!

Mr. Two Cents, do you even read this drivel before you post it?

 

[Mr Two Cents]

That was when we were free under the Tsar!

Mr. Two Cents, do you even read this drivel before you post it?

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." In the 20th Century, nuclear weapons were used by government to kill a few hundred thousand people, whereas "gun control" was used by governments to pave the way for killing over 100,000,000 people."

 

[timschochet]

That was when we were free under the Tsar!

Mr. Two Cents, do you even read this drivel before you post it?

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." In the 20th Century, nuclear weapons were used by government to kill a few hundred thousand people, whereas "gun control" was used by governments to pave the way for killing over 100,000,000 people."

I want to add a new saying to go along with that one:Those who create their own past are condemned to paranoia.

 

[Cookiemonster]

That was when we were free under the Tsar!

Mr. Two Cents, do you even read this drivel before you post it?

I see posts on gun related forums all the time from Aussies and Europeans and others who have lost their gun freedoms and remind us here to hold ours dearly. Few of the populations that have lost their rights to arms will tell you 10 years later that it was a good idea. The only place you will ever hear that is from talking heads on corporate media. The problem us gun owners have is that gun rights are not likely to be forcibly taken overnight. They will be restricted a little bit here and there, and the costs for this and that will go up and up until there is so little left to have and want, at a prohibitive cost, that the gun owners will willingly turn them in rather than be bothered with the whole thing. The more "compromise" (really meaning we give up rights with nothing in return, not the definition of compromise) we agree to, is just the further we step backwards in a never-ending fight that will eventually leave us with nothing. We feel we have to fight for every right we can in an attempt to delay the ultimate goal of civilian disarmament. Many of the anti-gunners don't understand that by the gun nuts owning weapons, there is a threat to criminals of anybody being armed. We can protect them indirectly. If criminals knew that nobody was armed, we all become lambs to the slaughter. Our own government and police becoming the criminals may or may not ever happen after a total disarmament, but knowing how our political officials have behaved over the last couple decades, do you really want to leave that to chance?

 

[Cookiemonster]

That was when we were free under the Tsar!

Mr. Two Cents, do you even read this drivel before you post it?

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." In the 20th Century, nuclear weapons were used by government to kill a few hundred thousand people, whereas "gun control" was used by governments to pave the way for killing over 100,000,000 people."

I want to add a new saying to go along with that one:Those who create their own past are condemned to paranoia.

Yeah. We'll just dismiss the idea of the Holocaust, won't we.From good ole Wikipedia

Research on democide

Accusations of mass killings by a government are relatively common. Less common are well-documented cases with enough evidence to support the accusation. Almost all accusations are disputed to some degree, although the evidence in some cases is stronger than in others.

Rummel's sources include scholarly works, refugee reports, memoirs, biographies, historical analyses, actual exhumed-body counts, and records kept by the murderers themselves. He estimates the death-toll for each country over the course of a century, along with a low- and a high-end estimate to account for uncertainty. These high-end estimates might be considered absurd estimates by others.

Rummel's counts 43 million deaths due to democide inside and outside the Soviet Union during Stalin's regime.[citation needed] This is much higher than an often quoted figure of 20 million. Rummel has responded that the 20 million estimate is based on a figure from Robert Conquest's 1968 book The Great Terror, and that Conquest's qualifier "almost certainly too low" is usually forgotten. Conquest's calculations excluded camp deaths before 1936 and after 1950, executions from 1939–1953, the vast deportation of the people of captive nations into the camps and their deaths 1939–1953, the massive deportation within the Soviet Union of minorities 1941–1944 and their deaths, and those the Soviet Red Army and secret police executed throughout Eastern Europe after their conquest during 1944–1945. Moreover, the Holodomor that killed 5 million in 1932–1934 is also not included.[citation needed]

His research shows that the death toll from democide is far greater than the death toll from war. After studying over 8,000 reports of government-caused deaths, Rummel estimates that there have been 262 million victims of democide in the last century. According to his figures, six times as many people have died from the inflictions of people working for governments than have died in battle.

 

[timschochet]

That was when we were free under the Tsar!

Mr. Two Cents, do you even read this drivel before you post it?

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." In the 20th Century, nuclear weapons were used by government to kill a few hundred thousand people, whereas "gun control" was used by governments to pave the way for killing over 100,000,000 people."

I want to add a new saying to go along with that one:Those who create their own past are condemned to paranoia.

Yeah. We'll just dismiss the idea of the Holocaust, won't we.

You're rather new to the thread. We've already had the discussion about the well-armed Jews of Eastern Europe, who had their AR-15s stolen just before the Nazis put them all in gas chambers.

 

[timschochet]

You know what this thread makes me wanna do? (Besides puke, that is!) It makes me want to go out and buy another half dozen AR-15s to add to my arsenal! Think I'm gonna do that this weekend.The United States Constitution grants all Americans a God-given right to own firearms. And when you try to take that away, or try to tell me how many rounds I can have, or that I have to report to some federal authority, that's whn I say, try it! When the government becomes a dictatorship, that's when we fight back. Somebody has to. If it takes armed resistance to keep freedom afloat, then so be it.And in case any of you think I'm overstating the threat, here's a little history: the Jews of Germany were a well-armed group who believed, above all things, in gun rights, because the Bible told them so. The first thing Hitler did when he took power in 1937 was seize all of the Jew guns. A few days later, they were all put to death in gas chambers. All of this is well-documented.We gun-owners are the Jews of the 21st century. Only this time we're not going to go away quietly.

Bump

 

[Mr Two Cents]

Don't know how much is left, but you better not wait too long.

 

[Slingblade]

You know what this thread makes me wanna do? (Besides puke, that is!) It makes me want to go out and buy another half dozen AR-15s to add to my arsenal! Think I'm gonna do that this weekend.The United States Constitution grants all Americans a God-given right to own firearms. And when you try to take that away, or try to tell me how many rounds I can have, or that I have to report to some federal authority, that's whn I say, try it! When the government becomes a dictatorship, that's when we fight back. Somebody has to. If it takes armed resistance to keep freedom afloat, then so be it.And in case any of you think I'm overstating the threat, here's a little history: the Jews of Germany were a well-armed group who believed, above all things, in gun rights, because the Bible told them so. The first thing Hitler did when he took power in 1937 was seize all of the Jew guns. A few days later, they were all put to death in gas chambers. All of this is well-documented.We gun-owners are the Jews of the 21st century. Only this time we're not going to go away quietly.

Bump

Bumping your alias? Can we get a suspension on this nutcase?

 

[Jewell]

I see posts on gun related forums all the time from Aussies and Europeans and others who have lost their gun freedoms and remind us here to hold ours dearly. Few of the populations that have lost their rights to arms will tell you 10 years later that it was a good idea.

Here's a recent article that's an example of what you mention...

Daily Herald

December 27, 2012

Soft targets in U.S. mirror South Africa

Having grown up in South Africa in the 1970s and '80s, and serving there in the military as a riot control officer, I have seen my fair share of violence -- mostly violence through senseless acts of terrorism by the African National Congress on what are termed "soft targets" within South Africa.

Soft targets are targets that are easy to attack. Generally they were places where there would be little or no defense and where many innocent children and adults would be murdered.

Cowards go for soft targets so they can achieve their sordid goals with little or no resistance.

When I came to the United States more than 20 years ago, I looked forward to a life with more peace in a place where I did not have to carry a firearm everywhere I went (as I and countless other honest people did in South Africa).

As the ANC took power in the mid '90s, the government sought to disarm the general population through many strict gun control laws. They were unable to squash the terrible violence that comes when there is little or no self-discipline within the majority of a nation, and so they simply tried to take the guns away to stop the violent crime.

Unfortunately, all the law-abiding citizens complied, but the bad guys did not. And so, from 1994, violent crime in South Africa has steadily increased. People have not turned to the government for protection because the government has not shown signs of competence in this arena. Instead, people have turned to private protection companies and gated communities to take care of each other and keep the bad guys out. They have had to take responsibility for protecting themselves.

South Africa currently rates No. 1 worldwide for gun homicides and No. 1 in assaults, according to the CIA. So things are not getting better despite the government's efforts to ban private gun ownership. The bad guys now have more soft targets to prey upon.

I have enjoyed, as I had hoped, a wonderful life in the USA. I have lived in a community for more than 20 years where there is much peace. Violent crime is not a big issue here in Provo, Utah.

One thing that I noticed when I arrived in America was that for some unknown reason the people here had set up soft targets for cowards to attack at any moment they desired. I am speaking of the rule where no firearms are permitted on school properties.

This is something I still cannot comprehend and am trying to understand why anyone would want to create a soft target where innocent people cannot be protected. Any fool who wants to do something crazy now knows that he has a guaranteed soft target and can go in anytime to do terrible things.

As a father with children in school I am very uncomfortable with gun-fee zones. I have overlooked their stupidity only because we do not have major problems with gun violence locally.

America has its problems with respect to violent crime, although nowhere near the widespread scale of South Africa. There, the violence arises from terrorism and racial strife, while in America it seems to be gangs and drugs and the occasional mentally ill person committing a random act of murder -- always on a soft target.

But whatever the source, the result of violence is the same; and one innocent person killed is one too many. Whatever the cause, practical measures for defense are appropriate.

Time and again we have seen mentally disturbed individuals who are nurtured by a culture that is accepting of violence through games and other media. Many people expect the "authorities" to resolve any issues related to this violence.

Historically, Americans have always participated in their own security, but that ethic has faded as more people turn to the government to protect them.

This political split is a dangerous one. Many conservatives embrace the value of personally defending their families, while liberals tend to look to the government for protection that is not likely to come. Police are typically not present when a soft target like a school or movie theater is attacked.

As a society we need to bridge this gap. Politics should not be an issue, only practical solutions that will protect our children and fellow citizens. Liberals need to lose their irrational fear of guns and conservatives need to lose their irrational fear of liberals.

• Glenn Jakins is a Utah Valley businessman and entrepreneur. He emigrated to the U.S. from South Africa in 1990 and is a U.S. citizen.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest. - Mohandas Gandhi, an Autobiography, page 446

 

[5 digit know nothing]

http://www.infowars.com/facebook-purges-pro-gun-accounts/

 

[tom22406]

I see posts on gun related forums all the time from Aussies and Europeans and others who have lost their gun freedoms and remind us here to hold ours dearly. Few of the populations that have lost their rights to arms will tell you 10 years later that it was a good idea.

Here's a recent article that's an example of what you mention...

Daily Herald

December 27, 2012

Soft targets in U.S. mirror South Africa

Having grown up in South Africa in the 1970s and '80s, and serving there in the military as a riot control officer, I have seen my fair share of violence -- mostly violence through senseless acts of terrorism by the African National Congress on what are termed "soft targets" within South Africa.

Soft targets are targets that are easy to attack. Generally they were places where there would be little or no defense and where many innocent children and adults would be murdered.

Cowards go for soft targets so they can achieve their sordid goals with little or no resistance.

When I came to the United States more than 20 years ago, I looked forward to a life with more peace in a place where I did not have to carry a firearm everywhere I went (as I and countless other honest people did in South Africa).

As the ANC took power in the mid '90s, the government sought to disarm the general population through many strict gun control laws. They were unable to squash the terrible violence that comes when there is little or no self-discipline within the majority of a nation, and so they simply tried to take the guns away to stop the violent crime.

Unfortunately, all the law-abiding citizens complied, but the bad guys did not. And so, from 1994, violent crime in South Africa has steadily increased. People have not turned to the government for protection because the government has not shown signs of competence in this arena. Instead, people have turned to private protection companies and gated communities to take care of each other and keep the bad guys out. They have had to take responsibility for protecting themselves.

South Africa currently rates No. 1 worldwide for gun homicides and No. 1 in assaults, according to the CIA. So things are not getting better despite the government's efforts to ban private gun ownership. The bad guys now have more soft targets to prey upon.

I have enjoyed, as I had hoped, a wonderful life in the USA. I have lived in a community for more than 20 years where there is much peace. Violent crime is not a big issue here in Provo, Utah.

One thing that I noticed when I arrived in America was that for some unknown reason the people here had set up soft targets for cowards to attack at any moment they desired. I am speaking of the rule where no firearms are permitted on school properties.

This is something I still cannot comprehend and am trying to understand why anyone would want to create a soft target where innocent people cannot be protected. Any fool who wants to do something crazy now knows that he has a guaranteed soft target and can go in anytime to do terrible things.

As a father with children in school I am very uncomfortable with gun-fee zones. I have overlooked their stupidity only because we do not have major problems with gun violence locally.

America has its problems with respect to violent crime, although nowhere near the widespread scale of South Africa. There, the violence arises from terrorism and racial strife, while in America it seems to be gangs and drugs and the occasional mentally ill person committing a random act of murder -- always on a soft target.

But whatever the source, the result of violence is the same; and one innocent person killed is one too many. Whatever the cause, practical measures for defense are appropriate.

Time and again we have seen mentally disturbed individuals who are nurtured by a culture that is accepting of violence through games and other media. Many people expect the "authorities" to resolve any issues related to this violence.

Historically, Americans have always participated in their own security, but that ethic has faded as more people turn to the government to protect them.

This political split is a dangerous one. Many conservatives embrace the value of personally defending their families, while liberals tend to look to the government for protection that is not likely to come. Police are typically not present when a soft target like a school or movie theater is attacked.

As a society we need to bridge this gap. Politics should not be an issue, only practical solutions that will protect our children and fellow citizens. Liberals need to lose their irrational fear of guns and conservatives need to lose their irrational fear of liberals.

• Glenn Jakins is a Utah Valley businessman and entrepreneur. He emigrated to the U.S. from South Africa in 1990 and is a U.S. citizen.

Amen

 

[Cookiemonster]

http://www.infowars.com/facebook-purges-pro-gun-accounts/

Alex Jones is not the guy I want representing me. Just saying.